Would 20,000 troops sent to Afganistan be better use of our troops?

Question

and gain better support from the american people?

Im just wondering if we're ever going to go after those reponsible for 9/11 or not

Chester -- you telling me by not first eliminating the threat of the tabiban and bring stability to that region, we would not be impacting the terrorist effort that was directly responsible for 9/11?

If you were paying attention to simple prudence you would see just how valuable a move would do to this effort on such a vaguely described enemy,and how it would make american people more supportive for our troops deployment.

As it is now, people that share your view feel it okay to add more shooting targets in the middle of a civil war.
How much sense does that make.
About as much sense as you do

Answer 1

WHAT? Bush and his friends said we were winning in Afganistan. Do you mean he lied???

Answer 2

This is the problem with your side. You don't get it. The "people" responsible for 9/11 were not "people",but an ideology. Its called radical islam. You act like some where in the world is a group of men responsible and all we need to do is go get'em. The idea is to go after the terrorists - i.e. radical islamic wackos, where ever they are and not give them a safe haven or a moments rest. Does that make sense??? If you weren't so busy bashing Bush and spent more time listening you would know all this already.

Answer 3

Well,i go with you...Its a wide known fact that the mess they've caused in Iraq is irreversible,at least for some years from now...So If they can at least pool up their resources and spend them on Afghanistan instead of flogging a dead horse....they might be able to win back yankees sympathy.....And one thing to be remembered is Saddam has got nothing to do with Osama and its America that in the first place encouraged Osama to wage war against soviet intrusion...And this foolish act has backfired on US..

Answer 4

Shhhhuuuuuuuurrrreeee it is. And that NATO GUY--He's the one that was talking about how "MONEY TRUMPS PEACE" the other day right?

Only if they are there to protect the heroin supply---

That's the only reason you'll see Bush undertake such a notion.

Answer 5

uhm... #1 - NATO runs 90% of the security in Afghanistan...

#2.. we are sending those troops for a reason...

to end the sectarian growth in Iraq... and stop the Iranian influence in Iraq...

I think we should send 30,000 troops to Iraq and 25,000 to Afghanistan...

the 25,000 in Afghanistan to stop the taliban resurgency in Afghanistan and Palistine

the 30,000 troops in Iraq to end the chaos in Iraq.. and to basically say to Iran.. "you know what.. we are sick of your bullsh*t.. we now have 300,000 troops right at your door.. so you better hit the off button on those centrifuges, destroy your nuclear facilities.. oh, and if you do something stupid... just like we pounced on Iraq when it did something stupid with our 15,000 troops stationed in the Gulf... we will pounce on your *** with our 300,000 troops in Iraq."

its time to stand up and stop appeasing everything the terrorists ask for. The terrorists and Hitler wear the same mask. Why do you think the terrorists celebrated after the democrats took control of congress? Maybe because the democrats foreign policy helps the terrorists build up their military forces..

kinda like what Saddam did when we left him alone for the 13 years before march, 2003... when we finally smartened-up....

am i the only one that realizes our Army consists of over 1 million voluntary privates? ... WE ARE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA... 4th LARGEST COUNTRY IN THE *WORLD*...

ASKING FOR 21,000 SOLDIERS IS LIKE ASKING SOMEONE FOR A DIME SO YOU CAN BUY A SODA OR SOMETHING...

Answer 6

It isn't for the US to decide to send more troops to Afganistan. That would be up to the NATO commander who is running that.