Invasiontastic (fightfightfight)

Oisín Collins

Tempers are flaring quite easily these days, at the end of the day the "non-crazy side", which just to clarify are the ones which went after Afghanistan and Iraq, could just as easily have their evidence refuted by a passionate member of the "crazy side".

Common sense can't really be said to have been applied at ANY stage during the whole exercise, but if you want to insist that it was then at least recognise it from both sides.

The people who flew the plane into the WTC, whether conspiritors or not, were applying common sense as well, just from a different perspective. As was the american government when they invaded that aforementioned countries.

HeyYou

Ois&#237 wrote: »

Tempers are flaring quite easily these days, at the end of the day the "non-crazy side", which just to clarify are the ones which went after Afghanistan and Iraq, could just as easily have their evidence refuted by a passionate member of the "crazy side".

Common sense can't really be said to have been applied at ANY stage during the whole exercise, but if you want to insist that it was then at least recognise it from both sides.

The people who flew the plane into the WTC, whether conspiritors or not, were applying common sense as well, just from a different perspective. As was the american government when they invaded that aforementioned countries.

Oh my God. Here's the thing; the non-crazies can't have their evidence reputed by viable information, because they're isn't any. They can be disagreed with, certainly. But there'd have to ve some amount of evidence to "refute" the entirety of the American government.

Equating the non-crazies with people who supported the war is just wrong. Non-crazies are people who don't think the Americans did it themselves, who think al Qaeda did it. Those people, by definition, would have supported the invasion of Afghanistan, which was supported by all the major world players and has proven justified and well-advised in retrospect. They may not have supported the war in Iraq which seemed well-advised at the time but always had a link to 9-11 which was tenuous at best and not entirely justified on that basis alone. That war has been besmirched in retrospect, and plenty of the non-crazies can rightly oppose it.

So no, the crazies are not using common sense.

The muslims responsible could certainly have been seen to have used common sense, form a certain point of view anyway. In their eyes, this was a legitimate expression of discontent in the face of far worse western action perpetrated against them over a long period of time.

StupidLikeAFox

This is the funniest argument ive ever seen. Keep it up.

Raphael

Down in front!

*takes popcorn from inverted tinfoil hat and throws at Holligan*

LiamD

*Disbelief that I started this* :eek:

smiley_knees

*bangs head off table at having to read pages of opinions* Um, is there any way we could avoid turning this into "A little Controversy" and make the points in consise ways..? It's just easier and more interesting to read...

Oisín Collins

HeyYou wrote:

Those people, by definition, would have supported the invasion of Afghanistan, which was supported by all the major world players and has proven justified and well-advised in retrospect.

Yes, very well advised and justified, MY ASS.

Afghanistan is slipping back into the pre-INVASION (lets call it what is was folks) situation with new warlords coming into power all the time.

I don't honestly know how any person can possibly support the rampant american attempts to display some kind of authority in a world where their iron grip was torn asunder so brutally.

Also, your opinions HeyYou, while seemingly open-minded concern me a little that you don't seem willing to try a paradigm shift and see it from all the different points of view.

I know youre better than that Irwin

Crash

I'm going to lock this soon.

Oisín Collins

Can a Mod lock threads in a forum they're not the Mod of?

Crash

yup. so gonna lock it.

halenger

*munches on popcorn* Who's arranged the venue? The TV rights? and so on?

Actually. Make it some sorta cage. That always seems to make things interesting.

*jangles keys* Play nice.

Plunky

Okay, so the Bush administration were wrong to do what they did, but the rest of the free world was also wrong to not stand up to them in a forum outside of the White Elephant also known as the UN. Is that not just as bad?

Thought I'd get my 2 cents in before Neil pulled the plug... Podge, you're right, cages are more fun! Certainly pump up the ratings anyway, and that can't be a bad thing!

HeyYou

Ois&#237 wrote: »

Yes, very well advised and justified, MY ASS.

Afghanistan is slipping back into the pre-INVASION (lets call it what is was folks) situation with new warlords coming into power all the time.

I don't honestly know how any person can possibly support the rampant american attempts to display some kind of authority in a world where their iron grip was torn asunder so brutally.

Also, your opinions HeyYou, while seemingly open-minded concern me a little that you don't seem willing to try a paradigm shift and see it from all the different points of view.

I know youre better than that Irwin

Maybe I'm not, and maybe it's better I'm not Here's the thing; there's a difference between having an opinion and having evidence. People are entitled to think whatever they want on American foreign policy, god knows there are ample arguments on both sides or every decision they've ever made. However, thinking that 9/11 was the result of some conspiracy isn't a viable opinion unless you have some real amount of evidence that doesn't come from internet weirdos. So it's no reflection on my open-mindedness that I'm not willing to accept the beliefs of conspiracy theorists in this case, because they don't have anything concrete to base their case on.

And on Afghanistan: WHAT?! Don't make the mistake of equating the Iraq war and the invasion of Afghanistan as equally crazy. Here is what's been accomplished by the Afghanistan campaign:

Restoration of women's rights
Free and fair elections
Reduction of the reliance of the economy of the drug trade
Economic development

It's unfortunate that the security situation has deteriorated somewhat, and that Kabul is the only really safe place in the country. But that's not damning to the operation as a whole; the average Afghan is much better off than they were under the Taliban, especially the female population. At least now they have Kabul, where previously they had nothing. Nation-buliding takes time, so maybe we should give it some to see what happens.

To the moderators: why the threats of locking? We're just discussing something, isn't that what these boards are for? It's not like we hate each other or ahything else "bad" like that, we just have different opinions. What's the problem?

halenger

HeyYou wrote:

And on Afghanistan: WHAT?! Don't make the mistake of equating the Iraq war and the invasion of Afghanistan as equally crazy. Here is what's been accomplished by the Afghanistan campaign:

Restoration of women's rights
Free and fair elections
Reduction of the reliance of the economy of the drug trade
Economic development

...
Nation-buliding takes time, so maybe we should give it some to see what happens.
...

That's the business of America since when? America != rulers/owners of the world. Economic development? Hah. Cheap oil for America.

Anyhow... At what cost? Tens of thousands of civilians killed? That's a pretty high cost to reshape the world to your ideals. *sighs*


As for locking the thread... This is not one of those would-be democracies, unless the American government feel that that's an issue. Moderators moderate, users complain. Circle of life. Threads like this can get tedious but hey I don't really care at the moment. I've been ignoring this thread until now.

halenger

Afghanistan may have had "reason" but if you see nothing behind oil and Iraq then I suggest stronger glasses. And of course the "finishing Daddys work".

Anyway... What had Iraq to do with 9/11. Sadam was harbouring a person whose ideals he dispised? America should learn to try finish one thing before moving elsewhere. Noone can deny (and not be lying) that the Iraq invasion reason were a complete sham, as has been proven many times since then. (I think we can do without an "in hindsight" reply.) They move from one thing to the next where it suits them. I hear it time and time again that Saudi Arabia is a dreadful human rights abuser and all the reasons that you propose for invading Afghanistan. Nothing is ever done about that...because they're good friends. "You pat my back..." and so forth.

StupidLikeAFox

well in fairness your not gonna go attacking your friends

(im typing with a cornetto, go me!)

HeyYou

halenger wrote:

Afghanistan may have had "reason" but if you see nothing behind oil and Iraq then I suggest stronger glasses. And of course the "finishing Daddys work".

Anyway... What had Iraq to do with 9/11. Sadam was harbouring a person whose ideals he dispised? America should learn to try finish one thing before moving elsewhere. Noone can deny (and not be lying) that the Iraq invasion reason were a complete sham, as has been proven many times since then. (I think we can do without an "in hindsight" reply.) They move from one thing to the next where it suits them. I hear it time and time again that Saudi Arabia is a dreadful human rights abuser and all the reasons that you propose for invading Afghanistan. Nothing is ever done about that...because they're good friends. "You pat my back..." and so forth.

I'm not defending the Iraq war, just the Afghan one. While I thought invading Iraq was the right move at the time, (based on the intelliegnce on WMDs which has since been proven to be faulty) it has since been proven to be a complete disaster. Invading a country based on faulty intelligence is bad enough, but to do it without a plan for post-war Iraq is just negligent. Of course Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but I don't buy the socialist oil propaganda either. I think it was stupid, but not necessarily for that reason.

I don't think the fact that the Saudis are dodgy damns the Afgahn invasion either. Just because you can't fix human rights and tyranny everywhere doesn't mean you shouldn't do it where you can. I bet the US would love to better the situation in Saudi, but then you'd say they were forcing their views on the rest of the world, wouldn't you? It would have pretty disastrous diplomatic and economic consequences, I think those are legitimate American concerns.

halenger

I never said go after the Saudis. I just said that they are reputidly far worse. So the excuses "we're doing it for their own good" doesn't stand. If they were doing it for the good of all and so forth they'd go after the worst offenders first or at least say something about it.

I don't condone any of this invasion stuff. But hey, that's me. The Americans did what they had to (to get reelected) and to keep their people happy. I'm quite sure the American public would've had a thing or two to say if America hadn't invaded someone after 9/11.

Oisín Collins

HeyYou wrote:

I'm not defending the Iraq war, just the Afghan one.

The Afghan War had no great moral motivation, it was a manhunt. A failed manhunt at that. The Iraq war was another manhunt, the finishing of Bush Sr.'s failed previous campaign with a shedload of trumped up evidence to back up their "righteous invasion"

But to get back on topic, the website seems a little farfetched.


P.S. To All Mods: I have absoultely NO grudge with HeyYou, in fact I find his debate stimulating, not a fight but a debate. Hope that's ok

halenger

Ois&#237 wrote: »

P.S. To All Mods: I have absoultely NO grudge with HeyYou, in fact I find his debate stimulating, not a fight but a debate. Hope that's ok

Moderators one and all on the boards in general couldn't give a toss what you think of anyone else. But if it comes across in such a way then threads get closed yadda yadda.

Carry on, nothing to see here.

HeyYou

Ois&#237 wrote: »

The Afghan War had no great moral motivation, it was a manhunt. A failed manhunt at that. The Iraq war was another manhunt, the finishing of Bush Sr.'s failed previous campaign with a shedload of trumped up evidence to back up their "righteous invasion"

The Iraq war wasn't a manhunt! A disaster, yes, but not a manhunt. The Afghan invasion was aimed at deposing a regime which harboured terrorists, to secure American interests and end al Qaeda. Capturing bin Laden was important but not the only goal, that's just untrue. I'd say the removal of one of the world's most oppressive regimes is a moral motivation, wouldn't you? And even if they didn't have one, they didn't need one. Their security was at stake after all.

DubTony

The Afghan war was more than likely a practice run; a "test our tactics" excercise. Bin Laden was the excuse needed to remove a regime that was morally reprehensible (by western standards), and no longer important to America. Add to that it's geographical location, and following the Iraq war, America now has troops in 2 countries bordering Iran.

Does anyone really believe that if Bin Laden had been reported to be hanging out in China or North Korea that the Americans would have blown either of those places back into the stone age?

Call a spade a spade, it was a test of troops, long range bombers and daisy-cutter mini-nukes. Nobody destroys half a country to "get" one man.

Tony

HeyYou

Do you really think that's true? Really? The Americans killed thousands of people and endangered their own in a training excercise? Come on.

Also, I've noticed that the mods have used the moving of this portion of the thread as an excude to remove some of the posts. Scandalous! I notice none of their posts got removed...

HeyYou

Sorry, that was meant to be:

I notice none of their posts got removed...

Italics are important

halenger

Don't make me ban you for being an idiot. If I wish to remove I post I will do so. I most certainly do not have to justify anything I do to you.

And, smart ass, check your facts first. I deleted nothing. I split the thread as best I could.

Also, there's an edit button for a reason. Use it.

Oisín Collins

HeyYou wrote:

Do you really think that's true? Really? The Americans killed thousands of people and endangered their own in a training excercise? Come on.

They not only endangered their own, but also the citizens of other nations coerced into fighting the war and endless numbers of civilans who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This kind of reckless behaviour is NOT a new thing for the US. Look at Gulf War I, the Vietnam Conflict etc.

Don't get me wrong, other nations are equally answerable for acts they have committed, but the US has committed acts which could be classified as genocidal and would be had a middle eastern dictatorship had committed them!

FACT.

halenger

They'd also be classified as <insert list of words here> but for the fact that they threatened to veto everything in the UN unless the UN gave all of it's soldiers amnesty from war trials yadda yadda...

pinkpimp

Still, all America is doing is the same thing they have done since they've been a major world power, and that's force their opinions on morals and government on other people. I don't think you can have a moral motivation/reason for war, aside from the obvious contradiction in terms there, morality is a personal thing, and surely you don't have the right to force yours upon others.

Barry Aldwell

DubTony wrote:

The Afghan war was more than likely a practice run; a "test our tactics" excercise.

The United States Military is one of the greatest armies to ever exist, in the field of all arms open warfare. It does not need to "test it's tactics" by invading some random country. In addition, they would be better off invading the state of Nevada than invading Afghanistan, if they want experience for Iraq. Afghanistan is a mountainous country, where the main mode of mass transport has to be helicopter. Iraq, on the other hand, is the complete opposite: A flat, featureless land, a commander's wet dream, where mechanised infantry is queen. The tactics required for both countries are completely different

StupidLikeAFox

Oh well, water under the bridge and all that.

Whos up for a game of rounders?

Barry Aldwell

Me, me, I am!

HeyYou

Ois&#237 wrote: »

They not only endangered their own, but also the citizens of other nations coerced into fighting the war and endless numbers of civilans who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This kind of reckless behaviour is NOT a new thing for the US. Look at Gulf War I, the Vietnam Conflict etc.

Sure, that's all true. My point was that they didn't do it as a training excercise, remember? On the forcing moral opinions thing, that's only partially true, and certainly not to the same extent as what happened in Vietnam. Back then, Communism was perceived to be a threat worthy of a massive invasion, a perception based on paranoia alone, as was the case with the entire Cold War. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan had material goals i.e. removal of the Taliban/ capture of Bin Laden and ousting of Saddam and securing (non-existent) WMDs. Both had US security interests at heart.

That's not foisting your opinions on anything else, unless you think the way the Taliban and Saddam conducted themselves was: a) appropriate and resonable and b) supported by their own people. I think most of the world finds the restriction of women's rights, harbouring of terrorists and state-owned drug industries morally abhorrent; both occurred in Afghanistan. I doubt anyone would sanction gassing large ethnic minorities and murdering all political opponents; both occurred in Iraq under Saddam. Getting rid of acknowledged evils in society does not constitute cultural imperialism, it constitutes common sense.

The problem is that the way the US goes about achieving these aims tends to be counterproductive. Not having a plan for Iraq has crippled the country. The best thing the US could do to better US-Muslim relations is to stop selling arms to the Israelis, but we all know that's not going to happen.

Oh, and where is this edit button? And what does it do?

Oisín Collins

HeyYou wrote:

....unless you think the way the Taliban and Saddam conducted themselves was: a) appropriate and resonable and b) supported by their own people.....

Then why, I ask, have there been marches through the streets of Baghdad, calling for Saddams release, and his return to government?

I agree, he wasn't a good person, but saying that he's not what Iraq wants is just wrong. They'd certainly prefer their dictator back to the current american puppet regime.

halenger

HeyYou wrote:

Oh, and where is this edit button? And what does it do?

Hmm... I wonder what the "Ban this user" button does. It's right under your name. Hmmm... Think I'll click it and see.

Grow up.

Ois&#237 wrote: »

Then why, I ask, have there been marches through the streets of Baghdad, calling for Saddams release, and his return to government?

That sorta crap was always going to happen. I'm not saying the Americans are doing much good in there but supporters of Sadam will always get people behind them. Especially people who have lost someone to an American bomb or lost their home or some form of (political/other) power. A dictatorship is easier for them anyway. It's like when Communism fell, there were many people (especially older ones) who just didn't know what to do with themselves. It will take many new generations before this isn't still very prominent.

HeyYou

Halenger, that wasn't a sarcastic question. I've never seen an edit button, nor do I know what it would be used for. Why assume the worst?

HeyYou

Scratch that, just noticed it now, sorry. I'm not in the habit of reading my own posts after I've posted them, my mistake.

Barry Aldwell

halenger wrote:

supporters of Sadam will always get people behind them. Especially people who have lost someone to an American bomb or lost their home or some form of (political/other) power

Also, while it's fine for us to sit here talking about how we think things should be, not everyone has Sky News and CNN to see the big picture with. Your average Iraqi can be told that the Americans come to destroy Islam/spit on the Koran/turn the entire country into the 52nd state(51 being Afghanistan), and they'd believe it

The yanks may be trigger happy, but they don't go around gunning people down for fun (repeats of the massacares in Vietnam are not wanted). They respond when fired upon, with their main asset, massive firepower. Saddam kept the country under control with a standard "my stick is bigger than your stick" approach ("killing is negotiation", if you will), by murdering the families of individual dissenters, and gassing any towns he took a dislike to. Frankly, it's all your average arab with an AK under his bed understands, and it's all the yanks can do to try to keep the country under control (not the gassing part, of course).

TalkISCheap

Surely we cannot allow Dubya to be the sole barometer of Western Morality? If we are going to deem something "morally unnacceptable"/"evil" then it should be done under the auspices of the UN, by a vote. This would give it some legitimacy at least.

America is responsible for textbook breaches of human rights (right to a fair trial, right to a lawyer, right to freedom of speech/the press/opinion, rights of "life, liberty, and property" until a judge decides otherwise etc. etc.)
These rights are in the US Constitution and/or UN Charter for Human Rights. Just look at Guantanemo Bay. This is largely ignored by the main western powers. The Shannon stopovers (perpetrated by the good ol' US of A) are a clear breach of neutrality under the Hague Convention of 1907. In fact under international law all American troops arriving in Ireland en route to Iraq should have been interned for the duration of the war.

America itself (as has rightly been said) is the one country which would it would invade for breach of human rights laws and rules of war. At the least trade sanctions would apply. The UN should be the sole power with the right (or responsibility...) to correct tyrranical regimes, human rights abuses ot the suspicion of WMD.

IMO. :rolleyes:

(and to the inevitable assailants of this post, i will gladly back any of the above up with relevant links. Just PM me.)

Oisín Collins

Hear hear.

*taps table*

halenger

TalkISCheap wrote:

In fact under international law all American troops arriving in Ireland en route to Iraq should have been interned for the duration of the war.

"OMFG invade Ireland, quick. Erm... terrorists, yeah that's what we'll call them *coughs* I mean they are. Nothing to do with interning our troops, honest!"

Shoulda, coulda, woulda... The world would look mighty different if countries really stoop up to America. I'm not saying better, I'm saying it would look might different. It would more than likely get drastically worse before (if ever) it got better.

LiamD

How about we all just be friends?

StupidLikeAFox

Why Cant We be Friends - Reel Big Fish

EDIT: Oh ****, wrong thread, nvm

HeyYou

TalkISCheap wrote:

Surely we cannot allow Dubya to be the sole barometer of Western Morality? If we are going to deem something "morally unnacceptable"/"evil" then it should be done under the auspices of the UN, by a vote. This would give it some legitimacy at least.

America is responsible for textbook breaches of human rights (right to a fair trial, right to a lawyer, right to freedom of speech/the press/opinion, rights of "life, liberty, and property" until a judge decides otherwise etc. etc.)
These rights are in the US Constitution and/or UN Charter for Human Rights. Just look at Guantanemo Bay. This is largely ignored by the main western powers. The Shannon stopovers (perpetrated by the good ol' US of A) are a clear breach of neutrality under the Hague Convention of 1907. In fact under international law all American troops arriving in Ireland en route to Iraq should have been interned for the duration of the war.

Unfortunately, the UN is completely useless now. The situation with Resolution 1441 proved that; it allowed the French to say in a previous resolution that they were entirely opposed to what was happening in Iraq under Saddam and would support intervention, but then to veto any resolution which would actually do anything about it. Moral hypocrisy, anyone? It's not as if they haven't been responsible for dodgy stuff themselves, the situation in the Ivory Coast saw them intervene unilaterally. I don't think we need a UN vote to declare genocide and oppression as "evil", it's there in the Declaration of Human Rights.

Which is why its so annoying that America keep shooting themsleves in the foot with stupid human rights breaces in Baghram Bay, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Any moral stance they take on anything is undermined entirely by the fact that they break their own rules to secure their nation when they see fit, and that's doing them no favours. Neither is their stance on the Israel-Palestine thing. If they could just stop being stupid they could do a lot of good.

DubTony

Barry Aldwell wrote:

The United States Military is one of the greatest armies to ever exist, in the field of all arms open warfare. It does not need to "test it's tactics" by invading some random country. In addition, they would be better off invading the state of Nevada than invading Afghanistan, if they want experience for Iraq. Afghanistan is a mountainous country, where the main mode of mass transport has to be helicopter. Iraq, on the other hand, is the complete opposite: A flat, featureless land, a commander's wet dream, where mechanised infantry is queen. The tactics required for both countries are completely different

OK, my original post had "test our tactics" just like that, in inverted commas. So take from that what you will. Absolutely the tactics are different for both countries. Maybe I should have said "give the troops a run out" but now you'll probably come back with some stuff about not using the same troops in Iraq.
Or maybe it had something to do with seeing how good their bombers were. They hadn't used them for a while.

The state of Nevada doesn't have a border with Iran. Also, Afghanistan has an oil pipeline running down it's eastern border. If there are any pipelines in Nevada they are well protected and controlled and not at much risk from Muslim extremists.

The point being made here is that there was no solid reason to go to war in Afghanistan, other than to overthrow a not so friendly (for friendly, see useful) regime, and secure a prescence in a country neighbouring Iran.

Don't let the propoganda fool you. All is not what it seems to be.

Tony

halenger

DubTony wrote:

Or maybe it had something to do with seeing how good their bombers were. They hadn't used them for a while.

They've been bombing Iraq/other places daily for years. Iraq since the first Gulf War at least. Sorry... Not bombing. "Patrolling" the no-fly zone (i.e. bombing). We just don't hear about it because it's not "news worthy" enough.

Raphael

Afaik ever since the US invaded Korea they haven't not been at war. So I doubt they needed much practice

HeyYou

DubTony wrote:

The point being made here is that there was no solid reason to go to war in Afghanistan, other than to overthrow a not so friendly (for friendly, see useful) regime, and secure a prescence in a country neighbouring Iran.

That's just not true. Don't you accpet that the Taliban were harbouring Muslim extremists? Don't you accept that those extremists were responsible for 9/11? I think that amounts to a pretty good reason myself.

Have you looked at the numbers of troops in Afghanistan? They're token, at best, and many were withdrawn when Iraq started. It hardly counts as a presence at all.

Undergod

DubTony wrote:

The point being made here is that there was no solid reason to go to war in Afghanistan, other than to overthrow a not so friendly (for friendly, see useful) regime, and secure a prescence in a country neighbouring Iran.

The Afghanistan-Iran border is in the arse end of nowhere. It's hardly that relevant since they had perfectly serviceable bases in Kuwait prior to Gulf 2.0, and a fleet in the Persian Gulf.

Barry Aldwell

Undergod wrote:

The Afghanistan-Iran border is in the arse end of nowhere. It's hardly that relevant since they had perfectly serviceable bases in Kuwait prior to Gulf 2.0, and a fleet in the Persian Gulf.

Plus 3 Airborne/Air Assault Divisions, capable of dropping a very big force pretty much anywhere, and the entire Marine Corps, capable of mounting an amphibious operation that would make Normandy 1944 look like a day at the beach. The yanks can invade Iran without using Afghanistan. However, their occupation of Afghanistan offers them a blocking position, where they can capture anyone they don't like, who is trying to flee Iran

Undergod

Makes sense.

DubTony

halenger wrote:

They've been bombing Iraq/other places daily for years. Iraq since the first Gulf War at least. Sorry... Not bombing. "Patrolling" the no-fly zone (i.e. bombing). We just don't hear about it because it's not "news worthy" enough.

Tossing a few tomahawks a couple of times a month hardly constitutes bombing. What was done on Afghanistan (and afterwards on Baghdad) - now that's bombing. The war in Afghanistan was the most high tech bombing campaign in history. Nice to get it right before you attack a country that might have the capacity to fight back.

Hey You wrote:

Don't you accpet that the Taliban were harbouring Muslim extremists? Don't you accept that those extremists were responsible for 9/11? I think that amounts to a pretty good reason myself.

Have you looked at the numbers of troops in Afghanistan? They're token, at best, and many were withdrawn when Iraq started. It hardly counts as a presence at all.

The Taliban themselves are the most extreme of Muslim extremists and were harbouring bin Laden and his group. The Taliban, and Osama bin Laden, received the support of the US when the Soviets invaded. In fact, the Taliban were practically installed by the US.
After Sept. 11, because the Taliban was no longer friendly, Afghanistan was bombed further into the stone age than it already was. All in an effort to get one man? I don't think that amounts to a fairly good reason at all.

There are about 10,000 US troops in Afghanistan. Definitely, a token. But they are already there, so it's not an issue to add more.

Look at it this way. Iraq borders Iran. Afghanistan borders Iran. Both countries were formerly friendly to US interests. Both countries became unfriendly to the US. Remember that Saddam claimed that the Americans said they wouldn't respond if he tried to annex Kuwait. But that was while he was at war with Iran. Since he tried to take Kuwait after the Iran-Iraq war he was no longer keeping an enemy of America busy and so (with the invasion of Kuwait) had become a liability. Iran was just recovering and so wasn't a threat at the time. Iran has now rebuilt and needs to be watched. Hence the invasion of Iraq and a military presence in 2 of Irans neighbours. What better way to "keep an eye" on someone than from their neighbours garden.

Tony