Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64
If I missed saying AQ whenever I said Taliban, then just assume I meant Taliban + AQ. Stop using Taliban as if we attacked Taliban only with no provocation.
1) AQ attacked us on our soil
2) We asked Taliban (okay it was more threatened) to give us Bin Laden and kick out AQ
3) The Taliban refused
4) So we attacked the Taliban + AQ
|
I understand the reasoning behind why it was done. The reason you don't do it this way is precisely because of the end result we have now. The terrorists move elsewhere because they are stateless entities. Then you're left fighting an unwinnable war against a native population that is no threat to this country.
I don't know how you can look at a war that we lost and say it was a good idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64
The center of gravity for AQ was clearly in Afghanistan in 2001.
|
No it wasn't. AQ wasn't some big group hanging out in a single country. It was a loose collection of like-minded individuals from around the world. The 9/11 hijackers spent more time training in Hamburg, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, Malaysia, and the United States than they did Afghanistan. This is all in the 9/11 Report.
If there was a center of gravity, it was Pakistan. They were the one's that trained and funded AQ. They were the one's that protected them (and still do). Pakistan is the man behind the mask.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64
It's not either or. There levels of scale & degree that has to be factored into, along with geopolitical consequences. AQ in Afghanistan in 2001 was clearly the threat, they were being supported and defended by the Taliban. Clear enough reason to stand up to support and defend the US.
|
Again, the Taliban is Pakistan. They were created by the ISI. Those training camps in Afghanistan were run by Pakistani military and intelligence. The Taliban was a proxy for them to keep India influence at bay and avoid having the nation become a safe haven for anti-Pakistani revolutionaries. Note that other countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE pitched in too for their own reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64
If your argument is that we should have attacked Taliban + AQ and also those other countries, fine let's have that discussion. But we are talking about 2001 and the initial resolution and your bro (and you) would not even have attacked Taliban + AQ. Your other countries defense are used to obfuscate what we are talking here ... your bro simply not willing to defend the US when we were attacked on our soil back in 2001.
|
Going into Afghanistan didn't defend us. It just sent the leaders into the safe hands of Pakistan and engaged us in a never-ending war with the Taliban that we lost. All the while creating other terrorist hotspots in the region.
My argument is that if you truly wanted to defend America against terrorists, you would have went after Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Two countries that created, supported, and protected those terrorists.
So my question is why didn't our leaders go to war with them? Because when they kicked us in the mouth, we begged them for friendship, gave them money, and then tried and failed to beat up their little brother.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64
The original discussion: The big bro was not willing to support the US in attacking our AQ attackers back in 2001.
|
What infantry were you in over there?