yeah , and then it's why did it go wrong?

ahhh, because somebody had ADHD, forgot about the real target, and went after Sideshow Hussain

and in the end , you got 2 fronts, both running unfavourably

can you say

http://www.youthink.com/quiz_images/...22outcome5.jpg
TIMMAAAAAAYYE

So, more troops and a larger US footprint would clear up the problems in Afganistan?

This Democrat talking point propogated far and wide yesterday. I was watching the Jon Stewart show last night and he featured this exact graphic, exact presentation, and even exact title "Americans Can't Handle the Truth".

But I wonder what the point is? I thought Democrats supported the operation in Afghanistan. Or is it just amusing to poke fun at unsophisticated Americans who are apparently more interested in Annie Liebowitz than yet another story about how bad things are going over there?

well , bungling a job, and then having to do it over again usually takes more effort then doing it right form the start

so your question is definately not so simple to answer

1. Bring just enough troops to hold the main city for the new govenment and to guard the new president.

2. Bring just enough troops to chase the Taliban into the hills.

3. Not enough troops to regulate the War Lords so they start growing opium because the Taliban is on the run.

4. Not enough troops to catch Osama Bin Laden, so we have to depend on the French and others (Canada) to help out. Not everyone there is under our command, results are mixed.

5. Resurgence of the Taliban, Osama bin Laden still not captured, Pakistan (our buddies) giving shelter to our enemies. Country out of control, terrorism soon strikes the city centers.

Great plan:rolleyes:

Oh come on Kach, next you're gonna say that our plan for securing Iraq is fuched up.

the latest neocon excuse for the rumble in the desert is that they're just a bit edgy this month because of Ramadan
they'll snap out of it once they get to eat again

Try to find one that doesn't think so. It was very clear at the time that Afghanistan was the main shelter for Jihadists. Unfortunately, we've subsequently found out that Pakistan isn't far behind, and that most of the money seems to come from Saudi Arabia, and that Radical Islam has strong pockets of support in about 60 countries.

So the job is going to be generations long. And mostly a matter of police tactics rather than military.

I think many of us "liberals" are concerned that the price for abandoning Afghanistan has been too high. The Karzai government has cut deals with the warlords and opium production is at record levels -- I've heard 130% of US demand. And the Taliban is growing in power again all over the country.

The concern "we" have is that Afghanistan is slipping away and may already be nearly the Jihadist sanctuary it was in '01.

Do you really still hang on to the idea that somehow the Dems were AGAINST Afghanistan?

Wow. THAT is really trying to cloud the issue.

Interesting that the US has, in reverse, fallen into the "two front war" syndrome, the difference being that we are on two fronts with a potential enemy BETWEEN the fronts.....

Back when I was an engineer, a fellow worker had the following sign over his desk:

"If you haven't the time and resources to do it right in the first place, how are you going to find the time and resources to do it over again?"

Finish one job completely before starting another. Sound advice.

I stated exactly the opposite. Why do I bother posting, maybe I need a break.

you do, because you did state the exact opposite
but in an attempt to discredit the libs with it

trying to make it sound like it was their fault for Afghanistan beein a debacle, because they stood behind it

casually leaving out that it's not because of going into Afhganistan that it went south, but because of going into Iraq, stirring up a hornest nest there, and diverting resources to the sideshow instead of sorting out the main attraction... all that, based on the false pretense of WMD's and other flawed, biased and downright crappy Intel.

Mission Acomplished? i think not
Bush was feeling uppity that day on the flight deck , while his command was and still is causing more US bodybags, then 9/11, the reason he used for the mission that was so called accomplished, and he did all of it with his croonies, from the safety of his White House..

Hey Stijn,
Afghanistan is primarily a UN and NATO mission. You ought to petition your government to send more Dutch troops.

Wow, my one sentence said all that to you? Interesting.......completely and utterly incorrect.....but interesting.

Rearden

A , i'm not Dutch
B , my gouvernement was not one of those nations getting sucked into your mess, and i'm definately not going to petition to get Belgium in it now.
C ,primarily a NATO UN mission , well , not at the time you boys went inthere, the US called in the NATO and UN to do the mop up on a job that wasn't finished in the first place, and did it so you could divert more troops to the sideshow

Oh, Belgium. Nevermind.

well, since you're not a Democrat, and since Republicans never say anything with "democrats said this " in a way to defend any democrat message, and that you republicans have a habbit of basically using anything out of context whenver you can, i figured it just made sense

i mean , beeing a republican , surely you didn't mean it in a way to give any credit to the democrats , now did you?

that would be against the party manual , handed out by your Junta.


that's exactly what Belgium said when we heard the call for arms to hit Iraq
"Iraq?Nevermind..."

and rightiously so.

len

Relax. Sometimes it is difficult to phrase something that does NOT have a double meaning.

In truth, one has to consider the following:

Those who supply information to the administration work for the administration. Therefore, they have a vested interest in following the directives of the administration, if they wish to remain employed. The information supplied to the public and to the Congress may be the result of massaging. So, when the administration says "Congress had the same information we had", this could be taken a number of ways. The information could be pure and unbiased or it could be cherry picked. This can be true for any administration. So, who are we to believe? Can we believe the White House without fail? Can we believe the spokespeople of the FBI or CIA? Can we believe members of Congress carte blanche? Can we even believe information supplied by "allies"? Call me cynical, but I cannot trust ANY of the above to provide me with the full truth, and therefore have to glean what I can from all possible sources and sadly fill in the very huge blanks as logically as I can.

Sort of. Those at the top change with a new administration. But don't forget that the overwhelming majority of employees in the intelligence agencies, defense department, state department, etc remain the same regardless of who is at the top.

I brought it up in refrence to the story not being published to protect the administration. If that were the case Iraq would also be a taboo subject and we know it's not. The failure (if there is one ) in Afganistan would be shared by the Dems................hence the story gets buried.

Certainly just a theory, but much more likely than Newsweek protecting Bush.

hmmm, so you're saying the dems are to blame for the coverup
ok , i stand corrected, that's a republican angle i didn't see coming
*Timmy*