Maybe because Germany declared war on the US? :rolleyes: You guys really need to get your analogies in order.
In all fairness, we were ‘at war’ with the Germans well before they declared war on us. Providing supplies to Great Britian (and France, for a while…), and guarding said supplies for part of their journey over the Atlantic.
Umm, yeah, that’s the purpose of pursuiong AQ operatives in Afghanistan. Invading Iraq was about a potential threat. Al Qaeda is a current threat. It seems to me taht a current threat should be dealt with before potential ones that haven’t developed yet. We’re still not done in Afghanistan.
Fine, but I think that one of the problems that’s sort of hovered over all our heads was that Al Qaeda, or more specifically bin Laden and his minions, however they then designated themselves, were allowed to become “current threats” precisely because they weren’t interdicted while still in the “potential threat” stage. The Clinton White House was talking about him in 1995, when (apart from the 1993 WTC bombing, to which he was later linked) OBL and his people were still largely in “potential threat” stage. I know the Sudan (among others) offered him to us on the proverbial silver platter at or about that time, an offer we spurned. Hindsight is of course 20-20.
Nonetheless I must confess I do not see the point of devoting all our resources toi Afghanistan at this point a country which, while it has had some resurgency of the Taliban of late, still has undergone a metamorphosis. They brought their accounts current with the World Bank a little while back and I believe their economic growth rate figure for the last year was in the area of 28%. We may not be done in Afghanistan, but in all honesty it does not seem to be the real powderkeg on the planet at this point. If anything, Al Qaeda people have slipped into (back into?) Iraq, where it seems they feel they can exploit the fluid situation and occasion mayhem on Shi’a and Westerners alike.
Good lord, what is this crap?
The Bush administration was given detailed briefings about Osama and did absolutely fucking nothing.
And please produce some real numbers regarding Afghanistan’s economic health.
Both ignored the threat.
Neither of them dealt effectively with the threat. Only one of them actually ignored it.
And only one of them responded with appopriate force when an attack happened on their watch.
I assume that you’re talking about Clinton now. Coz how could spending a few hundred billion invading a country that had nothing to do with the attack be considered appopriate?
Bush did invade Afghanistan. Bush has arrested many Al Qaeda leaders.
Clinton did neither.
adaher, you’ve gone from “both ignored it”, which was patently false, to something like “Bush did stuff, Clinton didn’t”, which is also patently false.
Al Qaeda people were arrested during Clinton’s time. Afghanistan was attacked but not invaded during Clinton’s time.
Your one-line responses are both idiotic and wrong.
This is going anywhere… anyone that thinks that invading countries that MIGHT be involved… that MIGHT be a threat and that MIGHT become a democracy (big MIGHT here) and that MIGHT become shining examples… and that MIGHT change the Middle East into something better and MIGHT stop Terrorism…
If you call that a SOLID policy of changing the ME and world terrorism... I MIGHT have to call you a fool.
MIGHT there be other options than wasting 200 billion and killing thousands and pissing hundreds of countries ? Contrary to what you say... you CAN attack nebolous Terrorists organizations. You CAN work with other countries... you CAN stop supporting Noriega, Bin Ladens and Dictators. You CAN work out better commericial and international trade rules to create less discontent worldwide... you CAN try diplomacy before war. You CAN use that money for something better and you sure CAN VOTE for someone that isnt being controlled by big oil companies interests.
Fighting terrrorism isnt easy. So if your happy your president is trying to take the easy way out and faking a fight against terrorism good for you. Vietnam was lost not in the battlefield... Algeria (France) was not lost in the battlefield. To win militarily is not to win in the end. This in fact is not a War in a sense either.General reply to several of you:
If GHWB had “finished off” Saddam in 1991, we’d have had pretty much the same situation we have now, just 12 years earlier. That, as nonrevisionists will note, is why he decided not to do it.
He was there already, under not-too-dissimilar circumstances, when he led the 9-11 attacks. While alive, he’s a danger, wherever he is. Gotta get him, and Saddam, and the anthrax killer too, and that’s before considerations of justice or even revenge enter into it - Bush is 0 for 3 so far, you’ll note.
There’s a council, but what makes you think it’s “governing”? Or that it will become so? Looks more like window-dressing as long as the real authority is with the occupying power(s), which it is.
The Iraq council is widely seen as a US stooge too… so no legitimacy or representative power there. If the US leaves today that council will be the first thing the iraqi will get rid of.
Reagan and Bush the father should share some of the responsibility for arming, funding and training UbL and many other AQ operatives.
Last I heard, the US gov was saying that AQ was still one of the gravest threats facing the American people. This leads me to believe that we’ren’t done.
And the situation in Iraq is what it is in no small part because of the invasion of Iraq. I have it on good authority that the invasion had a major impact on the conditions in the country.
TO be fair, the IGC has made great strides toward legitimacy. They have a non-voting seat in the Arab League and are allowed to attend OPEC meetings on Iraq’s behalf. They’re still not legitimate enough to be seena s an authority that can be negotiated with for big money oil companies though.
Can we stop putting words into the Iraqis’ mouths and at least let them speak for themselves?
Out of curiosity, what words do you think have been put in the mouths of Iraqis in this thread?
So, you think that someone was saying that these two quotes:
"Iraq is far from a sucess story in “creating” anything. Even if one year from now we have a so called democracy in Iraq it will be a shitty one and voters will be questioning the blood and dollars spilt for it. "
AND
“And the situation in Iraq is what it is in no small part because of the invasion of Iraq. I have it on good authority that the invasion had a major impact on the conditions in the country.”
were coming from the Iraqis?
The first quote seems to be dealing with American voters, not Iraqis and their opinions.
The second quote is my own and I can tell you, it is definitively not meant to expressing the opinion of the Iraqis.