The us still has 10 times the troops canada has in afghanistan. Why is canada still there? Because the taliban and other insurgents are still active in the pashtun/eastern tribal regions. We have an obligation to ensure that when the West leaves afghanistan, it can function autonomously and not regress back into civil war like the time the soviet withdrew from their invasion
What are we doing in Afghanistan?
- Thread starter benny_patrick7
- Start date
We have an obligation to ensure that when the West leaves afghanistan, it can function autonomously
NOT. We have no obligation what-so-ever except the obligation in the few minds of those that think we should be there
NOT. We have no obligation what-so-ever except the obligation in the few minds of those that think we should be there
Are we so quick to forget how the taliban came to power? The United states funded Mujahideen to figh the soviets and as soon as the soviets left, america abandoned them. What was the result? Civil war, resulting in the foreign funded taliban to gain control over afghanistan. Before we withdraw we need to ensure that the afghan people can defend themselves, to prevent history from repeating itself.
OK. Those terrorists were (and still are supposedly) still based in the hills of Pakistan...
Northern Sun. That means the US is going to invade Pakistan. I guess, they might as well take out Saudia Arabia too as the vast majority of "terrorists" are from Saudia Arabia.
I believe the doctorine is that after that they're going after PETA in Togo. The worst kind of terrorist!!!
Northern Sun. That means the US is going to invade Pakistan. I guess, they might as well take out Saudia Arabia too as the vast majority of "terrorists" are from Saudia Arabia.
I believe the doctorine is that after that they're going after PETA in Togo. The worst kind of terrorist!!!
The difference is that Saudis and Pakistanis are not openly at war with us, the taliban are. You're using terrorism and taliban interchangably, stop that. At the time they invaded, the taliban held Osama Bin Laden and refused to give him up under US terms, The Saudis i'm sure would gladly give up anyone the US asks them to, The saudi Royal Family has a long history of good relations with the US. The pakistanis can't even run their own country much less capture any terrorists
Mongol
If it's terrorists they are acfter. Why haven't they invaded
Syria
Iran
Indonesia
Lebanon
Yemen
Maybe, it's because it might not really be about terrorism and more to do with economics.
How "solid" of an ally is Saudia Arabia? Think about it. Throw out the monarchy and replace it with an "unfriendly" ruler. It's been close to happening a few times already
Couple that with the "solid" relationship the US has with Venezuala and there is suddenly a BIG Problem
Just an idle thought
What would be the result? Economic chaos in the US
If it's terrorists they are acfter. Why haven't they invaded
Syria
Iran
Indonesia
Lebanon
Yemen
Maybe, it's because it might not really be about terrorism and more to do with economics.
How "solid" of an ally is Saudia Arabia? Think about it. Throw out the monarchy and replace it with an "unfriendly" ruler. It's been close to happening a few times already
Couple that with the "solid" relationship the US has with Venezuala and there is suddenly a BIG Problem
Just an idle thought
What would be the result? Economic chaos in the US
Under Article 5 of the NAT an attack on one signatory is an attack on all, hence the mutual defense pact. Therefore we are obligated to assist the US in afghanistan but not iraq, as Iraq was a war of aggression
It is very specific to the term "attack" and Afghanistan did not "attack" anybody. If it is loosely to be interpreted as terrorism, the why did we not attack Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iran and Indonesia?
You reference is basically a play on words
It is very specific to the term "attack" and Afghanistan did not "attack" anybody. If it is loosely to be interpreted as terrorism, the why did we not attack Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iran and Indonesia?
You reference is basically a play on words
At least we know who funded Bush's campaign
It was the BinLaden Group from Saudia Arabia and the lunatic fringe evangelicals
It was the BinLaden Group from Saudia Arabia and the lunatic fringe evangelicals
Are you serious? Faulty implicates an innocent mistake. Read this article and then let me know if you still think 'faulty' is the best word to use.
Afghanistan, Another Untold Story
Iraq was probably a giant screw up due to faulty intel.
Probably??? If it was such an "innocent" mistake. Why are the Americans and Bits still there Five-and-a-half-yrs later?
Why didn't they pull out in the fall of 2004?
Probably??? If it was such an "innocent" mistake. Why are the Americans and Bits still there Five-and-a-half-yrs later?
Why didn't they pull out in the fall of 2004?
Seriously? You think you can walk into a town and level the police station and mayors office, destroy all central control and just leave...
How did that turn out for Somalia again?
Wars take along time. Years, and lets face it, there hasn't been a war in along time. Its just occupation.
Do you know how long we had to occupy Japan and Germany? Hint, we are still there.
Its not like the movies, you cant throw a mission accomplished banner up and just leave. Wars take years and decades of occupation and rebuilding while bombs are lobbed at you.
Not likely, but..... they knew of the false intel in Feb/2004 - 11 months after the illegal invasion and did nothing.
They could have ceased hostilities and began consolidating the mess they had created. That may have taken 2 yrs, so that makes it 2.5 yrs of...... what???? Still searching for WMD's?
Saddam was gon (Dec 13/2003) and they were basically still fighting against Iraqi "guerillas"
I won't even comment on Germany/Japan is that is just too "dumb" of a statement
Vietnam was just an "exercise", so call it what you will