Quote:
Quote by: saif  Been pointed out somewhere else> I thought we were debating not hashing out baseless opinion? Could you perhaps be a little more specific and try to purpose an arguement here? Granted, allowing us troops in the country may lead to more attempts upon his life, but what is the loss if they succeed? Will that not propel the people, who already dislike having these terrorists in their country, to rise up even more? Certainly his death would alleviate the civil strife regarding democratic elections..
Do you really believe that the theatre of war is exclusive to Iraq when dealing with terrorists? Have you not watched enough mainstream liberal media to discover that terrorism is all over the world? |
It's an easy enough argument to follow. The encouragement of more attempts on an allies' life is generally considered to be a bad thing. The next thing to note is that support for the Taleban is strongly concentrated in the Northwest Frontier - the tribal area where central government has little influence - and has had pratically none for 60 years. So, if you want to split another country into regional/factional infighting, then, by all means, I'm sure it's a great idea.
And no, I was not referring to the 'war on terrorism' - I was referring to 3
physical fronts - Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan - when your forces are already stretched to breaking point, with the 'surge' not sustainable for any length of time....logistically, it's a
bad idea.