After all that is where they are, not Iraq. Hasn't America lost in Afghanistan and why is Bush such a pig headed moron?
2007-02-15 01:19:49 · 21 answers · asked by Watcher 465 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I didn't say American troops weren't still there, I meant the small number was a waste. How are they expected to fight? That's where the terrorists are, not Iraq and by the way I don't know if anyone reads a newspaper but the Taliban are fighting back.
2007-02-15 01:45:34 · update #1
We didn't "cut and run" in Afghanistan, but GWB made a grave strategic mistake when he relegated it to a secondary campaign in order to focus on Iraq. Afghanistan is the true battleground. It's where the faction that conceived the 9/11 attacks were based. They were the true enemy, but the president instigated a new conflict before bringing the first one to resolution.
It is the same mistake Hitler made in WWII, when he turned his back on Britain to make war on the Soviet Union.
2007-02-15 01:52:50 · answer #1 · answered by phil5775 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Do you even have any idea what we did in Afghanistan? Do you think we just went there to hunt Osama? We ousted the Taliban from the government and gave it back to the people, now we are not only continuing the hunt for taliban leaders (Osama included) we are also peacekeeping and training their military just like in Iraq. Do some homework before you speak. I think you just wanted an excuse to use your word of the day LOL "embolden".
Some sad irony is in the 70's we supplied them with weapons to defeat the Soviets. Now Russia is our ally and we are fighting the Taliban. Don't ya just love this world?
2007-02-15 01:51:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Lets see,
In March 2003, America had 3,000 soldiers in Afghanistan.
In Feburary 2007, America has 27,000 soldiers in Afghanistan.
In Feburary 2007, Nato Allies have 15,000 soldiers in Afghanistan.
Yep, seems like america is :cutting and running" to me.
What exactly did America lose in Afghanistan ?
2007-02-15 07:58:39 · answer #3 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it fairly works both thoughts. we've killed each and every jihadist that we've are available the course of from Fallujah to Basra. They were slaughtered through the thousands on the march to Baghdad in very few days. There in trouble-free words probability is to conceal between women and children, like in Lebanon, and to blow themselves up in a vehicle or to grow to be keyboard commandos the position they recognize the position the weak underbelly of us of a is - the media. How ironic.
2016-11-28 04:32:31 · answer #4 · answered by sposato 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You get a *yawn* too. We are still in Afghanistan. Things appeared to have calmed down there, so we had to go put out fires in Iraq. My husband has been to both places, and will be on his way to Iraq for the second time in coming months. We are still putting out fires in Iraq. If Afghanistan's Taliban decides to start some more crap, then we will go bomb the shiyit out of them AGAIN. SO shut....UP.
2007-02-15 01:27:24 · answer #5 · answered by an88mikewife 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Before you ask a question & make assumptions; research it a little more, do you honestly think you are going to get information from liberal run media that is pro-military, of course they will make it out like our troops are falling back & not making progress that's B.S.!! Use your brain; do you really think that our military will disclose the position of all our troops? Check out this link, it's an article to prove we are making progress!
2007-02-15 02:27:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
When did we cut and run in Afghanistan?
Pigs are actually very smart animals. And IF Bush is a moron, what does that say about Gore and Kerry? What does it say about the Democratic party? They can't even beat a moron? Be careful when you go calling names. It reflects back on you.
2007-02-15 02:23:07 · answer #7 · answered by namsaev 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
America is still in Afghanistan, and they are winning compare in Iraq because Iran is far away from Afghanistan.
2007-02-15 01:28:01 · answer #8 · answered by P Ni Ka 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
To be honest yes, the French and the British could have had Bin Laden but as usual America wants to capture him, but that is Bush all over
2007-02-15 03:39:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I guess the pentagon forgot to ask the morons on Yahoo Answers, and thus didn't have the best strategic minds available.... that's all I can figure...
Most of you are stupid dinks. Where did you all go to school for your strategy/foreign policy doctorates? why do you think you are better educated than the folks that actually have the education? Dinks!
2007-02-15 01:50:53 · answer #10 · answered by readsomething 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋