Peggy is shrill.
 

one good thing about once we are an Islamic republic is that fat girls running on tracks will have to wear burkas!

Peggy is shrill.
 

doesn't the sha'ria ban female sweat?

an aside, when the sons of muhammed set up a ruling islamic council on our shores and call the donkeys to answer for their infidelity, do you think any of them will defend the principles of freedom of our once great nation or will they all just capitulate to islam in the same manner as they act the yellow appeasers and apologists for the world's terror regimes today?

Peggy is shrill.
 

Bummer that she apologized. I love that she bitch slapped that overpaid whiny rentacop.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

I don't understand the logic behind thinking we should have invaded Afghanistan but should have know better than to invade Iraq.

If the argument is that one attacked us and the other one didn't, that line of reasoning doesn't make sense to me because wouldn't we have we been better off invading Afghanistan before 9/11? Wasn't the problem with Afghanistan is that we waited to long to invade? In addition, hadn't shot at our airplanes in violation of the treaty, broke other provisions of the treaty and attempted to assassinate a former president (are those not acts of war).

The argument that Iraq did not have ties with Al Queda doesn't seem to make sense to me either. Why is Al Queda the only terrorist group that justifies invasion? There was a time when Al Queda did not seem like a bid deal, wasn't the mistake in waiting until it was a big deal? Why does Al Queda have to be the only terrorist group that could use Iraq as a base of operations? Why couldn't another group use Iraq as a sponsor, just like Al Queda used Afghanistan as a sponsor?

Al Queda, using a much less sophisticated country than Iraq as a sponsor, was able to hit the United States hard. Wasn't it logical to assume that another terrorist group or maybe even Al Queda could eventually use Iraq as its sponsor for an attack on the US that would prove much more devastating? Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, would be able to be a much better sponsor to a terrorist group being much richer and having a much more sophisticated population and infrastructure - plus having much more experience with WMDs than the Taliban.

If a terrorist group sponsored by Afghanistan could take out the twin towers, just think what a terrorist group could have done with the help of Saddam Hussein and all his scientists who had experience with WMDs? What if Al Queda and Iraq had hooked up?

Afghanistan was potentially much a bigger problem for invasion and occupation than Iraq. We had fought Iraq before and knew we could beat them. Afghanistan was a complete unknown, and they had fought off the Russians. Plus we had no bases near Afghanistan where we had bases right next to Iraq.

Afghanistan is a tribal warlike country that had never been successfully occupied. The British had occupied Iraq. Afghanistan has just as many fractional and tribal problems as Iraq. From an historical perspective it would seem that we could have been much more assured of being able to occupy Iraq than Afghanistan.

The argument of, well if we went into Iraq, why didn't we choose North Korea or Iran doesn't make much sense to me. Why didn't we invade these countrys before Afghanistan? They have the potential of making WMDs where Afghanistan was never even in the running. So they could potentially hit us harder than a second hit from Afghanistan.

In addition, we can't invade North Korea without losing Seoul, which is an unacceptable loss. Iran seems to be destined to become more moderate because of the sentiments and sophistication of its populace. In addition, we did not have the experience of, or that easy ability to invade Iran like we did with Iraq. Also, Iran seemed less likely to launch a terrorist attack on the US. If they hit the twin towers they would know the US would retaliate. Saddam Hussein showed that he did not fear US retaliation because he tried to murder one of our presidents. I can't imagine Iran being that stupid.

WMDs? Afghanistan didn't have any WMDs and we knew that going in.

So why are so many people taking the position that at the time it was the obvious right thing to do to invade and occupy Afghanistan but at the time it was clearly the wrong decision to invade Iraq.

Liberals argue that Bush decision to invade Afghanistan was clearly justified, but invading Iraq was clearly not justified and Bush must have had some nefarious purpose in doing so.

Does someone want to explain to me why going into Afghanistan was a no brainer, but going into Iraq was clearly misguided and stupid?

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

And yet, for 12 years, despite having their ass handed to them by the United States, this didn't happen.

Afganastan was serving as a base for terrorsts who had already successfully attacked us, and were threatening to immediately attack us again. Iraq could have been a base of operations for attacks by another organization that may or may not have existed. Yes. I can see how those two things are exactly the same. You've convinced me, Spanky.

Also, your argument that we were justified invading Iraq because there were other countries that were a bigger threat than Afganistan? Priceless.

ETA: I'm going to assert to you, Spanky, although you clearly disbelieve it is possible, that many, many people believe that one is more justified in invading a country after it has actually attacked you than one which has the capacity and perhaps the desire to attack you. There's a fair amount of propaganda to this effect out there: it's why we were the good guys in Gulf War I. In Korea. In WWII. And WWI. And the Spanish American War. And the Civil War. The Israilis and Palestinians each continuously try to take the high ground as to who provoked whom. And sympathies with the two sides there have a lot to do with how far back one's memory goes.

Like it or not, there's a lot of emphasis in the world on "who started it." It's pretty clear (but not crystal) we didn't "start it" with Afghanistan. It's much harder to argue the same with a straight face about Iraq.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

there is no logic to it, other than the logic of hating your country at the expense of its security. this is exactly why the infantile donkeys cannot be trusted with the reigns of power. if we learned no other lesson from the donkey regime of the 90s, the fact that their hatred of the military and intelligence agencies culminated in 911 should be lesson enough.

911: never forget, never forgive, never again!

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

If you accept those coulds/mays then invading Iraq was a good idea. The point is/was to not wait until the Sear's Tower goes down, but to be proactive. I'm not saying the coulds/mays were actually coulds/mays, but if you can accept them as real, then 70% of america would support invading.




Wow. You need to get help.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

I don't disagree with that analysis (although I might not agree with the ultimate decision). But they aren't the same.

Meh. I'm just saying that the work of al Queda isn't a state act. I think it's clear enough. But it's not Pearl Harbour, crystal clear. The world doesn't always make crystal, though. This was more like glassware from IKEA clear.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

One was a threat to us. The other was not.


One was a threat to us. The other was not. We can and did deal with shooting at planes by, for example, bombing radar installations. We did not need a full-scale invasion and a now 3-year occupation. (Yes, I know -- in neo-con fantasy-land the invasion would only take 35 troops and the occupation would only last four hours, followed by two days of cleaning up all the flowers and sweets. But I'm talking about reality here.)


By this logic, there is no country on earth that we should not invade.

The threat posed by al Qaeda was a threat of radical, fundamentalist Islam. There are many groups of that ilk, and they set up shop in many countries -- Indonesia, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, and innumerable others. We do not, should not, and cannot invade all of these countries. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein, though evil, a dictator, and an enemy of the US, was not a friend of radical, fundamentalist Islam. In contrast, the Taliban was al Qaeda's ideal.

And now, we have a choice between near permanent occupation, and leaving Iraq as hospitable to al Qaeda as Afghanistan was.


Once again, this logic would justify an invasion of virtually any country in the world.

And yet, despite at least a decade of purest hatred for the US, they never did so. Why is that? Why was an invasion necessary to protect the US in 2003, but not in 1996? (And before you sputter "Clinton... appeaser" identify the Rs who called for an invasion and occupation of Iraq in 1996. I don't remember that as a plank in Dole's platform.)


Despite all of Bush's efforts to tie the two together, the fact remains that they hated each other and there was virtually no chance of this.



At this point, you just get too silly to respond to.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

So the only difference was Afghanistan had been successful and Iraq hadn't. So why wait until Iraq was successful? Why not hit them before they were successful?

You use the word "Justified". I was not talking about if we were "justified", I was talking about what was prudent from a national security perspective. You go after the country that is the bigger threat from a national security perspective. The point here is to save U.S. citizens lives not to please the international community. Is it not?


"Who started it" has become an obsolete concept in the age of terrorism and WMDs. We can't let them get in the first blow because in the first blow we could lose Chicago, or even worse Vegas.

Not that it mattered, but again, Iraq had started it. If breaking a treaty to end a war, and trying to assisinate the former of head of your state is not justification enough, I don't know what is.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

i believe this was Penske's rationale for bombing France.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Because that's not the way we do things.

We don't arrest people for being inclined to commit robbery. We arest them when they commit robbery. Or attempt it. Really attempt it. Not just talk about it.


I want you to think for a second about what you are saying. It was justified/good/okay/prudent to invade Iraq because other countries (not Iraq) pose a greater danger than Afganistan.

This is not a debate on the wisdom of the premptive strike. This is stupid.

You aren't going to convince me or anybody similarly inclined this way.

For you, security is paramount. For me, I have higher ideals.

It's ironic that you are the one who defends moral absolutism.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Just because Iraq hadn't been successful doesn't mean it couldn't be successful in the future. And if we could abolustely gurantee Iraq not hitting us by other means, why couldn't we deal with Afghanistan the same way. Couldn't we have dealt with Afghanistan without having to invade it and occupy it?

I don't think that is true with the criteria I laid out. First, you need a regime that is bent on US destruction and willing to help those who would like to take us out. In those other countrys we have friendly regimes that are trying to help. The most dangerous regimes are ones that are doing everything they can to hurt us. Those types of regimes are relatively few.

Regimes that could fit into the catagory as who are bent on our destruction are: North Korea, Syria, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq and maybe Sudan.

When you look at that list Iraq doesn't seem such a bad idea. It was clearly the low hanging fruit because we had beat them before and had bases nearby with which to invade. I explained the problems with the other countries.


I don't care where the threat comes from. A fundamentalist attack or another kind of terrorist attack is just the same to the American citizen that died. If Al Queda had cooperated with Iraq 9-11 would have probably been much worse. Why wait for you enemies to get together.

We may also be looking at a permanent occupatoin of Afghanistan. From that perspective the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq were no different. Both invasion included an occupation of a divided and violent nation. Afghanistan even more so.






Because after 9-11 it became clear that we could not wait to let them be successful before we attacked. We have to hit first if we don't want to lose another set of twin towers.



That may be true but that wasn't my point. The point was a backward and underdeveloped country having a government with little money, no sophistication and no access to advanced technology was able to sponsor a terrorist group that pulled off 9-11. Just think what could have happened if such a group and Iraq had gotten together (any group - Hamas, etc). Afghanistan taught us that you just can't wait for a regime that has it in for you to get in the first blow.




Why is it such a silly point? All the arguments used saying we should not have gone into Iraq - it is a divided nation, it would be a long occupation, etc. go doubly for Afghanistan. We knew we would be successful against Iraq, Afghanistan was a much bigger risk.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Didn't you learn anything from Black Hawk Down?

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

because they were not "capable."

because they were not working with the people who actually were capable, and were threatening us.

because removing a dictator who could not mount an effective threat was not worth 3000 American soldiers, $400 billion, loss of credibility and influence, creating the best al Qaeda recruiting drive imaginable, and loss of military capacity to deal with actual threats (such as Iran, or al Qaeda itself).



The point is always to further the national interest. But effective cooperation from other countries is part of that, is it not? (If not, then please explain why countries bother to seek alliances in the first place.)

From a national security perspective, we are in a worse position than we were, or could have been, without the occupation. And at massive cost.

And, of course, the misleading focus on non-existent WMDs and non-existent ties to al Qaeda (and non-existent flowers and sweets) prevented any clear-eyed analysis of these tradeoffs in advance. What you offer now is post-hoc justification, because the pre-hoc ones were a load of crap.



I agree with this. This is not a playground. Preemptive strikes are a valid option. They just should be aimed sensibly.



You are right again -- it didn't matter. "Who started it" is a stupid concept, as you pointed out at first. Attempting to justify the invasion of Iraq in accordance with that concept, however, is no less stupid.

If Laurent Kabila had tried to assassinate the president through a voodoo ritual, that would not have justified invading and attempting to occupy Congo. Or, much more importantly, it may have "justified" it -- but it would not have made it worth the cost.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

We have a constitution in this country. We also have a government and various organization that enforce the law. If we lived in a lawless land with no government and your neighbor bought weapons, and said they were going to kill your family wouldn't the prudent thing to kill them before they took out one of your children.

Until there is an international organization that effectively enforces a just and reasonable international law, the defense of our citizens falls onto us.


I have thought about it a lot and many people hold this position, not just me. Did you miss the whole post 9-11 reassessment of the rules of engagament. I remember watching Al Franken (who supported the invasion at the time) saying that in a post 9-11 world we can't wait to be hit first. And it is not that these countrys just pose a greater danger, they have not only said they want to destroy the US, but they have taken affirmative steps in that direction.



Arrogance and ignorance: again you demonstrate why they are such an annoying combination.


The problem is that your morality is not well thought out and that leads you to absurd conclusions. We are not talking about invading switzerland. The regimes I have listed already are opressive, abuse their people, are not democratic, keep their people poor plus they have it in for the US. You support an international system that protects such regimes. I have trouble in seeing the morality in that.

The US consitution gurantees a Republican and Democratic regime in all its members. The moral international law you defend protects all regimes, no matter how heinous, as long as they are "recognized".

The Taliban and Saddam Hussein were heinous rulers who abused their people. From a moral perspective taking them out was a good thing for their people.

Keeping murderous thugs in power may be prudent from a national security perspective, but its pathetic to try and defend their existence from a morality perspective.

From my perspective, not attacking until you have been attacked first, in the international arean, can be and often is an immoral position. If you have the ability to stop genocide, I believe it is a moral imperative stop the genocide, regardless if the country perpetuating the genocide has attacked you.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Actually that is on my list of movies to see.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

2. Don't leave Dems in charge.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Aren't these "Post Hoc" because we couldn't know this:


My point was that the Pre-hoc view of invading Iraq and Afghanistan were pretty much looking the same. In fact an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was looking a lot more dicey.




Countrys most often get into alliances because many are stronger than one. Sometimes you need help to get the job done. In this case we didn't need anyone else's help. It is nice if we can get help from other countrys to further our national interest but it is not a prerequisite.


The Taliban had no WMDs

For some of us, the fact that they could ever get together was enough.

Can't argue with that.


I was just pointing out that under the "Who started it way of thinking" there was justification. But "who started it" is a stupid argument to get into anyway.

That is true. But if Lawrence Kabala today tried to rig a stage in South African when Clinton was visiting to blow up, but failed, that would be a whole different scenario. Some sort of reaction would be in order. I don't think we could tolerate him staying in power. One way or another we would have to get rid of him. Especially if he kept up his campaign.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Big screen and surround sound are musts.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

I will leave off the rest, as I've already addressed it, and only talk about this.

Calling Saddam and the Taliban evil is a no-brainer. Saying that their removal benefits their people is easy, but not quite as easy, because you then need to consider what comes next. The result in Afganistan certainly has been much better -- though I would argue that one cost of the Iraq invasion is that we have lost an opportunity to dramatically improve the lives of the Afghan people, which I believe would have been of great benefit to US security.

In Iraq, the question is harder, and still unanswered (the question of "are the Iraqis better off," not "was it worth it for US security"). Murderous, genocidal dictator gone. Replaced by..... It's still unclear. People vote, people get blown up. Civil war seems to approach, some say it's already here. If US forces leave, what happens next? Will US forces always be there?

And I will leave out all the "trains run on time" kind of stuff (things like oil production, electricity, clean water, etc), except to point out that Reagan and others used just that sort of justification to justify support of murderous, and even genocidal, dictatorial regimes in South Africa, Zaire, the Philippines, and a host of other countries (none of which were threatened by pro-Soviet, Communist insurgencies, which was the other rationale).

As an example of what I mean: I rejoiced the day that Mobutu left power. He was the worst sort of dictator. And yet -- was Zaire better off under him, or under Kabila? This may be impossible to say. Which is better: A dictator who tortures and slaughters his enemies and robs the country blind, or a never-ending civil war?

I agree that keeping murderous thugs in power cannot be justified in any moral way. The question is whether, from a national security perspective, it is beneficial to the US to go to war, largely unilaterally, to enforce moral positions. I think that it is very rarely a good idea, from a national security perspective, to do so. Where it may be a good idea, the question of scale intervenes -- it is one thing to support, even with troops, an independence movement. It is a very different thing to invade and occupy for an indefinite number of years. (Again -- the neo-cons who "planned" this refused to confront the clear problems that might cause a multi-year occupation, so all of the neo-con rationale now seems post-hoc.)

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Bullshit. The neo-cons and the Admin refused to even think about it, but that does not mean that a realistic assessment of what an occupation would require was impossible. Shinseki, for example, called for several hundred thousand troops.



We didn't need any help to get the job done?

Then why is it not even close to done?

And your suggestion that they looked the same from a justification perspective is even more ridiculous. One had attacked us, and was continuing to harbor the people who wanted to continue attacking us. The other couldn't harm us at all. Yes, they wanted to kill the president -- but do you really believe that all of this was worth it to protect the president from an assassination attempt by Iraq?




For some of us, 12 years of them not doing so, and hating each other, etc. was enough to suggest that maybe we had better targets out there. Like, say, bin Laden.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

I agree with this generally, although when it comes to evil regimes, if you take it out, an evil regime may takes its place, but a chance that a better one will come along, even if it is small, in my opinion, is worth the risk.

Reasonable minds can disagree on this, but it is pretty hard for me to imagine a situation developing in Iraq that I would label worse than Saddam Hussein.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Why is this always an either/or? Is there any argument that more troops in Afghanistan would have made, or would make, a difference. i thought the issue with OBL is that he is likely in a part of Pakistan where we cannot go.

your way there'd be 200k more US troops in afghanistan who couldn't cross the border. how would that help catch him?

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

I don't disagree that we should have gone in with more troops. Shinski was right, and his argument was very valid when he made it. We should have invaded with more troops, but that does not address the issue of what made Afghanistan different from Iraq.

It turned out OK, but I think it would have been prudent to enter Afghanistan with more troops.

The other strategy screw up was not to use the insurgents in Iraq like we used them in Afghanistan. We should have fomented rebellion, or at least organized small Iraqi unit of soldiers and let them be in the front when we entered cities.




Do you think a couple of battalians of foreign troops would have really made a difference at this point.


I don't see this as ridiculous. This government, unlike the Taliban, had developed and used WMD's in the past. And I know that many people think that our intelligence services are ominscient or at least should be omniscient, but there was no way we could know that they didn't have any more WMDs. Now that Al Queda had demostrated they could get into the US, we just couldn't take the risk of either Al Queda or some other terrorist group hooking up with Saddam and pulling off an even worse 9-11.

Here we go again........
 

FLORIDA: HARRIS CAMPAIGN GETS EVEN MORE BIZARRE.
Former defense contractor Mitchell Wade -- who already pled guilty to bribing Congressman Duke Cunningham (R-CA) -- picked up the $2,800 tab for a dinner he had with Congresswoman Katherine Harris (R) at an exclusive DC restaurant last year. The value of the unreported dinner far exceeded the $50 congressional gift limits, and was intended to get Harris to help Wade land a $10 million contract. So, who spilled the beans about this to the Orlando Sentinel? The answer: veteran GOP political strategist Ed Rollins, who had worked on Harris' campaign until he and the rest of the staff quit two weeks ago. "Rollins said he and Harris discussed the meal and its cost early this year after Wade" pled guilty to corruption charges, reported the newspaper. The price of the dinner was "news to me," Harris told the newspaper. She also said "her campaign had, at some point, 'reimbursed' the restaurant. When asked how she could have reimbursed a business that was owed no money -- Wade paid the bill that evening -- she abruptly ended the interview and walked off." A Harris staffer later called the Sentinel and begged them to not quote anything Harris said in the phone interview. The next day, Harris changed her story: "I have donated to a local Florida charity $100 which will more than adequately compensate for the cost of my beverage and appetizer." Harris said she thought the bill was so high because Wade may have ordered expensive wines and also brought some bottles home uncorked. As was previously reported, Harris received over $32,000 in illegal campaigns contributions from Wade -- more than any other member of Congress. After Wade pled guilty, Harris later donated an equal amount of money to charities. With stories like this continuing to appear, it is only a matter of time before some other Republican steps forward to challenge Harris in the primary. A statewide poll conducted last week -- for which no one claimed responsibility -- reportedly tested House Speaker Allan Bense in a possible primary contest against Harris. If Harris is the GOP nominee, move incumbent Bill Nelson (D) to the safe column.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

To help seal the border so he couldn't get into Pakistan? Just a thought . . .

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

I agree with your second point, from the perspective of the Iraqi people. From the perspective of American security, I disagree -- a regime that is friendly to Iran, or to al Qaeda, would be much worse for the US.

As to your first point, though, the question in my mind is not whether it is worth the "risk" of a worse regime coming in. The question is whether it was worth the cost.

Note -- I actually have to work today so don't expect any lengthy responses, and just assume that I disagree with everything you say.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

will do. that will nicely bookend the assumption that everything you say is a smoking pile of cat doodie.

Republican moderate revolution......
 

On April six the moderate Republican revolution started. There was a contest over the State Senate seat in Orange County (it was opened up when Campbell left it to take Cox's open congressional seat when Cox went to take over the SEC). Not surprisingly, this is considered one of the more conservative State Senate seats in California (CA State Senate seats represent 850,000 people - much bigger than a congressional seat). Harman, a prochoice moderate Republican supported by yours truly defeated Diane Harkey, a right wing pro-life nightmare.

In San Diego, Brian Bilbray, a Republican moderate, lead the Republican field in the fight to take Duke Cunningham's old seat. Another seat that is the traditional stronghold of the conservatives.

First we take back California, then the nation.

Republican moderate revolution......
 

technically, we have not lost the nation, yet. in today's electoral world, the old line conservatives will likely need the right and far right factions, to some degree, for a long time.

don't forget, no dis intended, no matter how you slice it, cali ain't the mainstream. thank god.

Republican moderate revolution......
 

Yeah, I'm thinking of sending Eric Roach some money. Got the address?

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Interestingly, a google search of "conspiracy to commit armed robbery" returns about 10,000 hits, many of which contain examples of people being arrested even though an armed robbery was not actually committed. Also, an admittedly quick review of conspiracy statutes found no examples which required the suspect to "really attempt" the robbery in order to obtain a conviction.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

From my perspective, what is good for the Iraqi people is good for the US in the long run. It may be expensive now, but if over time what we did leads to a prosperous Iraq it was worth every penny.

Saddam was running a kleptocracy, and things were never going to improve for the Iraqi people. As long as he was in power, sanctions or no sanctions, Iraq was going to get poorer and less educted. This in turn was making it more and more difficult for a future stable regime to ever take power and then hold power. Therefore, a stable democracy was never going to happen on its own, and the chance of creating a stable propsperous democracy in Iraq was diminishing every day Saddam was in power. Taking the chance of creating a prosperous Iraq was not only the moral thing to do (because it was good for the Iraqi people), but in the long term interests of the United States.

Most of the countrys in the world are becoming more democratic and have government that are adopting policies that are improving the standard of living in those countries. There are exceptions, but that is the overall trend which is great. But as long as there are countries in the world that are not democratic and are not prospering (or are declining in prosperity), that is bad for US interests. Whether by hook or by crook, we need to do whatever we can (and at whatever cost) to turn every country on the globe into a growing, prosperous democracy.

Once we achive that, national security will cease to be an issue.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Let me say this very slowly: if another country (let's pick one, say, Syria) is a greater threat to the US than Afghanistan, then that may be justification for invading Syria.

It is not justification for invading Iraq.

(Unless you go for the "bloody nose" theory, i.e., when confronted with a half dozen bullies, pick the biggest one and bloody his nose and the rest will run away. Except, well, that hasn't worked out very well. Is that what you're saying?)

If only any of that had been the justification for going into Iraq. if only it had been so clean. But it wasn't. It just wasn't. Was not.

I'm not saying that one can only attack when attacked. I'm saying that nobody disagrees that when one is striking back that one is on the high ground. In the absence of that, one better have one's ducks in a row or anticipate criticism.

Republican moderate revolution......
 

I think he has all the money he needs.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Conspiracy requires an act in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy. This is loosely interpreted. Driving to the bank with the guns in the car is enough, even if no one gets out (though affirmatively withdrawing from the conspiracy is a defense).

As noted, I disagree with balt on the significance of "who started it."

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Very few people think Saddam is a good guy. Most questioning is not whether toppling Saddam was a good idea from a moral perspective, but why, in light of a) our tolerance of his existance for a dozen years and b) the existence of other threats, we chose the moment we did to invade. Without a plan on how to control the country after we got in. Taking a chance on invading Iraq to make it a more prosperous place might have been the moral choice. But doing so in such a manner so as to minimize the chances of that prosperity (by not having a plan to establish control and order), is absolutely unmoral. And not in the long term interests of the US.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

it's not really a thought, or at least not a good one- sorry. To seal the other end of the caves and passes you would have needed troops in Pakistan, although it likely there are so many passes you couldn't seal them with a million troops.

more importantly, the guy got out of Afghanistan BEFORE we invaded Iraq you numbskull.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Wait, are you saying it's a fools errand to send troops in to chase Osama bin Laden?

So tell me again, why did my cousin Daisy's fiance have to die? And what do we tell the kid about why his father died?