Mark,

As I understand it, most Americans (yes, even ones on the left) were for taking out the Taliban. Criticism of US actions in Afghanistan include farming out the hunt for bin Laden to locals and not pressing his pursuit in Tora Bora and diverting attention and resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, giving the Taliban a chance to regroup and allowing the poppy industry to boom.

There was never any doubt that if we committed troop to Afghanistan or Iraq that our military objectives would be met (well, aside from capturing OBL and Saddam). Striking back was the easy part.

Rebuilding and stabilizing is the hard part. This is one of the reason you'll find people against BOTH invasions, but most especially Iraq. Rebuilding, stabilizing and growing Afghanistan is hard enough without having to do the same in Iraq. Now, we have to do both when we did not have to.

I found these tidbits interesting from the original. . ..

"...in the United States, they say, the education demanded independent thinking."

a nice quote validating the quality of secondary education here in the US. (Seems like one of our political parties keeps screaming that liberal college professors are brain-washing students, but this seems to contradict that.)

. . .

"Although the women remain devout Muslims and pray five times a day, they do not wear the traditional head scarf, for fear of anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. after Sept. 11."

anti-Mulsim sentiment. Wonder which party is fanning those flames!! minorities, living in fear. . . in the United States? another product of the conservative movement.

Yup, leave it to Mark to once again confuse Afghanistan and Iraq as if they were the same country. Let me sum this up in words even a republican might understand.

Afghanistan - necessary war, good thing, liberals and conservatives agree, part of the war on terror.

Iraq - huge, collossal, enormous, gigantic MISTAKE!!!! NOT, NEVER WAS, NEVER WILL BE part of the war on terror. Unnecessary, and bad for the United States.

Mark, if everything is so great in Iraq, why don't you go over there and stand at the entrance to the "green zone" for 2 weeks. I bet there are enough people in here to take up a collection to send you there. While we're at it, why don't A-10, keefer, and matt go with you. I bet the people of Baghdad would be praising you by the minute. We'll even pay for the same body armor the Republicans sent our real troops there with...NONE.

b-b-b-but Sadaam gassed his own people...he raped them...he's a bad guy. Well, then maybe old man Bush should have taken him out in 1991 instead of stopping at the border with Kuwait. Got an explanation for that? He was a bad guy then too. Nope, it was Clinton's fault...he should have done it. Republicans never make mistakes.

Criticism of US actions in Afghanistan include farming out the hunt for bin Laden to locals and not pressing his pursuit in Tora Bora

Tom, this was laid to rest a couple years ago

From: Jed Babbin's article:

Tom, I know one of the main criticisms by you, Barney, maf, muirgeo and others is that the conservatives here march in lock-step with Bush on everything he says and does (not only not true, but intellectually dishonest because you know it's not true. You and the other Lefties, OTOH, do march in virtual lockstep AGAINST everything Bush says and does. It would be humorous if it weren't so pathetic. Why don't you try looking for the silver lining once in a while.

dear captain - the transparently, disingenious problem for the left is that their opposition to the iraqi invasion is at once, ex post facto & moot.

ex post facto because as I recall the runup, ALL respected intel sources, including foreign, concluded that iraq was either close to, or had developed nukes. it was also noted this corresponded w testing long-range missles which violated UN protocols. and it didn't help that sadamm unilaterally ejected the UN inspectors in a similar way as iran. mistake yes, deliberate no.

moot because containment was not working, as we now know but still not acknowledged by the left. also, the left choses to ignore that our pilots were being shot at enforcing the no-fly zone in further violation of UN policy. it was only a matter of time until one of our planes was shot down & the pilot paraded in front of the press in a clear act of war. these, my friend are facts, not mistakes.

further moot because the left, being generally ignorant of military matters, is evidently unaware that their support of the invasion build-up, to pressure Sadamm, carried its' own momentum. no invasion army can be held at full readiness indefinitely, in a foreign nation. to be sure, our army was going in. the only question was whether their entry was opposed or unopposed.

please study some military history & come back to cite examples of invasion armies throughout history which were withdrawn before the invasion.

no surprise that most civilians, especially the left, is without proper foundation to argue or understand military affairs.

as a veteran & indie voter, I remain unimpressed by the lefts' ex post facto & moot arguments. if the dems adopt them, I will continue to search for more educated candidates for which to vote.

"You and the other Lefties, OTOH, do march in virtual lockstep AGAINST everything Bush says and does."

Uh... see my post in the immigration thread.

And RS, that article doesn't put anything to rest. It claims there wasn't any outsourcing, then goes on to explain how there was outsourcing.

And I agree, going in with US troops would have been very difficult. But Bush was adimate about getting bin Laden dead or alive. And when it came down to it, he didn't go in after. It might have been the right call. But just as you claim that I'm against everything that Bush does (which I'm not), you can be sure that if Gore did the same in that situation, that many on the right of the aisles would have had brain aneurysms because of their outrage that we didn't go after bin Landen with all we had.

"Tom, I know one of the main criticisms by you... is that the conservatives here march in lock-step with Bush on everything he says and does."

And RS, I can honestly say that I've never made this claim.

spook, same here, I support Bush's immigration plan (for the most part). I supported the war in Afghanistan up to the point Bush allowed OBL to escape and not finnishing the job.

Liberals used to care about people being tortured, murdered, maimed, etc....but only when a liberal is in office. God forbid a non-liberal (Bush isn't a conservative so I'm not going to label him as such) take action to free people.

Then it's just WRONG apparently.

Tom

Did you and the other liberals really believe that terrorists are confined to one country of Afghanistan?

Please don't tell me you were that naive. Most of the nation was also for a WAR ON TERROR, not a war on Afghanistan.

Then when the action is ultimately taken and hands get dirty, liberals then get quesy like they always do and start running for cover.

"You mean we were actually going to have to kill some of the bad guys and a few innocent people might die too?" Well we didn't sign up for that

Good grief.

So let me get this straight, Warrior, to put in terms even a retard can understand. If news came out tomorrow that for the past 5 years we were informed that all along we were chasing Colonel Sanders who we thought was bin laden and all the "terrorist training camps" in Afghanistan were really popsicle factories, you wouldn't be upset??? You wouldn't go back on your original idea that war in Afghanistan was a good idea???

I have a little recommendation for you...get a refund from whoever sold you that crack you're smokin. It's not working. Furthermore, go do some reading before you make outragious claims such as most of the nation not supporting the war in Afghanistan.

Next, there were more al-Qaida terrorists in the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Pakistan, and God only knows where else, than there ever were in Iraq before Hussein was taken out. They flooded in with open borders, open supply lines and reeked havoc on the Iraqi people. In the Hussein era, the Iraqis only feared for their lives if they did something wrong...now they fear for their lives every minute of every day. Sounds like a great trade-off to me.

I hope Sahar doesn't end up exhibiting her art in a street fair in downtown, Las Vegas, lol!

"Did you and the other liberals really believe that terrorists are confined to one country of Afghanistan?"

No.

"Please don't tell me you were that naive. Most of the nation was also for a WAR ON TERROR, not a war on Afghanistan."

No, it was most Americans backed an invasion of Afghanistan to take out the Taliban who was harboring al qaeda who attacked us.

Saying Americans were for a war on terror, not a war on afghanistan doesn't make sense. A war on terror is not specific action. It's an idea that we will go after terrorists, we will defeat terrorism.

How, when and where we do that is and was open to debate. Afghanistan in many was was a no brainer. Al qaeda attacked us and the Taliban was harboring them.

Now Iraq doesn't fit as neatly into that "war on terror" model. Sure, Saddam was a entity to be watched and dealt with. He posed a threat. But was he enough of a threat to justify a unilateral invasion that much of the world did not back? That's where opinions diverge. Myself, I don't think it was and I think that's been proven in the situation in Iraq after the invasion.

"In the Hussein era, the Iraqis only feared for their lives if they did something wrong...now they fear for their lives every minute of every day. Sounds like a great trade-off to me."

Spent much time in Iraq, Ron? Talked to many Iraqis, have you?

Ron....talk about a straw man. Wow, you've outdone yourself.

It's a WAR ON TERROR Ron, not a war just on Al Queda and Al Queda is not confined to Afghanistan.

Tom...go back to the original polls and the questions asked. DO YOU SUPPORT THE WAR ON TERROR? Not, do you support the WAR ON AFGHANISTAN.

"go back to the original polls and the questions asked. DO YOU SUPPORT THE WAR ON TERROR? Not, do you support the WAR ON AFGHANISTAN"

Warrior, what original polls would you be referring to?