PRIORITY SHOULD be where ? AFGHANISTAN (REAL SOURCE of terror conflict) or Iraq?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071211/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_afghanistan_6
QUOTE "WASHINGTON - The U.S. military's top officer acknowledged on Tuesday that for all the importance of preventing Afghanistan from again harboring al-Qaida terrorists, Washington's first priority is Iraq.
"In Afghanistan, we do what we can," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "In Iraq, we do what we must."....His statement, delivered with emphasis in a prepared opening statement to the House Armed Services Committee, prompted some Democrats to say it showed what they have argued for years: that the Bush administration has become so bogged down in Iraq that it cannot make more effort in Afghanistan. I find it troubling that our ongoing commitment in Iraq prevents us from dedicating resources in Afghanistan beyond what is necessary to prevent setbacks, as opposed to what is required to realize success," Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the committee, said after the hearing."...??

Re Guessses
As far as I remember, Prez Bush ordered troops into AFGHANISTAN FIRST in retaliation for the attrocity on 9/11 then shortly after.. hey-ho, 77% of US troops were re-deployed into Iraq because "Iraq had WMD's".. (According to Tony Bliar(sic) having had a chat with his mate George Jnr!!) leaving NATO and British troops with the remaining US troops to deal with the ORIGINAL reason for being in that part of the world.
I KNOW suicide bombers are still active in Iraq.. and NOT JUST in Iraq... and they NEED to be dealt with... Just as AFGHANISTAN NEEDS to be dealt with.

My question was.. WHERE, out of these 2 countries SHOULD the priority be? Where should resources and equipment be prioritised to, given the endless problems today with resources and equipment.

I was NOT detracting from the daily dangers being faced by ALL Service Personnel in Iraq... unlike politicians tend to do ..

Indeed SHOULD priority be given to Either country or EQUAL priority given to BOTH?

Re RTO Trainer.

I have links to prove what I maintain about 77% of US troops redeploying from AFGHANISTAN to Iraq in or around March 2003. Problem is, since getting the new vista setup I cannot open my saved research and folders to get the proof.
I tend NOT to make statements WITHOUT having the FACTS to back my words up. So mark this in your faves and when I am able to fathom out how to open my cds and get to my saved folders.. I shall add ALL the links pertaining to THIS particular issue for you.

Answer 1

to this day, we have no idea what the real reason for invading iraq was.

afganistan was a fight that the entire nation supported, as they were linked to the 9/11 attacks.

i think bush just assumed that since they are in the same region of the world, no one would notice when he moved 90% of the soldiers in afganistan to iraq.

iraq is a waste of lives, money and resources at a time when we can scarcely waste anything.

iraq is the worst blunder in our history - punish the republicans for it over and over again at the polls - i plan to.

Answer 2

what ever ,, whatever any country that questions the s.u becomes a terrorist state or an undemocratic stop the b.s will u Afghanistan never attracted n.y.c Saddam was the u.S's 2ND allay after Israel till his work was done with Iran at the end of 1989 few months later the u.s wants the weapons back so they had something planned all ready for him they trapped him they made him attack Kuwait the troops should get back home safe the Iraqis r fighting 4 their freedom they want the country back so what the f r u doing in Iraq if they want us out we don't want another 911 and that may just do it

Answer 3

You remember wrong.

Not one Soldierr, truck or rifle were transferred from Afghanistan to Iraq. Since 2001, our total troop committment to Afghanstan has only increased, never decreased.

You and Ike Skelton are putting words in the Admiral's mouth. Perhaps he means as you have interpreted, but more likely he's referring to the political situation in Afghanistan, where we are more constrained with a large NATO presence, under NATO command, and a much more developed native government than exists in Iraq as yet.

Answer 4

I recently saw an interview with an American solder who had returned from Iraq. His comment was that the "insurgents" were fighting not to protect their oil or country, but because the US and her allies were killing their children and families and destroying their homes. Considering Iraq does not have an army, it makes sense to me.
As far as Afghanistan is concerned, the Taliban was put in power and financed by the USA.
The terrorists, including Bin Laden were financed by Saudi Arabians. So why not attack Saudi Arabia?

Answer 5

Both are and remain a priority, Afghanistan needs more of the NATO countries to step up, its not right to leave it all the US, UK and Danish, all the countries in northern Afghanistan, Germany, France etc need to do some military action join in.

Answer 6

NATO has to stop the Taliban in Afghanistan. A failure for NATO would lead to the weakening of the alliance. This must not happen. There is an urgent need for NATO countries to help in fighting a resurgent Taliban. This means that, in particular, France and Germany have to step up and allow their troops to assist in combat operations--now!

Answer 7

"There is no evidence connecting 9/11 to Osama bin Laden." - FBI

The attack on Afghanistan was planned long before 9-11-01. -BBC

"BBC - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001.
US 'planned attack on Taleban'

The wider objective was to oust the Taleban

By the BBC's George Arney

A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October."

Wolfowitz, Podhoretz, Ledeen, Perle call for a "new Pearl Harbor."
http://www.newamericancentury.org

How convenient.

Answer 8

Iraq was a big mistake and none of the King's horses and none of the King's men are going to put it back together again.

Afghanistan was justified as a strike but not as an occupation.

Terrorism needs to be addressed as an international police action, not as a military solution.

Answer 9

Decode this lyrics " Hurting each other"
Luke 8.10, 17
Luke 21.8-10
Revealation 16. 12-14
Luke 21.19-24
Luke 24.44-45, 47-49
What do you think?

Answer 10

Iraq is the biggest problem because of the mass killings that are going on in Iraq. Iran is supplying arms as well as personal to the old Baathist party and other fringe groups. The goal of this is to kill and send the people of Iraq into fear and a hopeless state. This is why it has become so important to hold ground in Iraq. As of now we are tiring to save lives.