How does attacking a country that never attacked America reduce Terrorism?

Question

Please put thought into your answer

Answer 1

I guess you don't remember 9/11. Iraq Iran Afghanistan all the same

Answer 2

Actually it was known that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Even Bush knew this, else he wouldn't have tried so hard to create fake evidence and interfere with the UN inspection teams. Nobody on the globe believed this lie except FOX and CNN and the American public who were looking for blood. The same lies are now being spread about Iran and nuclear weapons

The attack on Iraq was planned long before 9/11, before Bush was even in the White House. Most of the terrorists and funding came from Saudi Arabia - who are Bush's best friend. In fact when all American flights were grounded after the attack, guess who Bush had exempted? His buddie the Saudis who were allowed to leave the country before they were investigated.

Saying that Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran etc are all the same as somebody did suggests that the US, Cuba, Canada, and Mexico are all the same - why because they are geographically connected? Iranians are even Arabic!

By your logic the US should now be focused on attacking Pakistan....that would be smart wouldn't it? Creating 200 million refuges and chaos in a country with the atom bomb.


Matt D says "One of them is to undermine or topple govts that sponsor terror. Iraq, Iran, and Afganistan certainly fit that description pre-9/11"

Um how does this apply? Iran funds militas in other countries just like the US does (central america, most of the middle east) and Iraq was so cut off from the world they were doing nothing.

Answer 3

No it actually increases terrorism.. No matter how extreme someone's situation is... they don't develope hate just one random day.. and decide they'll take their own life just to kill others... Think about it Iraq is a third world nation... now put yourself in a childs perspective.. bombs are blowing up everywhere... your family gets killed... your left alone... Keep in mind this is a third world nation there is no homeless shelters, welfare and most families hardly have enough food to support their one, let alone let another person in... All you know is the someone in the US is responsible for killing your family.. you have no food or shelter anymore no where to go... So you already hate the people that killed your family.. eventually if you stay alive.. most childern fall under the deception of extermists like Osama Bin Laden.. and become terrorists from there... Imagine if someone invaded our country, killed our people.. wouldn't you want to attack them back... Killing people will just aggravate them more,...

Answer 4

Perhaps you need to reread the goals in the war on terror. One of them is to undermine or topple govts that sponsor terror. Iraq, Iran, and Afganistan certainly fit that description pre-9/11.

So your plan of attack for terrorism consists of waiting until you get a major attack like 9/11, spend years and millions debating which state sponsor of terror may have been more responsible, then attacking them?

How about we start destroying state sponsors of terror one by one (what Bush and our troops are already doing) so we dont HAVE to have more 9/11 style attacks hmm?

Answer 5

The short answer is it doesn't. The war in Iraq is not about terrorism it is about establishing a one world government under the UN. We needed to create a new foe (much the way we did in WWII) so that the people could be scared in to handing over their rights.

Answer 6

The most selfish thing I can imagine is taking our war on terror and fighting it in another country and proclaim it as good.

The war on terror should be based on surgical strikes, not invasion of sovereign nations. Terrorism has no boundaries and in these cases is not based on nationalism, but rather radical ideology. Because of our selfish anger, we are causing more and more to go over to that radical ideology simply because they are so sick and tired of the USA temper tantrums and repression under our propping up repressive governments to our thirst for oil that will turn their countries into economic wastelands in less then 100 years.

We are simply leaving their children with no future.

That is making a lot of people increasingly angry.

Peace

Jim

.

Answer 7

We were attacked the last time on 9-11-2001. Remember??
After we attacked Iraq, all the Islamic Terrorists went to Iraq to fight us there, instead of here in the USA.
Maybe you noticed that there have been no further Attacks on America since then?
What to try to guess Why?

Answer 8

Let's go in the way-back machine to 2003. The intelligence at the time, not just US Intelligence, but pretty much every intelligence agency, said Iraq had WMDs, was developing nukes, and would be happy to use them or sell them to terrorists.

After 9/11, the Bush Doctrine was produced that said we aren't going to wait for the next attack. We're going to stop them ahead of time.

Now let's return to the present. We now know, with 20/20 hindsight, that Iraq had few WMDs and their nuke program was in disarray. Oops. But you have to make decisions with the info you have.

Answer 9

Some of these answers are so ridiculous! Saddam was an evil bastard, but he had NOTHING to do with 9/11. All we have done is further destabilize the middle east and make us more open to attack. We have also WASTED trillions of dollars doing it.

Good job George!! Just like all of your other jobs you have F'd this one up too!

Answer 10

A free thinker who hasn't be Fox News Brain washed! I like that! Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!

Answer 11

plus Saddam was not a fundamentalist
i never thought invading Iraq was a good idea fir the same reason i don't think Iran is anything to worry about
Saddam valued his own life if he would have had nukes he would have never launched against us. he knowing by doing so would have signed his own death sentence and this is also why i do not worry about Iran