President Bush is CONSTANTLY talking about the war on terror and the war in Iraq as the same thing. He then is saying that if you disagree with the war in Iraq, then you must conversely be soft on terrorism or are appeasing terrorists, etc. The question is that if the former Iraqi regime had no known links to international terrorist acts, how can the war in Iraq be part of the war on terrorism.

Please work on your pronunciation: It's "war on turrism.” Think of tourist then put a “izm” on the back. Thar u go… How can the wurld respect us if'n we don't use good pronunciation.

lol so PC

__________________
Religious Discussions, Debate, and Comparisons at Religious Forums

At this point, we are fighting terrorists in Iraq. This war created a front of the War on Terrr (get it right. That's how W. pronounces) that did not really exist.

This had NOTHING to do with 9/11, but that's all the GOP keeps yapping about when discussing Iraq.

Iraq is now full of foreign terrrists who came in from Afghanistan, Iran, and other neighboring countries by the busload. Yes, you could argue that it was because of the presence of Western military forces there, but getting to the cause (even if you disagree with it) won't solve the problem.

Iraq is presently struggling to emerge a middle eastern democracy. It is also struggling with outside forces using terrrist attacks against Iraqi citizens. The terrrists have stopped attacking coalition forces, and turned on the Iraqi's which shows just how desperate the terrrists are. They will stop at nothing to prevent freedom in the middle east.

Whether or not you feel the war in Iraq is justified, it is now an integral part of the war on terrr.

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

Senax, you have the amazing ability of making a point about something that has nothing to do with the post just so you can sound good. The war in Iraq has not helped us find the people responsible for 9/11, it has created a new kind of terrrist. our troops, brothers and sisters are out thurrrr fearing for thurrr own lives. Iraq will turn into another Vietnam soon. It has not helped at all!

Nothing to do? I beg to differ. The title of the quote is what? And when you boil my post down to the most basic answer it comes out.... YES. So which part did you not understand? Perhaps I can clarify for you.

Now look at who's off topic. This war isn't about 9/11. I'm not the first person to say that here. I don't know how old you are, but I grew up during the Viet Nam era. I watched it on the television news each night as I grew up. Viet Nam was the first war to be televised. I have cousins and uncles who fought that war. I can put your fears to rest in saying... this is in no way shape or form anything close to the Viet Nam conflict, and it's winding down already.

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

Iraq was destined to be FUBAR, and nothing has happened that would lead anyone honest to believe that's going to change anytime soon. On the other hand, the pissant resistance and terrorists there don't hold a candle to the Viet Cong in either numbers or tactics. There's no doubt in my mind that we will be stuck there in some form for years, but I don't imagine it will kill over 50,000 of our people in the process. Then again, it ain't over till it's over, so I could be wrong on that last statement, but I hope not.

The people we are up against in Iraq, in contrast to the North Vietnamese, have nothing behind them. If, in the future, we discover a group or groups who are actually sponsored by someone tangible, or some country, then we have an opportunity to dispose of that party as well.

The sad aspect of this is that we had all the time in the world to take care of Iraq after we had actually finished with Afghanistan, and after rounding up a broad coalition. The real urgency was zero, which is why going in there with only the Brits, and at huge cost to our international stature, made no sense.

We were in Vietnam because four US presidents (two of each party) lied to the public. We are in Iraq for the same reason. In both cases the wars were about US domestic politics, and had little to do with the country invaded. We have the Pentagon's own report to tell us that this is precisely what happened in Vietnam, and we have our eyes, ears and common sense (for those that actually possess it) to inform us about Iraq.

What galls me is to listen the the Empty Hat tell the world how important Iraq is, and yet commanders on the ground can't get the money they were promised for reconstruction, nor the equipment they need. Apparently we are only willing to support our troops in word, not in deed, and we are left to wonder what happened to all those billions that congress appropriated....

oc

Let's recap the history. We were first attacked by al Qaeda in 1993 with the murder of a CIA agent in front of Langley followed by the first WTC attack. One might ask why? According to speeches made by bin Laden, he didn't like the fact that we, the United States, were in Saudi Arabia. And why were we there? We were there because of Iraq. We were enforcing the "no fly zone" as a result of the end of the first Gulf War. Saudia Arabia's government wanted us there....and so did the United Nations. And this was a war STARTED by Saddam Hussein who brutally invaded his neighbor. He not only continued to shoot at our planes, he continued to defy the UN Resolutions, thumbing his nose at the world. After signing onto the Resolutions to save his ass, he reneged on everything he promised to do.
Secondly, Saddam Hussein did nothing for his people while he took BILLIONS in KICKBACKS for selling oil in violation of the UN's "Oil-For-Food" program. And all those BILLIONS have yet to be accounted for. We know he was a state sponsor of terrorism....Hamas, and others. It's becoming clearer every day that terrorists groups are loosely connected if not tightly connected.
There are enough indirect connections between Saddam Hussein and terrorists....and even al Qaeda, that it wasn't worth the risk to do nothing. This became even more obvious after 9/11.
So yes, it is definitely part of the War On Terrorism. And the world is better off , and safer, without Saddam Hussein in power. Even most of the nations they weren't involved in Iraq have admitted to that fact.

Look, I Ding Ding Ding We have a winner.

You can say all you want about how Saddam was a bad man. He was. There are many around. One in North Korea that actually HAS a WOMD is certainly more of a threat. And these mysterious un-named links to Al-Qeada are weak at best. I'm sure many countries, including the USA, could have those kind of weak links if you tried to spin it right. But in reality, that is pretty much what it is, spin. No link to 9/11 at all.