as muslims would have 2nd thoughts about the US wisdom, might, and compassion?
Versus leaving 20k troops there while sending 160k into Iraq...
2007-08-05 08:08:23 · 12 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
LibsRwimps (below) Great shell game response. However, which came first, terrorists to Iraq to kill US soldiers, OR Bush's invasion of Iraq that brought them there?
2007-08-05 08:14:27 · update #1
They are like weeds, terrorists, they spread out, and unless you pull them out, roots and all, they just move on and grow. What needs to happen is education and a realization that hate and terror bombings are wrong and only lead a soul to Hell.
2007-08-09 07:26:49 · answer #1 · answered by Fritz Milan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes/No.
Unfortunately, Afghanistan does thrive, as a heroin producing nation. And has been documented, terrorism thrives on the drug trade.
However, had 160,000 troops been sent to Afghanisan instead of Iraq, we might have actually brought to justice, some of the people responsible for 9/11. As of now, there has been NO justice for thousands of dead American citizens.
2007-08-05 15:16:12 · answer #2 · answered by dryheatdave 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's Wolfowitz and his merry band of overlords (Cheney, Rumsfleed, Rove...) who wrote the book about taking Iraq and making it to a satellite of the USA, controlling the middle east and oil from there and with it the world. Bush is just a brainless puppet.
2007-08-05 15:27:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
But you forgot the oil.
Afgan completed with victory would have done wonders for the US.
Oh and as for the jihad in Iraq, they went there because we did. FIRST. No WMD's and no ties to 9/11. But a natural resourse worth value.
2007-08-05 15:19:15 · answer #4 · answered by Nurse Winchester 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Afghanistan has one of the fastest growing economies in Asia. See the link to NATO-ISAF in my blog Article "Good News" This is reported from our European allies without mention of the US.
Of course poverty and economic decline are not the cause of terrorism or violence. Otherwise Bangladesh, not Saudi Arabia would be where most terrorists originate. And Militant Islam would not be on the decline in it's original country of origin: Iran, where the economy has worsened under it. See my article on that in my blog as well.
War on Terror Blog©2007, http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-DfkctJU7dK5B7LcNROoyVQ--?cq=1
2007-08-05 15:18:15 · answer #5 · answered by John T 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush doesn't give a damn about Americans, never mind Afghans!
It would have been a blow, but that thought never entered the neo-con head.
2007-08-05 15:20:41 · answer #6 · answered by . 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush wants the OIL profits from the Oil in that other country.
2007-08-05 15:14:57 · answer #7 · answered by Questionable 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Considering Afghanistan was where the true threat was- yes. Unfortunately
2007-08-05 15:12:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
its like a cockroach infested house!
ya go into the kitchen turn the light on they scatter and hide!!!
ya leave the light on all the time they adapt and creep back in!!
then sooner or later they end up in your sandwich!!!
{joes apartment} !!!
2007-08-05 16:17:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, a very big blow to terrorism and a very big victory for democracy.
2007-08-05 15:24:40 · answer #10 · answered by Retired From Y!A 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋