26 May 07
So the President of America George W. Bush has just been granted a $100 Billion dollars more for the war on Iraq...is he mad. He could buy Africa for that amount of money and have them fight for free against Iraq, that president has really and truly lost his mind and he is brainwashing American people into believing his crap!! Anybody have other views.
26 May 07
Originally posted by IceKingProxy armies would great, but we wouldn't allow him to do it.
So the President of America George W. Bush has just been granted a $100 Billion dollars more for the war on Iraq...is he mad. He could buy Africa for that amount of money and have them fight for free against Iraq, that president has really and truly lost his mind and he is brainwashing American people into believing his crap!! Anybody have other views.
26 May 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyThat's assuming we view that as a mistake.
You'd hope that after the CIA trained and funded the Taliban that that would be the case.
I see no evidence that the Taliban wouldn't have taken Afghanistan regardless. The best I can figure, we handed a proxy defeat to the Soviets with no side effects.
Also, lest we forget the Northern Alliance was a proxy army. That worked pretty well.
26 May 07
Originally posted by IceKingAre you offering to sell us Africa?
So the President of America George W. Bush has just been granted a $100 Billion dollars more for the war on Iraq...is he mad. He could buy Africa for that amount of money and have them fight for free against Iraq, that president has really and truly lost his mind and he is brainwashing American people into believing his crap!! Anybody have other views.
I'll give you 2 cases of beer for it but you have to get everyone out by the end of the month.
26 May 07
Originally posted by Merk$3 billion is a lot of money. Where's the evidence that the Taliban would have taken Afghanistan without that input? As for no side effects, doesn't 9/11 count or is it an insignificant event?
That's assuming we view that as a mistake.
I see no evidence that the Taliban wouldn't have taken Afghanistan regardless. The best I can figure, we handed a proxy defeat to the Soviets with no side effects.
Also, lest we forget the Northern Alliance was a proxy army. That worked pretty well.
26 May 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyI like I said, I've seen no evidence to suggest that the Taliban would not have taken control of Afghanistan if we hadn't helped. Most of what we did and spent went to fighting the Russian invasions anyway.
$3 billion is a lot of money. Where's the evidence that the Taliban would have taken Afghanistan without that input? As for no side effects, doesn't 9/11 count or is it an insignificant event?
Do you have some sort of evidence to prove that they wouldn't have run rampant over the Afghan population if we hadn't helped against the Russians?
911 wasn't carried out by the Taliban and I think its foolish to think AQ wouldn't have carried it out if they were based in a different country.
Unless you're saying that the Taliban talked AQ into attacking America because we helped the Taliban?
26 May 07
Originally posted by MerkI think you'll find that there was no justification, what-so-ever, for attacking Afghanistan.
I like I said, I've seen no evidence to suggest that the Taliban would not have taken control of Afghanistan if we hadn't helped. Most of what we did and spent went to fighting the Russian invasions anyway.
Do you have some sort of evidence to prove that they wouldn't have run rampant over the Afghan population if we hadn't helped against the Russians?
9 ...[text shortened]... e saying that the Taliban talked AQ into attacking America because we helped the Taliban?
There were even more Al Qaeda training camps in Pakistan, for God's sake!
26 May 07
Originally posted by shavixmirGood lord. Sometimes you go too for Methinks. Its pretty basic cause and effect. AQ attacks us. The Taliban allow AQ leadership to operate in Afghanistn. We invade.
I think you'll find that there was no justification, what-so-ever, for attacking Afghanistan.
There were even more Al Qaeda training camps in Pakistan, for God's sake!
If being attacked at home isn't sufficient reason, I wonder, is there any circumstance under which you would think invasion is justified?
26 May 07
Originally posted by MerkIs what Afghanistan was left with any better than what would have happened if the Russians had been successful? The loss to America is they are directly responsible for the formation of the Taliban, and thus a new enemy.
I like I said, I've seen no evidence to suggest that the Taliban would not have taken control of Afghanistan if we hadn't helped. Most of what we did and spent went to fighting the Russian invasions anyway.
Do you have some sort of evidence to prove that they wouldn't have run rampant over the Afghan population if we hadn't helped against the Russians?
9 ...[text shortened]... e saying that the Taliban talked AQ into attacking America because we helped the Taliban?
If 9/11 wasn't carried out by the Taliban, then how do you justify razing that country to the ground? Or if funding them wasn't a mistake, why are they now enemies?
26 May 07
Originally posted by mrstabbythe last two questions are easy. The same answer applies to both. They have shelter and support to AQ leadership.
Is what Afghanistan was left with any better than what would have happened if the Russians had been successful? The loss to America is they are directly responsible for the formation of the Taliban, and thus a new enemy.
If 9/11 wasn't carried out by the Taliban, then how do you justify razing that country to the ground? Or if funding them wasn't a mistake, why are they now enemies?
Assuming that the Russians won, its reasonable to assume that they would have lost it when the lost the Iron Curtain.
If anyone is "responsible" for the formation of the Taliban, its the Mujahideen. If we don't want them to be responsible for their own actions, then I think you have to at least consider the Russians being responsible. Without the Russian invasion, they would not have had a common cause to unite them.
Or, maybe you're right and everything is always Americas fault.
Either way, I'm having this debate with you.
26 May 07
Originally posted by MerkI'm not saying that the US is fully responsible, but they did play a massive part in fueling that war. Giving someone and unconditional $3 billion - telling them to do what the hell they want with it is, well, not smart to say the least. Especially to a militant group.
the last two questions are easy. The same answer applies to both. They have shelter and support to AQ leadership.
Assuming that the Russians won, its reasonable to assume that they would have lost it when the lost the Iron Curtain.
If anyone is "responsible" for the formation of the Taliban, its the Mujahideen. If we don't want them to be responsible f ...[text shortened]... t and everything is always Americas fault.
Either way, I'm having this debate with you.
26 May 07
Originally posted by IceKingYou are a bit incoherent there frozennuts. What has Africa to do with the funding of our military in support of the lawfully elected government in Iraq? If you muster up every tiny reserve of ability, you will soon see that purchasing africa is absurd .... as is surrendering to terrorists and expecting 'peace' to break out.
So the President of America George W. Bush has just been granted a $100 Billion dollars more for the war on Iraq...is he mad. He could buy Africa for that amount of money and have them fight for free against Iraq, that president has really and truly lost his mind and he is brainwashing American people into believing his crap!! Anybody have other views.
27 May 07
Firstly its a $100 billion and not 3. Secondly, I was trying to prove a point by using Africa dewd cos it just goes to show how much money the americans can spend on bull#@$%! when they could be saving a whole continent like AFRICA they choose to go destroy another country!!!