2007-02-21 11:35:38 · 14 answers · asked by Gary 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Are there some terrorists in Iraq? Sure. And most of the ones who are there went there after Bush invaded. But...even at that, there's not many. Certainly not enough to warrant going to war with an entire country.
If being in Iraq was justified by the presence of some terrorists in that country, then the USA should go to war with every country in the mid-east, most of the countries in Europe, as well as Canada and South America. Oh, and England.
Terrorism is NOT why the U.S. is at war with Iraq. It never was.
2007-02-21 11:57:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You're right that "mutually exclusive" is a slight overstatement--there is some proof of Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq. Unfortunately, the more deeply US troops are embroiled in the Civil War between Shia and Sunni factions, the less chance we have to go after said terrorists, especially in Afghanistan and Palestine. And, as mentioned above, Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorists who attacked the United States.
The two are not mutually exclusive, but Iraq is certainly not synonymous with the War on Terror, either.
2007-02-21 11:39:31 · answer #2 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Iraq war was originally the liberation of Iraq. Now after many changes, it's a war on terror, give me a break. It's a war on the American taxpayer and the American soldiers caught in the middle of the craziness in Iraq.
2007-02-21 11:41:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
They are completely separate from one another. Iraq had nothing to do will 9/11. If you conservatives would turn off FOX NEWS and RUSH you might understand this. We invaded Iraq because Saddam supposedly had WMD's, which turned out to be not true. Then we were going to "Free the Iraqis and liberate them" which turned out NOT to work, because you can't liberate a country at gun point, the Iraqis have to rise up together and liberate themselves. So now this administration has lumped the Iraq war in with the war on terror.
2007-02-21 11:38:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The way it is treated by the government, the "War on Terror" is a part of ALL foreign policy.
If it is an element of all foreign policy, it loses any special influence it may have had and becomes meaningless.
Even so, opening up the powder keg that is Iraq has very definitly resulted in an increase in acts of terror.
2007-02-21 11:40:20 · answer #5 · answered by DonSoze 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
They used to be.
But Bush with his complete lack of vision and total ignorance of world affairs, coupled with his idea of how justice should be administered, (Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay) has so pissed off the Muslim world that the majority of them hate the US.
Now Iraq is the centre and breeding ground of world terror.
Thanks George, you idiot.
2007-02-21 11:46:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because they can't recognize a terrorist when they see one. I believe the terrorist who would attack the U.S. are fueling the civil war in Iraq.
2007-02-27 13:28:47 · answer #7 · answered by edward m 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They're not anymore. At one point they were, but that ship sailed at least a year ago.
By bringing down Saddam's infrastructure we've actually created the perfect breeding ground for terrorists.
2007-02-21 11:38:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Iraq did not have training camps for terrorist, saddam kept them out.
2007-02-21 11:44:20 · answer #9 · answered by sydb1967 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Because those libs believe that Iraq has nothing to do with terror. At least thats what I seem em say.
And you can link numerous articles showing saddams regime and their connection to muhammed atta , and you can recall how Saddam was paying families who would volunteer a member of their family to be suicide bombers, and you can list the all the murderous acts committed by Saddams regime all over the place.
But facts only get in the way of some peoples agendas.
2007-02-21 11:41:44 · answer #10 · answered by sociald 7 · 1⤊ 6⤋