Under your leadership, would we remain in Afghanistan and what would be our role if we do?
965877
The main reason in being in Afghanistan is to be close to China! Let us think that all the wars post WWII we are working on surrounding China! [I do not know the reasons, but I have some ideas!]
446252
In Afghanistan we are at war to destroy the base of operations that Al Qaeda had there. We have performed similiar missions in the Horn of Africa, The Phillipines, The Pankisi Gorge in Georgia, Pakistan as well as countless other locations that we don't know about. \n\nIn Iraq the point is to form a friendly government that will be a force for change in the region. Either by simply providing a monkey on Arab dictators backs (Nobody wants to screw with the US when a regional power is a major friend of theirs) or by actually sparking reforms and spreading democracy (like we saw in Lebanon and Syria.) \n\nOil is a plausible theory but ignores the fact that there are other countries that would be far more lucrative and oil rich targets then Iraq were we to simply want oil (Kazakhstan, Venezuela, Iran, etc.) Why not invade them instead if it's JUST for oil?
939297
We need to flood Iraq with troops and crush them so completely they take 500 yrs to recover then move to Afghanistan and do the same there.  If we have to kill 99% fine.  Pakistan tribal areas are sheltering the Taliban, we need to start carpet bombing them right now, at night.  Do not stop for 3 months.  Then if the Pakis won't finish them off, we do.  People better realize the West is in a fight for it's life.
299188
I would have exhibited restraint and patience, employed our intelligence agencies to track down Osama and infiltrated his camp.  I might have even established a decoy group of dissidents in hopes Osama would reach out to the group and offer support or take them under his wing.  \n\nOn the surface, I would deliberately look like I was taking a weak stance on the attack or even act as if I was unaware of who committed the attack.  Not only would this have infuriated Osama and kept him from becoming some Jihad hero, this would lull him into a false sense of security.  All the while I would be using the information I was gathering to gain knowledge of his strength, weaponry, supporters and future planned attacks.  \n\nUsing this information, I would circumvent any future attacks.\n\nAfter gaining as much information as I could, I would send a recon team from our Special Forces to his location, capture (or kill) him and his body guards, and attempt to bring him to America to face justice.\n \nAs for communicating with terrorists, I have long been against the US policy of non-communication.  How can go to a war against an enemy without having the ability to negotiate a peaceful resolution?  I firmly believe an open dialog with those groups who wish to harm America is the only way to convince them to stop attacking America and American interests overseas.\n\nAttacking Afghanistan was similar to blowing up a house to catch a rat; the house gets destroyed, but the rat simply goes to another house.\n\nNo, the attack on Iraq was not revenge; the attack on Iraq was for economic reasons and is producing the intended results.
670487
It would be a lot easier if we stay and fight only in Afghanistan in the beginning. We would concentrate catching the bad guys there. There would have been less casualties of our men. The world was supporting us of the war. Everything changed when we invaded Iraq. Now, the world hate us. The war is long and it is another Vietnam. Our men are getting killed everyday. 9/11 is forgotten. The polls of supporting Bush is down in the all time low. We seem to lost interests with the war and fighting terrorism. Life goes on. This is America.
180243
I believe Canada is a part of NATO and NATO is in Afghanistan at the moment. Plus the Canadians are a good professional force. They need to do their part.
888647
if our and other countries decided to help them
662464
Not enough information in your question to be able to say if I would feel threatened.  It would depend different things.  Is the leadership of the country hostile?  Do they say they want you wiped off of the map?  Is the leadership of the country trustworthy?  Does the leadership of the country have respect for human life and human rights?  Is the country stable?  There are a lot of things that I would need to consider to decide if I was threatened.
1113699
One of many, how long can the USA continue to support this woeful Talibani government?
767865
Because the minute we pull out, there will be a power vacuum.  The only thing keeping power in the hands of the lawful government right now and not in the grasps of the Taliban, warlords or opium dealers is the presence of Coalition troops.\n\nWe withdraw, they fill that vacuum.  What little law and order has been established will crumble.  Back to square 1.  If we give them the tough love treatment, we'll once more be dealing with an enclave that still lives by a medieval ideology and will be a breeding ground for those elements that would seek to harm our interests abroad and at home.
136123
It was necessary for us to create a stable govt. in Iraq to prevent it from becoming a host country for terrorism and to counter the very real threat they posed of producing WMDs.  (I feel we should have waited and taken on Iran or Syria first)\n\nBUT\n\nIt is apparent that democracy is beyond the capabilities of a factionalized and tribally minded Iraqi population.  Therefore, we should get out as soon as possible rather than continue this wastefull experiment in democracy.\n\nHOW we should do it is arguable.\nBut I suggest setting up a US friendly authoritarian government.  One that will have the determination to counter any insurgency using the most severe means.  Yes, I'm talking about a dictatorship.  This might offend some, but it is the only way to effectively govern a nation like Iraq.\n\nOur goal should be somewhat selfish.  We're trying to protect ourselves by establishing stability. We should do so in the way that's least harmful to us. \n\nIf you look at the alternative.  This idea really isnt' so bad:\nCivil war vs. our US led leadership OR\nIslamic dictatorship vs. US. led leadership.\n\nAlso, if you look at history, which was worse:\nShah of Iran or Ayatolah Komeni?\nBatista or Castro?\nChina before the revolution or China under Mao?\nCambodia before or after Pol Pot?\n\nSome countries are destined for dictatorship.  Those that are will be better off under our guiding hand.\n\nOf course this could not work over the long run.  We must have a strategy to totally exit from the region once it is stabilized.  Involvement in the mid-east does not work for us.  We must accept that fact.\n\n!!!---If I've answered your question.  Please remember to vote for my answer! ---!!!
611450
Let the afghani's decide them selves what is good for them\nThe recent riots in Kabul have shown, how much resentment for forigners is in their hearts.\nThey hate invadors, so no policy will be effective unles \nthey are givien a chance to decide them selves.\nnote the british in history tried for years to conqure but failed.
853166
I agree with staying until Iraq and Afghanistan have solid governments and the factions have quit butchering each other to gain power. I don't know if enough Americans can stand the length of time that may be needed to get it done.
754369
Yes I would. I have a deep sense of pride and patriotism to my country. We are the greatest country on earth and that is evidenced by all of the aid that we give foreign countries and how we support individual freedoms and democracy. I know that it would be the job from hell but I would gladly serve the country and people that I love.
756756
it is still going on now what do you think we are doing in iraq and afganistan .
522288
Ya I do.Afghanistan is a Big country and Talibans has a ground support by most of its local Citizens Still there are places which are Unexplored by US there.
423316
We don't (my husband and I) and we are middle America. We know bush and chaney are in it for the oil and money from the war. That is their reason for being there. Not terrorists. Afghanistan would be for terrorists, but bush and his crew have pretty much forgotten Afghanistan and all they care about is Iraq and it's oil. The only time bush and company bother to bring up Afghanistan is when they want to use it and terrorist as an excuse to be in Iraq. If they would have really put it all into routing the terrorists in Afghanistan (and not abandoning it for Iraq) I believe things would be a lot different and a lot of the terrorists would have be caught or dealt with by now.