War in Iraq helped terrorists Options

[pebkac]

I wasn't simply looking to start an argument... I just don't believe this is true. There's two scenarios that happen:

1) We never went to Iraq

Iraq: Saddam still in power, still refuses weapons inspectors by agreement he signed. Iraqi civilians are still being mass murdered & tortued by Saddam, and he's still free to build whatever weapons he can get his hands on.

Al-Qaeda: 9-11 was before Iraq, so obviously that still happened, only now Iraq is a safe zone for them as there's no fighting there. Terrorists leave Afghanistan for safer places to plot from. Obviously the anti-Americans in Iraq have no problem harboring Al-Qaeda as they're there right now. No doubt a free Saddam would do everything in his power to help them hurt Americans.

2) We remove Saddam

Iraq: Saddam behind bars, mass murders stopped, weapons inspectors get back in, any threat Saddam posed is neutralized. Safe harbor for Terrorists removed.

Al-Qaeda: There's no direction for them, no place to sit down and make plans, they know that even in Iraq they'd get smart bombed to death. Saddam can't help them, so it's a Afghanistan war simply in a different place, only this time they don't have pre-built bunkers & caves to protect them. They're on the defensive rather than the offensive.

I thought we'd already realized the Saddam/Al Qaeda link thing was a myth?

[impala454]

I thought we'd already realized the Saddam/Al Qaeda link thing was a myth?

i didn't say there was a link.

i said

No doubt a free Saddam would do everything in his power to help them hurt Americans.

besides, the report that started the thread says the war in Iraq is "helping terrorists". so if there's no link between them how is this possible?

[chook]

The problem is that Saddamn wasn't down with Al Qaeda or any religious extremist .

[schwab]

I wasn't simply looking to start an argument... I just don't believe this is true. There's two scenarios that happen:

1) We never went to Iraq

Iraq: Saddam still in power, still refuses weapons inspectors by agreement he signed. Iraqi civilians are still being mass murdered & tortued by Saddam, and he's still free to build whatever weapons he can get his hands on.

Al-Qaeda: 9-11 was before Iraq, so obviously that still happened, only now Iraq is a safe zone for them as there's no fighting there. Terrorists leave Afghanistan for safer places to plot from. Obviously the anti-Americans in Iraq have no problem harboring Al-Qaeda as they're there right now. No doubt a free Saddam would do everything in his power to help them hurt Americans.

2) We remove Saddam

Iraq: Saddam behind bars, mass murders stopped, weapons inspectors get back in, any threat Saddam posed is neutralized. Safe harbor for Terrorists removed.

Al-Qaeda: There's no direction for them, no place to sit down and make plans, they know that even in Iraq they'd get smart bombed to death. Saddam can't help them, so it's a Afghanistan war simply in a different place, only this time they don't have pre-built bunkers & caves to protect them. They're on the defensive rather than the offensive.

your logic is great and all, minus the fact that we were at war in afghanistan for over a year and a half and there were no reports of "terrorists" making mass movements to Iraq during htat time

and hell, maybe if we had focused only on Afghanistan we would have been able to actually complete that job instead of watching that country fall back to the taliban


So, weapon inspectors were not allowed in....but there are no weapons there? But NK is cool without letting them in. Saddam was not a threat to us, he wanted to keep power and he would not do that by attacking an ally of ours.

Either way, it appears most terrorists are going to Pakistan or chilling in the mountains anyways in Afghanistan, most of hte "terrorists" now in Iraq are from syria or neighboring countries, which strangely afghanistan is not.

besides, the report that started the thread says the war in Iraq is "helping terrorists". so if there's no link between them how is this possible?

you have a hard time listening so i will type in caps so its easier to read....BEFORE THE WAR IN IRAQ, NO TERRORISTS GROUPS WERE THERE, NOW THERE ARE. THERE WAS NO LINK BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QUEDA HOWEVER NOW AL QUEDA IS THERE AFTER WE INVADED. BY INVADING, WE GAVE THE TERRORISTS A NEW FRONT TO ATTACK US ON AND GAVE THEM THE ABILITY TO RECRUIT MORE PEOPLE IN IRAQ

[Testm0nkey]

BUT IM FROM TEXAS

[impala454]

So, weapon inspectors were not allowed in....but there are no weapons there?

once again (I dunno why this has to be repeated).. why on earth would saddam have not allowed inspectors in if he had none? he played the UN's pussy leaders and bought himself all the time in the world to get rid of them. It's kinda like dazed n confused when the dudes are smokin pot... dad knocks on the door, they don't let him in until they dump it and clean up the smell.

But NK is cool without letting them in.

I doubt they'll be "cool" for too long.

Saddam was not a threat to us,

this has got to be the most naive common belief on this topic. everybody believes this. why? i have no idea. we ass-raped the man back in the early 90s. then he starts avoiding weapons inspections for WMD. the guy hates us, he kills his own people, whats to stop him from trying to put together some WMD to kill us??

he wanted to keep power and he would not do that by attacking an ally of ours.

what??? he already did this... why would he not ever do it again?

most of hte "terrorists" now in Iraq are from syria or neighboring countries, which strangely afghanistan is not.

NOW AL QUEDA IS THERE AFTER WE INVADED

?? so which is it?

BY INVADING, WE GAVE THE TERRORISTS A NEW FRONT TO ATTACK US ON

Oh that's wonderful... lets avoid all contact with the outside world. If the UK gets invaded lets not go help them, we wouldn't want to put troops closer to the terrorists. WW2 was a huge mistake... we gave germany easier access to kill our troops

AND GAVE THEM THE ABILITY TO RECRUIT MORE PEOPLE IN IRAQ

how the hell does us invading Iraq give al-qaeda the ability to recruit in iraq? this makes absolutely no sense.

you have a hard time listening so i will type in caps so its easier to read....

caps are harder to read (and much more annoying). they also don't make you smarter.

[FORSAKENR320]

once again (I dunno why this has to be repeated).. why on earth would saddam have not allowed inspectors in if he had none? he played the UN's pussy leaders and bought himself all the time in the world to get rid of them. It's kinda like dazed n confused when the dudes are smokin pot... dad knocks on the door, they don't let him in until they dump it and clean up the smell.

if a cop wants into your house, do you immediately let him in, even though you have nothing to hide? it's the "you're not the boss of me" idea

does a cop assume that you have something to hide when you DON'T let them in? of course.

[Mommy]

I dont know if this has anything to do with this topic, but ill post it here anyways. I got this CNN breaking news update a couple hours ago

-- Key conclusions of a report assessing the state of global terrorism
are released after President Bush ordered its declassification. One
assessment is Iraq is shaping a new generation of terror leaders.

[The Fanatic]

how the hell does us invading Iraq give al-qaeda the ability to recruit in iraq?  this makes absolutely no sense.

Imagine a scenario. A militant group exists in America that you are fundamentally oppossed to because of their fanatical ideas regarding nationalism and religion. A year later the chinese invade and take over the united states. You join the militant group as an outlet to fight the Chinese, not so much because you support their ideals but you are united in wanting to get the chinese out of america. This is exactly what happened in Iraq. Iraq has been occupied by a foreign imperialistic power (the US) and now the Iraqis want their independence. As A result they join "terrorist" (some may actually be terroristic in nature) organizations to fight the US. Seems logical enough to me. Not to mention, many people in Iraq held contempt for the US before the invasion because of sanctions and general US hostility worldwide. The invasion made targeting the US easier and more rational for these groups.

this has got to be the most naive common belief on this topic. everybody believes this. why? i have no idea. we ass-raped the man back in the early 90s. then he starts avoiding weapons inspections for WMD. the guy hates us, he kills his own people, whats to stop him from trying to put together some WMD to kill us??

Almost ALL of the WMD that he used were supplied by the United States in the 1980's. Let's not forget that the United States has more WMD then any other country in the world and we threaten the world community on an almost daily basis.

Oh that's wonderful... lets avoid all contact with the outside world. If the UK gets invaded lets not go help them, we wouldn't want to put troops closer to the terrorists. WW2 was a huge mistake... we gave germany easier access to kill our troops

Terrorists are fundamentally different then national armies. A nation can be brought down by destroying infastructure, cities, moral etc. A terrorist organization can fundamentally not be defeated, unless every member is killed. What is ironic is that Bush calls this a "War On Terror", however this war which had nothing to do with terror has strengthened and emboldened the terrorists.