Afghanistan was the initial reaction to the 9/11 attacks. I don't believe that Iraq had anything to do with the war on terrorism. The initial reasoning behind going to war in Iraq was WMD's. After that reasoning was exhausted and proven false there was a need for a new approach on how we would justify this war. There are terrorists in Iraq, but there are terrorists in Canada. It's just a quick fix to a big mess using a fresh wound (9/11) to justify a horrible war.

We didnt even find the dang guy who planned 9/11!!!!

We were so gung-ho that we attacked a near by country for basically no reason. If we attacked every country with wmd's, we would never stop.

I call the Iraq War: I've got your Back,dad(playoff of Baghdad). Which what it is basically.

It wasn't when we invaded. Now with an influx of terrorism and terrorist ideologies into place like Anbar it definately is. But that is a major negative.

__________________
"There is nothing wrong with America that can't be cured by what's right with America" William Jefferson Clinton

The answer to your question depends on what part of the US you are in and your overall level of maturity. It is clear that Saddam Hussein was no imminent threat to the US or its allies therefore not an essential part of the war on terror. It is equally clear that the US invasion has spawned more Islamic radicals and has provided radicals to use this opportunity to attack and embarrass the US military. I think the root of this debate is what is the war on terror? Has the US gov. defined what exactly is the war on terror? Is it an open ended umbrella statement such as the war on drugs or the war on hunger? Is the war on terror something that we can start and finish? I would be more careful about using the term "war on terror" since it only reinforces the Bush Admins. political marketing phrases and campaign points designed to draw attention away from what really matters.

Every time I see posts like this I ask myself, "is this the state of our beautiful country?" The sig about liberals being brainless reinforces my thoughts. This Bill O'Reilly type statement is pure opinion without an attempt to rationalize or apply common sense. Simply "fighting radicals," in the Mid. East is too vague a statement for any real debate. Should we fight fire with fire, or should we fight with schools, medical clinics and other aid. What about the vendetta factor deeply rooted in many tribal cultures that exist in Iraq.

This war had nothing to do with bringing down a terrible tyrant who Saddam definitely was. The US gov. said that Saddam posed an immediate threat via chemical or biological attack to either the US or our allies within 45 min. All of this is now proven to be untrue. Why do so many people forget the fact that Bush said an attack could be imminent.

Lastly, tell me one middle eastern country that is not ruled by a brutal tyrant dictator or tyrant royal family(Saudi Arabia)? How do we decide which brutal tyrant is ok and which one we should take out?

This so-called "War on Terror" has strengthened extremism to higher levels. The American government has trampled all over the authority of the United Nations. The Neo-Con cabal wants to turn Iraq into a puppet state to steal oil and build bases there. Forcing this so-called "democracy" is the opposite of democracy. Let the Iraqi people decide!

[quote="Clearly-Cali";p="392180"]
The people we are fighting in Iraq are not radicals or terrorists, they are Iraqis citizens with some national pride. If China was occupying the US, blowing up our cities, and imposing some kind of government on us at the barrel of a gun, I would take out my gun and start doing some shooting myself. It is not America's job to impose our 'goodness' on the world but instead to protect our own liberties here in America. Then we will gain the respect of other nations and they will try to emulate us. It's idiotic to think that we can impose democracy on any other country. History has shown that when we adopt an interventionist foreign policy we only make things worse and incite hatred against America, which is very dangerous with actual Islamic terrorist groups out there, and impede democracy and freedom.

The muslims hate us, not because they hate freedom, but because we're over there. One of the justifications for Jihad is foreign troops on holy soil(Saudi Arabia). The best thing we can do for our nation's security is to leave Saudi Arabia. Then the terrorists will have now justification for Jihad under the Koran. We should also leave Iraq immediately, let the inevitable happen, and hope we haven't caused enough damage to allow a fundamentalist leader to come to power, similar to the Ayatollah coming to power from our 1953 counter-coup.

This whole nation were quite clearly hellbent on bringing down the USA and i for one am very happy that they are killing each other rather than decent law abiding citizens of the most god fearin nation on earth,why dont we give them the bomb ? maybe they'll go on blow themselves up,and theyre horrible neiburs

Your analysis is 100% correct. On reading most of the posts on this site, we might be forgiven in thinking that history began on 9-11 when those religious obscurantist fanatics flew those planes into the twin towers.

The problems go way back. They stem from the post war period when US global imperial hegemony began to take shape. In this respect, people often forget the other 9-11 in Chile when in 1973 the CIA instigated and oversaw the overthrow of Salvador Allende, the democratically elected leader of that nation, replacing him with the fascist Auguste Pinochet who happened to be, lets say, a little more sympathetic to US economic interests.

Beginning with Guatamela in 1953, this was a pattern that was set to continue up to and including the illegal occupation and subsequent occupation of Iraq. In total, the US either overtly or covertly since WW2 have been involved in the "regime change" of over 50 governments throughout central and south America and the middle east.

The US military and political ruling classes throughout this time have relied on the tried and tested method of "my enemies enemy is my friend" as a means to bolster their global geo-political and stategic position.

Now, eventually the process of 'blowback' will inevetibly occur and we had to wait for 9-11 for that to happen. You see, my friends, what happens is that the double-crossing, double-standards and foreign policy hypocrisy will eventually come back to haunt the imperial overlord - the imperial puppet master.

In such a situation the puppet will turn, and sadly, did turn on that fateful day in New York. Like I say, it was an inevitable consequence of 60 years of US imperialism. You see if you deceive and double-cross enough democratically elected leaders for long enough those leaders at the behest of their respective populations will bite back.

In other words, all of a sudden "my enemies enemy is my friend" metaphorphazizes into "my enemies enemy is my enemy". The compliant thug, becomes the non-compliant thug - hence, Saddam and hence more dramatically, those planes smashing into the twin towers.

The mad Mullahs are mad for a reason, but all we appear to want to do is bury our heads in the sand and pretend that 60 years of US imperialism never happened and that it was all a bad dream.

I am sorry but when you have a leader(Hussein)creating terror on his citizens and others in neightboring countries...that is terrorism.
When you have nations(like hussein's Iraq) that supported either by monies or men or supplies, other nations or groups...that is terrorism. We also had Hussein in a position to be removed when he didnt comply with the resolutions multiple times.
Sorry, Hussein was THE WMD. He was a threat to not only his people, but neighboring nations and international stability when he supported known terrorist groups.