BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Harryk

On 2/8/11 2:25 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:53:43 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:00:23 -0800, wrote:

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 01:19:07 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 16:37:52 -0800, wrote:

Iraq and Iran have never been a danger to the US but neither was
Afghanistan.
We invaded and occupied a country to get one guy, who isn't there. Is
that dumber than invading for WMD that wasn't there?

?? We invaded Afg. to 1) get Bin Laden (Bush gave up on that one) and
2) to stop the safe harbor the Taliban were giving him. When we
invaded, Bin Laden was there. Bush let him get away.

It is far from certain that there was any way to get Bin Laden and
when it was clear he got away, why did we keep prosecuting the war?

You're right. Bush lied about the effort, which was in a large measure
how easy or difficult it was. We kept going to try and ensure the
Taliban didn't return. Actually, Bush did little. We had to wait for
Obama.

Obams basically threw more troops into Afghanistan after saying he
would wind down the war. I really do not see much progress tho.
We are killing more people but I am not sure we are making a dent in
the terrorists. We are making new ones faster than we can kill them.

So, he shouldn't have listened to his generals?

Generals always want more troops and a bigger war. It is what they do
for a living, whether it is good foreign policy or not. That is why we
have civilian oversight.

So, which is it. Should Obama listen or not listen to military
experts? Bush said he would, but he didn't.

Right now, it makes sense to try and wind things down in Afg.
According to you, we should just get on a plane and leave. That's
shortsighted nonsense, and it makes no sense militarily or
politically.

You make it sound like Bin Laden is some kind of criminal genius who
can't be replaced. The fact is he was not even the planner of 9-11.
(that guy is in Gitmo) OBL just provided some of the money. As soon as
we cut him off from the money he was "contained".

He was certainly in the loop on it.

There may be some revenge value to going after him but if that is a
justification, then getting Saddam should have been OK.

Revenge had nothing to do with it. Justice did. Saddam didn't attack
us or make any plans to attack us.

The revenge would be for putting a contract out on GHWB.

And, this is a justification for 1000s of dead US soldiers?

No but it is probably more accurate than any other explanation I have
heard.

It's a statement of fact for sure. Bush, of course, won't admit it,
but I'm sure it played a hand. That and Cheney's Haliburton.

In 50 years Iraq may be seen as the good war, if they actually come
out of it with a democracy. I doubt there will be any good coming out
of the Afghanistan war. There is absolutely ZERO chance that **** hole
will ever be a democracy.

Right. Because Iraq was Bush's war, but Afg. is Obamas? There is a
decent chance that they won't devolve back into Taliban control...

There is a fair to middling chance that Iraq might evolve into a
somewhat democratic government that successfully participates in the
global economy. Afghanistan will still be a **** hole that will remain
a tribal culture and the only participation in the world economy will
be the powerful will exploit the weak to produce a few natural
resources and a lot of smack.

According the you.... expert on all things, esp. those in the middle
east.

You don't have to be a middle east expert to predict that. You only
have to look at history (recent and long term). Iraq is a lot more
westernized than Afghanistan.

Well, as you're fond of saying, we'll see. It won't be an
American-style democracy, but it could be a relatively safe place,
free (for the most part) of terrorism.

Afghanistan? Afghanistan isn't even a country. It's an outline on a map,
with hundreds of independent villages and villagers who hate the
villagers in the next village.

Iraq will fall apart. Afghanistan will never be "together" enough to
fall apart.