Anyone else done the math?

Question

Okay, the supporters of the Iraqi War claim that it is a war on terror, right? At least that’s what I keep hearing over and over on Yahoo Answers. They also claim that it’s an effective action against terrorism because we haven’t seen an attack on American soil since 9-11.

First of all, there are over one billion Muslims worldwide. And even if we conservatively estimate that only ½ of 1% are Wahhabis and Jihadis—radical extremists—that translates to 5,000,000 potential terrorists willing to die for their cause throughout the world. So, while all of our resources are focused on Iraq, and our troops are wedged between a bloody civil war involving the Sunnis and Shiites, battling a handful of terrorists in the process, who’s policing terrorist activities in the rest of the world?

Second, we know that terrorists are extremely patient. It took them nearly a decade to plan and execute 9-11. So, just because we haven’t seen another attack on American soil doesn’t mean that the Iraqi War has prevented this. Plots to attack America may very well be on the drawing board right now. Furthermore, how does waging war against 10, 20, or 30,000 terrorists in Iraq successfully thwart millions more worldwide? How does “fighting them over there (another over-used cliché) so we don’t have to fight them over here” prevent millions of radical Muslims from executing another attack on America or elsewhere in the world? The argument that the war in Iraq is a war against terrorism has no credibility. It does nothing to prevent terrorism worldwide.

You can call the Iraqi War lots of things; but it most certainly is not a global war on terror. Agree or disagree?

MERLINS: You completely missed my point. I didn't say that we are not fighting terroists in Iraq. What I did say is that they represent a very small percentage of the whole. Remember that the only reason terroists ARE in Iraq is because we're there.

Global terrorism will never be stopped with bullets; it's logistically impossible. The only effective way to fight it is through strategic police work; pooling international intelligence, and working cooperatively to locate the terrorists' financial sources. No money; no terror. Oil dependent countries also need to aggressively promote R & D on alternative fuel sources. Again, no money; no terror.

Answer 1

The war on terror is ridiculous. Where do you draw the lines? Should we invade Ireland? Or Britain or France because they have large groups of Muslims who may not tow the party line?
Al Qaeda attacked us. That's who we should be fighting. And if we just fought that war we could have won by now.

Answer 2

Interesting math, but I don't think the war on terrorism is the entire reason the USA invaded Iraq. I think dollar diplomacy, or dollar hegemony, is the underlying reason our troops went to Iraq.
Rather than go into a long explanation, I'll let you do your own research. Do a keyword search: Nixon+dollar+middle east oil. You'll get reams of info.

Answer 3

Well, the neocons strategy is somewhat different from what many people understand.

You are right in how they vociferously defend Iraq. Sometimes well, sometimes childishly. Yet most don't understand what the strategy is.

Its a honey pot. A honey pot is strategy by which one intentionally exposes a target to attack by the enemy. If the honey pot is easy to reach, then other targets are less likely to be struck. If the other targets are geographically isolated from the honey pot and well guarded, they are even 'safer' from attack.

You fight them over there so you don't fight them over here. Its a sound theory and is used extensively in IT.

But.

The honey pot does not prevent attacks here. It only makes them less likely.

This is what Bush is doing. In a sense, his "fight them over there so as to not fight them here" is correct. But its awfully misleading as neocons imply as long as Iraq wages on we are safe. We are not. The presence of Iraq war only reduces the likelihood of attack here...not eliminate it as they imply.

My .02

Answer 4

I agree. For every 1 terrorist killed by U.S. forces in Iraq, another 10 sneak into the country to fight the next day.

The war is a lost cause.

Answer 5

Then, I presume your answer to your own question is that we should do nothing until more attacks are made on our own soil?

As we are battling al quieda daily in Iraq, how can you say we are not battling terrorists, as this is the very group that claimed responsibility for the WTC attack?

If it is unacceptable to fight the terrorists in Iraq, where would be a better place? California, perhaps?

At what point do we begin to fight? If not now, when should we in the future?

If the American lives lost are so important to you, how many are you willing to lose when our enemies become stronger in the future because of our failure to act now?

Should we wait until Iran has nukes to use against us, or against Isreal?

Should we allow Isreal to be wiped from the face of the earth, as is the STATED wish of Iran's president, before we act?

I'm all for peace. I have fought a war. Its not pretty. But I would rather fight those fanatics there, and now, rather than wait until my grandchildren face a greater loss of life in the future.

Answer 6

Agree on top of all that Osama the man who gave the go ahead and is the leader of Al qaida is still alive 6 after he killed 3,000 Americian in America....Conservitives don't like fact just silly slogans.....

Answer 7

Thank you for saying that. I completely agree with you. You brought up some very interesting points, things I hadn't thought about before. Excellent question!

Answer 8

Dude, don't confuse the conservative mind (an oxymoron, I know) with facts. Either you're with us or against us - Why do you hate freedom?

Answer 9

very good point. and yes Iraq is not making us any safer.