Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Tell me again why we gave up on Afghanistan to invade Iraq

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
auburngrad82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:56 AM
Original message
Tell me again why we gave up on Afghanistan to invade Iraq
Wouldn't it have made more sense to finish the job and eliminate Al Qaeda and Osama bin Ladin when we had the chance instead of redirecting the vast majority of our military resources to fight an unjust war based on lies?

Bush will try to use the attacks to his advantage while we should be blasting his administration for not finishing the job to begin with. If he had done his job these attacks may not have happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. O I L
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Ding! Ding! Ding!
Y'know, we're only on the planet a short time, and so many marvelous resources God has created for us to steal...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chelsea0011 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
2. WMD's. "We know where they are"........Rumsfeld
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livinginphotographs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. I've had several Republican co-workers ask the same thing today.
Even the sheep can't deny this one anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
auburngrad82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Then we are finally making progress
People are beginning to see that they have been lied to. That's a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livinginphotographs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Ever the pessimist that I am...
I'll wait before I declare victory.

It's been a pretty nasty way to have to say "I told you so" though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
4. I hope this all backfires on Shrub and Co.
All the soldiers and Iraqis dead and still we have accomplished nothing. Mission Accomplished.. I don't think so
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
8. Tell me why we assumed that attacking and killing Taliban members
Edited on Thu Jul-07-05 10:02 AM by bigtree
and installing a military junta in Afghanistan, as well as invade and occupy a sovereign Muslim nation would put a halt to the terror campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
auburngrad82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. If, in fact, Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan and was behind 9/11
then I was all for going after them. But we didn't finish the job and bin Ladin is still guiding the biggest terrorist organization in the world. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no threat to us. Al Qaeda did and still does pose a threat to us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. The Taliban doesn't seem to be orchestrating any subsequent violence
Edited on Thu Jul-07-05 10:37 AM by bigtree
And that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with our indiscriminate killing of those our military has deemed to be Taliban. In fact, they seem to be completely removed from the subsequent activities associated with Al Qeada.

Further, I think it is mindless to use the moniker 'Afghanistan' and justify our indiscriminate bombing (which has killed thousands of innocents, far outstripping the number of victims from the 9-11 attacks) by stating that Al Qeada was in Afghanistan. They were also in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. They operated out of New Jersey. We didn't attack these areas with indiscriminate fire and bombings. Afghanistan and its citizens didn't deserve to receive the brunt of our reprisals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
auburngrad82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. You're right.
The Afghani people are, by and large, innocent victims. The Taliban, though, are partly responsible because they chose to harbor Al Qaeda and, in effect, turned their country into a sponsor of terrorism.

But we should have done everything possible to get Al Qaeda. We had a true coalition of countries that were willing to work with us. But our government decided Saddam was more of a threat to our country than bin Ladin. So Al Qaeda is still perpetrating their violence on innocent victims.

I was all for going after Al Qaeda. And I still say we should have finished the job.

You will find many people who supported the actions in Afghanistan but are against the war in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
getmeouttahere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
9. I refer once again to Ron Suskind's article....
in the NYT from October of last year. People like BushCo want an ambiguous "war on terror" because it can never be fully realized, and they need an enemy, in this case "sin." You can never rid completely rid the world of "evil" or "sin", therefore you have perpetual war. The seizure of the Middle East's oil is BushCo's earthly reward in the bargain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaver Tail Donating Member (903 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
11. It was because Saddam was involved with 9/11.
Edited on Thu Jul-07-05 10:07 AM by Beaver Tail
Even though no WMD were found and that a link to terrorism was non existent and the mobile chemical labs ended up being weather balloon inflators we cannot let these facts get in the way of the truth. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
12. Because Afghanistan didn't have enough good targets
At least that's what Rumsfeld said.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Nov 28th 2014, 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC