Trump surrenders to the Taliban (Page 2): I read the article and it's time to go. My personal opinion we never should have entered Iraq as well.

soba1 Loc: Somewhere In So Ca

Frank T wrote:

https://time.com/5794643/trumps-disgraceful-peace-deal-taliban/?fbclid=IwAR2ej0vxFvxJlRGp0DuXjazs5-5-zmlnBcnEwv7tpjjIT750D0k2RyEc1vI

Please read this article.

I read the article and it's time to go. My personal opinion we never should have entered Iraq as well.

idaholover Loc: Nampa ID

BigWahoo wrote:

Read actual agreement here:

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/29/810537586/u-s-signs-peace-deal-with-taliban-after-nearly-2-decades-of-war-in-afghanistan

Thank you

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

soba1 wrote:

I read the article and it's time to go. My personal opinion we never should have entered Iraq as well.

We shouldn't have, but are you saying we shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan either?

idaholover Loc: Nampa ID

thom w wrote:

We shouldn't have, but are you saying we shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan either?

A couple of strategically placed MOABs may have done it.

soba1 Loc: Somewhere In So Ca

thom w wrote:

We shouldn't have, but are you saying we shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan either?

Nope we should have stayed out of both. I know I might get flamed from my buds on the right, and some with military background might know better. But there was no clearly defined enemy for
the attack on the Twin Towers.
I was on the left back then but on the right now and I still hold the same stance.

idaholover Loc: Nampa ID

soba1 wrote:

Nope we should have stayed out of both. I know I might get flamed from my buds on the right, and some with military background might know better. But there was no clearly defined enemy for
the attack on the Twin Towers.
I was on the left back then but on the right now and I still hold the same stance.

Not letting every "thom" Dick and Harry in here unvetted would help.

soba1 Loc: Somewhere In So Ca

idaholover wrote:

Not letting every "thom" Dick and Harry in here unvetted would help.

Lol

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

soba1 wrote:

Nope we should have stayed out of both. I know I might get flamed from my buds on the right, and some with military background might know better. But there was no clearly defined enemy for
the attack on the Twin Towers.
I was on the left back then but on the right now and I still hold the same stance.

There is considerable evidence that the attacks were planned there and Afghanistan provided them asylum and refused to produce them. Should we have said "OK, sorry to have bothered you"?

soba1 Loc: Somewhere In So Ca

thom w wrote:

There is considerable evidence that the attacks were planned there and Afghanistan provided them asylum and refused to produce them. Should we have said "OK, sorry to have bothered you"?

1. I don't recall hearing that and if I did I may have forgotten.
2. There was evidence produced to justify the invasion of Iraq that was later
proved to be false. Did you believe that.

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

soba1 wrote:

1. I don't recall hearing that and if I did I may have forgotten.
2. There was evidence produced to justify the invasion of Iraq that was later
proved to be false. Did you believe that.

Little Waffle House tommie believes anything as long as it is socialist in nature.

soba1 Loc: Somewhere In So Ca

Elaine2025 wrote:

Little Waffle House tommie believes anything as long as it is socialist in nature.

It's hard for me to condone war unless we know why and who beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The cost is to high unless absolutely necessary.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

soba1 wrote:

1. I don't recall hearing that and if I did I may have forgotten.
2. There was evidence produced to justify the invasion of Iraq that was later
proved to be false. Did you believe that.

I didn't believe the crap about Iraq in the first place. There was never any evidence connecting Saddam, or Iraq, with 911.
Osama had set up shop in Afghanistan, and the Taliban refused to turn him over. You do remember Osama?

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

soba1 wrote:

Nope we should have stayed out of both. I know I might get flamed from my buds on the right, and some with military background might know better. But there was no clearly defined enemy for
the attack on the Twin Towers.
I was on the left back then but on the right now and I still hold the same stance.

Just to clarify, neither George Bush nor anybody in his administration ever claimed that Iraq was behind the 911 attacks and they never used that claim to justify invading Iraq. The idea that Saddam was blamed for 911 came from people on the left spreading conspiracy theories. They also spread the false rumors that this is why we attacked Iraq. 911 did however, wake us up to the general terror threats coming from Islamic countries.

Now it is true that Saddam gave shelter to the guy who planned the original attack on the World trade Center in 1991, and he let other terrorists operate freely on Iraqi soil. This was a contributing factor in Bush's decision to invade Iraq, but the main reason was simply Saddam claiming to have nuclear and chemical weapons that he would use to destroy the U.S. The secondary reason was that Saddam was committing mass murder against his own people on a genocidal scale, often using chemical weapons.

soba1 Loc: Somewhere In So Ca

thom w wrote:

I didn't believe the crap about Iraq in the first place. There was never any evidence connecting Saddam, or Iraq, with 911.
Osama had set up shop in Afghanistan, and the Taliban refused to turn him over. You do remember Osama?

Yes I do remember Osama.
Ok so for arguments sake I concede, Osama is long since gone why are we still there?

soba1 Loc: Somewhere In So Ca

Steven Seward wrote:

Just to clarify, neither George Bush nor anybody i... (show quote)

But wasn't the nuclear weapon theory proven to be false? Many speculated that the reason we went into Iraq was for the oil.