How, how, how is the "war" in Iraq a fight against the terrorists who want to destroy the US?

Question

A recent poster asked if we Liberals don't believe that there are terrorists who would like to strike at America again, and if we did not believe that radical Muslims wish for the death of Americans.

Well, I believe that, yes, there are terrorists who would like to attack us again and again. Some are here in the US now, don't you think? (As I've told the story many times, even "non-terrorists" thought that it was good that we were "getting a taste of our own medicine" on our own soil...If you want the whole story on that, email me...)
And, yes, I think there is a radical fringe of Muslims who would like to see the infidels in the US destroyed. (There are many other people, from other countries and from the US, even, who would like to do damage to our government--Tim McVeigh was one of them...)
But, again (and again and again) what does the "war" in Iraq have to do with all of that??
Wouldn't we be better off trying to "off" the perpetrators of 9/11?

Real answers please!!!

Well, I've read a number of your answers, but my question still stands when the answers say Iraq is the place to be. Why don't we go after the terrorists and the countries that produce them and train them and hide them? Iraq was not one of those countries. Iraq was just a "weak" country, with a gazillion dollars in oil underneath it, that we thought we could take for ourselves, and turn the country into our "friend" (Wouldn't that be nice? We'd have a Jewish "friend" and an "Arab" friend in the ME!)
Pro-Iraq War folks, your answers are strong in doublespeak, and weak in reality! We need to retaliate against the REAL terrorists if we think that "punishment" will keep them from doing it again. (But how do you "punish" someone who thinks that dying will make him a saint?)

Answer 1

It is not a fight against the terrorist, it is about enriching the very rich, war is about money. This one is no different, I would call for an investigation into the money trail and see where it leads and I would believe it would be a major portion of it right back to the white house through the oil company's.

Answer 2

It is a fight against terrorists who want to destroy the US, because we won't leave them alone and we consistently try to influence our beliefs on them.

Yes, Iraq is a country with all kinds of oil that we are trying to protect so that groups like Alquaida don't take it over and then we are left with no energy. Is this right? Probably not, but it is our only solution today. Should we have entered Iraq in the first place? Probably not, but that was George W. showing daddy how to get the job done the right way. Now we are stuck in the middle of a holy mess. If we pull out immediately, insurgents will more then likely take over the area by force and control the middle east, which unfortunately holds a great deal of energy for the world. If we give them a time table, then the insurgents back off and re-group, then strike once we're gone.

We entered that country, took out the ruling party, and that's as far as our plans went. I don't think Bush envisioned chaos like this, if he had he wouldn't be asking for more money and more troops, (hello???)

If you ask me, we have plenty of our own problems to worry about here at home, let the frick'n insurgents take over and get our oil elsewhere. It's time to pull out!!!

The other problem with fighting terrorists is that we have too many Panzy-*** countries over there that don't want to do their fair share, or are even to chicken-Shi* to talk about it. We can't do it ourselves, like some would like to think. We have approximately 3.1million armed services personnel, and if we're losing about 1 thousand/month, it won't take long before we are going to be the weak ones!!

Answer 3

There is a possibility that 9-11 was executed by the Bush Administration and the Jewish owners of the twin towers. If that is true...who are the terrorists? The Iraq war has been about increasing the price of oil. In that regard, and from George Bush's standpoint, we have won.

Answer 4

Maybe this will not answer your question satisfactorily but it's a start. Maybe after you read this you can go farther and understand:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: NewsMax: You once said there may not have been weapons of mass destruction, but you suggested a metaphor that what Saddam had was like a disassembled pistol lying on the desk.
Gen. Franks: Exactly to the point. Did we find weapons of mass destruction? No we did not. Did we find the terrorist Abu Abbas [mastermind of the 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking], who shoved [Leon] Klinghoffer overboard, living in the open in Iraq when we moved in there? ... Yes, we did.
So who is to say that left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein wouldn't have created a problem that could have been much more substantial to our country than the events of 9/11? I just don't believe that the leaders of the United States were in a position post 9/11 to say that business as usual would be just fine.
Let me give you an example of that. What did we see happen in 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon? We saw the interests of the United States of America attacked by terrorists with a bombing of our Marines. What did we see in 1993? We saw an attempt on the World Trade Center by terrorists, and we saw the United States of America back away unilaterally from something we had committed to do in Mogadishu, Somalia. Then in 1996 we saw Khobar Towers - the attack of American interests by terrorists in Saudi Arabia.
In 1998, we saw two attacks on American embassies in East Africa, and in 2000 we saw the USS Cole attacked in Aden Harbor, Yemen.
So here is the question: Is there any relationship between the events over the course of about two decades that I just mentioned and the events of 9/11/01? I do believe there is a connection. I don't mean a physical connection between any of the specific events, but an indication served up to terrorists over the course of almost two decades that says it is okay to attack the interests of the United States of America without fear of serious retribution.
So as we look at American history going back a couple of decades, I believe we can be comfortable with the notion that if we hide our heads in the sand, the problem is not going to go away.
© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.

Answer 5

Regardless of whether we should or should not have went to war in Iraq; the fact is, if we leave Iraq now we will allow either the radical Iranian backed Shiite Muslims or the radical Al-Qaida backed Sunni Muslims to topple the weak Iraqi government. Which then they will take control of the 2nd largest oil deposits in the world, and use the profits from the oil to buy better weapons and training. So either way we will be fighting them over there, which will become the largest terrorist breeding ground if we leave, or they will bring the fight here; maybe it won't happen for another 5yrs. but it will happen.

Answer 6

When we went into Afghanistan I was behind our efforts 100%. We went into Iraq for all the wrong reasons. I think the reason we are not going after the real terrorists is that we don't don't want to upset the different governments they are hiding in. The U.S. is not the world police, but we have a right to protect ourselves, and fighting in Iraq is not making us safer.

Answer 7

Simple answer of course is "nothing".

The slightly longer answer of course is that since Iraq was invaded, terrorism has increased in the US and the UK.

However just like Vietnam, not nearly enough people have been slaughtered yet to let Bush be a decent man and back out. He will send more peoiple to their deaths - as will Blair in the UK.

Hussein has gone. He is no more. Although a tyrant and an evil man, he DID have the ability to run his country. The US and the UK could no more run Iraq than they can control the growing unrest in their own neglected bits of the World.

As for Muslims - say anything much about them and they get the question / answer pulled. Some religions are not strong enough to withstand scrutiny and debate.

If bush and Blair were being honest about their reasons to invade Iraq - and their reasons to stay on - then what about Mugabe another evil man. Perhaps Libya might like to be freed of tyranny too.

Problem is they don't have any oil do they.

You are right - the war is not about terrorism - though it has caused some. Neither bush nor Blair have the courage to admit they were wrong and simply get the hell out and let the Iraquis try and sort out the mess.

Sure it might not be run as the UK or the US would run it, sure it might be corrupt - like Westeners always operate ethically and with integrity ?? Don't make me laugh. BUT at least Iraq would be responsible for Iraq - they would resolve their issues in their own ways - and it is VERY hard to see that there would be more bloodshed than the West is generating.

Mark

Answer 8

Our enemy is a demented ideology of hatred and domination.
I agree with you assessment about radical extremists - from numerous countries - that would like to see the United States go down for the count.
For over 25 years, we utilized policies of inaction, of no effective response to the terrorists' acts of war, terror and murder of Americans all over the globe. These policies of inaction finally culminated in the events of 9/11.
We could not continue with this policy.
A 100% effective defense against terror is impossible - especially in a free society - and if we are to be safe from terror attacks on our soil, our defense would necessarily have to be 100%.
The first option then is not viable. The second option is to bring their the war to them, on their soil. A proactive approach to terror is always better than a reactive one. Always.
How do we do this? We topple the Taliban government in Afghanistan and proceed into Iraq to topple their psycho leadership, capture or kill alQaeda's leadership, destroy their communication networks, cut off their funding where ever we find it and install a government that answers to the people instead of the other way around.
Lofty goals, no doubt, and judging from the terrorists' efforts to stop the objectives, I would say we are on the right track.

Answer 9

Contrary to common gossip ( knowing nothing of the truth) there wasn't a single individual in the Senate or House that dint see the same Intelligence as Bush and his buddy's saw before any Invasion. Fact: Saddam was assisting a majority of the Anti-American terrorist ( Insurgents), and like Iran and Syria now, keep supplying them because so many of the " You don't understand" crowd like Mr. Reid, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Schumer, blah, blah, blah and blah !! I always thought a person who willingly sells out his/her country was called a " Traitor "? Personally, I believe that there is alot of Individuals out there consuming alot of " Kool-Aid " !!

Answer 10

Because George - who hate gays - somehow likes kissing Saudi Princes.
And after kissing a guy the Last thing you want to do is go bomb their country over something as Silly as Their country being the one where all the terrorists are from.
Instead you maybe bomb the country of the guy who didn't let you give him a BIG WET ONE. (I really can't see Hussein puckering up for Georgie boy)
It always comes down to sex,drugs and rock roll.(and Georgie - he liked it,he liked it,yes he did)

Answer 11

Bret -- No WMD
No al Queda.
No danger to US
No war on terror
No response to all the good people that died in 9/11.

Chase -- consider Manifest Destiny. The US will not stop until it owns the world. Lot's of luck.

"Let he has not sinned cast the first stone"

Don't cast judgement upon others for something you are guilty of too.