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

Occupying Iraq will keep terrorists from anywhere else from coming to the United States and attacking us.

True or false?

2007-01-10 03:27:26 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

Stephanie, lets have dinner.

2007-01-10 03:39:14 · update #1

13 answers

False.
Thats like saying eating cherry snow cones will keep a bus from falling on my head.

2007-01-10 03:32:04 · answer #1 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 4 0

This is borrowed from a marine on the ground in Iraq,

Fun fact: The enemy death toll is supposedly between 45-50 thousand. That is why we're seeing less and less infantry attacks and more IED, suicide bomber crap. The new strategy is simple: attrition. The insurgent tactic most frustrating is their use of civilian non-combatants as cover. They know we do all we can to avoid civilian casualties and therefore schools, hospitals and
(especially) Mosques are locations where they meet, stage for attacks, cache
weapons and ammo and flee to when engaged. They have absolutely no regard whatsoever for civilian casualties. They will terrorize locals and murder without hesitation anyone believed to be sympathetic to the Americans or the new Iraqi govt. Kidnapping of family members (especially children) is common to influence people they are trying to influence but can't reach, such as local govt. officials, clerics, tribal leaders, etc.). The first thing our guys are told is "don't get captured". They know that if captured they will be tortured and beheaded on the internet. Zarqawi people openly offer bounties for anyone who brings them a live American serviceman. This motivates the criminal element who otherwise don't give a damn about the war. A lot of the beheading victims were actually kidnapped by common criminals and sold to Zarqawi. As such, for our guys, every fight is to the death. Surrender is not an option.

The Iraqi's are a mixed bag. Some fight well, others aren't worth a damn. Most do okay with American support. Finding leaders is hard, but they are getting better. It is widely viewed that Zarqawi's use of suicide bombers, en masse, against the civilian population was a serious tactical mistake. Many Iraqi's were galvanized and the caliber of recruits in the Army and the police forces went up, along with their motivation. It also led to an exponential increase in good intel because the Iraqi's are sick of the insurgent attacks against civilians. The Kurds are solidly pro-American and fearless fighters.

According to Jordan, morale among our guys is very high. They not only believe they are winning, but that they are winning decisively. They are
stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they
almost universally view as against them. The embedded reporters are despised and distrusted. They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see crap like "Are we losing in Iraq" on TV and the print media. For the most part, they are satisfied with their equipment, food and leadership. Bottom line though, and they all say this, there are not enough guys there to drive the final stake through the heart of the insurgency, primarily because there aren't enough troops in-theater to shut down the borders with Iran and Syria. The Iranians and the Syrians just cant stand the thought of Iraq being an American ally (with, of course, permanent US bases there).

Anyway, that's it, hope you found it interesting

1 minute ago

2007-01-10 03:38:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

vice chairman Dick Cheney and some others stated that the Iraq warfare might want to act like fly paper -- it would want to allure to terrorists from around the Islamic international to at least one position the position shall we kill'em all! so a techniques this hasn't happened yet. i'm no longer particular that the Iraq warfare extremely has some thing to do with struggling with terrorism. Saddam become no longer linked to al Qaeda by any ability. Saddam's authorities become an earthly state, the type of authorities that al Qaeda opposes. the real motivations seem: a million. Oil (The warfare become meant to operate about 3 million - 5 million barrels an afternoon to international production). 2. Revenge (Saddam Hussein once tried to kill the present President's father the previous President Bush). 3. Oil (Iraq is the seventh best producer of oil).

2016-12-28 15:07:30 · answer #3 · answered by lopes 4 · 0 0

False.Occupation of Iraq result in a new terrorism attracting country.Iraq became a new terrorists exporter .That was the idiot policy of Mr Bush and his administration.
Occupation increases the threat level to the USA much more than before.

2007-01-10 04:14:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

True and false, depending on how you look at it.
Although some terrorists will obviously still try and strike us here, Iraq is now the focal point in the War on Terror. It is where there are many many Americans in plain sight, easy to get to, in a country that has no border security and no national security besides the US. It is simple and much less expensive for terrorists to get in and out of Iraq and I believe they are much more likely to go this road rather than risk getting to the United States mainland. Much too expensive, much too dangerous.
We need to stay in Iraq for this reason.
We pull out of Iraq, where are they going to go? Afghanistan? Maybe. But I'd rather fight them in the flatlands of Iraq where they are often out in the open than hump the hills and mountains and caves of Afghanistan.
If we pull out of Iraq, after the terrorists destroy that country and they don't go to Afghanistan, that leaves the US. I don't want to fight them here.
Do you?

2007-01-10 03:36:23 · answer #5 · answered by T 3 · 0 2

True and False. We will be attacked again here in America at some point. This is not an if, but rather a when. However, engaging terrorists in Iraq is preferable to engaging them here and as long as they choose to use resources and personnel fighting us there, America will be safer based on the fact that it leaves less resources to carry out attacks on our mainland.

2007-01-10 03:34:58 · answer #6 · answered by Bryan 7 · 1 2

Terrorists are mostly in OTHER countries. The fact that we are beating up on Iraq, resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians, inflames the anger of the Muslim world and produces more jihadists elsewhere.

2007-01-10 03:35:26 · answer #7 · answered by Yahoo Will Never Silence Me 6 · 2 0

False, why would it? Iraq wasn't a fundamentalist Islamic state, so they are happy we took Saddam out. When we leave they can't wait to set up a Islamic styled feudal government.

2007-01-10 03:37:35 · answer #8 · answered by vertical732 4 · 2 0

Absolutely false -

This is nothing but Republican and the Village Idiot - George W. Bush's propoganda.

America has not been attacked after 911 because after Bush pulled that attack off - he felt that he did not need another one!

2007-01-10 03:33:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

False. It gives the extremest organizations another selling point for their position.

2007-01-10 03:32:12 · answer #10 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers