Why would we be fighting iraqies in the US if we werent occupying iraq now.?

Question

Since Iraq was not a terroist state before we invaded and not able to even fly plans in there own country.. How is one to make the statement "we need to stay in iraq and fight or we would be fighting them in the USA? Please, explain this logic to me?

Still now answer to why i should think by not being in iraq, we would be fighting terrorist, iraqies, islamofacists here in america.. If Bush thinks we would be fighting here shouldnt someone mail out some weapons to us?? IM SOO SCARED..

The power vacuum has started, its called a civil war.. Were in the middle of it.. Its insane to occupy any country in a civil war..

Answer 1

fearmongering, not logic.

Answer 2

The potential terrorist threats from rogue Islamic regimes is real, but the ways of successfully dealing with the threat are complicated. There is indeed a "logic" in attending to the rogue Muslim governments (such as Iran), but the eagerness to use military solutions derives largely from American puissance: we believe we'll win militarily.

While it is true that there was a potential terrorist threat in Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein, it is also true that the terrorist threat has not been abated at all in the last three years. But a crafty commander in chief will, of course, use every rationale to support an increasingly unpopular war. The Republican president would like us (as fellow simple-mindeds?) to believe that the terrorists just line up on a battlefield to be killed, and they're lining up there, and so they won't come here. The intelligent and informed realize that the terrorists are already here. It is only a matter of when the strike, where they strike, and what destructive tools they use. They're already here.

Answer 3

Interesting... OK, here is the logic for "unless we fight them in Iraq we will be fighting them in the US".

If we leave Iraq they (the terrorist) will use Iraq as a staging area to mount terrorist attacks against the US. They will come here on jumbo jets with passports and such and then carry out attacks in the US. Or they may stow away in cargo containers and take the boat over. In any case if we leave too soon it will give the terrorist a place to start, with lots of resources. Also, since they are close to countries that will fund them (Syria, Iran) it will make it that much harder to fend them off.

Get it?

Answer 4

I dont agree in the war in Iraq, but the problem is that any terrorist state that has "beef" with the Us, is now coming to Iraq to fight us first hand. So Leaving Iraq would result in leaving it a terrorist state because of all these outsiders now squatting there.

It's basically a round robin tournament with Iraq as the arena.

Answer 5

uuuhgh ? What ? Iraq was not a terrorist state ? Says who ? I live in the middle east, and Saddam Hussain aint no saint dear !, I am thankful to the US and Uk armed forces [ not the civilians, coz you guys are just cry babies ] that they 'caught that rat from the hole' . Believe me , if it was not done this way, you guys would have seen one more 9/11 for sure.

You want logic? Unless you have lost one of your own to the terrorists you will never know what logic is.

Answer 6

The major fight, according to the world, is in Iraq, and to a lessor extent, in Afghanistan. We kill terrorists, often foreigners, who use Iraq and Afghanistan as their bases and training camps.

Iraq was not a "terrorist state" like Palestine, but Saddam was unbalanced, murdering hundreds of thousands of his civilians, threatening, invading his neighbors, supporting the enemy with his oil for food money, buying and building weapons, starving his people, pointedly ignoring edicts and warnings from the UN.

The rest of the world foils terrorist attacks within their borders using intelligence collected from the front lines.

We fight to kill the most terrorists. In their backyards. Why ours? Isn't it obvious that the fanatic Islamic populations are concentrated over there?

c'mmonnnnnnnnnnn.

Answer 7

Fact: Saddam Hussein offered & paid poverty stricken zealots in his country to strap on explosives and attack any western interest.

Opinion: If we leave Iraq before they can stand on their own, we leave a power vacuum that will likely be filled by the Iranian Mullahs/Hamas or a faction equally as detrimental to US interests. Their first order of business would likely be to throw a nuke at Israel, an American ally. We would be back in the region.


It makes sense to me to get this done, done right and finish it.

Answer 8

explain it! ......... they can't even explain the fact that they themselves are responsible for 911

In an effort to augment the Mujahiddin forces, the U.S. encouraged the influx into Afghanistan of thousands of idealistic Muslims, eager to participate in the struggle, from countries throughout the Middle East. One of the first of these expatriate Arabs was Osama bin Laden, who was "recruited by the CIA" in 1979, according to Le Monde (9/15/01). Bin Laden operated along the Pakistani border, where he used his vast family connections to raise money for the Mujahiddin; in doing so, he "worked in close association with U.S. agents," according to Jane’s Intelligence Review (10/1/98).

In an editorial (12/27/84), the Washington Post offered this encomium to the Afghan rebels:

They managed to put down a brave resistance. Simple people, fighting with hand-me-down weapons, have borne tremendous costs and kept a modern well-armed state from imposing an alien political will. The fight for freedom in Afghanistan is an awesome spectacle and deserves generous tribute.

http://www.fair.org/extra/0201/afghanistan-80s.html

history is repeating itself ............ well if this ain't Nam ......... it's definitely agfhanistan

Answer 9

Iraq had a crazy dictator, you do realize that, right? Who may not have been able to hurt us directly himself, but would have been HAPPY to help whoever could. He could have sold his WMD's (that WERE found by the way, just not widely reported) to any terrorist that could come to America and use them against us. How does that not make sense to you? I could go into it, but by the wording of your question, you're not really looking for a true answer, you just want more bashing of Bush.

Answer 10

well it's pretty simple. This country of ours with it's idiot in charge invaded Iraq to get the guy that pissed of his daddy. we now have a lot of people that have lost friends and family to our troops ( I don't have anything against our military they are just doing their jobs and soldiers are trained not to question orders so I have to stand behind our troops) anyhow, when we leave, those Iraqis that are trying to kill our soldiers now will still want to kill Americans who invaded their country and some of them will link up with true terrorists and come here to get revenge. I say we move the WHITE HOUSE to baghdad and let him deal with what he started personally

Answer 11

oh pshhhhh sureeeee it was a terrorist state even before we went there. and do you want us to fight here? it's your backyard being blown up. They messed w/us and now they're paying. but if we weren't there, they'd just keep terrorizing people and mistreating the citizens of iraq-yay saddam hussein is going bye bye they just announced his sentence, and he said, this is a lesson to my 'children' for respecting human beings