Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For starters even if the troop request was given the thumbs up from the start it would have taken awhile to get them there. Secondly, taking time to make a decision and actually PLANNING and coming up with a STRATEGY is a good thing. I know to some people that might be a foreign concept, but if we actually engaged in those two things seven years ago we would likely be in much better position than we currently are.
If we would have waited 7 years ago to go after these terrorist, we might have had another 9/11 or WORSE. Is that what you people want?
I guess it'll take New York, LA, Chicago & Houston to be nuclear wastelands for y'all to realize, "gee there must be a problem, maybe we should do something, only after we get our pictures taken though".
Personally I think we should have started in Afghanistan, but we didn't. That being said, the ONLY WAY we can possibly win over there is to go full scale on ALL OF THEM (Syria, Pakistan, Afghan, and any other harboring nation).......and 30K troops ain't gonna do it, I doubt 100K would do the trick. While were at it, we need to get rid of the domestic terrorist here as well.
The longer Obama waits, the longer this is gonna take. I actually think that is apart of his "master plan" though......to slowly get us into this to the point where we can't get out.
The Taliban supported Al Qaeda, Saddam did not.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXTwizter
If we would have waited 7 years ago to go after these terrorist, we might have had another 9/11 or WORSE. Is that what you people want?
I guess it'll take New York, LA, Chicago & Houston to be nuclear wastelands for y'all to realize, "gee there must be a problem, maybe we should do something, only after we get our pictures taken though".
Personally I think we should have started in Afghanistan, but we didn't. That being said, the ONLY WAY we can possibly win over there is to go full scale on ALL OF THEM (Syria, Pakistan, Afghan, and any other harboring nation).......and 30K troops ain't gonna do it, I doubt 100K would do the trick. While were at it, we need to get rid of the domestic terrorist here as well.
The longer Obama waits, the longer this is gonna take. I actually think that is apart of his "master plan" though......to slowly get us into this to the point where we can't get out.
The U.S. can weaken Al-Qaeda, but its almost impossible to get rid of the Taliban.
Uh hello, the Iraqi government was harboring terrorist as well.....shoot ole Saddam was the King of Terrorist.....right behind Arafat. Anyone that has thousands upon thousands of their OWN citizens MURDERED is a terrorist that must be stopped.
Pakistan is ALSO harboring terrorist as well.
If we would have waited 7 years ago to go after these terrorist, we might have had another 9/11 or WORSE. Is that what you people want?
These are the same people who will tell you that Saddam never had talks with the Taliban, and that they were starch enemies, and it seems that these same people have done absolutely no reading whatsoever on the facts.
No, what they wanted was for Bush to do what Clinton did, just order some missles to go into a country and destroy a camp or two, and pretend this did something to make the terrorists rethink their hate for us. They dont want americans dying, but they would have in a minute jumped up and down and proclaimed that Bush didnt do enough to stop future attacks after we got attacked again..
If we would have waited 7 years ago to go after these terrorist, we might have had another 9/11 or WORSE. Is that what you people want?
I guess it'll take New York, LA, Chicago & Houston to be nuclear wastelands for y'all to realize, "gee there must be a problem, maybe we should do something, only after we get our pictures taken though".
Personally I think we should have started in Afghanistan, but we didn't. That being said, the ONLY WAY we can possibly win over there is to go full scale on ALL OF THEM (Syria, Pakistan, Afghan, and any other harboring nation).......and 30K troops ain't gonna do it, I doubt 100K would do the trick. While were at it, we need to get rid of the domestic terrorist here as well.
The longer Obama waits, the longer this is gonna take. I actually think that is apart of his "master plan" though......to slowly get us into this to the point where we can't get out.
I was in agreement in going into Afghanistan. I do, however think the lack of planning hurt us I also think going into Iraq costs us VERY BADLY in Afghanistan. If we did not make that monumental mistake we would likely be in much better position than we currently are. Instead of focusing on those who attacked us, and those who remained our biggest threats we took our eyes off the ball to focus elsewhere and it was a horrific decision.
If we would have waited 7 years ago to go after these terrorist, we might have had another 9/11 or WORSE. Is that what you people want?
I guess it'll take New York, LA, Chicago & Houston to be nuclear wastelands for y'all to realize, "gee there must be a problem, maybe we should do something, only after we get our pictures taken though".
Personally I think we should have started in Afghanistan, but we didn't. That being said, the ONLY WAY we can possibly win over there is to go full scale on ALL OF THEM (Syria, Pakistan, Afghan, and any other harboring nation).......and 30K troops ain't gonna do it, I doubt 100K would do the trick. While were at it, we need to get rid of the domestic terrorist here as well.
The longer Obama waits, the longer this is gonna take. I actually think that is apart of his "master plan" though......to slowly get us into this to the point where we can't get out.
wow we would need some serious backup from other allies to commit alot more troops and nato will not support that
These are the same people who will tell you that Saddam never had talks with the Taliban, and that they were starch enemies, and it seems that these same people have done absolutely no reading whatsoever on the facts.
No, what they wanted was for Bush to do what Clinton did, just order some missles to go into a country and destroy a camp or two, and pretend this did something to make the terrorists rethink their hate for us. They dont want americans dying, but they would have in a minute jumped up and down and proclaimed that Bush didnt do enough to stop future attacks after we got attacked again..
That is because well he didn't...
We needed to finish the job in Afghanistan FIRST instead we put Afghanistan on the back burner. We put those who were our biggest threats, those who attacked us in order to go after someone who yes was evil, but wasn't a threat, nor did he attack us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
