Skip to main content

View Diary: Will Pelosi Allow a Vote on an Exit Strategy from Afghanistan? (31 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes it is (0+ / 0-)

    And Afghanistan is not Bush's war. That's Iraq.

    •  Clinton didn't start it. (0+ / 0-)

      It was Bush.

      Tinfoil! ...it's the new black!

      by mosesfreeman on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 07:06:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No (0+ / 0-)

        It was Al Qaeda.

        Iraq was not a defensive response to aggression. It was a war of (Bush's) choice, hence Bush's war. Afghanistan was a defensive response to 9/11, not a war of choice, so it was and is not Bush's war.

        •  soooo... (0+ / 0-)

          Attacking another nation, bombing it civilians, is now called a defensive response?

          Say what you will about the war, you can't change the meanings of words.

          asshat!

          Tinfoil! ...it's the new black!

          by mosesfreeman on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 08:14:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

            Also 2+ 2 = 4. Your ignorance is really incredible.

            Attacking a country (or regime in control of a country) that has committed aggression against you in order to prevent another attack on your own people is now and always has been defensive. Look it up. I can't change the meaning of words -- and haven't. Neither can you.

            The Taliban hosted Al Qaeda, knowing that Al Qaeda was at war with the United States. They allowed Al Qaeda to use training camps and a territorial safe haven in Afghanistan to prepare attacks on the US, including 9/11. After those attacks, Al Qaeda made clear it intended to continue attacking the US, and the Taliban continued to provide them a safe haven. So attacking Afghanistan to remove that safe haven and deny Al Qaeda the ability to prepare further attacks on the US from Afghanistan is about as clear an example of defensive war as can be conceived.

            Unfortunately, it's not possible to fight enemies like the Taliban and AQ without inadvertently killing some civilians. That has nothing to do with the war being defensive.

            •  You don't know a damned thing about al Qaeda (0+ / 0-)

              so don't claim that you do.

              Invading Afghanistan in the way we did was probably the most bone0headed approach to the al Qaeda problem that could have been conceived.

              History is already proving me right, and will continue to do so... guaranteed.

              There is a difference between fighting  and fighting smart.

              Tinfoil! ...it's the new black!

              by mosesfreeman on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 09:29:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You don't know a damned thing (0+ / 0-)

                about my knowledge of AQ so don't claim that you do.

                I never said the Bush administration fought smart. But invading Afghanistan -- though not in the specific Rumsfeldian way that we did -- was the only way to ensure that the Taliban-provided sanctuary for AQ was ended. With an active AQ presence there after 9/11, any president would have ordered an invasion of Afghanistan. So it wasn't "Bush's" war.

                I'm getting tired of explaining obvious things to you, and getting lame insults and vague, unsupported generalizations in return. Over and out.

                •  There's more "al Qaeda" there now than ever (0+ / 0-)

                  you're just repeating media talking points.

                  Al Qaeda never needed Afghanistan, and it still doesn't.

                  Tinfoil! ...it's the new black!

                  by mosesfreeman on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:20:50 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site