Afghanistan--the Real Situation - Political Forum

CHUQ · #1 (**permalink**) 10-07-2006, 08:26 AM

Read about the real situation in Afghanistan.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._afghan07.html

Any opinions?

CHUQ · #2 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006, 04:21 AM

If it is not in the news there is no opinion?

hawkeagle · #3 (**permalink**) 10-14-2006, 08:10 AM

I think that it is too mind boggling for five years of aggression to end up in this swamp or morass.

I suspect people are mulling over the Seattle Times articles--

and all of its implications.

Coyote Says · #4 (**permalink**) 10-16-2006, 05:12 PM

Wasn't our secondary mission (since the primary one--catching OBL--failed) to oust the Taliban and liberate the Afghani people?

So what this article is saying is, aside from some new infrastructure and schools, Afghanistan is not a whole lot better off than they were before we came. And aren't we considering reinstating the Taliban? (didn't we put them there in the first place?)

I wish we could make up our minds......

superbug · #5 (**permalink**) 10-16-2006, 05:20 PM

So the mission of catching Osama failed? How so, when we are still on the hunt?

Coyote Says · #6 (**permalink**) 10-16-2006, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superbug

So the mission of catching Osama failed? How so, when we are still on the hunt?

I distinctly remember Bush saying that he wasn't a priority anymore. We may be looking, but I don't think we're trying very hard.

Technically, I guess you could say that the mission is still open. But only technically

superbug · #7 (**permalink**) 10-16-2006, 05:30 PM

Oh we're trying just like before, so that would mean that the mission isn't over, thus not failed.
By the way, do you have a source for the statement by Bush?

Coyote Says · #8 (**permalink**) 10-16-2006, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superbug

Oh we're trying just like before, so that would mean that the mission isn't over, thus not failed.
By the way, do you have a source for the statement by Bush?

No, but I might be able to find one. It may have been Cheney, but I think it was Bush. It was on TV.

If it's no longer a priority, then how could we be trying like we were before? It used to be our #1 priority immediately following 9/11. Before Iraq distracted us, that is.

superbug · #9 (**permalink**) 10-16-2006, 05:53 PM

We still are after him just as before.

Coyote Says · #10 (**permalink**) 10-16-2006, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.
Straight from the horse's mouth

Quote:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor.../13_Laden.html

I understand if you want to quibble with me on the last quote. I'm not all that fond of the source. I wish I could find a more credible one. As far as I can tell, it's only hearsay.