1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

"Better to fight terrorists there than here" reasoning for Iraq War

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by r35352, Mar 18, 2007.

Tags:
  1. r35352

    r35352 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    0
    We've often heard this tired old line repeated by supporters of the Iraq war. It continues to be repeated today.

    Yet I've never understood how this line makes any sense whatsoever. Let's assume Al-Qaeda had some evil new 09-11 type plan of attack on the U.S. What does invading and toppling Saddam have any bearing on such a plan, if it existed? If an attack was imminent, was Al-Qaeda going to stop an imminent attack just because Iraq was invaded???

    Okay so now Iraq was invaded and occupied and various sectarian insurgents are launching attacks on each other and on the U.S. occupation forces. Were these insurgents training and planning terrorist attacks but suddenly due to the invasion decided to stop such plans in favor of attacking the U.S forces in Iraq instead? That makes no sense whatsoever. If these now-insurgents were interested in planning and launching some terrorist attack, I doubt they'd sidetrack themselves and decide to fight hard targets like highly trained U.S. armed forces instead of simply launching another terrorist attack on soft civilian targets. Nor do I see how this Iraq War hampers such terrorist efforts. It's not like (and I have never seen evidence to the contrary) that future terrorist attacks are somehow hampered by U.S. occupation of Iraq as we've witnessed many such attacks since the Iraq War was launched.

    The fact of the matter is that the Iraq War has nothing to do with terrorism. Al-Qaeda does not and never did need or use Iraq as any sort of base of operations or place of supply. These insurgents in Iraq were not prior to the war planning or desiring to participate in any terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and I have never heard otherwise. They are fighting to seek the upper hand in the civil war to decide who rules and holds power in Iraq after the fall of Saddam's regime.


    So once again, how does the "better to fight terrorists there than here" reasoning make any sense whatsovever???
     
    #1 r35352, Mar 18, 2007
  2. Space Ghost

    Space Ghost Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    18,385
    Likes Received:
    8,704
    [​IMG]
     
    #2 Space Ghost, Mar 18, 2007
  3. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    16,246
    Likes Received:
    2,853
    I don't think the Iraq war precludes terrorism. Having said that, the war in Iraq could draw resources, especially human resources that could have been used against civilian targets into a conflict with those better equipped to oppose them. This is particularly important if one assumes that the pool from which potential terrorists can be drawn is both limited and either shared or one and the same as the one that the fighters in Iraq are drawn from.

    Of course, another theory is that the war in Iraq increases the size of the pool which terrorists can be drawn from.
     
    #3 StupidMoniker, Mar 18, 2007
  4. A_3PO

    A_3PO Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    47,069
    Likes Received:
    12,829
    I haven't heard that argument in a while. Even the most hard core right-wing Bush-ite wouldn't dare pull that stupidity out of their pocket now. When it comes to limited resources, WE are the ones with limitations whose energy is being sucked out of us. On the other hand, the Iraq war has vastly increased the pool available people to the enemy.
     
    #4 A_3PO, Mar 18, 2007
  5. Sishir Chang

    Sishir Chang Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    11,064
    Likes Received:
    8
    I call that theory the roach motel justification for invading Iraq. My understanding is that by putting US forces prominently in the Middle East it provides a target of opportunity for anti-American forces on their home turf. This becomes an irresistable draw for them so instead of going to the US or other countries they go to Iraq and there are wiped out by superior US forces. Roaches check in but they don't check out.

    Several flaws have already been noted regarding this strategy but another one that I've never liked is that its a really cynical and dismissive view of the Iraqis where we decide that Iraq makes a much better battleground, in the President's word a battleground of our own choosing, than the US so its OK that the terrorists and our efforts to fight them are trashing the country and causing the deaths of thousands of Iraqis in the process.
     
    #5 Sishir Chang, Mar 19, 2007
  6. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,828
    Likes Received:
    16,524
    The flipside of this, however, is that it draws our own resources away from Afghanistan and other terrorist-havens to put them into Iraq.
     
    #6 Major, Mar 19, 2007
  7. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    472
    Tom Delay did on MTP yesterday. (Why Delay was on MTP to speak on behalf of republicans was beyond me.)
     
    #7 mc mark, Mar 19, 2007
  8. RocketMan Tex

    RocketMan Tex Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    18,452
    Likes Received:
    119
    Because he just released a new book.

    By the way, I stopped watching Meet the Press a few months ago. I got sick of watching Tim Russert tossing softballs and calling it journalism.
     
    #8 RocketMan Tex, Mar 19, 2007
  9. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    472
    "If I Did It"?
     
    #9 mc mark, Mar 19, 2007
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Share This Page