Bush: Afghanistan First Victory in War on Terror

Please terrorists, Taliban keep up the good work till november...

 

I'm hoping the terrorists kill a lot more people under Bush's adminstration and the economy goes completely to hell, just so Bush loses in November.

 

I hope Bush is dumb enough to make another trip to Iraq or his first trip to Afghanistan.

 

Nice way to deflect attention from W's total incompetence....
And no, I doubt any American, liberal, conservative, or apolitical wishes our own people's harm at the hand of those savages who attack us.....You are free to believe what you wish though....

 

What exactly is your point? You've been at this for a while now. I can make some guesses as to your motives, but that would be unfair before you've explained yourself.

 

I hope that this is not another "mission accomplished" celebration.

But most likely it's gonna be. It's too unrealistic to expect Talibans giving up the fight.

Another black hole that taxpayers' money keep being sucking into.

 

[disclaimer] It's not a personal attack if it's true [/end disclaimer]. You are a moron.

The title of this thread should be "Afghanistan Should Have Been First Victory in War on Terror"

If we would have pumped half of the resources into Afghanistan to finish the job instead if the untimely invasion of Iraq, Bush's claim might be accurate. As it stands, it seems that Karzai is more of a Mayor of Kabul then President of a country.

 

Terroists? Possibly
Bandits? More likely

 

With more body bags comming out than would come out of Iraq since the word 'go'.

 

id probably be amused to know how you determined this

 

Huh?

Does anyone else understand what the hell this is supposed to mean?

 

Applying what I think is your logic here to WWII (as Busheep love to do these days), the US should have invaded Australia and Panama in response to the Japanese and Germans.

I'm not a military strategist, but I always thought you respond to the people who actually attack you.

 

Wasn't this the party line after the "mission accomplished" speech. "Oh, sure, there are a few thugs and criminals leftover from the old regime that we need to round up -- but look at the rose petal showers!"

 

yeah, but certain people on the conservative side "love america" so much, and have some sincere pyschotic syndrome where they think nobody else but their political posse can ever love america as much as they do.

To them, anyone who dares to criticize their political posse is showing conclusive evidence of being an america-hater (not an america lover) - or a 9/11 forgetter - or a cheese-eating surrender monkey - or a dictator lover - or anything but a true american.

If one of the NYC firemen who rescued people from the twin towers actually voted for Kerry - in their minds - that firemen might have been a hero, but is now a delusional person.

Now I'm not saying all conservatives should seek psychiatric help...but if you feel the following way...

a) you are right
b) Bush is right
c) any criticism of Bush is wrong, or should not be said at all
d) anyone who criticizes Bush does not love america as much as you do
e) saddam and OBL traded secret messages
f) Kerry would ruin this country, because, as a critic of Bush, he does not love america, and would gladly surrender to the terrorists

 

Sad to see that liberals have no understanding of military theory.

By putting resources in Afghanistan as all you claim shold be done, you state that the kind of troops in Iraq should bein Afghanistan.

You push that despite knwoing that such a move would lead to higher casualties than you see in Iraq.

 

What in the hell are you on about?

We should've completely and utterly destroyed the Taliban and all of the Al Qaeda scum that they were harboring in Afghanistan. Instead, Bush sent in too small a force to get the job done, and also diverted attention from finishing that job when he decided Iraq was more important.

 

Say, does Canada have Home Depot stores?

 

Too small of a force? How much do even know about Army operations?

Obviously zilch.

 

Which is why having a site like www.centcom.mil is so helpful.

Oh, look, Afghanistan and Iraq are in the same theater. One might be strongly tempted to conclude that many of the same resources would be used in both. I'd ask Pat Tillman about it, but he's with God now.

If the United States (a) had unlimited money, personnel, time and materiel, and (b) wasn't pretty obviously falling considerably short of the Marshall Plan needed to rebuild Afghanistan, you might have a point. Compare the effort we've put into Iraq, which was no threat, and which we knew at the time was no threat, to the effort we've put into Afghanistan. As a wannabe American, you should be embarrassed.

 

Oh, yeah, you're right. I forgot that we killed Bin Laden, captured Mullah Omar, destroyed all of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and that Afghanistan is a at peace with a flourishing government under the benign rule of Hamid Karzai.

 

You forgot to add that under post-Busherized Afghanistan, the nations number one cash crop is flourishing, providing needed capital to the fledgling democracy. One could even call it the opiate of the masses.

 

How simple can I make this. If an entity attacks you, and kills 3,000 people, and is actively trying to kill many thousands more, the most effective military response is to go after those people. You will suffer military casualties as a result, but you may prevent them from continuing to attack you.

Now, if you respond by attacking someone that didn't attack you, you are not doing anything to prevent the people that attacked you from attacking you again. I will concede that you may suffer fewer casualties attacking the party that didn't attack you as opposed to attacking the party that did attack you, but you probably need to concede that attacking the party that did attack you is a more effective way of preventing the party that did attack you from attacking you again.

How's that for military theory?

 

we responded to the entity that attacked us in terms of destroying AQs Afghan base of operations - we can no more completely control the total insurgency in the mountains bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan than can the US Marines control the entire Sierra Nevadas - all you can do is to destroy the bases and attack any substantial forces which mass together. It is too damn hard to do anything further than what we have done in Afghanistan. Afghanistan will likely remain in the stone age for a long time and the best we can do is to support Karzai and try to provide some security to prevent the Taliban from coming back in a significant way. AQ and the Taliban are still in the mountains but their force (in Afghanistan) has been greatly neutralized. The next focus of effort on AQ after the Afghanistan operation was the global intel and operations effort - which is where we are now. Whether you choose to have your head in the sand or not - Zarqawi is a supporter of AQ and Bin Laden and he has a lot to do with our current difficulties in Iraq. And it is only going to get worse over the next 30 days. Get ready for it.