A question with regard to one of the most popular pieces of pro-Iraq-war rhetoric out there?

Question

If we're "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here," and this is, as many war supporters claim, working...

What's up with the plot to try to blow up half of New York by setting explosives around the JFK Airport fuel tanks? How was that plot happening, if our fighting in Iraq is keeping terrorists out of our country?

And, um, how'd they get into this country anyway?

(Yes, I realize that they're from Guyana - that's part of my point, but I'd like to know the answer to my question from someone who claims that what we're doing in Iraq is working in terms of keeping terrorists off our soil.)

open thoughts: So you're saying that the plot was stopped by the war in Iraq?

Jeez... and here I thought it was an investigation here at home.

Answer 1

My thoughts exactly. The notion that Al-Queda or antiamerican hate groups in general will flock to Iraq to fight us is clearly wrong. Using their own rhetoric........
They are cowards.
Cowards like to kill women and children.
We arent sending many women and no children.
So we arent sending them their chosen targets why would they take the bait.

Why would they flock to a battle where we sniper them with a 50 cal. and have troops on active patrols. They can dream up plots against american military installations that are unarmed.
The ocean is no barrier because "IF we leave they will follow us home" Can they not skip the follow part and just come straight here?

Answer 2

I don't think it was very similar to the Vietnam War in the results and in the intentions. In the Vietnam War, the US had good intentions but ended up losing so much. In the Iraq War, the US had bad intentions (although covered up) and ended up gaining a lot (despite what most people think). It's called empire building, and it's nothing new, not even for the US. Every time though the US government covers up its intentions with self righteousness. Take Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Hawaii for example. Puerto Rico made a very good navy base against Cuba. Same with the Philippines and Hawaii against Japan. Ancient civilizations did the same thing and were not ashamed to admit it. Unfortunately, use of the military in this sense still exists but is not admitted to today. With all these countries, we had something to gain--Iraq not excluded. That precious oil we are so dependent on should not be understated. The world supply of oil has already passed its peak in the 1970's, and it's costing more and more to be able to extract as much as was capable before. The western world has been eyeing Iraq and Iran for quite some time now because of their oil reserves. Comparing the two, Iraq is so much less of a threat than Iran is. The only harm they could inflict is if you invade their country. Controlling this commodity means having that much more influence in the world. Not doing so hands that power away to whoever will.

Answer 3

Good question. Here is a good answer. By going into Afghanistan and Iraq and fighting the terrorists there, we have forced them to commit there people and other resources to that theater. We have also driven the leadership underground and disrupted their communications.

The result? Any terrorist cells in America or any other free country no longer get money, materials, expert advice or coordination from their leaders. That means they have to work in regular jobs to support themselves, recruit from the available population any help they need, do their own research and buy any weapons or chemicals they need.

Each of these greatly increases the chances that they will be exposed just like the group that had planned to attack Fort Dix and the group that planned to attack the jet fuel lines for JFK airport. If the terrorist leadership were not busy in Iraq and were not committing their limited resources there it would be much more likely that these terrorist plots would have succeeded. In fact, many more we never even knew about were probably aborted for these same reasons.

You have to admit, the terrorists have sure lost their effectiveness since 9/11.

.

Answer 4

You are absolutely correct. Fighting terrorism is a police action. focusing resources in one country and waging war, especially in a country that hadn't sponsored terrorism, takes away from the effort to truly combat terrorism. It's amazing we are still able to find them in this country. Money is being spent in Iraq, mean while Police force and fire dept budgets are being cut over here and this administration takes actions like trying to sell our ports to the UAE!!?? I remember the multiple attacks that were supposed to occur on the Millenium (2000 New Years) they were all stopped, and The guy who tried to come in from Canada to Blow up LAX, all were stopped by Police Investigations and agency Investigation.

Jacob claims that the Terrorists have lost there effectiveness since 9/11. This report fromt he Intel center says otherwise. look at page 7.

Answer 5

Although.....It sounds like a bit of a conspiracy theory. Perhaps things like this are needed.So that our politicians can keep on making themselves look good,and saying see......There trying to kill us.We stoped them. All to justify the Iraq OCCUPATION (not war) Lets try this one......Nobody comes here anymore. That will stop that. Anyone that is remotely associated with the enemy Throw them out. Stop doing Israels bidding,and stop trying to tell any country that doesnt agree with the Bush doctrine what to do. Sounds easy doesnt it? And.....I am a devoted conservitive Wh voted for Bush twice. Still it doesnt stop me from seeing or saying the truth.....

Answer 6

Geesh, a flaw in the absurd rethori of the Bush machine, would never have thunk it...it's another way of diverting the American people from their true power grab by using the fear of the weak willed, and unfortunately his adversaries in the Democrats seem relatively weak willed as well so he comes across as an authoritarian when he's really just a simp without a plan

Answer 7

Since the action in Iraq started AlQueada had gone to Iraq. The country is weak and the perfect opportunity for them to take control and become a terrorist state. In regards to them fighting over here, we've had problems with Muslim terrorist for decades here in this country. How did they get in you ask? Well you need to ask your representatives that and then ask them why in all that is holy are they wanting to give amnesty to them? If you don't help solve the problem, you then become the problem.

Answer 8

Shows this administration's bias and prejudice against "radical Middle Eastern islamofacism" (which doesn't exist). Arsewipes are arsewipes, regardless of gender, culture or country of origin. We need to rethink our open border policies, including the joke of a bill their pseudo-debating in D.C.

Answer 9

That rationale that about fighting them over there so that we won't have to deal with them over here is utter foolishness.

These nutty terrorists come from all backgrounds and countries. Iraq is JUST one country and the majority of the 9/11 hijackers (15, I think) came from Saudi Arabia.

Bush should just state the real reason he invaded Iraq in the first place to put all of those other ridiculous reasons to rest.

Answer 10

DID THEY blow up half of NY?

Keeping the action over there helps to keep the plots here minimized. The fewer terrorists here, the easier to keep our intelligence here up to date and accurate.