Your numbers are about 15,000 short of the truth. I would guess that would also prove that when a government stands up, we stand down. violence in Afghanistan does not warrent more than there are. NATO together has plenty enough troops. Your argument for getting out of Iraq is exactly what we are doing in Afghanistan, but, that would be giving Bush a compliment, wouldn't want to do that now , would we.
2007-02-04 00:35:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by meathead 5
·
5⤊
1⤋
You seem to be forgetting that NATO troops are there. There are also more international troops there. You only seem to be focusing more on the US troops and forgetting to look at the rest of the situation.
2007-02-04 00:38:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
NATO is there, and the different ethnic groups in Afghanistan are not in the midst of a civil war like they are in Iraq. Iraq is also a much more densely populated country than Afghanistan.
2007-02-04 00:32:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by wileycoyote_the_supergenius 3
·
4⤊
4⤋
Al Quiada were hiding and not fighting. There was no one to kill. So they went to Iraq.
2007-02-05 15:11:41
·
answer #4
·
answered by carolinatinpan 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Why do people still analyze President Bush on EVERY move he does or doesn't make?
2007-02-04 00:50:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
You really are quite uninformed, aren't you?
Learn a little about the conflict before making yourself look bad on this forum.
Thank you.
2007-02-04 00:45:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 6
·
3⤊
2⤋
We aren't the only ones there. We didn't cut and run from anything under this presidency.
2007-02-04 00:32:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
3⤋
Since when did you become a military analyst?
2007-02-04 00:32:36
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
NATO is there, handing out jelly beans.
2007-02-04 00:32:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by Wise Guy 3
·
1⤊
4⤋
NATO is there - DUH
2007-02-04 00:29:13
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
3⤋