There are about 19,000 American troops in Afghanistan, more than were there when Iraq was invaded, which in turn was more than were there during the initial invasion of Afghanistan. Iraq had little or nothing to do with it.
The "we would have invaded Afghanistan right" meme is part of the delusion. Take it to the bank: Al Gore would not have attempted regime change in Afghanistan at all. Nothing in the Clinton/Gore policies through eight years of military action telegraphs a major ground invasion as Gore's first choice.
Do you think more troops in Afghanistan would help attain victory against the insurgents and terrorists?
Do you think the U.S. withdrawing from Iraq would help attain victory against the insurgents and terrorists?
Does this give you a headache?
Can you be more specific on the "offers to help" that were refused? I hope we're not talking about Iran here. I do know that Kofi Annan is cheerfully accepting reassurances from Syria and Iran that they will help restrain Hezbollah in Lebanon, but he's a blithering idiot, and you're not.
Current Events » in reply to I meant rational policy (and I've said this so many times that you should not find it mysterious)...
re: I meant rational policy (and I've said this so many times that you should not find it mysterious)...
The whole thread (23 posts)
- Bush now HAS to invade Pakistan. After all, OBL, plutonium, nukes, democracy - - -
- FBI says, "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11" (n/t)
- More details on this
- Very Bad Situation.
- More mud in the water...
- Pandora's Box. Toothpaste and tubes. As predicted, there IS no way out.
- Let me try it this way...
- Can we amend your premise to include: "...and if we followed a rational policy"?
- re: Let me try it this way...
- Let me try it this way...
- And don't forget Somalia. (n/t)
