WAR timetable

We may be legitemately in Afganistan, but, the situation there is no better than in Iraq. It has befuddlement and screw up all over it.

If it turns out that Al Qaeda was not responsible for 9/11 (no one knows for sure at this writing), would our presence in Afghanistan be considered legitimate? Could there be other reasons why we invaded these contiguous countries?

Hey, Jon, welcome!!

I was very conflicted over Afghanistan. I loathed the existance of teh Taliban, and anyone who has ever attended one of RAWA's presentations can attest to the hideous situation there. Afghanistan had been a fairly modern nation prior to the Soviet invasion,and the associated atrocities commited by the Soviet military there. The continued atrocities commited by the warlords in the intervening period,and by the Taliban seemed to legitimize their overthrow. I was quite afraid, however, that what did happen would, i.e.:the US would do the "econo-invasion/restoration" and then slink off leaving everything in much the same condition it was before.

Yes -- I think most of us were conflicted by that.

But the way we've been handling this made me not want Afghanistan to be "an American invasion," but rather a rescue mission in which we gave a lot but let others manage the situation.

We've shown -- twice now during the current administration -- that although we have men and materiel we don't have the planning skills, the follow-through, and the respect of others to carry out these missions effectively.

We've lost respect around the world; we've created dangerous situations for inhabitants of the countries we've invaded; we lost far too many lives on all sides; we've lavished and misspent resources while those in need gape at us; we are slow, cumbersome, and seemingly not too bright about rescue and rehab. We flex big muscles; we screw up big time.

You have to remember that the reason we went into Afghanistan was to get bin Laden and Al-Queda. It was not to topple to government, that's something that was never part of the original UN mandate. That was one of Bush's little gems.

Unfortunately, his idea of foreign policy is to destroy the government of every country he doesn't like and replace it with a US clone.

True. This administration does seem to only think in terms of military rather than diplomatic solutions.

"...that the reason we went into Afghanistan was to get bin Laden and Al-Queda..."

Alleged reason.

Tartarin

Nothing alleged about it. That is probably the only thing Bush did right. He took action when action was needed. I have always wondered whether a liberal democrat would have.

In addition, the boy-wonder even got UN approval. I had high hopes for the appointed one then...I thought that perhaps he wasn't as much of a malignant little twit as I had thought he was. I was wrong. He is very much a malignant little twit. :mad:

He was right to go after Bin Laden. Everything else he did appears to me to have been wrong. His administration now has no apparent strategy in Afghanistan other than to sit tight and hope nothing super bad happens during his stretch in office.

Edgar
Hasn't the UN or was it NATO that is lending support in Afghanistan and replacing some of our troops?

Doesn't make the situation a bed of roses.

The helpfulness of the Nato contingent has been hindered by the Bush administration's refusal to allow them to assist anywhere outside of the Kabul region. I wonder if the administration actually prefers instablility, since it allows them to continue having reasons for "wartime" security measures?

Okay, Au. Prove it.

Tartarin
Prove what?

That Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11.

Tartarin
Only the very skeptical believe that Al Qaeda was not behind 9/11.
You and who else?

Well, isn't that one of the biggest bones of contention? That in all equations - including today - Saudi Arabaia is suspiciously left out of it? Bin Laden and Al Queda - but it was mostly Saudis who attacked in 9/11, and binLaden is from a large and influential Saudi family, with whom members of the administration were doing business.

The Bush league's range and sphere of influence is big; and yet their competence at pulling off things is peculiar. Here they have full command of a powerful country with a powerful army; the weight of public opinion; alleged humanitarian aims.

I think what is happening now is almost divine retribution. Arrogance goeth before a fall. It's so basic, yet it's one of the lessons never learned, because obviously they thought it never applied to them.


I don't know when the Iraqi misery will end. But I have no doubt that there will be more violence, more bloodshed, and that it will not end as the Bush league states. These seem to be people without compassion, understanding, feeling - and they will never see themselves at fault, which is one of the reasons this will last beyond the time it should.

Funny, Au! From my point of view, only the uninformed cling to their sure knowledge of Al Qaeda's involvement. It's not that we know for sure either way. It's that we don't know. One doesn't have to be deeply skeptical to recognize that!

Don't forget, please, that this administration now has a documented history of putting out facts which turn out, later, to be fictions. Not just one or two, but many, many. Instead of being embarrassed later, I prefer to remain uncertain and not build any theories on the shaky one that we know what happened on 9/11.

Tartarin
You want proof positive? It does not exist. However the wealth of evidence has convinced most of the world that Al Qaeda was responsible. Are you sure your opinion is not colored by your white hot hate for Bush and co.