I remember when the left was rummaging thru their reasons for not going to war in Afghanistan. Spearheaded by "academics" and activists the battle cry was "we don't know there is any connection." I think the left finally caved because they realized they couldn't slander the US with entering Afghanistan for economic reasons...In any event how do you think this will affect the lefts defensiveness?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212800,00.html

I don't recall (m)any opposing the decision to go after the Taliban and Afghanistan. That was pretty widely accepted as a good thing to do, I thought.

Or are you doing your best Bush imitation and mixing up Afghanistan and Iraq?

Gee, I remember people asking me to go to protests against going in to Afghanistan. Going in for the Left was about as accepted as someone who doesn't like tidal waves clearing a beach. Doesn't much matter if you don't like it, only a matter of how long it takes you to stop complaining about it. What was one of the slogans, "The only reason for going in is because of oil." There was no oil, so then it was, "for the oil pipeline."

You contain select P.C. corrupted data.

regarding mrleft's and loosecannon's remarks: just more feeble-minded taunts from terrorist apologists and wannabe islamic jihadists..

...yawn...

Guess what. The Afghans now have a bumper grop of the product.

Remember what Powell said..."You break it, you own it."

Afghan opium production soars to new high
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/0...=cnn_topstories

“Staggering” Increase in Afghan Drug Cultivation
http://myscribbles.wordpress.com/2006/09/0...ug-cultivation/

Afghanistan: High on Opium, Not Democracy
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200609...hanistan_opium/

Once again, Gore Lost & Membrane prove their ignorance.

Pretty much everyone wanted everyone to go after the real perpetrators of 9/11, that being Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, in Afghanistan. Not Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

77 percent of Afghans say their country is headed in the right direction...
87 percent call the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban good for their country.....
85 percent of Afghans say living conditions there are better now than they were under the Taliban. Eighty percent cite improved freedom to express political views. And 75 percent say their security from crime and violence has improved as well. ...
Eighty-three percent of Afghans express a favorable opinion of the United States overall....
Another contrast is Karzai's job rating — 83 percent ....
http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVa...tory?id=1363276

Afghanistan wasnt a drug interdiction mission. It was a mission to remove the Taliban from Power.
And
MARK

That's real interesting, MARK...because on ABC News last night, a reporter (forgot his first name) Bergin (an authority on Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al Qaeda said the country is spiraling out of control.

That essentially, the entire southeastern part of the country is now in the hands of militants...

That poll you posted was from nearly a year ago...

Submitted by GeorgeWashington on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 7:59pm.
Osama Videos are Irrelevant

• The 9/11 truth movement has said all along that Bin Laden and the hijackers are patsies

• The 9/11 truth movement has said all along that planes could not have been hijacked and flown around the country for countless minutes unless there was a stand down by -- and an overwhelming confusion of -- the military by multiple war games with live-fly hijacking and plane-into-building exercises and false radar injects

• The 9/11 truth movement has said all along that World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by controlled demolition

So even if the newly-released video of Osama and others planning 9/11 is real (all of the previous ones linking Bin Laden to 9/11 were either faked or mistranslated), that doesn't change anything.

They could not have succeeded unless they were tipped off to the fact that multiple, overlapping war games would occur on 9/11.

They wouldn't have gotten anywhere unless the military was stopped from following standard operating procedure on 9/11.

And the Twin Towers (and building 7) still would still be standing today absent controlled demolition.


http://www.911blogger.com/node/2618

The Taliban were overthrown five years ago, but Afghanistan's hopes for democracy are faltering, and now interest in fundamentalism -- including draconian Islamic "religious police" -- is growing again. What can the international community do? {see below advice by an expert -Najibullah Lafraie's Opinion}

... democracy in Afghanistan looks more and more like a genie stuck in a bottle, unable to come to life and prosper.

The international community has a lot to lose, too. If friendly governments can't establish a foundation for a secure future in Afghanistan, and if the process of stabilization and rebuilding fails, they will not only have lost precious money and time; the United Nations and NATO will also have wasted their reputations as crisis managers.

However, it's not too late. An Asian proverb says, "He who thinks too hard about each step spends his life standing on one leg." It's both important and desirable for the young Afghan democracy to stand -- with international help -- on both legs, and march in the right direction. The faster the better.

After the removal of the Taliban, American and ISAF troops were welcomed as liberators. But they have overstayed their welcome.

The initial American idea in Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11 was not to do what the Soviet army had done -- not to commit a large force, but to work with allied Afghan militias, a small contingent of Special Forces and massive use of airpower.

But once the military option was adopted, there proved to be no way but to follow the Soviet path.

In the initial stage of the "war on terror" in Afghanistan, which led to the overthrow of the Taliban, less than 450 Special Forces personnel and CIA officers took part.

But before long the United States and its allies were compelled to send in ground troops to pursue Qaeda leaders. By the end of 2005, the total strength of allied forces and the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, was about 31,500.

On a visit to Kabul in December 2005, the U.S. secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, announced a plan to withdraw 3,000 American troops from Afghanistan by the summer of 2006. The "surprising" resurgence of the Taliban, however, shelved that plan indefinitely.

Instead, ISAF under NATO leadership increased its strength to 18,500. At present, the total number of foreign forces in Afghanistan comes to about 40,000. If the situation remains as it is, NATO may be forced soon to commit even more troops to Afghanistan.

But a grave mistake is inherent in this approach. It overlooks the critical fact that the American and NATO forces are no longer part of a solution in Afghanistan, but part of the problem.

After the removal of the Taliban, American and ISAF troops were welcomed as liberators. But they have overstayed their welcome.

Now, after countless mistakes, they have turned a large part of the population against them. They are now seen as another "infidel" army trying to occupy their country.

If the international community wants to deny the Taliban and their allies an important recruiting tool, it must withdraw Western troops from Afghanistan as soon as possible.
This suggestion may seem irresponsible. Without the military support of the international community, the Karzai government would not be expected to survive more than a few months.

But that would not be the case if the withdrawal of the American and NATO troops took place as part of a well-planned, comprehensive solution of the Afghanistan problem.

The following elements could form the basis of such a plan:

Formation of a Muslim international peacekeeping force under UN command. { }

There is no doubt that Afghanistan needs outside military support in the short run. To provide such support without exacerbating the resentment of the Afghans, a new Muslim peacekeeping force should be formed under the direct command and control of the UN to replace ISAF and allied forces.

Such a force might not persuade the Taliban to support a peace process, but it would dissuade many young Afghans from joining the ranks of the insurgency.

A stronger focus on training Afghan national army and police.

Even Muslim peacekeepers will run into trouble in Afghanistan if they stay too long. Thus it is essential to allocate sufficient resources to training and equipping the Afghan army and police forces to take charge of security as soon as possible.

A new intra-Afghan dialogue.

President Hamid Karzai may be the best possible leader for Afghanistan under the present conditions, and the 2004 Afghan constitution may be one of the best in the region. But a broader, more legitimate process is now required.

A new intra-Afghan dialogue should include all prominent personalities from within and outside the country. No time limit should be set. The participants should have the opportunity to freely voice their grievances and express their views in detail. The process may take many months, but it is only through such a process that a new social contract can emerge.

A fresh focus on human development.

There is an urgent need for a new reconstruction strategy with a focus on human development -- taking the aid directly to local communities, giving the people the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process for its use, addressing people's immediate needs and improving their living conditions.

The level of international assistance also needs to increase, with the rich Muslim nations taking an active part. Drug eradication can be part of the overall development strategy.

Curtailing interference by neighbors.

It is well known that the Taliban enjoys widespread support in Pakistan. The international community needs to find ways to curb assistance to the insurgency from across the border.