The Coalition if Afghanistan

Don't know for sure, but I do know that France has flown the most sorties in Afghanistan outside of the US Air Force. France does not participate at all in the Iraq war.

 

Didn't he just say they are flying the 2nd most missions behind the US?

 

Canada has been there for a long time, since virtually the beginning of this conflict, but IIRC we have completed or are completing our commitments there.

We aren’t in Iraq because it was clear from the start that it was an ill-conceived and regressive war that has nothing to do with the war on terrorism, and in fact is enabling the terrorists. There is a very different agenda at work in that war.

 

I am not sure of the current status, but I know that we had France, Germany, and Turkey among others in Afghanistan. Pretty much any of the nations that Rumsfeld spoke dismissively of, that conservative talk shows try and denegrate, etc.

 

Many of us have been there for the start. The Afghan war was clearly a just war. The Iraq war is clearly unjust and immoral war, based on lies, and it is perhaps even a crime against humanity if these recent accounts of up to 100,000 civilian deaths are to be believed. If so I think we can start fairly using the term “atrocity”.

 

The terrorists would been tracked down. The support for the terrorists wouldn't have been as widespread, because we were retaliating in that action. The ranks of terrorists wouldn't swell the way they do with Iraq. Allies would be on board to better seal the borders, gather intel, and other valuable tasks beneficial to our war on terror.

 

There are a large number of differences. First the Afghan was just. I was in response to a real attack. The attack was clearly and convincingly linked to Bin Laden. The American government gave the Taliban fair warning, and even gave them the option of handing over Bin Laden, and they refused. All the proper channels were followed and the ensuing action was justified. Even my Muslim Arabic friends think this.

Secondary issues are that comparatively few civilians were killed and that there was an opportunity to restore the country to a better state than it was in before. The key to choking off terrorists is to choke off the support and even the complicity from the moderates. There will always be a radical fringe but they only gain significant power if they are popular with and supported by and sheltered by the moderates.

Yes, but this is irrelevant. The Jihadists don’t even like Saddam. They hate him in fact. He was a wanton sinner by anybody’s standards, and especially theirs. Bush did them a favour by removing Saddam and destabilising Iraq. They are there to further destabilize the country and nurture hatred toward the US to help radicalize the pubic and recruit more terrorists. This is why what Bush has done there has played right into their hands. And Bush can’t win this war because he built no support in the region before going in, built no coalitions, so now all the other countries in the area have nothing to gain by the US succeeding and they do stand to gain by having the US fail and be blamed for the failure. They will, therefore, continue to destabilize Iraq until the US pulls out in failure. Bush has put himself in a situation that he can’t win.

 

A number of them were actually caught there, IIRC. At any rate, when the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden they were shown clearly to be part of the problem themselves, so removing them was a plus, not the least of which was the shutting down of the terrorist training camp.

It’s not about the radical fringe. It’s about the radicalization of moderates.

It’s not about Saddam. It’s about the 100,000 dead, killed in a war started by the “American devils”, based on pure lies. “They said they were liberators but they weren’t here to protect us. They destroyed the country and left us in poverty. Then they bombed my town and killed my wife and child! They imprisoned our women and violated them in unspeakable ways. Who but the devil could do such things? These people are EVIL and before I give my last breath I will kill as many of them as I can. I’ll hit them where they hit me, in my home, my family, my wife and children… This unspeakable devil must be brought down!”

I wonder how many formerly moderate Iraqis are saying things something like this now?

 

No but potential terrorists might. People who listened to OBL in the past and said that no the Americans aren't that bad, OBL is a liar, but did have some grudges(Israel) against us are potential terrorists. They might not like us but didn't feel a need to take up arms against us, until they see us using war not as a last resort, against a country that wasn't a threat. At that point they may think the U.S. is unstable and could attack any country in the middle east. The U.S. appears to them like a country that will attack without rhyme or just cause. They may feel the U.S. should be stopped and see that OBL had some success in hurting our country. At that point they will be more influenced by terrorist leaders and willing to join them to strike at us.

At the same time had we only acted against those that posed a legitimate threat, they might go on not beleiving the rhetoric of OBL types, and never become terrorists.

 

The radicals, no. The preradicalized moderates, especially in areas other than Afghanistan, yes . The allies of the US certainly do to. Doing the proper moral thing is very important to us. You aren’t going get rid off all the radicals in one easy step. You need to hem them in by taking away their base of operation, their support, and build support of your own. You need to manage the secondary stakeholders that have influence over the primary ones becasue they have a big impact on the outcome. That makes addressing the primary ones much easier. If you don’t consider the secondary ones they can become primary ones quite quickly, either directly or indirectly.