Daiwa

The objective of going into Afghanistan was to stop al Qaeda from operating and preparing future attacks like 9/11. We have not accomplished that objective and our military leaders in Afghanistan say to accomplish the mission they will need more troops. We have sought more troops from NATO with little success. We need to get out of the Civil War in Iraq and send the needed forces to complete the mission in Afghanistan!

Our mission in Iraq should be to eliminate al Qaeda in Iraq, secure the borders of Iraq, train Iraqi military and police, provide logistical support to the Iraqi Army and prevent the Civil War in Iraq from going into other countries. We should NOT continue fighting in the civil war between the various factions in Iraq. That fight is up to the Iraqi Army and police! It is up to the government to make the political accommodations that will end the cause of the sectarian fighting.

Please tell me what attacks has AQ made in the US since Sept 2001? Sounds like AQ has been stopped from future attacks. Thanks for pointing out the success in Afghanistan!

Paladin 77

According to Bush they have made several attempts to attack the U.S. since 9/11. We have improved our defense but the fact remains that al Qaeda is still planning and attempting those attacks. We have not destroyed their ability to plan attacks. We have improved our ability to thwart them. The problem is that we must be successful EVERY time. All they need to do is be successful one time to give us another 9/11.

That is not something you are going to do overnight, nor in a few years time.  Destroying al-quaeda will take decades at least and it will take resolve, something in which will go away if a democrat is elected President.




Your probelm is you don't recognize success.  Do you know how many al-quaeda we have killed or captured?  Do you know all the successes we have had in the war on terror?  I doubt you do, because you get your "news" from the dailykos and the NYT.

I have shown repeatedly the successes in Afghanistan and every single time you ignore the post.  Why is that col?  I seriously believe that you cannot handle any news that somehow doesn't blame Bush for something. 

Island Dog

OUR intelligence agencies have said the Iraq war has made us less safe BY CREATING MORE ENEMIES LIKE THE ONES THAT ATTACKED US ON 9/11. How is that making us safer?

Paladin 77 According to Bush they have made several attempts to attack the U.S. since 9/11. We have improved our defense but the fact remains that al Qaeda is still planning and attempting those attacks. We have not destroyed their ability to plan attacks. We have improved our ability to thwart them. The problem is that we must be successful EVERY time. All they need to do is be successful one time to give us another 9/11.

Give it a rest col. Attemps are NOT sucessful are they? Otherwise they would be called attacks and not attemps. Secondly there is NO WAY to stop them from planning. All it takes is ONE person to devise a plan. Not unless we kill EACH & EVERY ONE of them. Is that what you want. You think the US has a bad rep now, just think what it would be after such a killing spree.

Island Dog OUR intelligence agencies have said the Iraq war has made us less safe BY CREATING MORE ENEMIES LIKE THE ONES THAT ATTACKED US ON 9/11. How is that making us safer?

PURE OPINION! It's not based in fact. It's based on what they "assume" is/is going to happen. And you know what happens when you "assume" something.

Because they are focused on attacking us in Iraq and in Afghanistan.  Fighting terrorism no matter if it's in Iraq, Iran, Syria, or Afghanistan will make people "mad" and create more enemies in the short term.  That's what happens when you are fighting a war against an extremist religion.

Using capital letters doesn' make your post any different col.  Islamists already attacked the WTC in '93, various embassy bombings, Sept. 11, way before Bush made our enemies "mad at us", so your point is well......pointless. 

As an "outsider" I join the debate just to ask a few questions:

* All countries get emotional about their troops being in the firing line. Should we not be divorcing Bush from this emotionality?
* By divorcing Bush we can support our men who are fighting a dirty war right now. Then we can ask: Does Bush have the right to send those men into a "no win" situation?
* If you think he has the right (forget about him being CIC), then you should ask yourself whether he knows that more informed people than he (yes, there are some---some on the ground in Iraq),who seem to think that the Civil War is escalating and the war in Afghanistan is escalating and that the Vietnam scenario is repeating itself i.e. "keep pouring more tea, we'll saturate it with more sugar---we have more sugar than you have tea." Do you avoid this scenario?

* No one has stated that these two wars are a "win-win" situation. Why not?

I'm just asking you to divorce one feeling from another and look at your answer.

drmiler

One sure way to make attacks more likely is to increase the number of people who want to attack us. That is what we have accomplished by invading Iraq. That is what our Intelligence agencies have concluded. 9/11 would have been an attempt if we had acted to stop it. This opinion is that of the 16 Intelligence agencies for which we spend Billions to get that advice. I will take their opinion over you and anyone else on this Blog site!

Islanddog

They were not in Iraq to attack us or anyone else before we invaded Iraq and allowed them to enter the country and set up shop. GOOD WORK Little George!

Bush said we invaded Iraq to depose Saddam and allow the Iraqi people to form their own government. That was done a long time ago. It is time for us to leave. We did what Congress authorized Bush to do and now we must get out!

Col, this is where you need to start reading posts other than yours.  We have shown how terrorists, inclduing al-aqeada were in Iraq and sought refuge from Afghanistan in Iraq. 

Please explain how AQ had a high of 100,000 people before 9/11 and today they claim to have fewer than 80,000 people. Six years and 20,000 less people than they claimed to have had means that we are killing them as fast or faster then they are recruiting.

OOPS

drmiler One sure way to make attacks more likely is to increase the number of people who want to attack us. That is what we have accomplished by invading Iraq. That is what our Intelligence agencies have concluded. 9/11 would have been an attempt if we had acted to stop it. This opinion is that of the 16 Intelligence agencies for which we spend Billions to get that advice. I will take their opinion over you and anyone else on this Blog site!

I "personally" don't care whose you take! Thing is, IT'S STILL AN OPINION!