What is your view on the relationship between the two? Compare and contrast the if you'd like!
2007-07-22 10:04:18 · 13 answers · asked by Roy Oz 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
They are entirely unrelated.
The "war on terror" is a marketing phrase, used to justify American paranoia and extremism.
The "war" in Iraq is not a war by any legal sense of the word, since Congress never declared war. It's a legal occupation, pursuant to an authorization for the use of military force, that authorized US forces to depose Saddam.
Both are open-ended, meaningless exercises that serve no purpose other than to give our govt an excuse to abuse its power, and they do nothing but put US lives at risk by diverting troops and resources from practical defensive actions that would actually benefit is.
2007-07-22 10:09:26 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 6⤊ 3⤋
the "war on terror" is a scare tactic that is used by several governments, not only ours, in order for the government to beat us down and rule us with an iron fist.
The "war" in Iraq is Bush going on some glory mission to get respect from his daddy, as well as Bush and Cheney trying to get control of the oil in the country. After all, who cares if innocent people die? It's in the name of oil!
And the ethanol out of corn thing? Just another way to starve people out of a major food source and raise taxes at the same time. It's a joke.
2007-07-22 10:30:12 · answer #2 · answered by Lily Iris 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Neither one is an actual war. Although I do support both of them, the War on Terror is really just a way to put a name to a global crisis. Terror is simply the method used by the enemy, not the enemy itself. The enemy is Islamic fascism, through its use of terror.
The War in Iraq is not an actual declared war, but a large-scale military operation that is a single branch of the global War on Terror. Regardless of there being a tie between Saddam's regime and al-Queda, they are both still Islamic fascist groups that use the method of terror to oppress.
2007-07-22 10:20:15 · answer #3 · answered by Brantley K 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Iraq is just a particular theatre of the War on Terror. Just like Afghanistan is a separate theatre of the same war. We are battling the same enemy in both places, Islamic extremists.
Gaspode, The Iraqi government wants us to stay! Maybe the polls say the majority of Iraqi citizens want us out, but not the government.
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/05/12/10124696.html
2007-07-22 10:16:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
No... the war in Iraq was a war on Saddam.. and a move to secure oil.. period.
The war on Terror was supposed to have been in Afghanistan.. or at least start there.. but Bush left there because he had better things to do.. now the war on terror is being fought by peace keeping troops.. most who do not have the right equipment or training.
The war on terror does not have to be all killing.. if we had leaders who had a decent thought or idea.. there should somehow be room for dialogue.. it should be tried and tried again... the 3500 dead should stand for something besides one man's vanity.
2007-07-22 10:21:05 · answer #5 · answered by Debra H 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
The so-called war on terror was suspended several months ago when we stopped looking for bin Laden.
The government of Iraq that we support has twice asked us to leave in the last month, but there is no sign that we will any time soon.
2007-07-22 10:18:20 · answer #6 · answered by Gaspode 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Yes the war in Iraq is supposed to be part of the war on terror.
Unfortunately it is not an effective way to fight the war on terror.
Iran is the major source of funding for terrorists world wide.
A more effective response to both Iraq and Iran would have been a blockade to prevent those countries from exporting any oil at all.
This would have bankrupted both countries very quickly and would have eliminated the funding for the terrorists.
2007-07-22 10:10:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
No.
Despite the propaganda, Iran has NOTHING to do with the war on terror. (Well, it didn't BEFORE Bush invaded on a pack of lies and distortions, but thanks to his blunders, it does NOW.)
It was just George Bush's way of "tying up loose ends"--back in the days when Daddy was President.
2007-07-22 10:31:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The so called war in Iraq is an offensive action to garner the third largest deposits of oil in the world, The Caspian basin deposits nothing more or less
Afghanistan on the other hand has apparently got some yet undisclosed deposits of oil of uncertain quantity
2007-07-22 10:09:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Yes, we are fighting terrorists on two different fronts. Not unusual in a war.
The Democrats have already surrendered and are encouraging the enemy.
That's not Unusual, either.
They always do.
2007-07-22 10:23:09 · answer #10 · answered by wolf 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋