English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Do you think that the presence of US Troops in Iraq are focusing Terrorist attention on Iraq and not on US Soil?

2006-07-07 18:09:20 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events Current Events

22 answers

Dig this! We are going to end up with a country in the Arab world with people electing their leaders, with boys AND girls going to real schools, a people with high expectations about their government, and a sense of their own power and worth. This has never happened in this part of the world BEFORE!

Next door in Iran, they whip people and stone men and women to death. In some Muslin places, the adults would rather have little girls burn to death in a building rather than run around outside with their faces uncovered! Should we talk about slavery, incest, and teaching young adults to bomb innocent people?

As soon as Iraq can go on without the person-to-person help and protection we are giving them, we will be out of there.

NO other country is smart enough, big enough, or has enough good people to do this. Only the Americans can do this.

(If we were not so divided politically, we might have been finished there already!)

2006-07-07 18:37:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

Regardless of how we view our troops in Iraq, I'd guess it's more important how the Iraqis viewing our troops in Iraq. And the rest of the Muslim nations. Certainly there are some Iraqis and Muslims who see their women and children being blown up, and attribute the violence to our presence. And every son or daughter that gets blown up has a family. And one of those family members might be mad enough to fight back. If they think the blood is on OUR hands, we just made another terrorist. Multiplied by number of civilian deaths divided by a reasonable figure who have at least one relative crazy enough to blame us AND actually do something to retaliate...I'd say by the time it's all over, there'll be a lot more terrorists in Iraq than when we started this mess. And I gotta say, we're there again for what? I remember the 9/11 hijackers being Saudis...but I guess they get a pass. Not that I thought retaliation was the best idea. (But Mom!! He hit me first!!!) Like spoiled little kids, and an endless, senseless cycle.

2006-07-08 01:22:25 · answer #2 · answered by egodeathparade 1 · 0 0

So far they have. I mean there haven't been any terrorist bombings around here lately. But there is something that almost nobody sees. The media is telling us only the bad stuff from Iraq. No heoroic acts or any acts of kindness. You never hear about how the Iraqi people feel good and glad that their genocidic leader is finaly out of power. You only hear the number of cassualties, how many attacks there were, the "mindless" search for weapons. They will never tell you about the rocket tubes that soldiers find because it may just make bush look good for a change. We went into the country to find weapons of mass destruction and so far we have found substantial evidence that they were attempting to build these weapons. Now my question for you is, would you rather have waited until a weapon of mass destruction was set off in New York and then have US soldiers battle against these weapons on the battlefield or would you have rather found them still siting in pieces in wherehouses, harmless to anybody and everybody?

When will this battle end in the middle east? We should look towards Asia. North Korea is building nuclear weapons and missles to launch them right into our backyard. China, another great problem, is moving balistic missles to where they can fire on Taiwan and with us being world cops, we will have to help them. China is also moving fleets with many amphibious ships to areas near Taiwan. They have all of a suden neaded about 10 times more fuel and oil than they usually need in the past two years. Sounds like stockpiling to me. In the future I just hope we can all work out our problems without entering a nuclear war.

2006-07-08 02:33:41 · answer #3 · answered by dolphinswim1001 2 · 0 0

Nope. They were at first when we got Saddam Hussein out of power , but now it's just getting ridiculous. First of all I would've let the Iraqis pick their own form of government, stay til it was offical then I woud've sent our troops home. It's basically a suicide mission now, because you don't know who the terrorist are. It could be anybody. I believe you can't fight an actual war on terrorism, but you have to find a way to manipulate it. Our soldiers are over there fighting ghosts. I say send our troops home and let the shi'ittes and Sunni's fight. Who ever wins wil deserve their seat in power. The war alone will take years, and while they're fighting were over here getting stronger. We were getting attacked before we got into Iraq. Look at 9/11. Our troops are over there simply dying to make no one safe because the enemy can simply be anybody. It makes no difference where are guys are at, we can still get attacked. We would probably have a better chance against those attacks if our troops over there where over here.

2006-07-08 01:46:20 · answer #4 · answered by ScientiaEstPotentia 3 · 0 0

Troops stationed in Iraq are formed by American men and women that believe that they're keeping us safe. I respect that point of view and respect them for their bravery but the reality is different, we are just another nation in the world which can be targeted by any kind of terrorists (locals and foreign), remember Tim McVeigh? the radical Greens? everything that is done with violence is terrorism and we live among terrorists.
Bush & Co. are doing their great business with this stupid invasion because it's not even a war, that's the real truth. Sad but true. The part that I'm really disturbed by is all those young American soldiers that had died over there in diverse situations, that's really sad.
This Iraq Invasion had not created nothig productive even though the US Government tries to prove different.....

2006-07-08 02:39:21 · answer #5 · answered by sanbartolito 3 · 0 0

No, they are not. Fifteen of the nineteen dead 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. The money for 9/11 funnelled through the UAE. Saddam Hussein, crazed dictator that he was, despised bin Laden and kept most terrorists out of Iraq.

Now, we are still allies with the Saudi Arabians, who keep producing terrorists. We wanted Dubai, a member of UAE to be responsible for protection of our ports. And, Iraq is full of terrorists who hate everything American.

Bush's war has resulted in tens of thousands of needless deaths, an increase in terrorist activity worldwide, and no justice for the victims of 9/11.

On the other hand, they are keeping us safe from a balanced budget, safe from Constitutionally protected privacy and free speech, and safe from peace on earth.

2006-07-08 01:27:34 · answer #6 · answered by Roberta S 1 · 0 0

No. Terrorists can still come into the country. Iraq didn't have any way of attacking us otherwise. Their missile systems were not powerful enough.

I guess the reason we were over there was to protect the Iraqi people from Saddam, which is rational. Unfortunately, we've killed thousands of civilians ourselves in bombings and accidental shootings.

2006-07-08 01:48:25 · answer #7 · answered by Philip N 2 · 0 0

The mission is to establish a stable government that doesn't allow the area to become a terrorist haven. Ultimately that WILL help keep you safe. To bad most are too ignorant to see the big picture.

The problem is that too many people are stuck on Bush and oil and other such crap spewing from the media's "get a democrat back in office at any cost" agenda.

2006-07-08 01:28:08 · answer #8 · answered by Getch 2 · 0 0

The U.S. military has caused so much damage to people's lives in Iraq, like trying to pay Iraqis off that have had their relatives killed for no reason and trying to pay news outlets to write pro-American stories, Bush wanting to bomb the innocent Al Jazeera satellite news station (is that Bush's idea of freedom?) and Bush actually did bomb Al Jazeera in Afghanistan, killing one innocent journalist and then, of course, tried to lie about it saying the military didn't mean to hit it (yeah right).

Some innocent civilian that's been killed for no reason has a brother who is going to want revenge (a future Osama bin Laden) and that will not be good for America in the long run.

Always pay close attention to what Bush never talks about, the answers are somewhere in there: Oil, Money (profit), Secret (illegal) programs.

Yeah, Bush, we never really bought your "freeing the Iraqis" or "Saddam was involved in 9/11" excuses. Conservatives don't have that big of a heart (money fills up most of their heart).

Mission Accomplished ...NOT

2006-07-08 01:49:09 · answer #9 · answered by p2prox 4 · 0 0

By the US continuing to act in the ways that have earned us enmity in the middle east - supporting dictators that oppress their people (like we did with Saddam and we do with our good pals who fund hate schools against us, The Saudi princes), overthrowing popularly elected governments and installing dictators (iran 1953, and god knows where else), by bombing brown children and pretending it doesn't matter, by now, god help us, torturing and killing people in our custody, the US troops are of course making us more unsafe, as they are continuing the behaviors that fomented terrorism in the first place. Bin Laden is not a good man, and he exploits the real anger and crushing poverty of our clients' victims.

Unfortunately, our (illegitimate) president is using our army for an illegal and immoral war. Any solder worth his oath to the constitution should have refused those illegal orders or deserted by now. I think Nuremberg established that.

2006-07-08 01:18:35 · answer #10 · answered by cassandra 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers