Reality Check.

[berni_mccoy]

Poll question: Reality Check.

Simple Yes or No.

Do you agree with the United Nations that the U.S. was justified in its invasion of Afghanistan as a response to the attacks on 9/11/2001?

[onehandle]

1. Yes, but we should have had invaded Saudi Arabia too.

Since that's where the funding and manpower came from.

[anigbrowl]

4. We already had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia

That was one of Osama bin Laden's chief contentions with the US in the first place.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

[onehandle]

9. I know that, silly. It would have been easy.

The Trojan Horse was already in place.

[NightWatcher]

28. and we gave in and pulled out. Terrorism Wins

[yurbud]

36. and a Saudi intel agent picked up two of the hijackers at LAX, set them up in an apartment

in his building, funneled them money from the Saudi ambassador's wife, and made hundreds of phone calls to the Saudi embassy until the attacks.



That doesn't sound like some wealthy Saudi thinking they were giving to a charity and accidentally funding al Qaeda does it?

[pampango]

56. Plus, if you're planning a war for oil, why not go for the mother lode in SA?

Bush screwed up big time by going after Afghanistan with its dreamed-of pipelines and Iraq with its battle-tested army and much larger population, when he already had our army in SA.

It would have been easy. He could then have controlled SA's oil reserves (much larger than Iraq's), thereby cutting off Saudi funding for various extremist groups, as well as paying them back for the funding and manpower for the 9/11 attacks.

It may have made Osama (if real) that much madder, but what more could he have done?

Hey, Bush couldn't even get his war for oil right! ;)

[Ruby the Liberal]

2. It should have been treated as a criminal pursuit

not a military sledgehammer. We are not at war with a nation, we are "at war" with criminals. Why this is a quagmire.

[anigbrowl]

5. And how would you have gone about this?

Serious question.

[dysfunctional press]

12. i think that it should have been a smaller, more targeted military response...

but 9/11 itself should have been treated like a crime(which it was) and not an act of war(which it wasn't). al queda should never have been elevated to the status of an entity capable of waging war- because they never were.

[berni_mccoy]

23. What is your military expertise?

[dysfunctional press]

27. why do you ask?

[berni_mccoy]

29. Because you are promoting one military strategy over another. Just wondering

if you are qualified to make such an assessment.

[dysfunctional press]

49. i'm not a 4-star general- but neither are most people.

what rank do you feel that someone should have achieved- or what other qualifications do you feel are necessary in order to be able to voice an opinion on the matter in answer to a posed question on an internet message board...?

just wondering how far up your ass your head is.

[uppityperson]

54. I agree with it was justified but not how it was done or what has been done/not done since

I agree with what you write and am not a 4 star general either.

[Ruby the Liberal]

15. Black ops and special forces not

teenagers enlisting for health benefits and college tuition.

[anigbrowl]

18. That would work great in a movie...

...I think you're a bit optimistic about how much they can do in a situation like this. I see why you'[re cynical about it - I would much rather Bush had focused on Afghanistan properly, and not gone into Iraq - probably we would have been out of Afghanistan a few years ago if he had kept his mind on the task in hand instead of doubling down and launching a second war. But he didn't, so we have to deal with things as they are rather than as we would like them to be.

[Arctic Dave]

3. We should have killed OBL. Afghanistan had almost nothing to do with it.

[doc03]

6. Why don't they just ask McCain how to catch

OBL, he said he knew how?

[Thickasabrick]

11. Ya and if he doesn't talk, waterboard his ass nt

[mike_c]

7. smoke screen....

There are a BUNCH of reasons why this question is bogus. First and foremost, it's a common push poll variant on "do you still beat your wife?" Second, it ignores history. The invasion was not sanctioned before the event by the U.N. It was not even planned in response to 9/11-- the plan to attack Afghanistan was approved on September 10, 2001. The U.N. authorized an international force AFTER the initial invasion (Operation Enduring Freedom), in 2002.

I challenge you to change the poll question to neutral phrasing that accurately reflects the history of events:

"Was the U.S. justified in invading Afghanistan?"

[mdmc]

8. "justified" perhaps, smart to actually go and do? Of course not.

[pscot]

10. Whether we should have gone in is moot

The real question is Are we justified in staying in after 8 years of futility that have actually make things worse.

[HughMoran]

13. This poll was >90% YES 5 years ago

Interesting to see the disingenuous nature of people here.

I can see why the simple question is being unrecced - people feel bad having to lie.

[berni_mccoy]

14. Pretty much what I expected. But I hoped people would be honest.

[WildEyedLiberal]

20. The revisionist history is astounding, no?

I remember when one of the hallmark arguments against the Iraq War on DU was that it diverted resources and attention from the REAL war in Afghanistan and kept us from catching OBL. I have seen you and others post to that effect here, now, so I know I'm not just hallucinating. I guess since Obama has dialed down the troop levels in Iraq considerably, the "anti war" crowd needs a new purpose for their wailing and gnashing of teeth, so now, they've ALWAYS been against Afghanistan, facts be damned!

There ARE a small minority of posters here who've always been against Afghanistan, and I admire their consistency in principles, at least. They are not the folks I'm having a problem with here.

[berni_mccoy]

22. Damn well said.

[harun]

30. Ummmm conflict in Afghanistan started in October 7, 2001, it is December 3, 2009.

I don't think a little war fatigue with a conflict that long is surprising.

The people you are talking about who supported conflict probably thought it would be a month to 10 months. If you told them then that we would be in a decade long war in Afghanistan they would probably not have been for it because a war of that length in that region would probably lead to a collapse of the United States, just like what happened when Russia tried it in the 80's. It is too expensive and the local population has buried many an empire in its sands before and if they desire, will do it again.

[charlie]

26. Really?

(2003)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x873407

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x289081

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4401940

(2006)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1657770

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2728191

[David Zephyr]

16. My posts here at the DU at that time show my opposition. I was right.

There was not one goddamned Afghan on any of the jets that were hijacked.

Afghanistan did not attack us, but we sure attacked them.

[berni_mccoy]

21. True, but there were definitely Saudi's in Afghanistan.

The exiled kind of Saudi. The Rogue kind of Saudi. The kind of Saudi's that trained a group of Tribal people how to stave off an invasion from the Soviet Union. No doubt, they created a dangerous group.

[David Zephyr]

50. And Saudi money helping to finance it all right up to 9/11.

First, Saudi Arabia is the origin of the Taliban's theologically extremist Wahabbism.

Saudi Arabia was one of a very few countries on earth that officially recognized the Taliban government before 9/11.

Saudi money, not just bin Laden's money, funded schools both in Afghanistan and Pakistan that indoctrinated a generation with extreme anti-American, anti-West teaching, and of course hatred against Jews.

Not one Afghan or Iraqi was on one of those jets on 9/11. Not one. 15 Saudis were.

Al Qaeda was/is a Saudi sponsored terrorist organization.

And yet, we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Renew Deal]

17. I wonder how many of those that voted no live in NY or know someone that was killed that day.

[Bucky]

19. Okay, having now checked, can we safely conclude a slight majority of DUers don't live in reality?

[JVS]

24. Justified in the invasion for what purpose? Arresting members of Al Qaeda or toppling the...

Afghan state (i.e. removing the Taliban from power)? There is a big difference in how much of a clusterfuck these different options produce.

[gleaner]

25. No. I never did.

I do not believe in this war. I do not believe that war ever solves problems. It creates them.

[Stinky The Clown]

31. Once upon a time, I did. I no longer feel that way.

[tammywammy]

32. Yes n/t

[yurbud]

33. trick question. If we pulled out after Tora Bora, yes.

Once we stay after the invasion is over, if we leave whenever someone is shooting at us, it will look like we lost.

[berni_mccoy]

34. That's not the question at all.

There is no doubt that Bush fucked it all up. The question is, did the U.S. have a right to react militarily as a measure of self defense as proclaimed by the United Nations?

[yurbud]

45. yes, but the way the question is worded, someone could misinterpret yes votes as supporting

continuing the occupation, which is quite different from routing al Qaeda, and frankly, unrelated. Given what we know about who backed and directed the hijackers, we would have been just as justified if not more taking out the Saudi royal family, Musharraf in Pakistan, and the top leadership of the Pakistani ISI.

saudi
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2008/03/foia-doc-shows-911commission-lied-about.html

pakistani
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/22/usa.september11

[Lyric]

35. Irrelevant. Then is not now.

Sure, we were justified to go in and try to catch Bin Laden. We failed. That should have been the end of it.

[berni_mccoy]

38. It's totally relevant. Is the cause justified or not. If it is, then Obama has an obligation

to clean up the mess the way that he sees fit, based on all information he has available.

[Lyric]

43. And how do you justify that conclusion? Just because you say so?

And even if we accept your premise that he has a responsibility to clean up the mess, why should we accept the part about "in any way he sees fit." He's not a king, he's a public servant. We don't elect dictators. He does NOT get to summarily choose to do whatever the hell he wants to do without being criticized for it. Unlike a monarch, HIS actions have repercussions.

Instead of joining us to demand that he cease waging a war that is no longer justified in ANY way, you choose to side with power. You choose to support the unitary executive, stating that he can and should do whatever the hell he wants, and that we have no standing to object because we voted for him. Nobody here is claiming that he shouldn't attempt a solution; people are decrying his choice of a "fix" because it's going to result in thousands more dead Afghani civilians and U.S. soldiers.

But no, you'd rather just let him off the leash of democracy and chasten anyone who disagrees with you, anyone who thinks that perhaps allowing him to rule without pressure from the electorate is a bad idea. I've seen reasoning that bad before, I admit, but never from a Democrat.

[liberal_at_heart]

37. We should have left as soon as we destroyed the Al Quada training camps

[berni_mccoy]

39. Yeah, because Al Qaeda would never have reformed there.

[liberal_at_heart]

40. They're regrouping in Pakistan as we speak

Should Pakistan be our next target? If they move from Pakistan into India will India be our next target? How many countries will we wage wars against trying to play wack a mole with Al Queda?

[berni_mccoy]

41. Pakistan has agreed to allow the U.S. to conduct military operations in Pakistan

and are working with us to ensure that it does not become a safe haven for Al Qaeda. This is part of President Obama's plan.

[liberal_at_heart]

48. We have a very tenious and contentious relationship with Pakistan

We have had to strong arm them to get them to even agree to go after the tribal areas that border Afganistan. Pakistan is very unstable. It may not be as easy as we think. Remember how easy Iraq was suppose to be? We have very little understanding of the Middle East and yet we think we know what we are doing when we really don't.

[Lyric]

44. Reality Check yourself--Al Qaeda is going to re-form there no matter WHAT we do.

Whether we surge or not, whether we leave now or in two years, they're going to come back. Unless we intend on staying there and unleashing war on those people in perpetuity, Al Qaeda WILL come back. They can't afford NOT to. They can't afford to be seen as "defeated" by the Americans.

If we all agree that staying there forever is not an option, if it's clear that no matter WHEN we pull out they're still coming back, WHY are we wasting human lives and billions that we need here at home to wage more war??

[Overseas]

42. Do you agree that when we are in a hole we should just keep digging?

Even after borrowing 1 trillion dollars to keep the wars of the previous international-law-breaking Bush Gang going for several years already?

Do you believe the answer to the phrase-- When you find yourself in a hole -- is

DIG HARDER?

[Romulox]

46. This question is absolutely irrelevant to whether we should prosecute war in 2009

"sunk cost fallacy"

[zipplewrath]

47. It's what they've done since getting there is the problem.

We tried to do it on the cheap. We allied with questionable groups. We hauled off people to Gitmo on questionable grounds. And the primary purpose and justification for invasion was OBL and we let him get away.

[Political Heretic]

51. Not the reality check you were expecting, is it?

[WildEyedLiberal]

52. Only because people here are being dishonest

I know that some DUers opposed Afghanistan from the beginning, but not in the numbers as indicated by the poll above. That's just revisionist history and dishonesty, pure and simple. Kind of like how you can't find more than 25% of the population now who'll admit they voted for GWB even though at least 49% did.

[Political Heretic]

58. That's not actually true.

Large numbers of DUs opposed handing that president war keys.

[Prism]

53. Supported at the time, do not support further escalation

I believe, at this point in time, surgical strikes and special ops are far preferable to the blunt instrument of the entire military. What the President did not mention in his speech - and I believe this was intentional - is how the Pakistani military is full of fundamentalist sympathizers who are all too willing to turn a blind eye towards the Taliban and Al Qaeda, if not support them outright.

This escalation, with its stated goals, threatens to spread ever further into Pakistan. If that becomes the case, we'll all get a hearty chuckle out of all that waving around of the 2011 withdrawal date. We'll be wishing for a quagmire. Because we will then not only be responsible for Afghan nation-building, we'll be grabbing onto Pakistan with both hands to pre-empt the creation of a failed state with a nuclear arsenal.

Rather than destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda, we've pushed them south. That may prove to be the biggest American military blunder of the 21st century. Especially if it results in loose nukes.

[uppityperson]

55. I did not at the time, have not often seeing what they did, but if you need to simplify, yes

with a HUGE qualifying statement. I was aghast that they bombed Afghanistan in the beginning, hoped they would be able to send in smaller groups to do what they said they were supposed to be doing. They did not do it right but the broadbased attacks and then piddling around while trying to secure the oil in Iraq.

I am capable of changing my mind when new evidence appears though, have changed it several times over the yrs.

You ask for a simplistic answer to a difficult question, then seem to be using what people vote to insult them. Is this just a call out/broadbrush insult type topic, or are you truly curious?

[berni_mccoy]

57. K

[Odin2005]

59. Wow, the number of "No" votes is shocking and pathetic.

Must we Twoofers and Ward Churchill clones. :puke:

[Amaya]

60. no

hell no