Forums

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

Didn't you learn anything from Black Hawk Down?