On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:33 PM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ah, I see now you just mean that you do not believe that military > action in Afghanistan will reduce the threat posed by Al Queda. Fair > enough I suppose (I think that is a minority view, and an incorrect > one, but it is an important one and worth considering, though doing so > here in any depth is probably not appropriate). But you don't really > seem to mean that Obama did not explain why we have to be in > Afghanistan - you know he explained why, and you just disagree with > him.
My view not withstanding, I believe his explanation is incomplete. It is akin to Bush saying (and I'm paraphrasing) that we needed to go to Iraq before Iraq came to us. President Obama is making these assumptions based on what? At least Bush had the tactless sense to convince Colin Powell to present false evidence. Obama is telling us we'll be safer if we take care of Afghanistan, but isn't giving us any concrete evidence of that. But, back to my view, I believe there is greater evidence that Al Queda isn't nesting in any single location. I believe a stronger case could be made for widespread deployment of special forces teams throughout the region to target Al Queda cells, but that would be an unpopular decision both at home and abroad, and apparently our safety is less important than our popularity. -- Kevin M. (who just used an analogy after promising not to... I should be president) -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
