The revised past I spoke of did not have too much to do with Iraq except that - perhaps - the reason we did not follow a wise course of action in Afganistan was because we husbanded our troops for another effort. It is your contention that this is nonsense. I see no direct evidence either way. I do see motive, and stated intentions to use 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. I find it hard to believe that you honestly do not see this too, or do not credit it. Please note that I am not jumping up and down trying to prove a link between Afganistan and Iraq as you so frequently accuse.
Afganistan happened first. Iraq second. I say Afganistan was handled very poorly and demonstrably unsuccessfully.
And to remove another clod of your mud, it has nothing to do with how many troops we have in Afganistan today. The time we needed troops in Afganistan was when we knew where OBL was, and when the Taliban forces were collapsing.
Had we handled it properly, there would be no question of needing to invade Pakistan to get OBL.
Current Events » in reply to re: I meant rational policy (and I've said this so many times that you should not find it mysterious)...
mountain of straw
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)
