<Beat the Taliban, badly. They are not running Afghanistan. And is the US safer? Not to hear the warnings.
You're hearing every last warning right now because whoever is issuing them is trying to make a point: the general public really doesn't need to see how sausage is made. It is important to remember that there actually have been no additional attacks, which might be meaningful information. And a lot of bad guys are pushing up daisies, or whatever the hell grows in Afghanistan.
It is, of course, impossible to prove how many additional attacks might or might not have taken place if we had just decided to stay home and send a nasty letter to the Taliban government.
It's damn sure that we would have shown ourselves to be a toothless tiger to a whole load of groups out there who would like to give us a black eye. There is evidence that our weak response to earlier Al Quaeda attacks was instrumental in encouraging the WTC attack.
The heavy work is not just being done in Afghanistan. It's being done by cops in America, in Europe, and elsewhere. I'm sure we're not hearing about most of it.
And my comment on having to defeat an enemy who wants you destroyed in order to make a lasting peace isn't a "right wing view," it's the truth. If you have any historical exceptions, please let me know.
Current Events » in reply to Weapons, winning, losing.
Re: Weapons, winning, losing.
The whole thread (37 posts)
- Flight 93 [Sept/11/2001] and the White House building.
- Re: Flight 93 and the White House building.
- picky picky picky
- Re: Flight 93 [Sept/11/2001] and the White House building.