ANSWERS: 4
  • I think having a 'best justification' is a mistake. Most decisions any of us make about something have numerous factors and going to war is certainly an important decision. As for whether we should be there...we ARE there. And while we could always just leave, when the US leaves before an equilibrium is established a lot of people die in horrible ways. This happened in Viet Nam and at the end of the first Gulf War where those who had supported us were hunted down and killed.
  • The fact that the Taliban would love to re-group in Afghanistan rather than stay in Pakistan. The is so much rural land in Afghanistan where the Taliban could flourish. We need finish off the Taliban before they take that country back over.
  • No we shouldn't have been there in the first place. It should have been handled as a criminal police matter, not a military one. That's why it failed so. The minute we killed the first innocent going in, we lost all support of the locals. We became the terrorist then in their eyes.
  • Osama Bin Ladden has not been captured - nor has his group been destroyed. That is reason enough to keep on in Afghanistan . Now, if he was someplace else, say Saudi Arabia for example - we should wrap up operations in Afghanistan and peruse him there. Where ever the trail leads until he is caught, killed, or proven to be a CIA hoax, we should follow it. Other than that, we have no business in nation building or teaching anyone anything about democracy or religion or anything else. We are involved in a mission to destroy one specific group of outlaws - and when that is completed it's over. Bush had no idea about what to do after 9-11, he went off half cocked and fouled up the search for Bin Ladden almost to the point of impossibility - now with Obama we might get somewhere and actually get the chance to put some real terrorists on trial.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy