2007-01-22 10:05:15 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Now instead of terrorists coming to America to kill a bunch of Americans all they have to do is go to Iraq. The way its going now it seems like we aren't making any friends over there so all those civilian kids who lost someone are the future of Iraq.
2007-01-22 11:13:31 · answer #1 · answered by lalalalaconnectthedots 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not completely, but the victory in Iraq will give the U.S. another ally in the Middle East to go along with Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Gulf States, Lebanon, and Pakistan.
Also, it does more to reduce them than pulling out would.
2007-01-22 10:13:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since terrorists can be based anywhere, not just Iraq, I doubt it.
However, given Iraq's central location in the Middle East and the U.S. military's established base of operations there and in Afghanistan, the U.S. will be able to more rapidly respond to any future terror attacks and bring violence on the country which housed the attackers.
2007-01-22 10:11:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
May be yes but only for a short term !!
In a long run there will be more terror attacks in the USA as compared to today. They might have killed 1000's of terrorists but my dear the war has already created 10000's of such threats.
2007-01-22 10:17:54 · answer #4 · answered by james 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, it already has. We have killed over 4,000 foreign fighters (told to the media by Iman al-zawahiri, 2nd in command of al-qaeda). We are protecting the freedom of the United States by:
-Replacing a dictator
-stabilizing the middle east
-providing a presence in the middle east
We are winning the war.
2007-01-22 10:09:54 · answer #5 · answered by infobrokernate 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
If you were from Outer Slobovia and the Quertinese attacked and occupied you, would you have any motivation to think bad things about the Querts? Would you attack them if you could?
2007-01-22 10:11:54 · answer #6 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If the enemy is somewhat limited in numbers and equipment, then confronting them elsewhere serves to 'occupy' them and further limits their capabilities .
It'd be nice to see you agree with simple logic like that .
2007-01-22 10:11:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Only if Dick, George, Rummy and Wolfie actually strap on some body armor, grab a M-4 and ruck up!
2007-01-22 10:11:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
How many attacks have we had since 9/11? Don't forget Afghanistan.
2007-01-22 10:22:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Hah Of course not. What's worse you ll lose your democratic rights on many areas because of safety precautions.
2007-01-22 10:11:00 · answer #10 · answered by peaceathome 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋