You truly are not very informed, are you? Afghanistan served as a safe haven for Usama (yes, that is the correct spelling) bin Ladin and al-Qa'ida. Unlike purported connections between AQ/UBL and Saddam Hussein, connections between the Afghan government under Mullah Omar and the Taliban and AQ/UBL truly existed. Ultimately, the AQ attack against the United States, in conjunction with Afghanistan's willfull harbering of UBL, et al., constituted a situation tentamount to Afghanistan attacking the United States. No one has ever disputed those facts. In fact, the existence of verifiable evidence is ONE of the reasons our international partners objectived so fervently to the invasion of Iraq--the fight in Afghanistan had to be finished first, unless another terror group or state opened a second front.
Current consequences? UBL, et al. still at large; over-extension of our and our allies forces; resurgent insurgency in Afghanistan; and others.
No one, to my knowledge, has ever objected to necessary conflict. Iraq was not necessary; Afghanistan was.
2007-06-30 20:21:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by James S 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sorta true, but, Sadam did not plan or bomb the US on 9/11. The cell was located in Afghanistan and we bombed them and drove them out. So them not having a dictator like Saddam has no meaning, cuz the cell was there, regardles who ruled the country. Also, what happened to all the WMD's that were supposedly in Iraq which is a main reason for the war there, didn't find any huh, Yeah Saddam was bad, but it is worse there now, Americans were not dying when Saddam was in power. Now this war is gonna last a long time because they hate us so much, even if we pulled our troops, attacks would still happen around the world.
2007-06-30 18:29:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Afghanistan was a justified war. The Taliban and Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. However Afghanistan is quickly falling back into Talibani rule and unlawlessness.We should either step up our forces there or leave and admit defeat all together. Interesting that the Taliban is regaining power in Afghanistan when up until 2000 we openly supported them.
2007-07-01 00:39:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by Stephanie is awesome!! 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I fully supported the invasion of Afghanistan because that's where Al Qaeda was training the terrorists who invaded us or people just like them. I felt that we had to retaliate for 9/11 and that was the appropriate way to do it. Unfortunately, we are not accomplishing everything I had hoped for in Afghanistan and the Taliban is making a comeback. I believe this is because we siphoned off the money, troops and support that our soldiers needed to win the war and to capture Osama bin Laden and sent it all to Iraq, which was a huge mistake.
2007-06-30 18:26:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Utter waste of time.
Now the northern war lords control the herion production and therefore the government.
While the Taliban still control the south and always will while the occupation forces bomb civilians.
2007-06-30 19:01:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by brainstorm 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think we'd have more troops for Afghanistan if we weren't in Iraq, and bin Laden wouldn't have escaped so easily.
2007-06-30 19:33:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by The Doctor 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
to harry reid cut and run is king. he feels we can defend our freedoms by running home and watching al qaeda on cnn..how im not sure but it never mattered to harry.
2007-06-30 23:51:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by koalatcomics 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
whiney con bastards is just glad there is no draft and he does not have to fight in Afganistan...the military would not have enough Depends to keep this bed wetter supplied.
2007-06-30 22:50:46
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
they supply the world with opium. its merged with the war on drugs
2007-06-30 18:24:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by NONAME 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
They probably think it is dumb because the Republicans believe it is critical because it is.
2007-06-30 18:24:00
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋