<h3>How many are for sending at least half the troops in Iraq to Afghanistan and eventually Pakistan?</h3>
It's obvious our true enemies ( the guys behind 9/11 , etc. ) are in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Iraq is just a big Bush Mistake. We've all seen the proof that Saddam had ZERO to do with Al Qaeda and please don't post dishonest crap claiming he did. Why don't we have a larger portion of our troops where the true fight is? Instead of having them screw the pooch in Iraq?
the latest Pentagon report concludes the pre-war Iraq government had nothing to do with al qaeda. It's kinda Dumb that Bush and his thugs won't fess up to that.
<strong>Afghanistan best answer:</strong>
<p><i>Answer by VPOC</i><br/>Good Lord, NO. Enough with sending troops. There are other ways to influence what happens in different parts of the world. Helping Taliban against Soviets created Afghanistan problem, being pals with Saudis helps them spread the wahabi doctrine all over the world, including Pakistan. Maybe we should choose our friends a little better. That would save us a lot of trouble.</p>
<p><strong>afghanistan</strong>
<img alt="Afghanistan" src="http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1184/531605513_28b93cc88d.jpg" width="400"/><br/>
<i>Image by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/35703177@N00/531605513">The U.S. Army</a></i>
A Special Forces company commander meets with village elders and members of the 1st Kandak, 209th Afghan National Army Corps April 10, 2007, to discuss military operations in the Sangin District area at an undisclosed forward operating base in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Daniel Love) <a href="http://www.army.mil">www.army.mil</a></p>
Orignal From: How many are for sending at least half the troops in Iraq to Afghanistan and eventually Pakistan?
0 Comments