Was Iraq a distraction from the war on terror or does it fit in with the war on terror?

Question

I'm not talking about at present time. It's more of a hypothetical question about whether we should have gone to Iraq like we did or should have we worried more about Syria and Iran.

Real American- Don't you think that they possibly followed us there, not because Iraq is of importance? I wonder if Iraq was so important then why was al Zaqawi supposedly in Afganistan where we injured him? From Afganistan he went to where? Iran none the less. Iran is where he reorganized al-Talwid, his terrorist organization. After that he went to Iraq to fight the Kurds. That is what he does- fight in the name of Islamic Fascism wherever he feels a fight may be.

Answer 1

The attack on Iraq had nothing to do with the war on "terror". The terrorists died in the attack. Bush used the 9/11 attack as a means to do what he said he would do when he was campaigning for president--remove Saddam Hussain from power because, as he is on tape as saying, "he tried to kill my daddy!" ( Saddam did try to assassinate George the First, but George the First also tried to assassinate Saddam). The hundreds of billions spent, thousands and thousands of Americans and Iraqis killed, tens of thousands maimed-all due to the hunger of revenge by George II. Al Quida had no base in Iraq, Saddam would not allow them there. Certainly we should have been more worried about Syria and Iran, both are heavily armed and Syria has almost as many weapons of mass destruction (biological, chemical weapons) as Israel and the US. Iraq was effectively disarmed by us and the Brits during the 10 year war where we established no fly zones and bombed anything that moved out of existence. We knew fully what the military capability of Iraq was, we monitored the one third we did not fully control. It was evident when we attacked and there was no response that there was no real military resistance available to Saddam. George Bush II should go down in history as the worst president, who put our nation in peril for his own personal vendetta. And Congress, both Repubs and Democrats, helped him do it in the name of populism.

Answer 2

I don't think that Iraq had anything to do with the war on terror. It was a very handy excuse however for a war that is proving to be very costly in terms of human collateral. And very profitable for some key stakeholders. There is no denying that seeing the back of Saddam is pleasing but at what cost. I tend to think that GWB should have focused more on the axis of evil as they are who are proving to be a very real threat. As for what has transpired since, yes terrorism is rife in Iraq and that is because the terrorist organisations are capitalising on Iraq as a breeding ground for more terrorists and when a nation is in war a nation is susceptible to civil unrest, terror, and all the horrors that war brings to civilians etc...

GWB is not the brightest man in the US and lets just say that his advisers I think had their own personal reasons for staging this very ugly and complicated war.

I also think that Al Queda timed 9/11 to coincide with GWB being in power as they were counting on the reaction to fuel further hatred etc...GWB played right into their hands.

We live in a very sad world. And I don't know what I will say to my young daughters in years to come about this terrible period in World history.

Answer 3

Reports state terrorism has increased due to the United States occupation of Iraq. North Korea is in the testing phase NOW so that should answer your question. 15 out of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia not to mention Bin Laden that is the center of terrorism. The Royal family in Saudi Arabia is one religious group when the majority of Saudi Arabia are another. That is why the Saudi family will fund their religious insurgent group in Iraq to help kill Americans so that they stay in power.

Answer 4

There is no such thing as a war on terror! What about a war on flanking maneuvers! It is impossible for it to ever be over! Wow, wonder who thought that one up? The politicians have a blank check issue!

If Saddam was still in power you would have far less to worry about with Syria and Iran! Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror as Hussein was not a terrorist! And, as the president said, did he have anything to do with 9/11!

Answer 5

... the war on terror started for one reason... 9-11

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11... that's been cited again and again, from the 9-11 report to Bush himself saying it...

so, why fight the main battle in a war in a country that had nothing to do with the main reason you started the war?

anyone that supports the action only has "well maybe Saddam could have started being friendly with the terrorists"... no real evidence...

you can "well maybe" your way into a war with anyone if you want to look at what "could be possible"

but, why don't conservatives ever talk about Osama anymore... anyone but him and they ramble on and on?

Answer 6

I think looking back we should of attacked Iran. They seem to be more of a threat then Saddam. Saddam was a Sunni but he wasn't very religious, unlike the extremists of Iran, which Jimmy Carter helped put into power. The real problem is that we have weak leaders who are not up to the task of fighting this war. We need leaders who know whats going on in the war and aren't detached from reality like our leaders seem to be. We need to stop worrying about the rights of the terrorists so much and worry more about whats the best path for our troops. If we have to bomb a village to dust to prevent casualties on our side then so be it. To win any war you must first have the will to win. Do we have the will to win or are we going to let corrupt organizations like United Nations to undermine us. Maybe our leaders need to read THE ART OF WAR by SUN TSU. I'm sure they'll learn something from it.

Answer 7

Last I checked, Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks on 9/11 and is based in Afghanistan. But we can't find him, and do not want to make the same mistake the Russians did by invading that mountainous country. So, presto-chango, we're told we have to watch out for Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis, who haven't been doing diddly since we beat them back out of Kuwait. But they might, we're told.

There are over 120 recognized nations in this world, each capable of assisting groups whose ideas/methods do not coincide with ours. Should we be eyeing everyone suspiciously? That's called paranoia. Maybe we should just focus on areas bordering Afghanistan. That would be stereotyping. We could focus on those places with capabilities similar to ours. That's eliminating competition. Hmm...

Saddam would have been smart enough not to develop and distribute weapons of mass destruction, at least through his government. After the fight in the late 80's, he knew that if he was caught (and everyone always gets caught, sooner or later), there would have been no fury like a U.S.A./U.N. scorned. His was a desert kingdom and his troop numbers were closely monitored. We could have (and did) roll in and over him anytime. Could he have encouraged terror cells in Iraq to assist Bin Laden? Possibly, but not definitely. And the complexity of the terror network is that each cell operates independently. By taking out Saddam, we don't take out the cells; they go about their business as normal.

So we start this war on terror; we're going to hunt down anyone we think might ever want to do us harm. That's a pretty big list, not to mention it changes constantly. But we start in Iraq, take out the big cheese, occupy key locations, and, well, now what? We don't plan to stay there forever, it's not our country (although by right of might, it is). Someone needs to take control or we're going to end up running a foreign colony (think 1600/1700's). Three groups interested? Great! We'll let them figure it out for themselves, and we'll stick around to look for terror cells.

But now no one is in power. The groups who want it fight and (gasp!) use terror. Looks like we found some terror cells. Glad we came here in the first place. Osama who? Hey, we've got our hands busy with Iraq now. And there's nuclear technology in the Koreas to deal with, Russian spies with radiation poisoning, drugs in South America, snakes on planes...this could take a while.

Answer 8

ask al zarqawi and a couple of thousand other terrorist that are buried in iraq right now. they know the answer.

funny how democrats try to say iraq was a distraction. then they say the terrorists came there afterward. why did they go there if iraq is meaningless? clearly they know its importance to the terror. if we invaded austrailia would alqueda have made their stand there? use your head.

Answer 9

At the time if you recall we had real concerns about Sadam possessing many chemical weapons and was developing nuclear weapons.
We also know that there was an Al Quaid training camp in Northern Iraq.
He hated America, and we were concerned about him funneling the weapons to terrorist. We were never worried about his Army attacking us, he would simply hand bad stuff over, and they would do his dirty work.
Even the Democrats believed, witness their vote to go to war on the WMD case.

Answer 10

Iraq war and the war on terror are and have been two different wars!