Did Bush Intend for Iraq to Be a Terrorist Magnet??




 
--
Boots
 
February 28th, 2005  
RockStar
 

Topic: Did Bush Intend for Iraq to Be a Terrorist Magnet??


I was wondering what any of you think about the possibility that the real reason we invaded Iraq is so that it would attract all the terrorists into one place. Let me explain:
If you think back to right after 9/11 everyone (liberals, conservatives, FBI, CIA, intellectuals, and every other kind of expert) was saying that more and more terrorists would be getting into America and causing more problems. It was predicted that every major US city would face car bombs and suicide bombers on buses just like in Israel.
Keep in mind that this was before the Patriot Act, before the Department of Homeland Security and all the other reforms that have taken place so the Bush Administration had to realize how vulnerabe we would be.
So since we felt unprotected for this new threat at home in the US, wouldn't it make sense to cause a distraction in another part of the world so that the US would have time to figure out how to protect the homeland? For example, imagine you are unarmed and a pack of wild dogs are running towards you. Instead of trying to fight them, the smart thing to do would be to take a piece of meat or something else to distract them with and throw it as far away from you as possible. Then you have time to arm yourself or think of a defense.
Once we invaded Iraq it caught the attention of all the terrorists in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. If any of these terrorists had intentions on trying to get into the US to cause harm it would now make sense to them to just go to Iraq, which is a lot closer and easier to get into. A lot of these terrorists feel that it is a bigger trophy to kill a US soldier in Iraq than a civilian on American soil. Plus they know that the media of the entire world is focused on the Iraq war.
I'm not saying that the reasons Bush said we went to war (i.e. weapons of mass destruction, taking out Saddam, etc.) weren't also legit reasons we did it, but wouldn't this "terrorist magnet" theory as I call it also make sense? It's been 3 1/2 years since 9/11 and there hasn't been any major attack on US soil. Nobody can really explain why this is. It has to be more than just good police work. I really believe it is because the terrorists have all been diverted to Iraq and this has saved us in the US.
This is why I don't think the soldiers' lives in Iraq are being wasted, even if Iraq never becomes a stable state. If these terrorists were right here in the US and we lost 1500 soldiers trying to fight them off I don't think anyone would say that this was a waste.
February 28th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
I'm not sure if there is a topic here or just an opinion but I'll try to answer the question that is the title of the thread.

The evidence we have about the internal workings running up to the war, especially as revealed in Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" all clearly show that after the VERY easy victory in Afghanistan, Bush was convinced that Iraq would post no post-war problem. Bush believed that the Iraqi people really wanted freedom and that we really would be greated as liberators. Unfortunately, us military guys know that Bush was basically just choking on his own propoganda like many leaders before him have done.

On the topic of whether the "terrorist magnet" theory is useful I would say yes it is being quite effective but that is more of a tirtiary goal of the operation.
February 28th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
Mmmhm, I wouldn't say it can fully stick. I'm not sure- it would be so mean of us diverting terrorismo upon another country just to save our butt.
--
Boots
February 28th, 2005  
rOk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Guy
Mmmhm, I wouldn't say it can fully stick. I'm not sure- it would be so mean of us diverting terrorismo upon another country just to save our butt.
Human nature...
February 28th, 2005  
Boobies
 
 

Topic: Hmmm...


taking the fight to other places?
February 28th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
I don't think that was the reason, given the History. But I think it worked out that way.
March 1st, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
That was part of my thinking from the very start. First, we had been attacked. Who can you hit when the US wants to see retaliation? Who's been the biggest pain in the butt since the first Gulf War? Who is located in the most advantageous position in the Middle East to have the ability to launch air strikes all over the Middle East? Obviously, putting a little fear in Syria and Libya has not been a bad thing.

So many of our leaders around the World have spoken of having peace in the Middle East but didn't know where to start. Maybe Iraq wasn't the best choice of giving the bad guys a good butt kicking but it must be a close 2nd. I think Bush or someone in his cabinet knew exactly where to go and what to do. MHO!
March 1st, 2005  
Big_Z
 
 
I remember seeing an American General on CNN calling out all terrorist to visit us in Iraq if they had the courage. I highly doubt it was our goal to use Iraq in this manor though.
March 1st, 2005  
Sexybeast
 
magnet.....how many loyal american young men have died in iraq.....

i dont think Bush thinks that way