If Al-Queda was not in Iraq when we started the war, how is it that so many of you seem to think it is the?

Question

enemy we went there to fight? Isn't it OUR fault that there are so many more terrorists world-wide now? And why, oh why, did we bring them to the poor Iraqi people who already had enough problems with Saddam??? (If I was Iraqi, I think I'd hate the US and all of its talk about "freedom"!)

Answer 1

Many people sadly don't pay attention to facts or reality.

They just listen to the bits of propaganda that happen to line up with what they already want to believe, and ignore everything else.

Most ignore the fact that Al Qaeda didn't exist in Iraq until 2004, according to numerous US military and intelligence reports. Most ignore the fact that Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan at the time, and that we stopped pursuing them to concentrate our efforts on Iraq. Most ignore that even if we eliminated 100% of the hostiles in Iraq, that would do absolutely nothing to stop the terrorists already scattered all around the world.

Some people live in their own deluded reality, and just believe what they were told to believe without ever bothering to logically think it through. It's pretty sad to watch.

Answer 2

I wish I knew why people insist on believing that nonsense. I guess that it's better for them to believe that than admit they were duped.

The problem, yes, is that since we attacked Iraq and blew it wide open Al Queda has made a brand new home there. Their numbers increase daily all over the Middle East because of their rage that we are in Iraq and continue to meddle in Middle Eastern affairs. So they pledge allegience to Obama and form splinter cells anywhere they can gain a foothold. Middle Easterners have already been caught trying to cross the border, some on the no-fly list, and we have no idea how many we haven't caught. It almost makes me sick to my stomach when I hear people insist that Bush has kept the terrorists at bay. He hasn't done that, he hasn't done a damn thing about our porous borders or poorly monitored ports and the likely reason we haven't been attacked on our soil again is that Al Queda takes an average of 5-6 years to plan large scale attacks.

I know a good many Iraqis hate us, but there are many who are glad we took out Saddam. The problem is that we took apart their country and now they don't have a government they can rely on. They murder each other daily and there's so much chaos Baghdad looks like a scene out of a Mad Max movie. We are not in a better position today than we were when we were attacked on 9/11. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan. But there ya go - shoulda, coulda, woulda...

Answer 3

The US & Coalition can facilitate the Iraqi people to take back their country, but they nor their government can win it for them. Look at how many gangs there are in the US, the polices can't win the fight against gangs without the locals stepping up. The US can't create Shangri-La, but we can enable the locals to improve their area.

The Left expects a Utopia. Please show me even 1 place a Utopia exists. Freedom is not cheap. It wasn't back in 1776. The French didn't get it right in their revolution either.

Answer 4

Iraqis risked their very lives to vote for a free and democratic government. We did not go into Iraq to fight alQaeda - we went in to dispose of Saddam. After the government of Saddam fell, we necessarily had to stay and set up another. We underestimated the terrorists resolve and determination that Iraqis were not to be a free and independent people, but rather a country dictated by Sharia Law.
Implying that America is creating terrorists is like saying we create ants when we put a doughnut in the middle of the kitchen floor - it's far more likely that the ants were already there - only hiding.

Answer 5

If "Big George" had've finished the job while we were there the first time, and not run-out and left the Kurds(and plenty of others) to their own demise. "LIL Georgie" would not have felt the need to "right the wrong." Sadaam was Ronnie and Big Georges "BOY" to keep things under control when the US lost their other "PUPPET" in Iran. Then ole'Sadaam went and bit the hand that feeds em'. When he tried to kill George Sr. Our troops "God Bless Them" they've done an excellent job under terrible circumstances!

Answer 6

Neocons will try to twist this up, but oil and revenge is why we went. Problem was Bush couldn't go before the UN and say those are the reasons, so he came up with WMD's, then blamed the intelligence community for the error. Now the terrorists flock there like birds go south. It's there free-for-all for training and planning. Another problem, we can't leave now, not with Al-Qaeda becoming stronger because of the war and the military shift from Afghanistan to Iraq.

Answer 7

A lot of Iraqis do feel that why. And a lot of Americans think we went to Iraq to stop Al Queda because the president and many members of his staff have said so many times. Nothing like confusing and scaring people to get them to go along with your program.

Answer 8

Excellent points and I like your compassion. It should be obvious to all that Bush and Dick and Condi and Rummy squandered the world's backing for our plight after 9/11 and chose to focus on going after W's pappa's nemesis. Now we are in a much worse position than we were before and we've created a factory of terrorists that hate us and will for generations - long after George and crew are gone from this earth.

Answer 9

Conservative, not pro-Bush, but I did spend a tour in Afghanistan and 2 in Iraq, so I'll try to answer your question. Most of what was considered Al Qaida when we went to war with them after 9/11 is dead and gone. We took out or captured the majority of their leadership (with one obvious and notable exception), wiped out their camps, and killed or dispersed their forces.

The problem lies in the fact that they have a magnificent propaganda machine. Our 'influence' in the region has allowed them to recruit a ton of young and energetic followers into the folds. Every nation that survivors fled to became another recruiting station for them to establish new cells.

One of the only positive things we can say about Iraq, is that it did allow us to deal with that problem to a certain extent. Many of those disparate cells have now converged on Iraq, and made finding them and dealing with them much easier.

We made it very clear that we would not differentiate between the terrorists themselves and those that funded and supported them. So saying there was no Terror in Iraq before we invaded is pretty ridiculous. Saddam was sending checks to the families of suicide bombers. Al Qaida's number 3 guy was trapped in Iraq during our invasion because he was recuperating from wounds he sustained while in Afghanistan. That isn't supporting terror?

Generals and military analysts have been saying since the beginning that this war would most likely last decades, and it was going to get worse before it gets better. Our attacks are likely to alienate certain more extremist elements in many of the nations we'll have to engage the terrorists in, which will bolster their ranks temporarily. The key is to keep them on the ropes, and our guys on the offensive. If we dictate the place and time of the battle, we can minimize the collateral damage on every side of the battle. And it has the added benefit of keeping it very far away from our wives and children here at home.

Answer 10

I THINK YOU ARE A LITTLE CONFUSED. MANY OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE ARE GLAD WE THERE SO THEY CAN HAVE FREEDOM. MANY OF THEM VOTED IN THE ELECTIONS & HAD A CHOICE OF CANDIDATES. MANY OF THE SUNNI SHIEKS ARE STARTING TO SUPPORT THE UNIED STATES SINCE THEY ARE SICK OF AL-QUEDA KILLING IRAQIS. THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX & DON'T LET THE MEDIA SWAY YOU FROM WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING.