Does the argument, that we have to fight Al-Queda in Iraq, hold up to logic?

Question

Fact is - Al-Queda and other fanatic Muslim operations are in at least 63 nations around the world. Iraq is just another convinient trainings ground for them. Many are recruited in Mosques in Southfield, Detroit or London, England. The Sunnis would through them out of Iraq in a heart beat, if the USA would let them. Or am I totally of the rocker here.

Answer 1

Nobody needs to fight anyone in a foreign nation. Thats a lie prepretated by corrupt politicians. Soldiers just 'follow orders' like sheep and they are the ones that pay the price for those who 'lead from the rear'!!

If the US hadn't bankrolled Bin Laden and got into bed with Saddam in the first place, American lives wouldnt be getting wasted right now, as they are.

If you want to see the enemy, no matter what country your in, look at those who try to tell you they are your "leaders"!!!

Answer 2

Nothing we're doing in Iraq stops any al qaeda from coming here, if that's what they want to do.

If the argument is that being in Iraq keeps them busy and off of us, then I would want to know why it makes sense to spend half a trillion dollars on such a defense, when the threat consists of barely organized irregulars with small arms and dynamite vests.

Especially considering that, somehow, they never managed to stage any dramatic attack on US soil after their first attempt on the WTC, until nearly a year after Bush got in. What was "keeping them busy" all that time?

The reason there have been no major attacks on US soil since 911 is the same as the reason why there were no major attacks for several years before 911: It's a minor threat. If the administration is paying the slightest attention, they aren't that hard to thwart.

The only reason 911 happened at all is because Bush incompetently failed to heed the warnings of the outgoing Clinton administration.

Answer 3

I believe that the BIGGEST point is being missed by most people. The president and his cabinet have repeated stated that if we don't stop the Al-Queda in Iraq, then will be forced to fight them here.
So, my point is this. Bush stated that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction...he was wrong. Bush stated that Sadam was directly involved with the 9/11 attacks...he was wrong. Bush said that Sadam helped train the attackers...he was wrong. Bush said that the war was won...he was wrong.
For every statement that Bush makes, he is later proven wrong. WHY do the American people believe a person with a ZERO percent track record, who has been wrong on every other statement that he has made, all of a sudden is Right on this one. It has been shown again and again, that the glue that is bringing the fighters to Iraq, is the fact that there is an American presence there. America seems much better able to stop new attackers from doing harm in America, so the reason for staying in Iraq must also be WRONG.

Answer 4

No.

First, forget above-poster "military follow like sheep." The military has, perhaps, the toughest job. They must follow legal orders, even when they disagree personally. But an army will never work if the troops only did the jobs or missions they wanted to do. The military has to rely on the people to put policy-makers in charge who can task to appropriate missions. And besides, that was not the question.

The fact is, Al-Queda (etc.) are now in Iraq, they were not there before. But the insurgency is primarily NOT Al-Queda, it is primarily acts by the various factions trying to gain control over "their" territory. With the lack of a disciplined government, it becomes a fertile place for the growth of illegal groups of all stripes.

The argument -- that if we do not get the terrorists in Iraq before they come here assumes that, if they are not in Iraq, they will not go somewhere else.

Let's examine the logic. Before 9/11 Al-Queda was not in Iraq (perhaps because Saddam would have had them found and killed, as a threat to his government). Nonetheless, the terrorists found their way to America.

I do not disagree that, if we find known terrorists, we should isolate and capture/try and or exterminate them. We are at war with those terrorists. But, to take the position of the administration seriously, we would need to declare war on, and occupy, over 50 countries (including the United States and Canada) with military troops. Is this realistic.

Meanwhile, like in the US, if we find terrorists, we should root them out.

Further, the duty of American government is to protect America from terrorism, not the world. This is not to say we should not cooperate with other governments and their counter-intelligence operations, but we cannot be the police force for the world.

If we completely eliminate Al-Queda from Iraq, where would they go?

We have been looking for Bin Laden since before 9/11 and have not found him. We were (according to the administration), close in Afghanastan. He is now either in Afghanastan or Pakistan. When we remove some of his top people, others step up. Al-Queda (according to the US Government) is as strong as it was pre 9/11. Our tactics have not worked. The reason is that Al-Queda is not a government it is, at best, a guerrilla movement of numerous groups.

When threatened in one location, they quickly move to another.

Are we going to secure the world? Are we going to take over Pakistan, England, and Detroit? Or are we going to use our intelligence operations (in cooperation with others) to locate and remove terrorists (as opposed to geographic regions). The question is one of priorities and tactics.

Perhaps we want to occupy and take over countries, but that is a question the American people should answer, and so far the answer has been "No".

Answer 5

I like you questions they are interesting...but I can't understand those morons who believe that the US intervention in Iraq has only good reasons/intents.

Al-Queda is stamped with a great sticker "Made in USA"... Why? Because you can believe the stories of Col. James "Bo" Gritz (ex-Delta Force intelligence leader) who says he meet bin Laden in the 80s when USA gives him some weapons and military know-how in order to ban the Russians out of Afghanistan. You can find even more interesting stories if you know that the superpowers of the world are lead by emotionally challenged people who search for love in their bank accounts or family legacy....

I think Osama is resting in a well-guarded location (maybe under CIA protection) enjoying the news on AL-Jazzier, laughing his brains out... He maybe plays golf from time to time with G. Bush senior and goes to church every Sunday morning (baptist, catholic?).

Osama is only a puppet in a greater plot... If you search the history of political influences around the world you'll find out that many times in the recent past the USA had used force or cash in order to maintain hegemony over the Western hemisphere. See the Monroe's Doctrine, Roosevelt's Corollary, Guatemalan Scenario etc.

Answer 6

Yeah, I don't understand the whole concept. They are not a conventional enemy whose assets we can keep busy like another answerer suggested. They have no tanks, they don't wear uniforms. If Al Qaeda wants to pull of another 9/11 they can just tell a couple dozen guys to stay out of trouble and make their way to the U.S.

That's not to say that I think we shouldn't act in cases like Afghanistan where the terrorists were being given safe haven. It seems like are guys are mostly serving as targets over there in Iraq though. If the bad guys want to maintain their "assets" they can simply stop attacking the U.S. troops and easily blend in with the rest of the populace.

Answer 7

al qaida is nothing more then uneducated unemployed males whos fathers never worked ! understand? they have been given a little money a false promise of heaven and have nothing better to do! the sunnis could not throw them out! why? u couldnt tell the difference! they dont wear a arm patch or uniform. they wear the same rags as iraqis.so by free countries trying their best for a new govt over there Yes its better to destroy the rats nest ..

Answer 8

It's a false premise, and a lot of right-wing hawks just don't get it. We CREATED the problem Iraq, and everyday we breed more. For those hawks that don't agree, why don't you put on 60 lbs of IBA and get you butt over there and come back with an intellegent answer instead of you right wing mental midget attitudes. We created the problem in Iraq by being there in the first place, and everyday, we breed more by being there. Get a clue. This quagmire benefits dubya & uncle dick because they have a reason to keep troops there and profit from it - and the expense of course of American lives.

Answer 9

NO, no way, our troops are stuck in the middle of a civil war, with all sorts of Islamic freedom fighters popping up all over the place, and not forgetting the massive tribal war between the Sunni ( the Saudis) and the Shi'ite ( Iran), why not vacate and let them go at it until the last one falls, we are never going to solve anything for these morons, because they hate us, and they want us out, the whole world and it's auntie wants us out so WTF?, this war in Iraq has earned us way more enemy's than could have ever been imagined, and why? because we tried to help them, they are not worthy of our time and energy.

Answer 10

These are the same warmongers that told us about a domino theory that if we don't fight in Vietnam the whole area will fall like dominoes.
IT DID NOT HAPPEN now we have Mcdonalds and Starbucks on every corner in Nam, and we like the new government so much(the ones we hated then) we have normalized all relations with them !!!
How then were the soldiers that fought against this government and died, lives NOT wasted?

Answer 11

Put it into perspective. If you were preoccupied at work, could you at the same time be doing something at home. No. Al-Queda is no different. Tie up a majority of their assets in Afghanistan and Iraq and those that are in other areas are weakened expotentially. So the argument holds up to logic if your willing to face the facts, and not fall for the left wing anti-war mantra.