Is the US attack on Iraq Terriosm?

Question

After reading the definition of Terrorism, I realized that it is in fact

Terrorism:

As a form of unconventional warfare, terrorism is sometimes used when attempting to force political change by: convincing a government or population to agree to demands to avoid future harm or fear of harm, destabilization of an existing government, motivating a disgruntled population to join an uprising, escalating a conflict in the hopes of disrupting the status quo, expressing a grievance, or drawing attention to a cause.

Okay, the US is trying to convince Iraq’s civilians to come to their side rather than Saddams former beliefs/side-unconventional warfare. Early in the war a plane dropped off anti-Saddam propaganda telling of how he was living in wealth while they were suffering. They are trying to change their beliefs, practices, and politics to that of democracy. Those that do not abide or uprise are killed or imprisoned. The Iraq residents are disgruntled and the US is trying to convince them to turn to their side and to leave behind their Muslim religious beliefs. Muslim women are supposed to be subservient to their husbands and men, where head coverings, etc. The US is trying to convince them to have equal rights for females, etc. Much of the Iraq people don’t want us over there which gives them just cause to further attack us even over here in American soil. We are imposing our politics and religious beliefs on their country, and they in fact did NOT attack us. People forget that Bin Laden attacked us from Iran. We found no Weapons of Mass Destructions and the Iraq people are NOT being freed but rather imprisoned by US military presence and politics. We have no right to be over there. But if we leave now, they will be in greater chaos than with Saddam.

What do you think?

Answer 1

I think the US was justified in bombing Saddam Hussein, but not in invading the country and our continued presence there. President Bush is mentally ill, and he, and his supporters, are the reason we are in Iraq. Christian right wing politicians are as dangerous as Islamic extremists because they both think god is on their side and act accordingly. Religious extremist are the most mentally ill of their ilk, and they would like to usher in Armageddon.

Answer 2

it extremely is humorous in a hack variety of way, yet in answer on your question, no. A stable center east could have been a extra valuable oil procurement coverage because of the fact it would shop danger to the provision strains down, shop hypothesis down, and not fee the U. S. considered one of those dramatic quantity of money, time, and political clout. US efforts in Iraq have certainly served to destabilize the middle East as a rule, a minimum of in the mean time, inflicting the rises in oil costs that we've been seeing for quite a few years. it is via the fact the political subject is uncertain, the provision strains might desire to be endangered at any time, and hypothesis, consequently, went in direction of the roof. The "conflict for oil" prospect does not make a lot financial sense, finally; the quantity of money placed into the conflict attempt and the edge outcomes it created do no longer sq. with a source conflict concept. there is an further clarification that US leaders have been utilising the conflict in a conspiratorial way, to generate income for their ex-corporation companions in the oil marketplace. That clarification demands one to pass to quite intense allegations on spurious info. on an identical time because it squares properly with a traditionally Radical attitude, there is not any longer probable sufficient info to assist that end very solidly. it extremely is totally probable that there have been motives, or a reason, different than oil income that triggered the U. S. to pass to conflict with Iraq.

Answer 3

You forgot a couple of key concepts. Terrorism is typically defined as acts specifically targetting civilians, and terrorist organizations are not military forces representing the government of a specific country.
If you define terrorism in blanket terms, then the word has no meaning. All military aggression is designed to bring about political change, often through fear.

Answer 4

It said "unconventional warfare". It may be a bad idea, but we are still fighting conventionally. When one country takes over another, it's not terrorism. But anyways, try posting this in the military section, you'll probably get more educated answers. And nicer. Things can get pretty hot here in the religion section.

Answer 5

Everything is a terrorism if it creates terror. Any attack is a terrorism if by means of terrorizing, killing and brutalizing others one gets what he needs. Therefore US attack on Iraq is a form of terrorism like any aggression.

Answer 6

I am in the US Air Force. I have been to Iraq doing my sworn duties. Am I a terrorist?

Answer 7

The word terrorist only applies to bad guys. If you ask Bush, the U.S. is the good guys, and therefore the word terrorist does not apply. Let me translate the word terrorist into good guy language. The Americans are FREEDOM FIGHTERS.

Answer 8

Yes, it is terrorism

Answer 9

Of course.. whats left to marvel??

Answer 10

bin laden attacked us from iran? gee, how come you were the only one to get that top secret memo?