Media reporting terrorist attack likely..

[Guest NoCalMike]

I am sure by now you have seen this plastered all over the news. So with this new revelation on Al Qaeda, is it fair to heavily question what exactly was accomplished in Afganistan?

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Rome wasn't built in a day. While problems still occur, lots of good things have happened since the Taliban where removed from power.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I didn't say Taliban. I said Al Qaeda, and they have regrouped and the country is in just as shit shape as before we started, except now a lot of buildings are destroyed. See we didn't finish the job because we were in such a hurry to go to war with the "IMMINENT THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY" and now the irony sets in.....

[Guest Vern Gagne]

What irony. That it takes time to rebuild a country with so many problems. The U.S. along with other nations are still working to help Afghanistan.

 

Al Qaeda is not what it used to be. More than half of the Senior officials have been killed or captured.It's a large organization, and is still a threat. But, not what they use to be.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I am not talking about rebuilding the country. I am talking about the "Imminent threat" line of bullshit that was used to get us into Iraq, and I am not sure how anyone at anytime could have actually believed Iraq was more of an imminent threat to our national security moreso than Al Qaeda. I am not trying to claim Al Qaeda is stronger or even equal to what it used to be, however it is being reported they are ready to roll out new attacks by the summers end and it is either all a scare tactic, or clearly shows that resources needed in Afganistan were diverted to other places in the middle east when they were still needed down south.

[Guest Prime Time Andrew Doyle]

I am talking about the "Imminent threat" line of bullshit that was used to get us into Iraq.

But Iraq was more a threat than Al-Qaeda. Iraq as a country and with their leader, was much more a threat to the U.S because they were just that, a Country, where as Al-Qaeda was and still is a very shadowy group. Iraq was more dangerous, because they had a proper military, unlike the "Jihad Warriors" of Al Qaeda.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I am talking about the "Imminent threat" line of bullshit that was used to get us into Iraq.

But Iraq was more a threat than Al-Qaeda. Iraq as a country and with their leader, was much more a threat to the U.S because they were just that, a Country, where as Al-Qaeda was and still is a very shadowy group. Iraq was more dangerous, because they had a proper military, unlike the "Jihad Warriors" of Al Qaeda.

I'm hoping this was just a joke.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

Sad to say, there is no real way to take out Al-Qaeda. For every member you kill, you've got annothe couple ready to avenge his death.

That's why Al-Qaeda is and was more of a threat than Iraq. You can defeat a country, you can't defeat a terrorist organisation that only needs a few people to carry out it's plan. That's why the IRA and ETA have been around for decades.

 

And now, the Iraq situation has just created more ill feeling in the Middle East towards the USA, and it might all come back to haunt Bush...

[Guest Slapnuts00]

What are you talking about? We've captured and killed many of their leaders and their network is not nearly what it was before we invaded Afghanastan. As long as some remain they will find ways to regroup in some way. If you kill one, there are millions of fundamentalist whackos ready to step in and fill the gaps.

Yeah I'm sure if a Democrat was in charge their plan of diplomacy and appeasement would have accomplished much more. This is not an easy task and it's gonna be a long battle that will likely outlive all of us. So stop bashing just because the administration and our troops are doing the best they can.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

What are you talking about? We've captured and killed many of their leaders and their network is not nearly what it was before we invaded Afghanastan. As long as some remain they will find ways to regroup in some way. If you kill one, there are millions of fundamentalist whackos ready to step in and fill the gaps.

Yeah I'm sure if a Democrat was in charge their plan of diplomacy and appeasement would have accomplished much more. This is not an easy task and it's gonna be a long battle that will likely outlive all of us. So stop bashing just because the administration and our troops are doing the best they can.

Christ, please shut up or go back here.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

What are you talking about? We've captured and killed many of their leaders and their network is not nearly what it was before we invaded Afghanastan. As long as some remain they will find ways to regroup in some way. If you kill one, there are millions of fundamentalist whackos ready to step in and fill the gaps.

Yeah I'm sure if a Democrat was in charge their plan of diplomacy and appeasement would have accomplished much more. This is not an easy task and it's gonna be a long battle that will likely outlive all of us. So stop bashing just because the administration and our troops are doing the best they can.

I dunno if that was adressed to me, but anyway...

 

It's very difficult to openly wage war upon a terrorist group. The problem is that there is no real structure to take down, no symbolic gesture that can be made like pulling down Saddams statue or tearing down the Berlin Wall. Ultimately Al-Qaeda will always exist in some form or annother, and a terrorist attack today is no less likely than pre-9/11.

 

Also, I don't see anyone saying that the Democrats would have done it better than the Republicans.

[Guest Slapnuts00]

It wasn't to you. It was to the poster that made the snide remark about not acomplishing anything in Afgahnastan. I made the dry joke at the end because it was also a knock on the current adminstration making the inference that if someone else was preseidnt everything would be better.

 

Oh and Tyler, you're becoming a parody. Nothing you say means anything to me anymore. (Note: at least when Marny does it she makes good points too instead of arrogantly screaming at others who you don't deem up to snuff with your "superior" viewpoints. For someone who wishes to project a good image of liberals you're certainly doing a good job of just furthering the stereotypes).

[Guest NoCalMike]

I never said NOTHING was accomplished in Afganistan. All I said was, that it looked like the job was not nearly finished, and with our resources being diverted to Iraq, Afganistan slowly turned back into the hell hole it was before we got there. I also point to the fact that Afganistan has been completely empty from the mainstream news over the past few months, and it isn't because it is a nice peaceful country now.

[Guest Powerplay]

Well, chave is partially right. It's hard to fight a terrorist organization because of the fluidity of it's structure. Everyone accepts this and the fact that it's pretty much impossible to totally destroy it because there will always be a few scattered groups out there conducting smaller operations. But having them in small, unconnected and uncoordinated groups makes them far less of a threat then allowing them to have a Base of Operations that was protected and supported by a country, which allows them to plan and dictate their movements and attacks far more effectively. We've taken out the big nest of them in Afganistan; now they don't have a government that will hide and protect them. Are they still out there? Yeah, of course, but now in smaller groups with less resources and funding, and much less communication between cells. It helped us out and gave us a great starting point to reduce their effectiveness.

 

Is it fair to question the effectiveness of Afganistan? No, not really. They are bound to make a big attack at us again, but that doesn't mean Afganistan wasn't effective. Like it was said above, they are a terrorist group and they can still attack even if they are getting pounded. It's not a fair indicator of how effective Afganistan was by saying "Well, we are going to get attacked again. So obviously that war did nothing.". How bout judging by the last Al-Qaeda attack on US soil and it's effectiveness. In all seriousness, when was the last attack? I'm kinda whacked out from a bad day at work, and I just need a little help here.

[Guest NoCalMike]

The last attack in the US was sept. 11th, however they are still commiting attacks in the middle east as has been reported various times since the Iraq war started.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

The last attack in the US was sept. 11th

False; there have been several hundred attacks in the United States since then. 9/11/01 was the date of the last successful attack.

[Guest NoCalMike]

The last attack in the US was sept. 11th

False; there have been several hundred attacks in the United States since then. 9/11/01 was the date of the last successful attack.

I stand corrected. I biffed that one alright.