U.S losing focus on terriosm by going into Iraq?




 
--
Boots
 
February 15th, 2005  
Sexybeast
 

Topic: U.S losing focus on terriosm by going into Iraq?


do u think U.S is losing focus on terriosm by going into Iraq?

9/11 terriost attack changed the world i believe,
brings up a bunch of wars, start by anti-terriosim, but now in Iraq, that war turns out not to be doing anti-terroism as top piority, but rather bringing democracy,

do u think it is a bit losing focus
February 15th, 2005  
EagleZtrike
 
 
I think their focusing more now. Before the main goal was to go in get the oil and catch saddam hussein
February 15th, 2005  
OutcastHuman
 
Technically we went in there to stop terrorism. Maybe there weren't acctuall terrorists in the country but money was being funnelled to them through Iraq so we never lost focus.
--
Boots
February 15th, 2005  
Sexybeast
 
it seems U.S' own commisson proves that Iraq has no connection with Bin Laden's terriost group, right?
February 15th, 2005  
OutcastHuman
 
But they do have connections with others. Even stopping the small terrorist groups from getting money is doing the world a huge favor.
February 15th, 2005  
Sexybeast
 
otehr groups? u mean those groups attacking Isreals right?

i agree on this one, cutting some financial sources
February 15th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
It is a positive in the U.S. column in the war on terror and is certainly going a long ways towards protecting the homeland for both intentional and unintentional reasons.
February 15th, 2005  
Peter Pan
 
I wonder if US's foray in Iraq was really furthering the 'war on terror'

The 9/11 Commission has indicated that the connection was dubious between AQ and Saddam, though Saddam did pay money to rehab the Palestinian 'freedom fighters'.

Saddam was pathologically ruthless with Islamic bigotry. He suppressed Islam and his own population with a very heavy hand.

Obviously, that was not the ideal passport for endearment to the fanatical Wahabi AQ or the autocratic monarchies and obscurantist Islamic nations of the Middle East. Therefore, Saddam was a loner and despised in the Arab and Islamic world.

Therefore the rationale that rendering international terrorism impotent was contingent on waging war on Iraq is faulted since a ‘Christian’ invasion on a Moslem country would galvanise Islamic ranks and foment greater vigour, rather than neutralising or eliminating the Wahabi Islamic fundamentalist marauders and murderers.

Further, why it is extraordinary that the US attacked Iraq is that as per the Military Principles of War, 'Selection and Mainetnece of Aim" Concetration of Force' are two principles which are important.

Thus, even before the business in Afghanistan was over (and it still isn't). the attention not only shifted to Iraq, but it became the main front!


Thus, the Selection and Maintenence of Aim went for a six.

Now, troops were at a premium. Therefore, dividing troops, some to Afghanistan and some for Iraq violated the Concentration of Force principle.

It is not Oil alone. One should read the Defence Policy Guidance and National Energy Policy of Cheney. It gives some insight.
February 15th, 2005  
OutcastHuman
 
We didn't go into Iraq because of AQ everyone thinks we did. We went in to stop the flow to terrorist org. whether they were AQ or not and to stop a brutal dictator who killed his own people. Stop saying we went into Iraq cause of AQ.
February 15th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
We barely have any forces left in Afghanistan and most of them that where origionally in Afghanistan where rotated to Iraq to build up the occupation force early on. So pretty much all of our forces is concentrated on Iraq.

The problem comes in the fact that our army needs another division or 3 of army soldiers to effectively pacify Iraq in 2003 but the army wanted to go in with what it had. So now we are slowly pacifying the country and I have no doubt that by the end of 2005 it will be relatively peaceful in comparison to the anarchy of 2003.