I thought that we were fighting FOR the Iraqis--not fighting the Iraqis. But, if you are talking about the terrorists that we are supposedly fighting "there" so they won't come "here": Haven't you heard? They have this HUGE camel flotilla, and a bunch of paddles, and they're ready to start rowing if we so much as step foot out of Iraq.
2007-05-26 18:21:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by Joey's Back 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
Well our government would like to do the fighting over there because in a sense it keeps the American citizens "safe from terrorists acts". Bin Laden has said that he was glad that Bush went in over there because that is their territory and they know it better than American soldiers.
What they aren't discussing is the possibility of more domestic terrorists attacks that could happen within this country itself.
In fact I watched a program on the history channel today about the White Power movement in this country. And considering they have done terrorists acts in the past - I wouldn't put it past them if they are still doing so today. Only we don't take notice because it's just another murder in America.
2007-05-26 17:18:37
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Here's my present view from attempts to study up on a few things: America has been provoked to be an unwitting participant a conflict happening within the Islamic world. For so-called extremists or fundamentalists, who come at us as terrorists, we represent a "far enemy" that they can use (and are using) to sway other Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere who would otherwise be moderate. Islam is a major religion going through a terrible growing stage. Will it modernize? Or will the fundamentalists succeed in stopping the cultural clock? That's the real question being settled, as I see it.
Now all this does not mean they won't continue launching attacks at us within our borders, or Americans anywhere in the world. Certainly, if they think they can do it, I believe that they will.
But, that said, I do not agree that our efforts in Iraq are somehow "keeping them there." That seems only pure propaganda for the current administration. We need to have leaders that follow policies based on understanding and reason. Hey, we need a new "decider," people!
2007-05-26 17:32:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by MidwestWally 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
They won't follow them home if they leave Iraq. They are probably already inside the US. If you remember, they were in the US 3 years before doing the WTC attacks. It is a really stupid argument coming from the neocons. But heh, what can we really expect from them?
2016-05-18 22:32:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by annmarie 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think the irony is Iraq really didn't have terrorists before, but now it has turned into one big terror training camp. I think Bush's vision came true in that aspect. We probably now have terrorists receiving hands on training in Iraq and getting sent elsewhere in the world.
That theory kind of came true in a way. But we're the ones who made it possible. We lost control and helped to create big terrorist training camp, Iraq.
Richard Clark asked, the president one day tells us we're fighting in Iraq so we won't fight terrorists here in the US and one day the president declassify intel that says terrorists trained in Iraq are coming here. So... which is it?
It's kind of head scratcher when Bush say we must fight them there so we won't fight them here. When he basically created this training camp for Al Qaeda with his poor planning.
This is like you're selling home security system, but you keep breaking down walls at prisons, releasing hundreds of criminals onto street. And you say 'buy my security system'. Please.
2007-05-26 18:24:30
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
The jihadists have gotten all they really wanted from us. They have provoked the Bush administration into turning much of the Muslim world against us, used our missteps to raise an army, and have forever undermined our stature and influence in the Middle East, along with much of the world. When we leave, they are going to turn their full attention to the war for the heart of Islam, and there is nothing we can do about it except watch from the relative safety of the sidelines. But once we are out of the picture, the moderates will win. If we stay, they will lose, and we will all forever suffer the consequences.
They will not follow us home. If the strongest military in the history of the world couldn't subdue a nation with less than one tenth of our population and resources, how could a relative handful of fundamentalist extremists be a genuine threat to our sovereignty, unless we do something stupid like elect them to public office?
2007-05-26 17:05:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
4⤋
No one is saying, 'Iraqis' would follow us home #1 and #2, shouldn't the issues of why we should stay there be addressed and if possible, dismissed, before we get into what will happen if we come home.
Until that much is accomplished, the premise of our coming home lacks all logic.
2007-05-26 17:14:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
You are such a pathetic moron liberal puke, I suppose you think it is a good idea to let the Shiite radicals (Iran) have nuke weapons, no.....Iran is not Iraq, shall I connect the dots for you? this is a complex issue and you obviously have no grasp of this dangerous situation we are in... rather a high stakes chess game....thank God people like you and liberal pukes like PISTONSDROOL are ignored by our government.
2007-05-27 16:56:16
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No one I know is concerned the Iraqis will follow us here. I haven't heard one person in government say this, either. Gotta' link?
2007-05-26 17:08:13
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
Big money wants protection of old and new investments to insure that we get our loans paid. The corporations that are taking major graft need protection from the laws that would have them held hostage or worse. We are there for our interest and it is just rude to say we are there for the greed.
2007-05-26 17:24:16
·
answer #10
·
answered by Pablo 6
·
0⤊
3⤋