If Bush did not invade Iraq, would America have been attacked, and how do you justify your answer?

Question

==================
Allow me to clarify. If not for invading Iraq in 2003, would America have been attacked between 2003 and today?
==================

Answer 1

Possibly.

Al Qaeda has flocked like flies to Iraq, at the direction of bin Laden and Zawahiri, so that they can fight the infidels and die and go to their virgins.

Answer 2

Which Bush? The current President Bush formed a coalition that attacked Iraq about 18 months after 9/11/01.
The UN attacked Iraq first attacked Iraq after Iraq invaded, took over and destroyed Kuwait.
The 9/11 attack was to doing of Osama Bin Laden, who thought the US was weak...thanks to Bill Clinton...and thought the US would not fight back. Bin Laden, in his own words, saw the US cut and run from Somalia, so he orchestrated several attacks, with the express purpose of trying to destroy the US.
This is all recent history and only goes back about 25 years. I think it should all be common knowledge.

Answer 3

Certainly not. As is well-known, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Besides that, Saddam was keeping Al-Qaeda out of Iraq (thanks to the President's invasion, Al-Qaeda is now in Iraq).

What we have done instead is made an easier target for ourselves. If you are one of the terrorists, would you prefer to have American soldiers in Iraq where you can attack them easily or to have America defending its borders and working to keep you out? Obviously, you'd prefer our presence in Iraq.

We have also encouraged more attacks as a result of our invasion (a problem which the CIA calls blowback).

As a whole, the invasion of Iraq was a ridiculously stupid strategy and has been a total disaster. We should take that into consideration before deciding whether or not to invade Iran (the arguments for invasion of Iran are ironically pretty much the same arguments used to promote invading Iraq, which were later proven to be outright lies).

Answer 4

Oh, you mean if the elder Bush had not invaded Iraq under UN mandate in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. For a second there I thought you were talking temporal paradox.

It's impossible to say, of course, but to have avoided islamist terrorism, one thing that would have to have been avoided would have been the invasion of Iraq - meaning Kuwait would now be part of a much richer and more powerful Sadam-led Iraq. Other things that would have to have been avoided to prevent the rise of Islamist terrorism would include: the establishment of American military bases in Saudi Arabia, The Iran-Iraq War, the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan, the Iranian revolution, the patronage of Wahabism by Saudi Arabia, the birth of the philosophical school of thought espoused by the Muslim brotherhood in the 60s, the failure of the UN plan to partition the Mandate of Palestine into two states, Mohamed's meeting with the arch-angel Gabriel (or attack of temporal lobe epilepsy, take your pick), and, of course, the formation of oil reserves in the Persian Gulf Region.

Answer 5

Had Bush completed the task in Afghanistan and captured Bin Laden we would be far safer. I think the invasion of Iraq and our not getting hit again are two seperate issues.

Had we not invaded Iraq and toppled the only non-muslim leader in the region then we would be in great shape right now and that would have made us less afraid of being attacked now.

Answer 6

If you're asking would the United States have been attacked by Iraq, my answer would be no. Iraq didn't have the capability as a country to attack us and Hussein knew that. Nor did they have the stockpiles of WMDs as Bush and company claimed.

For those who still believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11, where is the proof? Even Bush has admitted there was no connection. Additionally, Hussein ran a secular government, a type of government deplored by most Muslim extremists.

Answer 7

No. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We would only have been attacked again if we let our guard down. I doubt that would be allowed to happen. Instead of losing thousands of lives in Iraq we might have gotten Al Qaeda and Bin Laden by now where they are in Afghanistan/Pakistan. The ones not deployed there would be at home protecting us from further attacks here.

Answer 8

No one could possibly know the answer to that question. However, I'm not buying into the line of thought that invading Iraq has in ANY WAY made the US more secure.

Answer 9

There is no way on knowing the answer to this. The truth is we dont know what Bush knew when he went into Iraq. I dont feel we are any safer then we were before we went to Iraq though. I think we are less safe because the world hates us. And for the people who say it doesnt matter what other countries think it really does. I mean imagine if those countries went after us together. That is what scares me!













america was attacked but not by Iraq. I think the question is will we be attacked by Iraq not by Saudi Arabians!

Answer 10

No, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.. and are we allowing the people responsible for 9-11 plan another attack on us by not going after them.. yes we are, as well as making brand new enemies.. I say we are doing pretty dang good... not only do we still have our old enemies out there.. we are gaining whole new ones :) Our future is going to be so bright....

Answer 11

America was invaded before Bush attacked Iraq. The two events are not related.
The 'attack' on the Twin Towers was - at best - an isolated incident by some crazed foreign 'terrorists'. At worst, the attacked was orchestrated by our own government so that Bush could prey on gullible Americans' emotions and use the 'attack' as his excuse to 'settle the score' with Saddam Hussein. The Bush family had a personal vendetta against Hussein ever since Desert Storm when George H.W. Bush was criticized, ridiculed and humiliated for 'not finishing the job' and ousting Hussein at that time (even Bush II has characterized the attack on Iraq as 'finishing the job').
Dick Cheney and his Exxon-Mobil buddies wanted all that OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sands so they could get richer and richer and richer feeding America's addiction to cheap, easily-accessible foreign OIL;
The giant U.S. military-industrial complex (which Dwight Eisenhower warned us about) needed a 'new' war to boost sagging profits from years of peace time. Companies such as McDonnell-Douglass, Lockheed-Martin and Sikorsky had to be fed from the government's 'war trough' - and now there were two 'newcomers' bellying up to collect their share of all those billions: the Carlyle Group and Halliburton BOTH have direct ties to the Bush-Cheney White House.
From his very first day in office, George W. Bush had been convinced by his handlers that he had to 'attack' Iraq - at any cost. This so-called 'war' was not about bringing democracy to Iraq; it was not about establishing peace in the Middle East; and it was not about defending America's shores from 'terrorists'. It was all about OIL and WAR PROFITEERING, from Day One.
Bush lied to Congress, duped the American people, and conned our valiant troops into believing this insane, illegal, immoral 'war' had some honorable purpose, when - in fact - it's only objective was to see that a handful of wealthy elitists, industrialists and power brokers became wealthier and more powerful.
History will record this 'war' as one of the world's worst deceptions, and will view the American people as naive and vulnerable as they listened to their President 'cry wolf' and instill fear in our hearts and minds. As Adolph Hitler once said: "How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think." -RKO- 08/31/07