outsidethebox Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Just curious, all the people who support President Bush. How many terrorist where there in Iraq before the war? This is the one issue that is really bothering me. I am not trying to be a smarta$$, really. But when I hear people say we are fighting a war with Iraq because we are fighting terriosism, how many where there? I honostly believe there are/were, more terriost in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Iran and Libya then there were in Iraq at the start of the war. If you say we went to war because of WMD, what, if there were WMD in Iraq, what would they do with them? Sell them to terrorists? Use them on there own people? I am not sure what Hussein would do with them if he had them. If he had WMD's, then I would agree that going to war with Iraq was a good move. I could understand that. Just to clear things up. I support the war on terror 100%. I just think if we are really trying to win the war on terror, Iraq was not a major hotbed for terrorism before the war. I think they are after the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Just curious, all the people who support President Bush. How many terrorist where there in Iraq before the war? This is the one issue that is really bothering me. I am not trying to be a smarta$$, really. But when I hear people say we are fighting a war with Iraq because we are fighting terriosism, how many where there? I honostly believe there are/were, more terriost in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Iran and Libya then there were in Iraq at the start of the war. If you say we went to war because of WMD, what, if there were WMD in Iraq, what would they do with them? Sell them to terrorists? Use them on there own people? I am not sure what Hussein would do with them if he had them. If he had WMD's, then I would agree that going to war with Iraq was a good move. I could understand that. Just to clear things up. I support the war on terror 100%. I just think if we are really trying to win the war on terror, Iraq was not a major hotbed for terrorism before the war. I think they are after the war. 66108[/snapback] It depends...define "terrorist". Then make the argument that the best measurement of the degree to which a country supports terrorism is the number of warm bodies inside that nation's borders (and please...try to reconcile that with the term "extra-national terrorism".) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Just curious, all the people who support President Bush. How many terrorist where there in Iraq before the war? This is the one issue that is really bothering me. I am not trying to be a smarta$$, really. But when I hear people say we are fighting a war with Iraq because we are fighting terriosism, how many where there? I honostly believe there are/were, more terriost in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Iran and Libya then there were in Iraq at the start of the war. If you say we went to war because of WMD, what, if there were WMD in Iraq, what would they do with them? Sell them to terrorists? Use them on there own people? I am not sure what Hussein would do with them if he had them. If he had WMD's, then I would agree that going to war with Iraq was a good move. I could understand that. Just to clear things up. I support the war on terror 100%. I just think if we are really trying to win the war on terror, Iraq was not a major hotbed for terrorism before the war. I think they are after the war. 66108[/snapback] Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. There were training camps in Iraq, well known terrorists received sanctuary in Iraq (Zarquawi?) Lets remember, the war on terrorism does not end with Al-Qaeda. The terrorists are fighting fiercely in Iraq because they know the stakes if they lose. A free, stable Iraq would be devastating for their cause whereas a tumultous, chaotic Iraq where terrorists could train under cover would be good for them. That and a repressive regime from which to cherry pick young disenfranchised youth from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain America Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Just curious, all the people who support President Bush. How many terrorist where there in Iraq before the war? This is the one issue that is really bothering me. I am not trying to be a smarta$$, really. But when I hear people say we are fighting a war with Iraq because we are fighting terriosism, how many where there? I honostly believe there are/were, more terriost in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Iran and Libya then there were in Iraq at the start of the war. If you say we went to war because of WMD, what, if there were WMD in Iraq, what would they do with them? Sell them to terrorists? Use them on there own people? I am not sure what Hussein would do with them if he had them. If he had WMD's, then I would agree that going to war with Iraq was a good move. I could understand that. Just to clear things up. I support the war on terror 100%. I just think if we are really trying to win the war on terror, Iraq was not a major hotbed for terrorism before the war. I think they are after the war. 66108[/snapback] Terrorism is a broad term however Saddam was offering a reward of ten thousand dollars to any Palestine family that would give up a family member to be a suicide bomber.Wouldnt you consider that terrorism? Or the rebels that blew up the school full of Russian children.Terrorism doesnt seem to have an organized purpose like a military war does ,it is designed to weaken the will of the people so they will accept the ideas of the terrorist, for instance radical Islam. It hard for the civilized world to relate to these terrorist because it appears to us as just killing for killing sake.And for the most part thats also the terrorists main objsective , kill all non-believers .Terrorism is unstructured and very dangerous and thats why conventional warfare is not as effective as it is in a regular war .The bottom line in the war on terror is kill more of them than they kill of you. Nobody ever said that Saddam had a hand in 9/11 . Saddam supported terrorists but just not the 9/11 crew. The way I see it is any country in the mid east is a hot bed of terrorism . As a side note , that reward Saddam was offering was probably part of the oil for food program, thats really why countries backed off on going to war against him as thier hands were already dirty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Bombing a cave in Pakistan does not eliminate all terrorism. They are everywhere and were trained, funded, supported and given sanctuary in Iraq among other countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts