Afghani-what?Follow

What? No WMDs in Iraq? Well, that's okay because we were actually there to... uhh... liberate the people! And.. um.. to stop terrorism! Just like we did in that one place we went to before Osama slipped out and we needed a new villian we could actually bomb and capture.

LONDON, England (CNN) -- A British parliamentary committee has warned that Afghanistan is likely to "implode, with terrible consequences" unless more troops and resources are sent to calm the country.

The all-party Foreign Affairs Select Committee, in a report released Thursday, said warlord violence and the struggle between U.S.-led troops and insurgents continues to be a threat to security in Afghanistan
[...]
Afghanistan, which is grappling with a growing drug trade and sporadic violence, is a key security concern for the West two years after the coalition toppled the militant Islamic Taliban regime for harboring al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

There are about 20,000 U.S.-led troops and 6,500 NATO-led peacekeepers in Afghanistan.

However, warlords have yet to be disarmed and a Taliban and al Qaeda insurgency is persisting in the south and east.
[...]
On Iraq, the committee concluded that Al Qaeda had turned Iraq into a "battleground" with appalling consequences for the country's people.

The committee said the coalition's failure to establish law and order in parts of the country had, in addition, created a "vacuum" into which criminals and militias had poured
[...]
Asked whether the Iraq war had increased the threat of terrorism, Anderson replied: "Clearly there are elements of al Qaeda that are there that were not there before."

Good thing we sent all those troops to Iraq instead of finishing up in Afghanistan. Otherwise al Qaeda might be streaming into Iraq and developing more strongholds with their Taliban allies and warlords throughout Afghanistan. But we got Saddam and that'll stop terrorism!

Forgot my cite

Edited, Thu Jul 29 13:09:08 2004 by Jophiel

I guess we Jophed that one up huh?

I always thought they had tons of Opium.

True. If it was the Drudge Report, they'd have taken the line "Afghanistan, which is grappling with a growing drug trade and sporadic violence, is a key security concern for the West two years after the coalition toppled the militant Islamic Taliban regime for harboring al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden" and made it into the headline:

British Report: Coalition toppled the militant Islamic Taliban regime

And maybe coupled it with a Photoshopped image of Kerry shaking hands with Osama while eating a baby.

Common sense.

The words "Common Sense" don't go hand in hand with liberal ideology. It's all based on emotion rather than things like research or facts, those things tend to get in the way.

Varus

Holy crap. That is a ******** of resources. Makes you wonder though. A lot of people say "we went into Iraq for oil"

Well, with all those resources in Afghanistan, and with how easy it was to win compared with Iraq, and the justification much stronger for Afghanistan, why did we turn our sights so quickly?

With all of those resources available, and if the "real" motivations for our wars are oil, why didn't we complete the job in Afghanistan?

Not saying I believe those were the real motivations, just going on what a popular theory is, and partly what Moore hinted in his movie. Although he did say there was a planned pipeline. That still, however, makes no sense.

Edited, Thu Jul 29 14:12:55 2004 by CrimsonMagician

Bah, Bush doesn't know that.

And anyway, thats nothing compared to the 115,000,000,000 barrels of oil and 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in Iraq.

Edit: Left out the trillion

Edited, Thu Jul 29 14:14:26 2004 by DanFitzGer

You all realize the u.s. only receives 25% of it's crude oil from the mid east. We actually get more oil from venezuela.

Varus

Well going by death toll alone I'd say Afghan was easier. I'd also say you preferring a drive in Iraq is a result of us not completing the job, thus, my question still stands. I'm not claiming to know this stuff, I'm seriously wondering.

No I don't have anything to say about afganhistan because they seem to handling their own country well enough, well at least we're not hearing incessant reports about the loss of every single marine there. So either not many Americans are being killed there in combat or the media isn't reporting it. Now how many of you believe NBC, CBS, ABC, or CNN would pass up the oppurtunity to create another vietnam for there bedwetting liberal constituents?

Varus

You mean like Tillman?

Can you support that?

I've alread given out my work address....come on down and get some bedwetting whenever you choose. I'll **** all over ya.