M
miles
Guest
No polls. Have the sac to say it.
I say yes.
I say yes.
If we hadn't gone onto Iraq, would the US have been hit by terrorism again?
Blindinthedark
Meh
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2002
- Posts
- 2,779
The US is still likely to be attacked again regardless of Iraq. If you include what's going on there now and in Afghanistan then I'd say the attacks never stopped.
M
miles
Guest
You very uncleverly did not answer the question.
MNGuy
I put the Ick in Erotic
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2002
- Posts
- 15,281
miles said:
I agree.
Even thought the attacks are occurring elsewhere, if we hadn't gone into Iraq, I believe a major terrorist attack would have occurred on U.S. soil. I also believe such an attack will happen again. There is no way to guard against every contingency.
Blindinthedark said:
I have to agree with Blind. When I was in the Marine Corps in '92' they showed us the hot spots for the next 10 yrs on a world map. The US was included on those hot spots so I have to say going to Iraq probably didn't stop terrorism.
Fawkin'Injun
Off da Reservation!
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Posts
- 10,402
Yes.
They will try to attack again.
Warnings today again about flights out of Europe.
They would have done so already if we had not taken the fight to them.
But we've got the biggest balls of them all!
They will try to attack again.
Warnings today again about flights out of Europe.
They would have done so already if we had not taken the fight to them.
But we've got the biggest balls of them all!
RobDownSouth
No Kings
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 77,765
I'd say no.
Furthermore, since we are idly speculating here, I'd say if Al Gore had not been denied the presidency by the Supreme Court, the US wouldn't have been hit by terrorists in the first place.
-Rob "Ain't idle speculation grand? " DownSouth
Furthermore, since we are idly speculating here, I'd say if Al Gore had not been denied the presidency by the Supreme Court, the US wouldn't have been hit by terrorists in the first place.
-Rob "Ain't idle speculation grand? " DownSouth
Blindinthedark
Meh
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2002
- Posts
- 2,779
I don't see how I didn't answer the question. If the US didn't enter Iraq would there have been more attacks? Yes. Now that the US is in Iraq, will there be more attacks? Yes.miles said:
M
miles
Guest
RobDownSouth said:
Then maybe you can explain why they haven't.
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
Damn, is that a loaded question!!!
I think that it's all to possible.
Iraq was a transit point for terrorist as well as a supporter of known terrorist groups. (No direct evidence that al Queda was involved though.)
The invasion of Iraq did several things for us.
1.) It eliminated a source of 'safe harbor' for terrorists and potential terrorists.
2.) It removed a great deal of funding from the accounts of these groups.
3.) It removed a potential source of more hideous weapons from the hands of terrorists. (It bothers me that the source of the 'Anthrax attacks' post 9-11 have never been tracked down. While the evidence seems to point to a domestic attack, we don't know much more than we did then.)
4.) The invasion provided a focal point for terrorists in the region. A great many have been caught at the border trying to infiltrate. Where would they be going without the invasion? Mexico?
5.) And the invasion demonstrated to would be terrorists and terrorist states our resolve. Particularly with regard to the states.
Ishmael
I think that it's all to possible.
Iraq was a transit point for terrorist as well as a supporter of known terrorist groups. (No direct evidence that al Queda was involved though.)
The invasion of Iraq did several things for us.
1.) It eliminated a source of 'safe harbor' for terrorists and potential terrorists.
2.) It removed a great deal of funding from the accounts of these groups.
3.) It removed a potential source of more hideous weapons from the hands of terrorists. (It bothers me that the source of the 'Anthrax attacks' post 9-11 have never been tracked down. While the evidence seems to point to a domestic attack, we don't know much more than we did then.)
4.) The invasion provided a focal point for terrorists in the region. A great many have been caught at the border trying to infiltrate. Where would they be going without the invasion? Mexico?
5.) And the invasion demonstrated to would be terrorists and terrorist states our resolve. Particularly with regard to the states.
Ishmael
M
miles
Guest
If someone says yes and also thinks we shouldn't have gone into Iraq......
Fawkin'Injun
Off da Reservation!
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Posts
- 10,402
Throb do your realy believe they hit us because they hate Bush as much as you do?
Fear Bush. Smear Bush.
This is an unhealthy obsession you have.
Fear Bush. Smear Bush.
This is an unhealthy obsession you have.
P. B. Walker
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2001
- Posts
- 25,127
RobDownSouth said:
What are you basing that on? Bush was only in office a short while before the 9/11 attacks. By all accounts, the 9/11 attacks were being planned well before he took office. I don't think you can tie the 9/11 attacks to Bush being in office. Osama didn't one day think to himself, "Damn, a Republican is in office, we need to step up our attacks". Using your logic, one could state that the terrorists are working for the Democrats.
As for the question at hand, I don't rightly know. I want to say no. I do however think that if we had not gone into Afganistan, then yes, there would have been more terrorists attacks in the US.
MNGuy
I put the Ick in Erotic
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2002
- Posts
- 15,281
RobDownSouth said:
They would still have attacked us. The U.S. is their 'Great Satan', even if there would have been a pussy like Gore as the president. Gore's response would have been interesting. I bet he would clenched his jaw together, looked tough, talked tough, but in the end fire a couple of cruise missiles at some tents in the desert, then claim victory.
Fawkin'Injun
Off da Reservation!
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Posts
- 10,402
Furthermore Throb, it's only America that thinks in terms of 2 and 4 year cycles. These guys thing in terms of centuries and these plans were laid down long ago in a town called Medina in Saudi Arabia. They had plans before to do the same damn thing with planes that we intercepted in the Philipeans and from the way people are acting now, they have the same damn plans to do the same damn thing again since it worked so well the first time.
To be honest, I don't think these guys even know that Haliburton is Cheney's ex-company. I don't even think they know Cheney from Michael Jackson. Just two more white infidels whom need to be converted or killed...
To be honest, I don't think these guys even know that Haliburton is Cheney's ex-company. I don't even think they know Cheney from Michael Jackson. Just two more white infidels whom need to be converted or killed...
Fawkin'Injun
Off da Reservation!
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Posts
- 10,402
MNGuy said:
Sounds suspiciously like LT...
M
miles
Guest
MNGuy said:
The missiles he invented?
Fawkin'Injun
Off da Reservation!
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Posts
- 10,402
Re: Re: If we hadn't gone onto Iraq, would the US have been hit by terrorism again?
Which, btw, explains rap and hip-hop...
Ladybird said:
Which, btw, explains rap and hip-hop...
Bob_Bytchin
Lit Class of '02
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2002
- Posts
- 41,128
Blindinthedark said:
'zactly.
Our attacking Iraq has not deterred further terrorist attacks. In fact, I would expect that our attacking Iraq would fuel the fires for MORE terrorist attacks in the future. The terrorists aren't running on a time schedule. They aren't undertaking conventional war against the West. They will bide their time and strike us when they think we're most vulnerable.
Miles, you can't use rational thought or logic on something as irrational and illogical as terrorism.
RobDownSouth
No Kings
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 77,765
P. B. Walker said:What are you basing that on? Bush was only in office a short while before the 9/11 attacks. By all accounts, the 9/11 attacks were being planned well before he took office. I don't think you can tie the 9/11 attacks to Bush being in office. Osama didn't one day think to himself, "Damn, a Republican is in office, we need to step up our attacks". Using your logic, one could state that the terrorists are working for the Democrats.
As for the question at hand, I don't rightly know. I want to say no. I do however think that if we had not gone into Afganistan, then yes, there would have been more terrorists attacks in the US.
The Clinton administration developed a comprehensive plan for dealing with the rising threat of Osama Bin Laden. This was transistioned to the incoming Bush Administration. Shortly thereafter, the plan was designated for political review by Vice President Dick Cheney's office around March 2001. The Bush administration finally got around to looking at the plan in August 2001. We all know what happened one month later.
Now back to Miles poorly worded question...he's trying to justify the war in Iraq as somehow preventing more terrorist attacks in America. I disagree with that premise. Like you, I think military action in Afghanistan was justifiable. But Miles specifically asked about Iraq. And I believe that Iraq is and will ever be nothing more than a sideshow in the war on terror.
M
miles
Guest
Aahhh. The old "fighting back will only make them mad" angle.
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
You are saying that the reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11 is because we went into Iraq? I'm not following the logic of this, if there is any.
Let's look at what happened:
Al-Queda is based in Afghanistan and attacks the U.S. (and other places).
Al-Queda is financed largely from Bin Laden and Saudi money, not Iraq. The ties to Iraq are tenuous at best.
Even if Iraq was a "safe harbor" for terrorists there are still many other places they can operate out of.
The fact that terror plots are still being uncovered, or at least thought to be in the works disproves your statement.
The reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11 is our awareness has skyrocketed. It has nothing to do with Iraq.
The reason we haven't been attacked is due to the measures that have been taken to increase our security here at home, and the dent we've put in terrorist organizations, which has taken place outside of Iraq.
If attacking Iraq was the end-all for terrorism, why are we still getting yellow and orange alerts? Why did British airways cancel three flights to the U.S. this morning?
Let's look at what happened:
Al-Queda is based in Afghanistan and attacks the U.S. (and other places).
Al-Queda is financed largely from Bin Laden and Saudi money, not Iraq. The ties to Iraq are tenuous at best.
Even if Iraq was a "safe harbor" for terrorists there are still many other places they can operate out of.
The fact that terror plots are still being uncovered, or at least thought to be in the works disproves your statement.
The reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11 is our awareness has skyrocketed. It has nothing to do with Iraq.
The reason we haven't been attacked is due to the measures that have been taken to increase our security here at home, and the dent we've put in terrorist organizations, which has taken place outside of Iraq.
If attacking Iraq was the end-all for terrorism, why are we still getting yellow and orange alerts? Why did British airways cancel three flights to the U.S. this morning?
Fawkin'Injun
Off da Reservation!
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Posts
- 10,402
Bob, I think the attacks will lessen because we have allies in the Muslim world. MOST of those people are rational and if we can help them shake the shackles of fundamentalist religion, just as we had to do in the West, then the rational people of that region can resume control (like they did a few centuries ago). It was the cold war, oil, and despotic leadership that created this flare-up more than ANYTHING the West ever really did or did not do...
Similar threads
