2007-02-22 08:36:29 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Not originally, but it is now.
Since we created such a state of chaos and lawlessness, the terrorists were able to move in and to stir up an already bubbling cauldron of tension.
As we continue to throw more bodies and equipment into that morass, with no real goal, purpose or end game in sight, we offer a wonderful training ground and target range for the terrorists to hone their skills and develop effective strategies against us.
Add to that the damage done by the lies told to justify the invasion (think about old school cold war Soviet invasions and how they "justified" those, now compare that to what we know about our justifications), our status as occupier, how we set things up for corporations to get rich stealing from the Iraqis, the normal deaths and atrocities that come with war and occupation, how we've been unable to deliver basic security and services - we've also created a huge future generation of terrorists that we'll be fighting for decades.
Is it the same as the war on terror? Not really. Are they unrelated? Sadly, not any more.
2007-02-22 08:47:33 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That depends largely on your point of view. There are idelogical corrolaries between the two, in that state sponsors of terrrorism (such as Iraq, Iran and Syria) do represent a significant part of the problem. Also, the nightmare scenario of WMD put in the hands of terrorrists by one of these states was in large part the basis for the current war in Iraq. Some people will tell you that the Iraq war is a mistake in that it is diverting valuable resources from the more tactical and immediate goal of "getting" the terrorists. How we do that without operating in the countries where they are is a difficult matter at best. Others will tell you that we are making a choice to fight the war "over there" instead of over here by aggressively confronting the worst bad actor in the state sponsor of terrorism category. There is also the added potential benefit of turning the geopolitical realities of the region on their ear, but that has had some unintended consequences, as we all know. Time will tell whether the strategy of regime change in Iraq will ultimately help or hinder the greater "War on Terror". Certainly, millions of Iraqi Shia would tell you they are (or will ultimately be ) better off for the US intervention, if for no other reason than they are out from under the yoke of Saddam's oppression.
2007-02-22 16:45:05 · answer #2 · answered by zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it isn't even in the same ballpark. It's already been acknowledged by the Administration that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The real War on Terror was relegated to second status in favor of Bush's obsession with Iraq, which he had before 9/11 ever happened. That Clinton's policy of containment was working (as we discovered after finding no WMDs, etc.) must really burn Bush's butt. Instead of policing a civil war in Baghdad our troops need to be in the Western Provinces of Iraq where Al Queda has free reign now, and in Afghanistan where Taliban terrorist camps are multiplying like cockroaches. Bush's actions have led to an upsurge in terrorist recruitment and a huge increase in terrorist cells all over the world. The next President will be left with the mess when Bush finally, and thankfully, leaves office. Let's hope he or she keys in on the War on Terror at last and before it's too late.
2007-02-22 17:35:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only connection between the 2 is that the War on Terror is George's final remaining excuse for the War in Iraq. When all the other "reasons" he sold were proven illegitimate, the War on Terror was still a viable alternative, so long as his spin team can keep on selling it to middle America.
2007-02-22 17:08:15 · answer #4 · answered by groom_z 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends on who you ask. i'd say no because I don't believe Iraq had any terror links. The real war on terror has been put on the back burner because of Iraq.
2007-02-22 16:44:13 · answer #5 · answered by Chris 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no one doesn't have anything to do with the other. well, it didn't until we invaded now the terrorist have come to Iraq to fight us in person. iraq had nothign to do with 9/11 so people plz quit saying that it did. The war in Iraq has made more terrorists than al-qaeda could have ever dreamed up. good job bush and his supporters
2007-02-22 16:40:54 · answer #6 · answered by jwk227 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no but it was manipulated to look that way
most of the "terrorists" in Iraq have been bred from the Iraq War
2007-02-22 16:45:46 · answer #7 · answered by Go Blue 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's part of it. Were is the home base for terrorism? You have to start somewhere. Iraq is in the middle of it. We could just wait and let them come to us. Oh yeah.... we already tried that.
2007-02-22 16:41:07 · answer #8 · answered by Slimboogy 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, but the military-industrial complex wants you to believe they're one in the same.
2007-02-22 17:14:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Liberals say no. Intelligent people know it is.
2007-02-22 16:42:24 · answer #10 · answered by Chester's Liver 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋