afghanistan is a good war because..

[mkultra]

Poll question: afghanistan is a good war because..

please explain your votes. I especially want to hear from the "war is never the answer" peeps. What do you feel is the answer.

[MNDemNY]

1. It may have been.....

but it is over, no further good to be wrought. Al qaeda is gone, we have achieved our goal, any more is "nation building" at best, or more likely just for the money.

[ClarkUSA]

9. "Al qaeda is gone"? There are still "affiliated organizations" that have "enclaves and sanctuaries"

Petraus "says affiliated organizations still have "enclaves and sanctuaries" in the country.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3870206

<<"we have achieved our goal">>

No, we haven't. Osama bin Laden is still at large in the mountainous Af-Pak border region.

<<any more is "nation building" at best, or more likely just for the money>>

What "nation building" are you referring to? That was not in the mission plan Pres. Obama described on Tuesday.

[dmallind]

2. Where's the option that says

It's a necessity so we don't have to abandon the people to a fundamentalist Islamist tyranny who wants to kill anyone who disagrees with them?

[mkultra]

4. i think some people would consider nation building to be a negative

[dmallind]

10. Better than the alternative though. NT

[pscot]

3. Where's the option that says

It's not a good war because we have virtually no chance of achieving our objectives in the face of the tribalism, the Islamic fundamentalism and the cultural norms that prevail in the region. Not to mention the fact that the Afghan economy, such as it is, is based on the opium trade. I don't care what secret intelligence the President has access to. This escalation is nuts.

[mkultra]

5. thats the AQ should be left alone option

sounds like you think that its to much trouble to go after them.

[pscot]

13. Do you think our objectives there are achievable?

Or even worthwhile? It's not only that it's a lot of trouble. The question is, how many Afghanis are we prepared to kill in order to pacify the place. I suspect we might have to kill them all. Are we up for that? I doubt it. This escalation is stupid and pointless.

[Lilith Velkor]

6. Because I can't tell the difference between AQ and the Taliban

and I think that sending an army to get 100 guys (instead of a special ops team) is the way to go, much like using a sledgehammer (instead of a flyswatter) is the proper way to kill flies.

[mkultra]

7. why does the difference matter

The taliban ran the government and invited AQ to take refuge there after bombing us once. They did not offer to just hand OBL over unless we showed them "evidence" and then only to an Arab country for trial. AQ is said to have more than 3000 members that travel back and forth from north afghanistan to pakistan. 100 AQ guys could easily be with 1000 Taliban.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. If it's really that easy, what's the problem?

Should be pretty quickly accomplished, according to you.

[Hansel]

11. There's good wars?

There are unfortunately necessary wars and conflicts. None of them are good.

[SpartanDem]

12. +1

[HughMoran]

14. I love war

Mmmmm, fresh blood.

(I'm a vampire)