03 Dec 09
I often wonder what Afganistan would be like if the Bush Administration had invaded Afganistan with the troop levels equal to, or greater than that of Iraq. It's pretty clear by now that:
1. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction as Bush and Co. claimed.
2. Was not the threat to American security that Bush and Co. claimed.
Valuable resources, that could have gone to securing Afganistan, and building an Afgan army capable of resisting the Talaban were wasted in Iraq.
Now the Obama administration is left to shift troops from Iraq to Afganistan, that should have been there from the beginning. What a wasted opportunity... 😞
03 Dec 09
Originally posted by bill718Yeah it would all be different in Afganistan now probably.
I often wonder what Afganistan would be like if the Bush Administration had invaded Afganistan with the troop levels equal to, or greater than that of Iraq. It's pretty clear by now that:
1. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction as Bush and Co. claimed.
2. Was not the threat to American security that Bush and Co. claimed.
Valuable resources, that ...[text shortened]... to Afganistan, that should have been there from the beginning. What a wasted opportunity... 😞
But, that is all in the past now. What the big question should be with Iraq slowly dying down, shouldn't Obama start using the resourses to finish up in Afganistan by giving his general the maximum amount of resources that the general stated that he needed to finish the war, instead of playing polotics and giving him less than the minimum he needed?
03 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by bill718Did our military have enough of the right kinds of troops for that? Tanks don't work so well in Afghanistan.
I often wonder what Afganistan would be like if the Bush Administration had invaded Afganistan with the troop levels equal to, or greater than that of Iraq. It's pretty clear by now that:
1. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction as Bush and Co. claimed.
2. Was not the threat to American security that Bush and Co. claimed.
Valuable resources, that ...[text shortened]... to Afganistan, that should have been there from the beginning. What a wasted opportunity... 😞
03 Dec 09
Originally posted by bill718Whether the resources were wasted depends on what your interests are. Isn't securing Afghanistan just as wasteful as securing Iraq? The war so far has probably done more to create terrorists than stop them. There were no WMDs in Afghanistan either. And if anybody ever thought that the war in Iraq was about WMDs they weren't very clued up.
Valuable resources, that could have gone to securing Afganistan, and building an Afgan army capable of resisting the Talaban were wasted in Iraq.
03 Dec 09
Originally posted by bill718Afghanistan was, would be, is and will remain a hole-d'faeces.
I often wonder what Afganistan would be like if the Bush Administration had invaded Afganistan with the troop levels equal to, or greater than that of Iraq. It's pretty clear by now that:
1. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction as Bush and Co. claimed.
2. Was not the threat to American security that Bush and Co. claimed.
Valuable resources, that ...[text shortened]... to Afganistan, that should have been there from the beginning. What a wasted opportunity... 😞
Seriously.
That is one wee zit of pus that should have been left alone.