English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

By the number of US troops, which is more important to Bush, Iraq or Afghan?

2007-03-08 15:13:50 · 9 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government Politics

.
Based the attack on 9/11
.

2007-03-08 15:18:00 · update #1

9 answers

app 130,000 in Iraq and 15,000 mostly NATO forces in Afghanistan. What do you expect from the man who said this about Osama:

"Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

2007-03-08 15:26:18 · answer #1 · answered by CelticPixie 4 · 1 1

I think Bush made this decision for the military, and yes there ought to be 150,000 troops in Afghanistan rather than Iraq. Or more. We need to control the countryside there. Every bit of it. They need to make it secure so that we can fund large scale public works projects there (New Deal/Marshall Plan style) to seed an economy. Put the people to work. Irrigate farmland. Build infrastructure.

edit: To the feller below me -- are you a "transformation" nut? Air power is fine but it alone will not win a war like this. You need boots on the ground to do that. When did America become too squeamish to WIN a war? Let's get on the ground and kill the enemy, you know? Don't give them a inch to breathe. Establish a presence! The Taliban was buddy buddy with bin Laden, and they need to be eliminated.

2007-03-08 15:28:04 · answer #2 · answered by dussin23 2 · 1 1

We send troops based on the enemy and strategic necessities. There isn't a block-by-block presence needed in Afghanistan, most of the fighting is out in the open, where air power can do the majority of the fighting. In Iraq, besides the shear strength of the enemy(s) in number, most fighting happens inside large population centers, requiring far more foot soldiers to carry out missions.

Of course, you aren't looking for the real answer, are you? You were looking to make a political point. Well, fizzle on, dude! Only folks without any knowledge of combat, what so ever, would walk away thinking troop strength = priority level, all by itself.

2007-03-08 15:57:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

The most important to Bush is Iraq. The most important for finding who was responsible for 9/11 that would be Afghanistan. You have to remember, however, that the families Saud, Bin Laden and Bush were friends and business partners. So doesn't it figure he would not go after his pal?

2007-03-08 15:18:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Don't know troop numbers on the top of my head, but right now I'm more concerned with this: "Which country based the attack" - WHAT?

[added] Which country based the attack on 9/11? The U.S. did.

What am I missing?

2007-03-08 15:16:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

a million) Muslims are taught to refute violence with extra violence. is that this authentic? NO it is isn't because of the fact violence is rarely justified interior the eyes of God. 2) The Quran is properly disposed of by skill of BURNING. So no longer something new happend right here. as nicely, they have been burnt with different books accidently. yet whilst Muslims killed squaddies ON purpose (no longer accidently), that replaced right into a sin. yet even so...what do we actually anticipate from those idiotic Muslims? 3) The churchs in Egypt have been burned long till now those Qurans have been burnt. Did I see Christians develop into murderous beasts? 4) Bibles have been burnt too. Muslims brazenly burnt bibles and American flags on 9/11. yet Christians have been taught extra perfect than their mothers. they are not develop into violent murderous lunatics on a killing-spree if somebody disrespects their faith. 5) on condition that Muslims have been given this violent whilst memberrs of their very own community did terrorist assaults...yet regrettably, muslims in basic terms react like this whilst cartoons are drawn or whilst their grimy books are burned lol. Muslims are scum. apparently women could be burnt in Islamic international locations for committing sins yet god forbid somebody burn those filthy pages that recite violent verses!

2016-11-23 16:36:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Again, I don't think you have a solid grasp of either war or warfare. Otherwise, you wouldn't be equating the situation on the ground in Iraq with that in Afghanistan and intimating that we should position 150,000 American soldiers in Afghanistan.

Why don't you follow Bush's example and leave those decisions to the military?

2007-03-08 15:23:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

bush in his infinite wisdom thought that he could bring western style democracy to the middle east.afganistan should have been the stop point on the war on terror.fighting a 2 front war will cost us dearly in the long run.btw its iraq!

2007-03-08 15:26:39 · answer #8 · answered by ? 7 · 1 1

The idiots that flew planes into the WTC were from Saudi Arabia. The next neocon chickenhawks are attacking there next. Stay tuned.

2007-03-08 15:20:35 · answer #9 · answered by Matt 5 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers