We've got 75,000 or so stationed in Germany. And none in North Korea. You said you wanted to bomb the taliban if they make their presence known. Their presence happens to be known in Pakistan. I don't know, is that the idea? Whose idea? It never was. Any student of history could have predicted it would work out like this. barfo
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1917232,00.html Afghan Mission Creep: Back to Nation-Building Looks like the mission changed to me. I would bomb the taliban if they make their presence known in afghanistan. Things like terrorist training camps are easy to spot on satellites. It's easy enough to know if the taliban are running the country. We do have 75,000 stationed in Germany, but they're not seeing combat in that region. Though I'd be fine bringing all those troops home as well. We sure could use the money saved.
No doubt it did, but it did so in an entirely predictable, unavoidable way. It's like when you drive your Chevette off a cliff, things change when you hit the bottom but once you drove off the cliff, hitting bottom really shouldn't be such a surprise, and you probably should have at least driven the Jeep. Why afghanistan and not pakistan? Are they less dangerous if they are on the other side of the border? Apparently it isn't that easy, or we would have wiped them out years ago. I don't think we actually disagree much on this subject. I guess that means we are both wrong. barfo
Why Afghanistan and not Pakistan? Pakistan has a government, a military, a seat in the UN, etc. They're also basically a democracy these days. The idea is to keep the Taliban from running a country (they don't run Pakistan) and to use the country's wealth (such as it is) to fund Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups/activities. http://www.examiner.com/public-poli...e-prize-hand-bombs-yemen-with-cruise-missiles
