POLL: Is Iraq Part of the War on Terror?
- Thread starter conjur
- Start date
IMO, it wasn't but it is now because Bush has allowed terrorists to enter Iraq from all over. And, if we summarily pull out of Iraq now without any allied assistance in our wake, Iraq will become a fertile breeding ground for Al Qaeda and any other militant Islamic organization.
If Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 because of our small presence in Saudi Arabia, imagine what they'll plan for us if we setup permanent military bases in Iraq.
If Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 because of our small presence in Saudi Arabia, imagine what they'll plan for us if we setup permanent military bases in Iraq.
there were terrorist training grounds, complete with passenger jet fuselages, also iraq under saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism, and as i recall this is a war on terorism period, not just one group.
and yes iraq serves a very great purpose, the terrorists are concentrating on us there...instead of here.
Ah, yes - create a diversion. That's the best reason for this war I've heard. Somebody call karl.
I agree except I'll like to add that Iraq is not a "could be" scenario in terms of a Al Qeada presence and ongoing recruitment. Iraq already is a fertile breeding ground for Al Qeada and I doubt we'll be able to dislodge them from Iraq at all.
IMO?.(of course)
Iraq has become a huge barn fire of detestation. It has created a power vacuum that every eccentric fundamentalist with a bone to pick against America wants to be part of.
While Iraq most certainly wasn?t anywhere near this level prior to our occupation, due to extent that Saddam was willing to go in order to keep authoritarian control over the region. It wasn?t a terrorist free utopian paradise either. Saddam supported many questionable forms of terrorism against many of the nations around him. Some of which have even been linked to subsidiaries of Al-Qaeda. This really shouldn't be surprising, I guess, since Saddam was notorious for being a narcissist that would do anything in order to further his agenda.
On many levels I am upset about what has happened in Iraq and in others I see this as a potentially beneficial thing for the American public.
My ills with this conflict obviously include a war with a country that we didn?t necessarily have to be in (at this time that is, sooner or later we would have been in Iraq again in one form or another *again*). This war has also caused hatred in the Middle-East that exceeded that of the levels that existed before we went there.
The only positive benefits I can think of involve how this event has caused such rage that just about every potential (and future) terrorist against this country is now fighting toe to toe with our military inside Iraq. While I?m sure this would have also happened in Afghanistan, had we never ventured into Iraq. This seems to be a rather effective way to keep these loons preoccupied with those in our nation that are actually trained and equipped for this type of fighting. Unlike what?s happening between Israel and Palestine today, I?d much rather see the war on terror being fought in places like Fullujah, against our trained and equipped military, than being brought back to American soil like it was on 9/11.
Of course this is just my analysis.
Iraq has become a huge barn fire of detestation. It has created a power vacuum that every eccentric fundamentalist with a bone to pick against America wants to be part of.
While Iraq most certainly wasn?t anywhere near this level prior to our occupation, due to extent that Saddam was willing to go in order to keep authoritarian control over the region. It wasn?t a terrorist free utopian paradise either. Saddam supported many questionable forms of terrorism against many of the nations around him. Some of which have even been linked to subsidiaries of Al-Qaeda. This really shouldn't be surprising, I guess, since Saddam was notorious for being a narcissist that would do anything in order to further his agenda.
On many levels I am upset about what has happened in Iraq and in others I see this as a potentially beneficial thing for the American public.
My ills with this conflict obviously include a war with a country that we didn?t necessarily have to be in (at this time that is, sooner or later we would have been in Iraq again in one form or another *again*). This war has also caused hatred in the Middle-East that exceeded that of the levels that existed before we went there.
The only positive benefits I can think of involve how this event has caused such rage that just about every potential (and future) terrorist against this country is now fighting toe to toe with our military inside Iraq. While I?m sure this would have also happened in Afghanistan, had we never ventured into Iraq. This seems to be a rather effective way to keep these loons preoccupied with those in our nation that are actually trained and equipped for this type of fighting. Unlike what?s happening between Israel and Palestine today, I?d much rather see the war on terror being fought in places like Fullujah, against our trained and equipped military, than being brought back to American soil like it was on 9/11.
Of course this is just my analysis.
Says who ? Chalabi the Iranian spy or other ex-Iraqis with a axe to grind. Could it be that they had special forces or police swat teams that required "Training grounds" ?
No it's not it's a war against Al Qaida. If you think that you can eliminate terrorism throughout the world then you are a fool.
No it serves as a distraction from the real goal which is capturing or killing Bin Laden and destorying Al Qaida. Also it takes away resources from our troops in Afghanistan. Not to mention that it helps us ignore our border issues which are still not resolved. IMHO I think a sleeper cell has already crossed from either the Canadian border or Mexican border into the US and is already in place waiting and preparing. Our troops would be better serving our goals by defending our huge borders both north and south.
We should and could of fought this war like we fought the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. In other words provide training, arms, intelligence and air support to local ground forces in Iraq. Sure it would of taken longer to kick out Saddam but in the end it would of been the Iraqis doing it themselves and taking control of their own nation. As it is we are have now become the baby sisters of Iraq and focal point of their anger.
Also your point about Iraq being a distraction to terrorist can work both ways as well. It can serve as a distraction to us as well. We can be lead to believe that Iraq is the focal point of attention but in reality cells could be forming and moving towards the US and it's weak borders both north and south. With the public being fooled into thinking that Iraq is the battle ground on the war on terror it will not be as concerned about our own turf and thus we will grow relaxed and lazy and ignore our own secuirty issues and needs.
Hunh??
Oh, you mean the counterterrorist training camp that was overrun by US forces last year and found to not be a training camp for launching terrorist attacks?
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg02445.html
http://www.apfn.net/messageboa...discussion.cgi.56.html
Only problem with that is we would risk the chance of creating another Taliban in the process. America is very much responsible for creating the Taliban through using similar methods as to what you described doing.
While I think we had this opportunity presented to us in ?91, when the Shiites rioted after the first Gulf War, I?m not so sure that this opportunity was available to us in ?03.
Besides those apparent troubles, I think you are onto something that should have explored.
I?m sorry, but this is so argumentative it kills me.
It was Saddam and his minions that were constantly declaring that Salman Pak was a counter-terrorist camp. I find that one sided analysis to be about as definative (considering the source) as Baghdad Bob?s, or believing that Osama was really holding peace negotiations in Afghanistan mountains.
For every argument there is a counter argument. While Salman Pak was dubious in every extent, it can?t be proven one way or the other what the true intentions of that place was. This entire thing reaks with similarities of a criminal being caught with something illegal, and his defense lawyer talking about cults, sects, and alien invaders.
The true story behind Salman Pak can never be proven conclusively until intent has been established. Since intent is the hardest thing to prove, this case remains open for debate in my eyes.
The only people declaring Salman Pak was used to train terrorists to hijack aircraft is the INC and its toadies. Now, you tell me, is the INC a credible organization?
No, I'm not an advocate of the INC's credibility either.
I did find this PBS interview with a guy who used to run the camp to be rather interesting, though.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...nterviews/khodada.html
There are so many diverse opinions about this that it's down right impossible to know for certain what the truth is.
This poll has shifted a lot in the past few hours . . . is that hangovers wearing off or the church crowd getting home. Nevermind . . . same crowd.
this is a war on terrorism..
terrorism thrives in countries such as iraq, syria, iran, sudan, libya.. and so forth..
terrorism thrives in countries such as iraq, syria, iran, sudan, libya.. and so forth..
Saddam was OUR boy until he got uppity.
Syria . . . yeah, basically a state sponsor of terrorism.
Iran . . . complicated.
Sudan . . . yeah, basically a state sponsor of terrorism . . . but they helped in the WOT so they are good again . . . except for that whole "kill the darkies" thing.
Libya . . . has been out of the state sponsor of terrorism business for over a decade . . . regardless of the numerous LIES that Bushophiles tell to the contrary.
All centered around Saudi Arabia.
We must invade and take over all of the above not just Iraq otherwise it is a sham.
Iraq was about oil. The entire War on Terror is nothing but oil.
We needed a Pearl Habor type of event to catalyse these events. Without such, the American public would not have supported many of these measures.
9-11 = Reichstag Fire.
We needed a Pearl Habor type of event to catalyse these events. Without such, the American public would not have supported many of these measures.
9-11 = Reichstag Fire.
You ever been to South America ? Ever been to Colombia, Peru, etc... ? Fact is the word "terrorism" can become a extremely vague term in a lot of cases throughout the world. Russia says we support terrorism by supporting/aiding moderate Chechen rebels.
Did we create another Taliban when we helped out the Northen Alliance to retake Afghanistan ? The whole reason why the Taliban gained support after the war with the Russians was because we just washed our hands of the matter after the war had been won. Having a foriegn policy with a short attention span is not a answer IMHO. We still haven't finished our work in Afghanistan and invading Iraq for dubious reasons did not help us out at all either.
This whole thread is nothing but liberals bashing anyone who disagrees with them - evem the poll selection possibilities are biased. I don't have all of Iraq figured out, but neither do any of you. Acting like you have all the answers just makes you look foolish, since it's pretty obvious NO ONE has all the answers. Other opinions are no less valid than your own.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter