Sorry, Mercedes, responded to your above post before I saw this one. Thank you for the better tone in this post. -- Duke Doggie's "DEEP DOO-DOO"

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Sorry, Mercedes, responded to your above post before I saw this one. Thank you for the better tone in this post.

Author:
obitchecker
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: Mon, May 25, 2009 7:09:39
In reply to: Mercedes 's message, "Obitchecker, I came back to get something for my cousin, so I though I'd just check if you responded..." on Mon, May 25, 2009 6:16:33

I am not so certain that if we had stayed in Afghanistan Al Qaeda would have been quickly reduced to a small band, or that US losses would have been significantly smaller. After routing the Taliban from power, our continued presence there would have more likely had much the same effect it had in Iraq. Peace would not have come so easy. My own feeling is that we would probably still have had peacekeeping troops (in quotes if you prefer) there today, and attacks would have continued killing our soldiers in the process. Let's face it, our troops' presence anywhere becomes a recruiting tool for some.

I posted this link about the WMDs before. I have no idea whether it's true or not, or to what extent, but I've been puzzled by the lack of discussion on it from the major media, either the Old Three or FOX, and the lack of detailed refutation on the Internet.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/18/233023.shtml

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2007/11/were_saddams_mi.php

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/saddams-wmd-moved-to-syria-an-israeli-says/24480/

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48827

There are many other articles on this. Here is the best I can find on refutations. Note the lack of detailed refutation, and that it is primarily "negative evidence":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501554.html

Still, I'm not accepting the other reports as gospel truth, and they may all be just false. But I can't be sure. Of course, if true, that still leaves other questions, and does not get Bush and others off the hook entirely.

I'll get back to you next weekend.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date

I should say I actually agree with you that we should've stayed in Afghanistan, though I don't think it would have been a quick and easy rout. obitchecker Fri, May 29, 2009 9:12:59

Re: Not to intrude, but I don't think ground forces are going to help in Afganistan. Teller Fri, May 29, 2009 12:07:23