...to divert our resources from singlemindedly going after Al Qaida and other terrrorists? Please share perspectives on this issue.
2006-09-05 16:18:11 · 15 answers · asked by Tynes 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Yeah... it's great for them... they get to send a few low level terrorists that were herding sheep yesterday in to keep U.S. troops busy, while they plan whatever attacks they want to in relative safety...
they dictate the fight... we aren't taking it to them... it's perfect for them... and there are also non-al-queda native Iraqis that are doing a lot of the fighting for them...
never in their wildest dreams did they imagine that they could hit the U.S. that hard and then the U.S. would go into Iraq for it... we're even stupider than they thought we are....
there are a lot of people talking about al-queda on here... and you or I don't have a clue what they are doing... assuming is a DEADLY danger.... we ASSUMED that they couldn't do 9-11... do we just ASSUME that they are busy in Iraq...
2006-09-05 17:45:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes I agree , if our military is divided , it gives Al Qaeda more room to maneuver and be bolder in their attacks . Also sense we've went into Iraq , It's been shown that there is a rise in Al Qaeda recruits and lots of splinter groups all over the Middle East
and they have migrated to European Country's as England has found out .
Bin Laden told that after 9/11 they thought might have to go into hiding and have trouble recruiting young men from the Muslim community and after we invaded Iraq that was not the case .
2006-09-05 17:07:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Al Qaida needs to do nothing. We have shown very successfully that we love being boggled down in a no-win situation. A guerilla war (or terrorist) is difficult to fight, it requires tenacity that we lack as the American public loses interest. It happened before in Korea, and in Vietnam, after after a few years of fighting in the Middle East, we'll get bored, haven't solved a thing and go home like a whipped puppy...so why should they need to do anything. We will lose the war all by ourselves.
2006-09-05 17:26:00 · answer #3 · answered by Frank 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's an interesting concept, but I'm not sure if I agree. You could say that al-Qaeda would like the US to overcommit itself and ignore al-Qaeda elsewhere. But al-Qaeda is fighting in Iraq, and more of the terrorists are being killed than US troops. Al-Zarqawi and now the new number two leader was captured. Recently al-Qaeda is losing a lot of its upper leadership.
It is true that one of the factors that leads to the decline of a superpower is overextending itself in the world. However bad Iraq looks, we are yet to be overextended. If al-Qaeda managed to open up fronts in several more countries, then the US could be in danger of overextension, but in the last 3 years, that has yet to happen. Al-Qaeda has to worry about overextension as well.
I believe al-Qaeda's goal in Iraq is to force the US out of Iraq. A failure to stabalize Iraq will be a victory for the terrorists. It will be seen as a victory against the "Great Satan." Terrorists will be emboldened and they will believe that if they kill enough soldiers, America will cut and run.
2006-09-05 16:48:50 · answer #4 · answered by royalrunner400 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
of course they do, it gives Al Queda somebody to blow up with out having to buy plane tickets (they're soo expensive). The whole thing is so rediculous, that I find myself looking deeper to find why Bush sent our troops there...they can't really be so stupid that they think stirring up a hornets nest will make it less likely to get stung. I think the answer really is that they thought of the stupidest thing and went ahead and did it, so they could really bring on the iron to ....maybe Iran, or the whole Middle East.
I'm now in the position of supporting the transition in Iraq (I don't know why). but I think that if the Republicans keep control of the Congress and God forbid, the White House, it will be a blank check for them to do whatever the heck they want. The problem also is that if a Democrat gets into the White House he will feel obligated to be aggressive to prove Democrats aren't sissies.
the President is right in one regard, this ain't going away soon. But it would have been wiser to not commit so much when the nature of terrorism is surprise and flexibility in their actions. even my kid knows you can't kill every Islamic militant...they are manufactured in Iraq every day.
2006-09-05 16:44:47 · answer #5 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
America cannot see the forest for the trees. Iran, Al Qaida, Iraq, and every other nation/people who are hostile to us want us spread out all over the globe putting out little fires while they torch the entire forest.
2006-09-05 16:25:20 · answer #6 · answered by Diana 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's interesting, but the way to defeat a superpower is to trigger overcommitment and overspending, especially via the military. This destroyed the Soviet Union.
How very interesting that the US is mired in Afghanistan (deja vu, anyone?) and Iraq, overspending and overcommitting. And from the looks of what happened with Israel and Lebanon, it seems as if there's an additional effort to engage Iran (I think they've got enough oil to outspend us, so humbling) in hostilities.
What a bunch of neocons!
2006-09-05 16:25:10 · answer #7 · answered by nora22000 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I beleive that they want to keep fighting going on in Iraq. If they didn't there would be no fighting. The U.S. could come home and then al queda could do what ever they want to. Also, the longer the war goes on in iraq the more americans will fight amongst each other. We will fall from within.
2006-09-05 16:30:56 · answer #8 · answered by Stand 4 somthing Please! 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The war in Iraq is part of the war on terror, it is not the war against Al Quaida or Bin Laden. There are many groups who are attempting to destroy us.The war must be fought on many fronts in we expect victory. It will not be quick or painless, it will be more difficult due to the aid and comfort provided by the left in this country. In an attempt to relive their only success (losing Vietnam) and to regain power they are willing to undermine the war on terror. How many more wars does the left get to lose for the USA before Ted Kennedy allows me to criticize their patriotism. I sorry you can go back to drinking Kool Aid and quoting bumper stickers now.
2006-09-05 16:29:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Al-Qaeda loved the opportunity to fight face to face against American soldiers but were dealt serious blows in terms of manpower and in funding (nobody likes a loser) in the first year of the war.
They like that the US is facing trouble but they are upset because this war is proving as distracting to them in launching attacks against mainland USA as it is for the US troops in Iraq.
Iraq is keeping the US from effectively fighting Al-Qaeda... but the war is also dividing Al-Qaeda's attentions from their goals.
2006-09-05 16:46:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋