Whos Fault is The War in Afghanistan and WHY

  • Thread starter Bounty Hunter T
  • Start date

DeletedUser

In my opinion it is George Bush's fault because he wasted all those troops in Iraq when he could have shot Bin Laden and destroyed the Taliban, but now he is free and will never be caught becasue he escaped into Pakistan and has a way bigger faollowing because of US inaction, Canada had to fight the war all by ourselfs while the Us wasted there time in Iraq. That is my opinion and it is right
 

DeletedUser

I say George Bush To. If obama didin't become president the war would just get worse because McCain would have became president and he would just ruin the whole united states of america. It's a good thing obama Won because we wouldve been in hell if McCain became president. Thats my opinion.
 

DeletedUser

My opinion was actually that the war wasright but was mishandled, i am saying that every available troop should have been sent to and stayed in Afghanistan instead of sending them to Iraq, then we could have got Bin Laden, John McCain who is a veteran was going to withdraw the troops form Iraq but the problem with Obama is that he is not willing to spend the money on the military which is what is needed and John McCain was and still is so in my opinion McCain would have been better for the War not Obama
 

DeletedUser

Obama is already planning on withdrawing troos from iraq. He said all the troops will be withdrawn from iraq in like october or november of next year i think. I'm not sure but i remember him saying something about withdrawing the troops.
 

DeletedUser

i know that but he isn't going to spend the money he needs to win in Afghanistan
 

DeletedUser

True. But I When you think about it, as we get more into the years he will get a lot of complaints which might change his mind.
 

DeletedUser

If you want to blame a US president, then I think Jimmy Carter should take at least as much blame as G.W. Bush. It was Carter who aided and abetted the mujahideen and Osama Bin Laden in the Soviet war in Afghanistan, devastating the country with war and destruction, and then refused any aid to reconstruct the nation after the soviets were defeated. These actions led fairly directly to the power and the anti-american sentiment of both the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
 

DeletedUser

That is true, but the War in Afghanistan COULD have been won if we hadn't wasted all the troops, equipment, supplies and aid in Iraq. Look at the places that Canada has been in for the entire war, they are considered model cities for NATO and they are counter-insurgency bases all baecuase there have been troops there all the time
 

DeletedUser544

I don't think a modern army can win a conventional war against guerrilla forces in Afghanistan. We should learn from the Russians in the cold war, and instead of fighting, work on securing and then training the Afghanis to police their own country (much like we did in Iraq).

and I agree with George, if any president deserves the 'blame' for all of this, its Carter, not Bush. Bush may have bungled Iraq; but sending all of those troops into Afghanistan instead would not have guaranteed victory at all; in fact, one could argue that even though Iraq was a war we shouldn't have been involved in (in many people's eyes), it did give us a firm foothold in the region that we can now use for the Afghanistan campaign. if we had gone to Afghanistan first, and failed, then where would we be now?
 

DeletedUser

I don't think a modern army can win a conventional war against guerrilla forces in Afghanistan. We should learn from the Russians in the cold war, and instead of fighting, work on securing and then training the Afghanis to police their own country (much like we did in Iraq).
We are already doing that.
 

DeletedUser

Bush screwed up because they could have taken Saddam out with a surgical strike early in the war because back before 2005 he wasn't hiding like someone was going to get his family jewles cut out.

If they had allocated all of the troops to Afghanistan the war would have been much, much much smoother and more things would have gone to plan.
 

DeletedUser

Most of yall are just saying, well Saddam, Kill Bin Laden, well then heres the issue, you can't question somebody whos dead, we need info from them, and thats just about as much as i'll post in this thread.
 

DeletedUser

A little oversimplified!

I think that there are a lot of issues and circumstances that need to be factored. No one will ever know what would have happened or how many more attacks we would have sustained had we not gone into Iraq. I think that the message Bush was trying to send was a strong successful one. We are a strong Nation that will not tolerate acts of terrorism!! As far as Obama is concerned... this country will never be the same and not in a good way. Think about this... when he visited Arab nations and gets a warmer welcome than he does when he is in his own country... something is really wrong. We are entering an new era in the USA..... I mean USSA ( United Socialist States of America). I hope all who voted him in are thrilled when they have lost all of their freedoms!
 

DeletedUser

I think that there are a lot of issues and circumstances that need to be factored. No one will ever know what would have happened or how many more attacks we would have sustained had we not gone into Iraq. I think that the message Bush was trying to send was a strong successful one. We are a strong Nation that will not tolerate acts of terrorism!
Omg, that is just the most ignorant drivel I have had to endure while in these forums. More ignorant than even the religious ramblings about creationism.

Yes, it is being oversimplified in these discussions, and you have simplified it even further with your absurd ideological tripe. Iraq was neither supporting terrorism, nor supporting Al Quaeda. The attack on Iraq was self-serving, and had absolutely nothing to do with Osama Bin Ladin, Al Quaeda, or 9/11. That you would have the audacity, after all the contra-evidence, to support the notion our attack of Iraq was justified, just demonstrates how utterly devoted you are to propaganda. Eat much?

! As far as Obama is concerned... this country will never be the same and not in a good way. Think about this... when he visited Arab nations and gets a warmer welcome than he does when he is in his own country... something is really wrong. We are entering an new era in the USA..... I mean USSA ( United Socialist States of America). I hope all who voted him in are thrilled when they have lost all of their freedoms!
We lost more freedoms during your illustrious Bush era than during the 200 years prior to his being sworn into office. Do your homework and shut up with this hate-mongering. The reason Obama is being well received in other nations is because Obama has made it very clear he is not going to dismiss the rest of the world, attacking whomever for profit, like Bush Jr. did, nor is he going to encourage corporate agendas over international goodwill.

Look buddy, there is such a thing as being informed, and that of being disinformed. It is the difference between education and propaganda. I strongly urge you start actually researching material instead of listening to FOX propaganda and conservative radio talk show hosts that are working for higher ratings.
 

DeletedUser

Iraq was neither supporting terrorism, nor supporting Al Quaeda. The attack on Iraq was self-serving, and had absolutely nothing to do with Osama Bin Ladin, Al Quaeda, or 9/11.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) is a group playing an active role in the Iraqi insurgency. Initially it was led as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Arabic: جماعة التوحيد والجهاد‎, Group of Monotheism and Jihad) by the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi until his death in 2006. It is now believed to be led by Abu Hamza al-Muhajir[2] (presumed to be the Egyptian Abu Ayyub al-Masri[3]). The group is a direct successor of al-Zarqawi's previous organization, Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Group of Monotheism and Jihad). Beginning with its official statement declaring allegiance to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network in October 2004, the group identifies itself as Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) ("Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers").[4]
Foreign fighters were widely thought to play a key role in the decentralized network,[5]

Attacking the United States clearly remains on bin Laden's agenda. But the likelihood that such an attack would be launched from Iraq, many experts contend, has sharply diminished over the past year as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has undergone dramatic changes. Once believed to include thousands of "foreign fighters," it is now an overwhelmingly Iraqi organization whose aims are likely to remain focused on the struggle against the Shiite majority in Iraq, U.S. intelligence officials said.

AMMAN, JORDAN – The connection between Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was cemented with Mr. bin Laden's latest taped statement on Tuesday, in which he praised the Jordanian militant and said anyone who participates in Iraq's Jan. 30 election will be considered an infidel and fair game for attack.
When Mr. Zarqawi's terrorist movement emerged in Iraq more than a year ago, intelligence analysts saw it as separate from Al Qaeda, with more ferocious rhetoric than the better-known terror group and a willingness to kill large numbers of Muslim civilians.
But now, the US and its allies face a grave and growing threat: an alliance of mutual interests and convenience between the group that carried out the 9/11 attacks in the United States and the one that has contributed so much to Iraq's chaos.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1230/p01s03-woiq.html


Hers is some proof
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Well done Jim. By definition the insurgency did not begin until after the invasion of Iraq. Al-Zarqawi is not Iraqi, he is an Afghanistani terrorist who moved his organisation into Iraq wholesale in the confusion caused by the US invasion.
All you have managed to prove is that there are now significantly more, and more active, terrorists in Iraq now than there were before Bush Jr. attacked. Because George W, in typical ignorant conservative fashion, shot first and asked questions later.

BTW all your links are broken except the last one.
 

DeletedUser

Jim, what I said to black penny applies to you as well. Indicate the source of your information, do not cut and paste without providing attribution, or I will deem it plagiarism. And yes, cutting and pasting from Wikipedia, without attributing, is still plagiarism.

Btw, had you bothered to read the entire article in Wikipedia, which you plagiarized from, you may have bumped into the part where it indicates there was no love between terrorist organizations and Saddam; that they were, in fact, at great odds and that there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. But, of course, I'm sure reading the whole thing would have been too much work for you, right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

It's always been my experience that when engaged in a debate, and the opposition resorts to name calling and belittlement, they do this because their arguement is weak!
 

DeletedUser

Looks like you're not very experienced then. Nobody called you names, although belittling likely occurred. I called your statements a bunch of ignorant drivel, which they were. I then followed that by providing pretty damn good arguments in support of my statements. If the best rebuttal you can provide is to claim victimization, then kindly refrain from whining, because your now-comment is rather hypocritical. The last comment you made in the post I responded to was a backhand of, a belittlement to, anyone who voted for Obama.

Now, if you can provide evidence to substantiate your earlier claims, while still staying on topic (determining blame for war in Afghanistan), by all means bring it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top