Afghanistan in retrospect: Nukes, troops, or nothing?

Question

Afghanistan continues to be a money pit.

The policy behind Afghanistan shares the same false premise as that behind Iraq, which is the idea that Islam is not the problem, but instead, Muslims are merely the constant coincidental victims of despots and "illegitmate regimes".

Funny thing is, the more you learn about Islam and Islamic communities, the more you realize that their governments represent the moderate part of the larger "radical" populus on which it sits.

Its a chicken and egg dilemma that we seem too stupid to understand. Its Islam that produces the failure and despotism characteristic of Islamic countries.

So instead of using our strength, which is massive bombing, we adopt this insane morality that bestows the duty of deity upon us. Its our "duty" to rebuild the whole f*** place. Its our "duty" to surgically distinguish innocent from islamists, as if there were such a distinction or we had the endless godlike resources to pursue such a policy.

Pure madness

Answer 1

You should change your name to Draconian. It suits you better.

Answer 2

We should make no distinction between the terrorist and the governments and people that support and harbor them. Personally if we were a little less picky about using nukes we'd probably have a lot fewer of our own troops to bury and the hills in Afgahanistan would be level enough to build roads on them.

I think we should try that in Iran and see if it works better than what we've been doing.

Answer 3

if we had focused on afghanistan, the war would be over. and we might even have bin laden.....one things for sure, the entire nation would support it.

Answer 4

I wonder how the harvest is going...,just fine,I would imagine...What ever happened to the "WAR on drugs,anyway..?

Answer 5

How about we just kill everyone who isn't American?