Which military action is more justified?

In response to Aaron's request on the other thread, the above poll is posted for your info and discussion.

You don't read so good Sherm. You're questions are not even close to mine. Perhaps if you removed your partisan blinders and then tried reading my questions, you might get it right. As it is, you didn't.

If I wasn't such a nice guy Sherm, I'd say you were being purposefully deceitful, which would make you a liar. But I'm a nice guy and realize that the deceitful manner in which you created this thread is not a result of your lack of integrity but your inability to comprehend anything you read other then what is put out by your handlers so your foul up is due to your ignorance.

Sherm's polls always suit sherm. There's no objective way to answer that.

Well guys I give up. No matter how meticulous I am or how thoroughly I research it you guys just will not accept facts.

Facts? This is the POLITICS forum, Sherm.

There's nothing factual about your question Sherm. Deceitful yes, factual no.

I think it has been conceded even by the Bush bunch that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

And I think it is accepted as fact that the terrorists who did participate are hiding out in Afghanistan.

So again you just blabber on and make insinuations when my post was factual on both counts.

No Sherm, it was more of your partisan tripe. You're using Afghanistan as a reason for running from Iraq and then as soon as we're out of Iraq, you'll start calling for us to abandon Afghanistan as well.

So you never answered my question. Which country do you feel it's more important to ensure is left in stable hands, Iraq or Afghanistan?

When Hillary Clinton took the Senate floor to whip up support for the invasion of Iraq she claimed that Hussein was giving refuge to al-Qaida. I'm just saying...

Well OC I think it is pretty well established and even acknowledged by bush and cheney that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

And that the terrorist outlaws who did are in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

But like I posted to start this discussion, republicans still tend to think the occupation of Iraq is more important than going after the terrorists who murdered 3000 innocent citizens on 9-11.

So who is blinded by partisanship?

I know I can be wrong.

But usually I am at least partly right.

And I think if Obama is elected the focus will shift from occupying Iraq to going after the nest of terrorists in Afghanistan.

But even Obama will continue to leave troops in Iraq imo.

I was under the assumption that Barack Obama would chase them into Pakistan. Perhaps you should tell him they are still in Afghanistan.

The Saudi Arabians who piloted airplanes into the World Trade Center were only trained by the Taliban.

I cannot see where we need to surrender in either theater.

You are blinded by partisanship.

Well since the conversation seems to have shifted here from the original thread I will post the link again.

http://news.aol.com/article/afghan-war-more-important-public-says/109429

The original post was meant to stimulate discussion on why Party affiliation or preference is so closely related to whether the Iraqi occupation is desirable or even justified.

It was originally posted under the thread about what makes republicans think the way they do.

And I'll ask you the same question I've ask you before. Which country is it more important to be left in stable hands?

Aaron even the gvt. we installed there wants us gone.

Is there any particular reason you don't answer the question Sherm?

Well aaron if a "stable government" was our objective we should have left Hussein in charge.

I am like the old "w" in that I dont believe in nation building.

It is up to them to create their own "stable" gvt.

You cannot impose "democracy".

I think it is more importand to pursue the terrorists in Afghanistan than to continue the occupation of Iraq.

So what did you think about our actions in Europe after WWII?

You've praised JFK's Berlin speech so many times and nation building was exactly what we did in Germany.

Are you saying that was a mistake?

That is irrelevant to this discussion.

What do you think is more important?

Catching terrorists and bringing them to justice or nation building in Iraq?

It's perfectly relevant to the question. Germany was a country that either started or was heavily involved in continual war for hundreds of years, including 2 world wars. When they weren't at war, they were preparing for war. 63 years is the longest time in their history in which they weren't at war with someone. I would say that is a perfect example of successful nation building.

Afghanistan is of no strategic importance or holds any vital interest to America, its citizens or its economy. Iraq does. I think it is much more important to our national security and our economic outlook to ensure Iraq becomes a remains the stable county that the recent surge has made it.

We can send troops into Afghanistan and all al Qaeda is going to do is move over the border to Pakistan. Are you willing to go to war with Pakistan to ensure your justice is served?

Why not disentangle ourselves from the Middle East so nobody wants to muder Americans any more?

This poll is stupid. What's done is done.....the Democrats supported both efforts and they continue to support both efforts by authorizing money. Withhold the money, bring the troops home. End military and cash aid to other countries. I see nowhere in the COTUS that the federal government can tax us to send money or tanks to other countries to make war against each other.

The suggestion that the Afghan war should take primacy is about two weeks old and originated with Obama.

ohio county wrote:The suggestion that the Afghan war should take primacy is about two weeks old and originated with Obama.

Not really, Jimmy. Some of us were saying that before the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003.

ohio county wrote:The suggestion that the Afghan war should take primacy is about two weeks old and originated with Obama.

This country weakened its ability to engage the enemy in Afghanistan when it invaded Iraq. By focusing attention on how poorly things are going in Afghanistan, the Democrats can continue to hammer away at the decision to attack another country and subsequent decisions like increasing troop levels.

There was a legitimate reason for military intervention in Afghanistan. That's where the terrorists were training. There was no legitimate reason to invade Iraq. Now Pakistan is involved and the Democrats are using this to their advantage to sway public opinion.

Ziggy and a minority of other Americans can say they've always been opposed, this is true. That doesn't take away from the fact that the Democrats approved opening up a second front, they're just trying to distance themselves from it and the increasing number of American casualties in Afghanistan.

Well Steph I could be wrong but I believe a majority of Dems opposed it.

If not a majority a large percentage.

shermangeneral wrote:Well Steph I could be wrong but I believe a majority of Dems opposed it.

If not a majority a large percentage.

You would be right about the HOR (81 for, 126 against) but wrong (does it ever get old) about the Senate (29 for, 21 against).

Iraq would not have happened without democrats supporting the invasion.