Quote:
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 19 2004, 02:15 PM
Mike, I was complaining about inadequate "boots on the ground" in Afghainstan before we went into Iraq. This "war on the cheap" policy could very well bit us in the ass before we are done, particularly if you get your way and we take on Iran, Syria, Canada and France in the next four years.
I don't dispute that Alex seems to take a certain glee at the problems Bush encounters (or, in this case, creates for himself) ... but you are every bit his equal in glossing over or outright denying mistakes or failures that Bush makes.
|
What would the benefit of having 500,000 troops in Afganistan bring? Cutting down on drugs??
OUr boots on the ground need to be directed at placed that are direct threats. Iraq, Iran, Syrian, N. Korea.
Should we start invading countries because they grow drugs??
This is absurd. It is all about prioritizing. I would say rouge Nations developing nuclear weapons is a higher priority then eradicating poppy in Afganistan.
How successful were the British, Russians, and others who tried massive "boots on the ground" campaigns?
Afganistan is a clear victory for the US. I know its hard for self loathing liberals who want their country to fail to understand this. But we achieved out goals, and have pretty much bunked out. After all we are NOT the World's police!