For those who always opposed the war(s)

[sweetheart]

Please reply to this poll only if you were against the military
action in afganistan and iraq back when it was happening.

The poll is asking the people who were *RIGHT* their opinions and
not the majority people who were wrong.

[Taxloss]

1. Withdrawal now, totally.

On edit: I just noticed your (s). The above is my sentiment on Iraq; my feelings about Afghanistan are slightly more complicated.

[aquart]

15. Mine aren't.

As much as I delight in the hideous death of any Taliban male, we only temporarily dislodged them and now they are back in force BECAUSE WE ARE AN INVADING ARMY.

We have done nothing to stop terrorism. Every military move we make makes terrorism the likeliest option for the people who have lived thru our crimes. The damage we have done will appear even more terribly in ten years........when the children seek revenge.

[Taxloss]

20. Well, I agree to a point, but only to a point.

It's not because we're an invading army, it's because we're an occupying army. That's one of our many mistakes there, turning it into an occuptaion. The Taliban regime had to be destroyed; but what followed would have to be executed with care, patience, generosity and subtlety. Those plan for reconstruction were in place and could have worked, but the coalition betrayed the lip service it paid to them before the fall of Kabul. Per Afghanistan, is withdrawal the right thing to do? Well, we're a bit past that point, it's now the ONLY thing to do.

[oblivious]

2. Withdraw now, totally.

What's the point of killing more people for nothing.

Not to mention more American soldiers dying needlessly.

[Skittles]

3. there IS NO FIX FOR THIS SHIT

the difference between pulling out now and pulling out later is HOW MANY MORE TROOPS WE WILL LOSE. The Iraqi civilians are FUCKED either way. Thanks bush, and all you DELUDED BASTARDS who supported him.

[pansypoo53219]

37. indeed. in military speak AOS

all options suck. it WOULD have been better just to leave sadaam. putting him back isn't gonna work now. sigh. can't let iran have iWaq. and then there's turkey and the kurds.
what in the hell were the PNACers thinking????
iWaq is gonna end up with Sadr as the new sadaam with the added iyatollah twist of religion. this is just gonna be a fucking mess for decades because of georgie's oedipal snit.

what is the answer? maybe dropping the people who thought this idea was good outside the green zone, like feeding virgins to the volcano.

[baldguy]

4. Attacking Iraq was a crime.

We owe reparations to those people.

[bryant69]

5. I guess iwon't participate

Maybe there's other steps that should be taken against those who were wrong on this issue. What would you suggest?

Bryant

[sweetheart]

9. Just checking in with the smartest

Many people failed that test, heck, many people still fail that test,
and i suspect, that those who are willing to stick around in iraq are those
who didn't mind invading in the first place, and who are advising us
wrongly twice over.

The people who were wrong about that, really should deeply consider how
they will never be wrong about such a thing again; its all i ask.

[longship]

6. I want them out today, however...

That isn't going to happen. Nor will they be coming home immediately any time soon.

I guess I just don't know enough about these matters. So I will gladly defer to the Democrats in power (sounds nice, doesn't it) to come up with something to get the troops home as soon as possible. I am very sure that that is their intention.

In the meantime I will be lobbying Congress to handle Iraq that way. My official position is to bring the troops home in the most expedient way possible.

[sandnsea]

7. Opposed Afghanistan?

There have only ever been a tiny handful of DUers that opposed Afghanistan. "Not anti-war, anit-THIS-war", I heard it a cazillion times in 2003&4.

Now people are going to pretend they 'knew' something about Afghanistan all along too?? :eyes:

I don't know what trying to rewrite history proves.

[oblivious]

13. I don't oppose the Afghanistan war because we lost. I opposed it because it was wrong.

[sweetheart]

14. It proves they knew what was gonna happen

The seers of DU clearly have been right all along, and afganistan is
a perfect test of how well a person understood what the bush people
were really about, that they knew their opponent, and advised us
most wisely of anyone. Those are the people we should ask, not
the people who were wrong, and no, they're not forgiven, why
should they be. :eyes:

[Skinner]

21. I disagree. I don't think one's opinion of Afghanistan is a "perfect test" of anything.

Obviously, it is impossible to know what could have been. But I think it is fair to suggest that Afghanistan might have turned out differently than it did, provided that we weren't trying to also fight the war in Iraq. The United States would not have been distracted by Iraq. The United States would not have experienced nearly the same loss of international support without the Iraq war. And the effort in Afghanistan would not have faced a competition for resources with the Iraq war. The bottom line is that Afganistan would not have been forgotten or shunted to second-place status.

As I said... There is no way of knowing what would have been. It is possible that Afghanistan would have turned out the same way regardless. But regardless, it is not particularly convincing to argue that the outcome in Afghanistan was inevitable or somehow pre-determined. It could very well have been different.

[sweetheart]

27. knowing your opponent

The outcome in afganistan was fated by what bush was about, is about,
and has always been about, what interests were taking on that war,
and a seer would have already known that action was fated by its actors.

To be right on afganistan means the person really *knew* beyond appearances,
what would really happen, someone wiser to the actor's intents involved,
and less fooled by appearances.

It's a fair assessment of someone's strategic judgement.

[Skinner]

68. I am unconvinced.

My impression is that most of the people here on DU who opposed the war in Afghanistan did not do so because they have superior "strategic judgment." They did so because they are generally anti-war, and are predisposed to oppose all or virtually all wars. If the war in Afghanistan had gone well, I think it is fair to think that you would not now be suggesting that your "strategic judgment" was the problem. Instead, opponents of the war in Afghanistan would likely be arguing that the outcome is irrelevant, and that the war in Afghanistan was still morally wrong regardless of the outcome.

Indeed, that is how I feel about the Iraq war. I opposed the War in Iraq from the beginning. If the War in Iraq had been successful, I would not believe that my original opinion was flawed. Because my opposition to the war in Iraq was not based primarily on a strategic judgment of our ability to win. To be clear: I thought failure was a likely outcome, but I did not think it inevitable and that was not the reason why I opposed the Iraq war. My opposition was based on my belief that it was illegal and immoral, and that preemption is an extremely bad precedent. A different outcome of the war (probably) would not have changed that belief.

[sweetheart]

77. To presume DU'ers are at all shallow

Those who oppose the Afgan war on DU, were likely long standing persons of democratic and leftist
credential who know better, really knowing their history like *we* do. We know of the bush crime
syndicate, the rise of the neocrims since the 70's or the 1860's depending how you look at it.
Are we just popular 'fans' who root for the warrior of the day to do right, as i grasp from your
post? ... or are we serious individuals who are not 'fans' of any politic, but 'pissed off' for
lack of a more descriptive wording.

The iraq war for daddy has been all the obvious premeditated crime, but afganistan separated the
populists and the leftists from the liberals. The liberal elites of dem center voted for the system
of nationalism and war that has dominated our country for decades, and the leftists and *smart* saw
that it would come to ruin.

If your DU acknowledges that its members may be smarter than it seems, then at least credit those
who opposed the war in afganistan as having a stragegic judgement. Maybe those persons knew something
that even the believers did not grasp. Its only not strategic judgement for those whom it wasn't.

Of course i much respect your views, skinner, and there was never a different outcome for anyone
who's familiar with nicaragua, el salvidor, iran, beruit, and the long litany of evil messes the
same folks have stirred up. Are we supposed to all be ninnys who just waved left on tuesday, or
did we catch a clue from the previous few decades?

[Skinner]

81. With all due respect, I think you missed my point.

And I find it somewhat off-putting that you insist on referring to those who share your viewpoint as "the smart" -- the obvious implication being that those held a different viewpoint are not included among "the smart."

This line of thinking strikes me as being roughly similar to flipping a coin and declaring oneself "smart" for correctly calling heads. But what do I know? I'm one of those intellectual weaklings who called tails.

And with that, I think I'm going to voluntarily remove myself from this thread.

[sweetheart]

91. With respect,

Firstly skinner, i did not start this thread to insult people, but being wrong is wrong.

I think this exchange proves the need for DU to give its members the ability to use other
logins to write anonymously. Had you written the same comment without 'skinner', we might
have had a lighter happier discussion without the administrator icon. As much as skinner
and sweetheart are semi-anonymous, if we were able to discuss without the burden of roles,
and the moderator message, then the world would not look at this exchange as you defending
your board from a poster you don't agree with?

The non-anonymous format is failing us, can you allow DU users the option of having up to 5
pen-names that might allow you or I to comment without invoking the baggage of preconception.

You are clearly a smart person by setting up DU; "build it and they will come.".. not build it
and be the baseball captain... No disrespect, a few pen names would lighten it up for you
and a lotta folks... just a thought.

peace,

[CarbonDate]

114. I think people should stand by their words.

Whether that be you, me, or Skinner.

Just my $0.02.

[lumberjack_jeff]

135. I don't think the moral issues and the strategic issues are so clear cut

In my opinion, Afghanistan was the right thing to do because it was justifiably identified with 9-11, (thus minimizing issues of preemption) the rulers of the country were a worse problem than a war AND given the public and international support and absence of other committments, it was strategically do-able.

Iraq differed because it was strategically unwinnable, made the Afghanistan enterprise vulnerable AND it would create more suffering than it cured.

If a war is strategically unwinnable, moral concerns are moot. In a perfect world, the inverse should also be true.

Few of us consider moral and strategic concerns in isolation.

[bananas]

51. A lot of us knew in 2000 that Bush would start as many wars as he could

and that he would screw them all up. Right after selection 2000, a number of people I know said it won't be long before we have troops in Iraq.

The people on the Bush team had been publicly calling for Clinton to invade Iraq throughout his term, you didn't need psychic powers to know what they would do once in power.

We'd be in Iran right now if there hadn't been so much opposition from the military.

[G_j]

52. without Rumsfeld and crew,

unfortunately with those people at the wheel I don't think anything could have a positive outcome.

[sweetheart]

96. The rush to force was too suspicious

With the moral capital they had before afganistan, they could have moved mountains,
wooed hearts planetwide... but nooooooo... not to be.. straight to the republican standard carpet bombers,
if they're not carpet bombing, the republicans arn't in power.

[cali]

22. The seerers of DU. LOL.

Don't sprain your arm patting yourself on the back.

I didn't support either, but I certainly don't count myself as a seer of any kind. I opposed Iraq for the obvious reasons- that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that it was morally and fiscally wrong. I opposed Afghanistan only because I knew that the bushistas would fuck it up. And I still think that if we had simply deposed the Taliban, and rebuilt Afgan's infrastructure, it could have been a success.

[TankLV]

30. Again, ANOTHER poster who puts into words better than I ever could.

We aren't at all "prophetic" - we just KNOW what the repukes are about, and what bunkerboy is, and we know FROM THE GET GO, if they told us the sky was blue, we'd have to spend a good deal of time investigating for ourselves, rather than believe what would normally be an obvious observation...

The repukes LIE - always - have for almost over a Century now. Everything they do is based on greed and selfishness - "what's in it for me". There NEVER was a single repuke program that they have pushed where THEY have not PERSONALLY GAINED FROM IT. NEVER have repukes EVER done ANYTHING that has COST THEM PERSONALLY and SOLELY BENEFITED OTHERS. NEVER!

Bunkerboy has been an abject FAILURE and COMPULSIVE LIAR AND CRIMINAL his entire life - everything he has ever touched has turned to SHIT - including our country under his watch - WHICH HE STOLE the first time!

[Minnesota_Lib]

44. This thread seems like someone's vanity attempt to create stratification here at DU.

Read the OP's other posts about only wanting the "smartest" to take the poll. LOL

I was against both actions (although I did have mixed feelings about Afghanistan). However,I am skipping this elitist and derisive poll and adding a new name (the pollster) to my ignore list.

Edit: LOL..turns out the OP was already on my ignore list. I guess it doesn't work very well as I saw her posts.

[sweetheart]

74. whatever

It was a question.

A fair question at that, conspiracy theory away.

The smartest amongst us advised us most wisely, and put up whatever reason for not listening.

Its not about the point, but about reputations and egos, isn't it. That's what its
all about, yes, trying to divide parties and make people wrong and divided? Really, grow up.

A lotta warmongers who were already wrong once, are selling an occupation like they are not
gonna be wrong again. Its time to call the smart ones smart.

Your ingor'ance list is irrelevant to the discussion.

[sweetheart]

76. Another cali assault

Really, madame, its an honest question, and you are wise enough (as we've always known) to
have been on the just side of choices made. I'm patting on the back, not myself, but those
at DU, (including you, the petulant prodder), who called it correct, to 'call it correct'.

Its not arrogant, its an honest question to people who called it right.

That its a comment about my person, suggests you've a problem with an honest question,
and what exactly is your spin on that?

What you 'think' is irrelevant, what happened is, and any person who supported afganistan
has supported a disgusting abuse of law, supported a heinous crime, no matter the excuses
that many wear as a mantle of pride.

... and you nobly have no need to excuwse, but typically, ad hominem, the republican way
to coerce an argument, on target cali.

[ShortnFiery]

16. Gee, in recent memory, how about The Russians bankrupting

their country with their foray into Afghanistan? Open up any Military History book and discover that eventually, the natives are going to kick your empire wannabe a**es out. I remember that we killed over 2 Million Vietnamese but they never QUIT. Why? Because it was THEIR country. Our Chimperor embarrasses us by claiming that, if we stayed, we would win. No, if we stayed in Vietnam, we would have lost thousands more troops. For what? Then it was EVIL-DOERS named "Communists." Today it's the EVIL "Islamo-fascists." But nobody knows :wtf: that means. :puke:

Both of these invasions were all for the health of our Glorious Stock Market and caring for Mega-Corporate profits above all else. Follow the money. The Neo-Cons and MOST Republicans HATE our troops as well as us informed chattering peasant classes who focus on historical facts vice ideology. ;)

[Taxloss]

17. I don't know about DU, but I know what my personal feelings were.

I wasn't a member of DU in 2001/2002; I think I had started reading the site but hardly a close relationship with it. I also "supported" the war in Afghanistan. I had opposed the Taliban since trying to raise awareness about them in the late 1990s, when my father worked for a European government in Afghanistan, attempting to aid the Afghans after the major agencies pulled out. I felt that "something had to be done" about them, not only because of the peculiar brutality of the regime, but also because of their stated intent of destabilising their neighbours, particularly nuclear Pakistan.

After 11 September, it was reassuring to see that world opinion was no longer going to tolerate the Taliban's harbouring of international terrorists, and I supported military action against the regime, but feared they would withstand it. I hoped that the occupation and "reconstruction" that followed would not repeat the pattern of failures the West has perpetrated since 1990. That hope has been utterly betrayed. I am intensely shocked and angry about how badly things have been handled there since the fall of Kabul, incredibly upset. I was prepared to entertain thoughts of how things might go wrong, as Afghanistan is the sort of place in which things do go wrong and good intentions lead to hell, but the disaster there has exceeded my worst fears.

In short, it was right to get rid of the Taliban, everything else "we" have done in Afghanistan has been wrong, wrong, wrong.

[TankLV]

25. You said exactly what I think - and put it into words that I cannot...

The only reason I was against the Afghanistan invasion and war from the beginning was 1) it was initiated by the LOSER bush and the repukes, whom I never trust, EVER, and 2) Afghanistan had NOTHING to do with 911. NOTHING. It was Saudi's that caused 911. That's a FACT. It was like attacking Mexico for Japan't bombing of Pearl Harbor. It made NO sense.

Now, if it were under the Democrats, for the noble intentions you stated of ending the Talban's horrible rape of their country and destruction of countless priceless historical treasure under the name of ANOTHER Ignorant Religion, then I would have been for it whole heartedly.

The Afghanistan Invasion was none of these. Was ALSO done based on a LIE, as was Iraq, for POLITICAL purposes to make the ILLEGAL bush* "pResidency" and occupation of OUR White House seem more legitimate, which is never can be...

[ShortnFiery]

8. Let Dear Leader and The Generals present it as "a victory"

and withdrawal all the troops NOW!

Remember Saigon, 1975? We will be forced out of both Iraq and Afghanistan if we stay. The only question is, "How many more troops must give their lives for Halli burton's, Raytheon's, etc. continued profits to bolster our Stock Market?

The Only reason to stay is Corporate Profiteering because we are NOT helping the people of Iraq. Civil War is here and here to stay until *the natives* straighten out the mess. Most likely a brutal Shia State. So be it!

It's THEIR COUNTRY ... you know, The Iraqis. Iraq ia NOT a colony and OUR TROOPS only serve to keep "a presence" in the crossfire as the Neo-Cons pray to their God of Oil to somehow save their Corporate asses. It won't happen.

BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!

*Mark my words: Nothing good will come of our (USA and Coalition Troops) staying in Iraq ONE MORE DAY, much less a year from now.

How many more Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airman must die in this ILLEGAL occupation? :thumbsdown:

[gratuitous]

10. Remove our troops

And bring in an international peacekeeping force, one with fewer arms and more native Arabic speakers. That peacekeeping force, in tandem with the Iraqi people, will then proceed to spend the $127 billion that the Defense Department would like to spend. The folks auditing the books will be otherwise uninvolved in peacekeeping and rebuilding, so they have no vested interest in spending the money wastefully. We're doing a piss-poor job of administering the amazing wealth of our country; it's time to let someone else take a crack at spending some of it responsibly.

[treestar]

11. Get out now and quit using 911 as an excuse for more wars

The bloodthirsty have had their revenge many times over.

[Solly Mack]

12. I qualify to reply

withdraw now

[Ms. Clio]

19. as do I

ditto

[samplegirl]

18. Pull out NOW!

This is not a war. Its occupation failure.

[TankLV]

23. How do you ask the last soldier to DIE FOR A LIE?

We are going to leave. That is a fact.

It's WHEN that THEY are arguing about.

Delaying will only result in more deaths, with the same result.

If you begin an endeavor dishonestly, without ANY noble intentions, then the whole entire endeavor is doomed FROM THE START. It cannot be "fixed" or "salvaged". Period.

If we leave TOMORROW - there will be a blood bath and Civil War. If we leave later it will be the EXACT SAME THING.

The only "delay", is any, that I would accept, should be so we can extricate our soldiers with minimal casualties and injury, and maybe to convince/beg the rest of the world to slowly replace us and begin to fix what the CRIMINAL REPUKE bush* misadministration did.

The US and ANY of it's companies should be FORBIDDEN in sharing any of the reconstruction projects or contracts. You don't reward Criminals by PAYING them to fix what they destroyed in the first place!

[AlamoDemoc]

24. Pull out Yesterday (n/t)

[Christian30]

26. I don't think this is a fair question

I was for military intervention in Afghanistan to rout the Taliban. How it was handled is a disgrace to this country. However, it's not fair to conflate the two wars. I think regardless of who had been president during 9/11, we would have gone into Afghanistan. That the White House played on the the people's sense of fear and outrage to push for intervention in Iraq is despicable and, I think, impeachable. But I agree with a previous poster that this poll seeks to either a) rewrite history or b) allow members who are all anti-war, all the time to feel big about themselves.

[Iverson]

28. of course it's a fair question

It wasn't the law abiding folks who conflated the two wars, actually a single adventure called "the war on terror." It was the Bush administration and the majority of the opposition party.

Wars of aggression are illegal and immoral. Period. I didn't like the Taliban either, even before 9-11, but - and this is the essential point - disliking them is an insufficient reason to bomb their civilians and turn their country into the world's biggest minefield.

There are times when it's appropriate for "I told you so" to possess a sting. This is one of them.

[Taxloss]

33. 'There are times when it's appropriate for "I told you so" to possess a sting.'

Well said.

I feel that particularly acutely in the case of Iraq. I was one of the 1million+ people who marched through London in February 2003, attempting to avert British involvement in the invasion of Iraq. (By that stage it was clear that the Americans would proceed whatever we did, but we thought it was possible to at least avoid British involvement. Naive.) Blair made some particularly hateful remarks about those who marched that day, along the lines of how we wouldn't be allowed to do that in Baghdad, how the Iraqis would beg us to support the war if they could (actually many Iraqis were on the march), and how we were wrong, we would be shown to be wrong, and how he had the good grace to forgive us for being so stupid and deluded because he was a forgiving kind of guy.

Well, Mr Blair, I TOLD YOU SO.

[Ms. Clio]

29. and regardless of who was President, it still would have been wrong

The Taliban, i.e., the government of Afghanistan, offered to surrender Bin Laden to Bush, they just asked for some of that pesky evidence first. And what did we, the U.S. people, get as "proof?" Obvious fake videos of fat and thin Osamas, etc. No wonder they were a wee bit skeptical.

Any strike should have been limited to direct hits on al-Qaida sites and camps. What do we have to show for any of it now? Not Osama "I'm truly not that concerned about him" Bin Laden.

Historically speaking, invaders have tried and failed to conquer Afghanistan for thousands of years. It was certainly foreseeable that this invasion would fail, as well.

[Taxloss]

43. I love your doggie picture. n/t

[Ms. Clio]

45. thank you! she's such a sweetie

[oblivious]

85. It's nice to see a post once in a while that lifts the veil of propaganda from people's eyes.

Thank you.

[Ms. Clio]

87. very nice of you to say

greatly appreciated.

[mike_c]

31. the war against Iraq is a crime against humanity....

What could possibly justify continuing it for even a single additional day?

[Greyhound]

32. Other, you've conflated two totally separate issues.

The Afghanistan invasion was justified and supported by, not only most the world, but by the Afghanis themselves.

The rape of Iraq was a calculated fraud perpetrated by criminal scum that we are too stupid and embarrassed to drag out of the White House and hang from the nearest cherry tree.

[hfojvt]

34. yeah I was not totally opposed to Afghanistan

although that seems to be a mess too now, but I was at a rally opposing the Iraq invasion.

[Greyhound]

55. Sure it's a mess, the idiot frat boy has never succeeded at anything

other than fooling people more stupid than he is, in his whole life, and just like all those previous failures, daddy will come to make it someone else's fault.

It is a mess today because, with typical BFEE incompetence, he abandoned the job.

[Ms. Clio]

35. Where do you come up with notion that it was supported by most "Afghanis?"

Do you think Zogby and Pew were polling them?

BTW, the correct term is "Afghans," not "Afghanis," which is the name of their currency.

[Greyhound]

50. OK, thanks for the correction. Virtually all of the stories out of

Afghanistan in the international press after the Taliban were removed from power were very positive . It looked like things were finally, after 30 years or more, moving in the right direction, until the criminal cabal abandoned the mission to pursue their scheme of looting Iraq and the U.S. Treasury.

[Ms. Clio]

54. There were a lot of positive stories out of Iraq at the beginning, too

Same shit, different day. IMO, of course.

[Greyhound]

71. Only here, the international press reports were skeptical at best

and usually critical of the whole idea, especially the sketchy "evidence" presented to make the case.

[Ms. Clio]

80. actually, many of the international reports from Afghanistan were fairly critical, as well

of things like dropping food packages that were yellow just like the cluster bombs, and so forth.

[Greyhound]

86. Thanks, I had forgotten that.

I think it is clear that any use of military force is indicative of a dramatic failure in leadership, and there is a good argument to make that had Al Gore decided to claim his election, the attacks of 9/11 would not have occurred.

In that respect Afghanistan was indeed a mistake.

[Ms. Clio]

88. I agree, I think there is an excellent case to be made that 9-11 would never have happened

if the Supreme Court hadn't selected Bush instead of Gore.

[BeFree]

49. You broke the rule!!

Please reply to this poll only if you were against the military
action in Afghanistan and iraq back when it was happening.


And then you dare to speak for billions of people by saying they supported the first invasion. Two for two, you are on a roll.

*********************

The use of our military, invading a sovereign nation like we did, is in no way justifiable.

I think the one thing that distinguishes the two sides is that the one side never has, and never will trust bushco. The other side - those that give bushco a benefit of doubt are nothing more than enablers of the biggest bunch of criminals since Hitler.

[Greyhound]

58. The invasion of Afghanistan was justified in that the national government

(the Taliban) was sheltering and supporting the organization that openly and directly attacked us. Of course, the incompetent squatters in the White House did it poorly, and I don't doubt that they could have made it worse, but that does not diminish the justification for the initial action. Had Gore fought for his rightful position, I have little doubt we would have invaded Afghanistan anyway.

I don't speak for billions of people and neither do you, so we can just ignore that bit of invective. BTW, which two sides are you talking about? Dems and repukes?

So, it is a 50/50 proposition and there was no provision for this in the poll.

[Taxloss]

61. A subsidiary point, here.

The Taliban was in very basic terms a "natioanl government" in Afghanistan, but it was quite a recent usurper in that role and also did not have national control or international legitimacy; so intervention in Afghanistan could easily be seen as intervention in an active civil war in a failed states, a wholly different proposition to the toppling of a sitting and established, recognised government.

[Ms. Clio]

63. Yes, that's true enough

But it had certainly been recognized to the extent that its leaders had been invited to Texas to confer about oil pipelines.

[Taxloss]

64. Indeed! Pre-911, American oilmen had no qualms about doing business with the Talibs. n/t

Edit: qalms/qualms.

[BeFree]

62. Which side?

It appears you are on the side of trusting bushco; of at least giving them the benefit of doubt. I never trusted bushco for one second. And that is who this thread is for, people on this side.

You not only did you not understand the OP, but you don't understand why wars are still being fought, is all I can gather.

Oh well, so for now you are in the majority... but our side shall overcome!

[Greyhound]

70. You couldn't be more wrong, I am one of the political junkies that

was following the idiot frat boy from his announcement and I truthfully never believed for an instant that even the re:puke:s were stupid enough to give him the nomination, I forgot the wisdom of PT Barnum. I have never, nor will I ever, trust a Bush or for that matter any member of the elite, I've worked around and with too many of them to be that naive. Even the so-called good ones, believe themselves to be our masters by some divine right of coming out of the right vagina.

As I said (and you ignored) if Gore were President we would still have invaded Afghanistan, it was imperative. The difference is that after removing the Taliban, we probably would have stayed to fixed the damage.

For you to make the assumption that you have any knowledge of my understanding or experience of anything says far more about you than I. I am willing to compare knowledge and experience with you any day of the week, and I won't make baseless claims or assumption about your understanding or lack of it without a real discussion taking place first.

Hurling mindless invective and making wild accusation accomplishes nothing and is usually harmful. If you think you have some knowledge that I am lacking, why don't you try sharing it before labeling and writing me off as some simpleton without the capacity to "get it".

[Christian30]

83. Color me offended...

those that give bushco a benefit of doubt are nothing more than enablers of the biggest bunch of criminals since Hitler.

I'm certain I'm not alone when I say that I agreed with going into Afghanistan to track down those who orchestrated 9/11. As the other poster pointed out, the Taliban were hosting Al Qaeda and, to my mind, that made them complicit. My mistake was in assuming that our gov't would be held accountable by, if not the separation of powers, than by the people.

[BeFree]

90. Yep, you are not alone

We called ourselves the ten percenters, then. We were the ten percent who never did trust bushco.

And we have lived with the other 90% ever since. They called us all kinds of names yet we persisted and now we have about 60% of that 90% coming around.

We've been correct all along and it is one reason why the OPer made the comment about this thread being just for those who have been right about the wars all along. It makes sense that we ten percenters have a better vision than those who were in the majority 90%.

And some of the comments here bear out that observation.

[rucky]

36. Why the caveat?

I opposed both wars, but wanted you to share your thinking.

on edit: Phased withdrawl over 6 mos (TOPS), with Arab Leage in control of the funding we will be providing to restore basic services.

[dpbrown]

38. Your poll is flawed, many people supported Afghanistan but not Iraq

Even Kucinich supported the invasion of Afghanistan.

That being said, we should pull out of Iraq immediately.

[Ms. Clio]

39. the poll isn't "flawed," it asks a specific question of specific people

You were not one of them.

[dpbrown]

78. No, the title intimates that there is a choice with the "(s)" after war, but the poll eliminates it

It doesn't take a genius to understand that the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, opposed by the largest demonstrations in the history of the world and most major religious groups as unjust, differs from the attack on the government harboring the group that launched the attack in 2001 on the United States.

Pushing a poll that conflates the two military adventures into one is naive in that it eliminates the largest group of people who oppose the illegal military invasion and occupation of Iraq.

[Ms. Clio]

79. most of the people to whom it was directed appeared to understand its meaning

If you don't like this poll, design your own.

[dpbrown]

100. Most people probably answered the poll without caring whether they were excluded by design

Doesn't matter to me, anyway. There were just way more people who were opposed to one and not necessarily to the other.

[Ms. Clio]

101. But that's the point -- yes, we know that many people supported and still support the Afghan war

The question was simply not directed towards them. What is wrong with that? I was serious, you should design your own poll, and ask your own question. I've already seen it here, the usual justifications -- the Taliban harbored al-Q (and offered to give him up, but never mind, that's an inconvenient fact, quickly forgotten).

Then there's the "we removed that terrible Taliban" crowd -- yes, we have done Afghan women such an enormous favor by killing their families -- there have been 2000 bombing raids in the country just since June. And ask these same people what RAWA is, and see the blank stares. Do you know what RAWA is, perchance, or their take on the war?

Please, give some of the biggest know-it-alls-who-know-nothing an opportunity to bloviate at length about what a great war Afghanistan is. They will love you for it.

[dpbrown]

102. I'm not saying that the invasion of Afghanistan was the end-all and be-all

I know what RAWA is, and if the invasion had been done right the women of Afghanistan, who were previously subject to summary execution for slights as minor as not wearing their burka right and were forbidden from attending school, would have been much better off. But since the entire effect of invading Iraq was to drain off any hope of rejuvenating Afghanistan, the Taliban continues to control most of the country and the United States supports a figurehead leader barely in control of some of the capitol city.

I think it's much more complicated than whether a few people who oppose all war might have an opinion on Iraq or not. If this was a statistically valid poll I think the opinions would be quite lopsided, given the target group.

At the risk of repeating myself, the world's largest demonstrations in history fought the proposed illegal invasion of Iraq, and the same could not be said for the invasion of Afghanistan. There are literally tens of millions of people who were at least neutral on Afghanistan who fought hard against Iraq.

[Ms. Clio]

104. So ironic that Americans can write sentences like "if the invasion had been done right"

so blithely. So ironic. So evocative of our entire frontier-conquering history. The women of Afghanistan were better off under the Communist Russians in many ways, too, but nobody supported that invasion, did they?

There were no major demonstrations against the war in this country (although if you read the Asian media, you know there was plenty of outrage in Pakistan and other parts of the region) because the invasion occurred in the wake of 9-11 and then was quickly forgotten in the build-up to Iraq.

[sweetheart]

125. The neoliberal bone is not deep beneath the flesh

I'm shocked at the number of 'if the invasion had gone right.' persons, who after
this period of open discovery, with a litany of US interventions a mile long, 70+
interventions under democratic and republican administrations.

And here the mindset, blunderheadedly convinced that war is a solution to womens rights,
on a progressive board of all places. :P

[Ms. Clio]

133. I used to have a list of them all, posted by someone here, but I can't find it now

That's the problem, I read so much brilliant and thoughtful stuff here virtually every day. People here provide links to more brilliant and thoughtful stuff (although oddly, not quite as much as they used to do, IMO, at least here in GD). I have learned so much, from people who post here, or used to post here, and don't, for whatever reason, and from people who are still here, and don't post nearly often enough to suit my taste.

Anyway, of course it's always men doing the invading, and surely they always know what's best for us lil gals, right?

[dpbrown]

136. You cite RAWA as a source and then you negate the potential of freeing women from the Taliban

Obviously, there are people who would choose "peace" even when it means oppression, death, and torture. How evocative of our "not in my backyard" yuppie bubble reality to choose to relegate others to suffering in order to maintain purity of expression.

The Taliban relegated women to less than second class status. More like less than dirt status. I find it "ironic" and "blithe" that you would condemn them to that fate when an outside force may have freed them from it.

The Russian occupation of Afghanistan, an attempted expansion of the Soviet bloc, is most closely analogous to the recent United States invasion and occupation of Iraq. Both were attempts by "superpowers" to exert their influence in oil-producing or transporting states.

George Bush's administration was the world's largest supporter of the Taliban in 2001 prior to September, granting them tens of millions of dollars in both money and other subsidies to pretend to curb poppy production. That he failed to dislodge the Taliban from exerting its murderous power over Afghanistan does not mean that outside influence was not (and "ironically" still is) needed to aid women in Afghanistan.

The largest demonstrations in the history of the world resisted the illegal and unjustified invasion of Iraq. After the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, most of the world supported intervention in Afghanistan.

Once again, for purposes of this poll, the effect is that a minority of peace purists are going to overwhelmingly oppose Iraq. Most people do, and that subset even more so.

[Ms. Clio]

137. I knew about the Taliban before Bush ever became President

When nobody else gave rat's ass. If you really believe the women of Afghanistan are grateful that they have been "liberated" by 2000 bombing raids since June, be my guest.

The roots of the Taliban lie in the Afghan insurgency against the USSR occupation, including, of course, Bin Laden's mujahadin, financed and supported by the U.S. The idea that the same insurgency would then meekly turn around and bow to the U.S. occupation was always insane. Blowback. It's a bitch.

And none of this had anything to do with helping Afhgan women, at all, on any genuine level whatsoever. You don't help people by killing their husbands, parents, and children. But again, feel free to believe that happy horseshit.

[dpbrown]

138. You're the one that supported leaving the Taliban in power over external intervention

So I'd say that the only one believing "happy horseshit" is you.

The Taliban was killing husbands, parents, wives, and children. They still are.

No one said the invasion was "to" help the Afghan women specifically, of course. The ostensible rationale was as retaliation for the attacks in the United States, attacks the neocons needed to justify their Constitution-gutting seizure of power and Iraq invasion plans. Afghanistan was, for them, a necessary visit on the road to Baghdad.

But the simple fact that the Bush administration didn't want to invade the land of their friends the Taliban does not erase the fact that the majority the world over supported an intervention in Afghanistan after the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, if not before.

The rise of the Taliban and of bin Laden was a direct result of the U.S. covert Cold War effort against the Soviet Union, but the lesson should be that the United States is now creating the next generation of al qaeda (or mujahadin, or whatever they'll call themselves) in Iraq, by playing the role that the Soviet Union played in Afghanistan.

The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was one of the final acts of the Cold War. The U.S. invasion of Iraq is one of the first acts of the Energy War.

The Soviet Union failed in Afghanistan, just as the United States will fail in Iraq.

That doesn't mean that external intervention wasn't, and isn't still, needed in Afghanistan. Many more husbands, wives, and children will die when Afghanistan turns into Somalia.

[pansypoo53219]

40. maybe the answer is to

move the troops back to afganistan, root out the taliban there, make that country stable, set up the democracy THERE and get the hell out.

[kenny blankenship]

41. I was absolutely sure of the stupidity and danger of invading Iraq

I am not absolutely sure of any of the possible exit scenarios.
They ALL suck. I'm sure of that. But trying to stay there isn't making things better, and I am absolute in my view of the invasion as a crime that must be stopped and punished.
So get out ASAP--with "as possible" to be worked out politically.
Then surrender Bush for trial.

[zulchzulu]

42. Other: The Major Steps Are...

1. Announcement that Bush and Cheney have resigned and are under house arrest and on their way to the Hague for possible war crimes charges. Cheney would have the choice of being hanged for treason (war profiteering) on the White House lawn and Bush would have the choice of immediate impeachment proceedings. US troops would be under an immediate redeployment program in BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan and be replaced within 6 months with an international force comprised of that mentioned in 2A (below).

2. Announcement by President Pelosi that we apologize to the World for the insane mess we have created with the Iraq Occupation. The plan now involves immediate steps:

A: A meeting with the UN and all nations that wish to partipate in a World Forum For Peace to discuss the first major initiative of creating a Marshall Plan to build highways, bridges, communications and other basic tools to get their society back. Immediate cleanup of rivers and lakes would also be included. All of these efforts would be commanded by Iraqi citizens with the aid and assistance on international company equipment and staff. As for Afghanistan, plans to build a connection for natural gas would continue but be given to the Afghan people, not multinationals currently involved.

B: An international forum to discuss and monitor Arab nations with Islamic fundamentalists and find a region for them relocate and basically leave the rest of the secular World alone.

C: Immediate plans to get rid of nuclear weapons

D: Immediate plans for an international effort to replace fossil fuel technology

3. Immediate dissembly of GATT, NAFTA and other unfair international trade concerns and a new initiative toward fair trade efforts.

There's more, but that would be the first steps to get our Planet back!

[Robbien]

65. I vote for zulchzulu's plan

and I would like Kucinich in charge of that Department of Peace.

[JeffR]

46. Wanted to choose #1

But it took months to get everything and everyone in, and I suspect it will take months to do the reverse. But the withdrawal needs to begin immediately and proceed in as fast a manner as possible.

[Ms. Clio]

47. UN chief: Nato cannot defeat Taliban by force

Official says alliance failing in Afghanistan as Blair admits Iraq is a 'disaster'

Declan Walsh in Kabul and Richard Norton-Taylor
Saturday November 18, 2006
The Guardian

Nato "cannot win" the fight against the Taliban alone and will have to train Afghan forces to do the job, the UN's top official in the country warned yesterday.

"At the moment Nato has a very optimistic assessment. They think they can win the war," warned Tom Koenigs, the diplomat heading the UN mission in Afghanistan. "But there is no quick fix."

(snip)

Des Browne, the defence secretary, made clear yesterday that the future of the alliance was now bound up with the future of Afghanistan. "The Afghan people, our own people and the Taliban are watching us. If we are indecisive or divided, the Taliban will be strengthened, just as all of the others despair," he said.

Attacks have increased fourfold this year and 3,700 people have died, mostly in the south. The US has made 2,000 air strikes since June, against 88 in Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1951222,00.html

[Taxloss]

56. Richard Norton-Taylor is a commentator who has been consistently

right about almost everything related to Iraq and Afghanistan. Really spot on.

[Ms. Clio]

59. wouldn't it just be amazing if we read or heard things like this in our media on a daily basis:

"You can't resolve it by killing the Taliban. You have to win people over. That is done with good governance, decent police, diplomacy with Pakistan, and development," he said. Otherwise the Taliban would regroup in Pakistani refugee camps and madrasas and return in greater numbers next spring.

[Taxloss]

60. Luckily, as a reader of the print Guardian, I do get that daily.

Or at least as often as RNT is writing, but their other columnists are also mostly good. Even Max Hastings says that sort of thing from time to time!

[krabigirl]

48. Withdraw today!

[BlueCaliDem]

53. Other: Regarding the Iraq debacle ONLY...

Bush was never granted authority under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. The "Iraq Resolution", for which Congress had voted, and is being touted as "for voting for the war" by Republic corporate media, and all Republics from coast to coast, was founded on this War Powers Act.

The War Powers Act only grants Bush authority for "military action" under supervision of Congress. Congress can (and should now) withdraw the president's authority.

The War Powers Act was created to allow Bush temporary military action. It was explicitly created to keep any president from starting another Vietnam, and who can argue that Iraq is not that already?

As for Afghanistan...we should've stayed there, and finished the job together with our allies; concentrating on getting Osama "been completely Forgotten".

In all actuality, Congress can, and should (although I don't believe they will) inform Bush that 3 1/2 years is NOT "temporary", and that Congress will withdraw the authority given to Bush within, say, 3-4 months to give time for our troops to get out NOW.

Bush would do well to then make nice with our alienated allies to help with U.S. Troop withdrawal, and to minimize the chaos that's most likely going to follow U.S. withdrawal in Iraq.

Yeah...I know...in a perfect world with a conscientious, spined Congress...

[G_j]

57. withdraw now

things continue to spiral downward. We cannot fix this mess with the military.
If we stay it will contiue to get worse, IMO.

[johnaries]

66. Only "certain" people can vote? How Straussian of you!

People who opposed both wars did so for a variety of different reasons. Not because they had any "crystal ball" insight into the results. I supported the Afghanistan War but opposed the Iraq War. We could have succeeded in Afghanistan if not for Iraq.

My "insight" and opinion is just as valid as those who opposed both wars. Therefore, in an act of civil disobedience, I voted in your poll as is my right as a DU member.

:evilgrin:

[Ms. Clio]

69. What evidence do you have that we could have "succeeded" in Afghanistan?

Why was a full-fledged invasion required instead of rapid surgical strikes that might actually have captured or killed those directly responsible for 9-11?

The idea that somehow Afghanistan was actually a "noble cause" that "could have" succeeded is one that future historians will almost certainly challenge.

Clio = muse of history. No "crystal balls" here. Just lots and lots and LOTS of reading everything everywhere.

[ignatius 2]

67. A time frame should be put in place with total withdrawal in one year or less

te goal. Yesterday on commomdreams.com, there was a timed ithdrawal plan presented by George McGovern that seemed viable and logical.

1. Staying in Iraq is not an option.Withdrawal is not only a political imperative but also a strategic requirement. Withdrawal is not without cost (neither is staying), but it is also inevitable and we will pay costs at some point. The decision to withdraw soon will not require additional expenditures on the contrary it will effect massive savings. We are not advocating "cut and run" we are urgimg an orderly withdrawal on a reasonable schedule that will prevent further damage to U.S. interests.

Read the additional 10 points at:

http://www.counterpunch.com/zeese11172006.html

[dchill]

72. ASAP NT

[Hamlette]

73. I would seek the advice of unbiased professionals

it makes me sick to think we should stay BUT if we can leave less of a mess, I'm willing to try.

It also makes me sick to think what we will leave if we pull out.

I don't trust anyone in the Bush circle, old or new. I'd ask Clark and Albright and I'm sure there are more. I'm not sure I even trust Clinton now (either Clinton). If there was a reasonable hope that by staying (even if that meant sending in a few more troops...NOT 50,000 or more) we could leave a country that was better than if we withdrew right now, I'd stay.

I would not stay for any of the reasons Bush gives "victory" or "the terrorists will think they won" or any of the reasons we stayed in Vietnam 5 years after it was clear we could not "win" (the domino theory).

I'm not of the "you bought it your broke it" crowd. That isn't a reason to stay either.

I didn't vote in the poll because I was not opposed to going into Afghanistan. I didn't agree with that invasion to get Osama but to get rid of the Taliban. I'm more anti religious-nut than perhaps any other kind of nut.

[Odin2005]

75. Go for a withdrawl in a year, pulling out totally

Then increase the troop numbers in Afganistan drastically.

[ismnotwasm]

82. Given the history of the people in the bush administration

I "predicted" war. I wasn't hard to do. I did NOT predict 9/11, or any of the subsequent events, I just knew if you throw a group of war-profiteers into office they're gonna do what they do.

That being said, I opposed any war, although I hoped initially that we would actually spend productive time in Afghanistan, helping economic growth, setting up a stable government, building roads, schools etc.
My daughter whose opinion I listen two had about 4 years in the army at the time of 9/11. Her words "The marines went in And KICKED the Taliban's ass" Kicked there ass right out of there"
My opinion is we had a opportunity in Afghanistan. The bush administration squandered it. The work we started over there is going to shit, but because the war profiteers never cared about Afghanistan, the Taliban, or even bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice.

I still have the NO IRAQ WAR sign in my window. I refuse to take it down.

Anyway, I was talking to my daughter who is now out of the army. She spent a year in Afghanistan. Her take is that the military and the war is so mismanaged with funds going to ineffective areas, soldiers being the last on the list of course. She can list examples off the top of her head of mismanagement and corruption.
She is very bitter. She feels military personal, especially the grunts have been well, tricked in a way. (Same old song and dance in ANY war) She distrusts the Democrats now in power and feel they "won't do shit" I hope we prove her wrong. I asked her about putting more troops in (100,000, not 20,000) She said it wouldn't make a difference, because it's not a matter of more soldiers, or more money, but better management, "the ones who know how to run an occupied country all QUIT" were her words.

So what to do? We are never going to "win"--that's according to my daughter and other of her military friends as long as we continue to do what this disgusting administration has done, follow policies they have started.

I see no other way out then just that. Get out. Bring in people who know how to LEAVE a fucking occupied country, if such exist. And leave. It has to be in "phases" whatever that means, just because of the shear volume of military personal and equipment. I would like to see us out in a year. My daughter would like to see Iraq "fixed" with the US military getting what they need and where they need it to succeed, and then get out. She swears it's been a mess before the first American foot landed on Iraq, that it never was designed to "succeed" I believe her.

It's time to leave. The infrastructure put in place was flawed from the beginning. Barring starting from the beginning (God forbid)We are going to cause more and more death and destruction by staying.

[Guaranteed]

84. Ummmm...invading Afghanistan was the RIGHT thing to do.

Bush just did it wrong.

[Christian30]

93. Agree n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

89. I had mixed feelings about Afghanistan

I thought - and still think - that if it had been done in the right way, and with the right priorities "remove the Taliban, and replace them with a broadly democratic regime presiding over a functioning nation with decent infrastructure, the rule of law, etc" then *an* invasion of Afghanistan would have been a good thing, in that it would have made life significantly better for many of the people of Afghanistan, and not cost more in lives, money, political capital etc than that was worth.

On the other hand, it was clear that those weren't Bush's priorities - he wasn't interested in "nation building", he just wanted someone to fight to show that he was taking 9/11 seriously - and as such even beforehand I was sceptical although not totally dismissive of the chances of it being a good thing, and it very rapidly became clear that it wasn't going to be.

[ChiciB1]

92. Anyone Who Had Been Listening To Greg Palast WAAAAY Back

before the 2000 election would have known that the Neo-Cons were going to do this. They kissed up to Saudi Arabia for so many years leading up to this. But "Little El-Smirk" in his blindness to one up Daddy screwed up big time. Is Bandar Bush still around?? I may have missed some news.

Bottom line.... the Middle East is such a miasma of cultures, anyone in their right mind should have known that you shouldn't poke a stick in an ant pile!

My heart hurts for Afghanistan because those people really have no voice and Poppies are about all the puts food on the table. Every time I see pictures from there AND Iraq it makes me cringe!

[mdmc]

94. concrete objectives, overwhelming force

James Baker will set the pace. We need to work with Iran and Syria, the rest of the world... yadda yadda.

We must admit that a stable, unified, pro west, democratic Iraq might not be possible. Once we do this, we can set achievable, concrete goals that our forces can complete.
We will be setting goals and objectives for decades. If we could be out in under 10 years then the war would be justified. Now that we have overthrown the Bathe party, we must pick up the pieces.
We are gonna be playing a role for years and years.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

95. I Supported The War In Afghanistan And Still Agree With It, But I Never Supported The War In Iraq.

With Afghanistan harboring al-qaeda and bin laden like it had, especially after 9-11 (obviously), it was definitely the right thing to do. That, of course, is under the notion that we would've had a leader and administration with the competency to have not fucked it up so badly. Unfortunately we had a leader that did fuck it up so badly.

Having that said, I think we should leave Iraq as soon as we can, but only after a solid plan is put in place to ensure the region's stability and Iraq's ability to at least somewhat take care of itself. Hopefully, with a Dem led congress, that can now happen far sooner than later. But I do believe it at least needs to be a responsible and strategic withdrawal.

[dad]

97. The Afghanistan war was all about building a pipeline

Remember that the U.S. representative once told the Taliban, either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs." The Afghan war was a scam right from the start. And I am the ONLY person I've ever met that was against THAT war. What the fuck did the Afghan war accomplish? Oh yeah, the pipeline was built. Besides building that pipeline, nada.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

98. Yeah Yeah Yeah 9/11 MIHOP And All That Good Stuff. Yeah Yeah I've Heard.

[mdmc]

99. if we can leave in less then 10 years, then the neo-con foreign policy

should be deemed successful.

I think that there is no way to get out at this time. We need to add troops, get Iran and syria in the game, and bring in the UN. I think this is the first step to a responsible and strategic withdrawal from Iraq.

In the future, we will need to support security and diplomacy and oppose war with even more vigor.

I hope that the Iraq war will eventually lead to peace in the middle east; America will not support additional wars of choice in the future. God willing.

Peace.

[Alexander]

103. So, Afghanistan was wrong??

That's funny. I thought a certain Osama bin Laden lived in Afghanistan. Was I wrong to support military attempts to kill/capture him? After all, Bill Clinton fired cruise missiles into Afghanistan before 9/11.

BTW, I was against the Iraq war before it ever happened. Should I just not respond to the poll, because I'm "wrong" for wanting to neutralize bin Laden?

[Beam Me Up]

110. Yes, it was.

Afghanistan was every bit as much a LIE as was Iraq.

Osama? You meen Osama bin Forgotten? They're not looking for him, you know. Never were.

[ConsAreLiars]

111. The distinction you fail to make

is between an effort to "get" the bin Laden gang and the effort to gain strategic control of the territory and people of Afghanistan.

Those of us who strongly opposed the military invasion and occupation, under the justification of "getting the bad guys," knew two things.

One, that this was the least likely method to succeed in that goal. Indeed, it was far more likely to accomplish the exact opposite.

Two, that this was instead a part of a geopolitical strategy for military domination of the planet in the service of Global Corporatism. (And not very likely to succeed in that goal either.)

Personally, I knew a bit more than those things, because I had been given a personal lesson in how the people of the region regard right and wrong, guests and intruders, and justice and morality. The offer to send bin Laden to an Islamic Court, given just cause, was likely genuine, but even if not, a tacit agreement allowing "justice brigades" the right to seek vengeance re: 9/11 could have been arranged. But that was not the PNACers goal, and they did not want that kind of arrangement.

[Redstone]

105. Pack up our fucking stuff and go the fuck home. NOW.

Redstone

[Marie26]

106. Withdraw in a year

And watch Iraq totally dissolve into a Lebanon-style civil war for 10 years, & become a satellite of Iran.

[ConsAreLiars]

116. Strengthening the Fundie factions in the Middle East was the certain consequence

of the invasion. The longer the, what's the word, "heathen" in Xtian, invaders stay, the stronger that tendency will become. And, less importantly in the global view of deaths and suffering, the more USans will come home dead and crippled. The longer this attempt to occupy and conquer the land and people of Iraq (and Afghanistan) continues, the more the blood and suffering. Cut our losses, and more importantly, stop murdering people in the name of global capitalism. Butchering people is not a good thing, not even for the butchers.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

107. Read George McGovern's proposal in the October issue of Harper's

I like that one.

He keeps emphasizing that the war is costing $250 million per day, meaning that my income taxes this year were only enough to pay for less than one second of it and that the supposedly "excessive" annual subsidy for Amtrak is equal to about four days worth of war.

[DemBones DemBones]

108. Other, meaning as soon as humanly possible. nt

[Beam Me Up]

109. Not One More DOLLAR. Not One More LIFE. Not One More LIE!

You can't fix an immoral action with more immoral actions.

STOP LYING: The Bush Adminstration KNEW that Iraq was NOT A DIRECT THREAT to the United States of America. They lied to Congress and they lied to the American people and to the world. Even so, many of us KNEW they were lying. Any who did not oppose this war and yet knew or strongly suspected they were lying are HYPOCRITS.

BRING THESE CRIMINALS TO JUSTICE: The world community demands it, Justice demands it, Morality demands it.

EDIT TO ADD:

In regards to Afghanistan: The Bush administration has offered no more real and substantial evidence that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 than they offered to show that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat to the United States of America. Everything that we think we know about 9/11 which has been and continues to be used as THE "reason" why a "War on Terror" is necessary, is equally dubious, so far as OFFICIAL statements are concerned.

[Hosnon]

112. I'd like to add that KNOWLEDGE is often defined as a:

True, justified belief.

Just because many here believed Afghanistan would turn out horribly and it did DOES NOT mean they "knew" it any more than calling heads and being correct means you "knew" how the coin would land.

Perhaps people guessed right but what exactly made that belief justified?

Edit: The point of my post is to question the class of individuals the OP has stated were "RIGHT" about Afghanistan...I'm not convinced most were justified in their belief and therefore question using the Afghanistan "knowledge" as a basis for their "omniscience".

[puerco-bellies]

113. Can't take poll because I still think that we were right to go after OBL

Afghanistan was where to find him.

[ConsAreLiars]

115. So you believed that an invasion and occupation of that country was the best

way to get him? That is the difference between those who supported the PNACers and those who saw through the lies.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jed Dilligan]

117. Without the trial and execution of certain key players,

withdrawal will stain our country's reputation forever. We must distance ourselves from the war through war crimes trials; and we must also hand our war budget over to the UN for actual peacekeeping.

[EFerrari]

118. I wasn't here before we invaded Afghanistan and I was against

that war.

We had no business "routing" the Taliban. And in addition to being morally wrong, the project had little or no chance of success in that terrain under Rumsfeld.

I don't remember if I heard the talk about the pipeline before or after we invaded. But we did march against the invasion in L.A.

Pull out yesterday.

[Sapphocrat]

119. I can't answer.

What about those of us who agreed with going into Afghanistan to pursue OBL, but who were always completely opposed to invading Iraq?

[ConsAreLiars]

121. You were deceived into believing the invasion and occupation of

Afghanistan was intended to go after OBL. You were fooled once, but you weren't fooled again.

[Sapphocrat]

122. OK, whatever. I'm a fucktard.

I'll hide the thread now.

[foreigncorrespondent]

123. Excuse me?

Fooled? Who in the hell do you think you are? No she wasn't fooled as a matter of fact. Sapph and I have had many long discussions on this very subject when we are able to (read when we are together for one of Sapphs trips to Australia) and while we both hold a difference of opinion about it, not for one moment do I think she was fooled.

In stead of insulting someone, perhaps you should try finding out why the person actually holds that belief. The only fool here mate is you. For not looking into things before insulting someone.

[ConsAreLiars]

124. Well, since Sappho has hidden this thread,

let me say that being deceived is not a sin. It is the goal of the Corporate State to deceive and they do it well. Those who bought the scam on Afghanistan are not to blame for being sold a lie. Those who sold that pile of BS in bright shiny packaging ("going after OBL") are the criminals. It was a lie. Believing the lie is an act of innocence.

The telling the lie was what I denounced. But she was, if she believed them, in fact, fooled by the Cons. I don't know why admitting that is such a hard thing for her, but if she wants to believe that being told she was lied to is worse than being lied to, then that's her choice. Or if she still wants to believe that invading Afghanistan was a noble act, so be it.

[foreigncorrespondent]

126. Oh please...

...you are pulling at straws. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Mine unfortunately for me happens to be one which is similar to yours. Sapph happens to be my partner. Does that mean I tell her she was fooled? Or does that mean I tell her she has a right to her opinions. After all that is what makes ME a progressive. Something you need to work at from the looks of it.

Not everyone has to be MIHOP here ya know?

[ConsAreLiars]

128. OK, Sappho is right

Invading Afghanistan was a noble act carried out in the best interests of all humanity. Believing that is NOT the result of being fooled by the most powerful set of Cons on planet Earth. It was good independent thinking. OK?

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluerthanblue]

120. There is no 'happy ending'- so there needs to be an ending- we

aren't helping anyone by continuing to throw human beings, and our military arsenal at a hell hole we pretty much created ourselves. Iraq is not the 51th state, nor would it help if it was. The people there cannot count on us to really help them, because our presence is hurting, and fueling the killing that is inevitable-

We did a BAD BAD THING by going into Iraq, and Afganistan- but continuing on the same 'course' will only bring the world an even greater harvest of death, suffering and destruction.

You can't end violence with more violence- You can't stem someone's life threatening bleeding, by putting leaches on them, while the bleeding may stop, it will only stop because there is eventually no blood left to lose....

We need to face the reality- this was a unspeakable, horrible, mistake- A mistake that we haven't even begun to realize the ramifications of.

We need to stop the slaughter NOW- and get out- the harm that will come to the innocents, is coming to them daily, at our hands and the hands of those that wait to take our place-

We can't un-do this. But we can stop doing this.

peace is something we have never really, truly tried yet- it's way beyond time. way beyond time.

[EdwardM]

129. We should pull out immediately

There will be no "peace with honor" if we stay any longer. Iraq will turn into a disaster no matter how long we stay. All we are doing is delaying the inevitable. And while we are doing that, more soldiers and innocent Iraqis are dying.

[hertopos]

131. Work with UN and ... I have to admit that there is no easy way out by now...

I am originally not from U.S. Over the years, I have seen one too many times a same pattern. U.S. went to the war without knowing the outcome, and made a complete mess, and then just withdrew from the region because the war became unpopular.

The result? The worst example is Cambodia and its killing field.
My point is U.S. just cannot withdraw its troops and leave things behind anymore.

Talking about 3000 American death, well what about over 100k Iraqi death?
I don't know the best option right now but one thing is clear we need U.N. and the rest of the world help!!

I was so angry when the war started. I also saw quite a few Dems who thought the war would be over quickly. ( They lectured me how superior U.S. troops are.) I was also angry about Afghan war since I knew U.S. used to support Tali ban!! ( When they were 'freedom fighters' against U.S.S.R.) And I knew what kind of people Tali bans were. ( Remember how they treat women.)

If you support 'quick withdrawal', you are making similar mistake since it only save U.S. troop's causalities at the cost of many Iraqis.

There are so many problems in the world that does not have any quick fix. Bill Clinton knew that and he worked so hard and long for those international conflicts. Now, since 9/11, many people in U.S. lost perspective and I include both right and left.

This is my 'outsider's view point'.

hertopos

[clyrc]

132. I am by no means one of the "smart" posters on DU

And I can prove that by posting that I don't know what to do about Iraq. I do know that I was against invading Afghanistan, not because I was against getting rid of the Taliban or getting Bin Laden, but because I distrusted the bush regime in the first place, and I read enough articles against it, all of which made sense. I was horrified about going to war with Iraq, and I was much more vocal in criticizing this war. I remember being surprised at how many Democrats fell for the bush lies, when someone so not brilliant as me saw through them.

[EstimatedProphet]

134. I still look at it like "we broke it, we fix it"

It's not a good solution, but I still think the best option for us in the eyes of the world is to actually rebuild Iraq (as opposed to pretending we are rebuilding Iraq, like Our Great Leader and his minions do). I think that's the only way to get international respect back.