If not for Iraq, we might have been able to quell most unrest in Afghanistan rather than just Kabul.
We might have actually caught Bin Laden (who he?) and Mullah Omar, instead of having to watch a semi-resurgence of the Taliban.
We might have had more NATO involvement in Afghanistan - as much as the member countries promised - instead of the limited number there now.
We might have got Iranian help in sealing their border (or maybe not, since they are eeeeevil).
We might have got more cooperation from the Pakistani locals, instead of completely convincing them that this was a war against Islam in general.
And Sadaam, complete bastard and despot that he was, would still not be a "gathering threat". He'd still be contained.
He'd still be many years away (not a ficticious 6 months) from a nuclear weapon.
(Yes the Iraqi's would still be suffering, but it didn't seem to bother any of you before.)
Yes, it's still a war on terror. No, I still don't buy that Iraq was a part of that war.
Current Events » in reply to Okay, think about this...
True enough, but.......
The whole thread (41 posts)
- Signs that the "war on terrorism" can be lost
- A failed strategy
- must say ..
- Yes, the dems strategy of insulting our allies, insulting the Nat. Guard, and revelling in our casualties is failing. (n/t)
- Once again, you insult our allies
- Well, here. 'How can you say we're going it alone - - "
- Signs that democrats are years behind the curve
- It's a war.
- Sure, if we don't fight back,
- A failed strategy
