It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Opinion: War on Terror and Iraq

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 09:45 AM
link   
In this coming election there seems to be two different ideas around the invasion of Iraq.

One side says this is just an extension of the war on terror, justified by the attacks upon the US.
The other side believes the two are not related, Iraq was a separate issue.

My question is: Do you see the war on terror and the occupation of Iraq as related events or separate events.

I believe them to be separate. Iraq was invaded due to its failure to meet the guidelines set forth by the UN. Now whether we had the right to enforce the UN mandates is a whole other story but I see them separate.

The reason I asked for your thoughts on this is because the news media seems to not separate them at all. Foxnews is famous for running their “War on Terror” splash screens then go live to Baghdad. I see Iraq as part of the war on terror only since our occupation as now they are fighting back with terrorist like tactics and foreign fighters have entered the country. Before our occupation though I cannot see that Iraq is in fact part of that war. Keep in mind we have seen no evidence that Saddam had links to Bin-Laden, at least none that our government has stood up and shown without doubt which would put this question to rest.

As we go to vote this November this is an issue we all have to consider. We now have several changes in our lives attributed to the war on terror from homeland security, patriot act and now pre-emptive invasion. Since I could not reconcile the connection between Iraq and Terror I wanted to see what others thought.

**I searched for a topic on this subject and did not find anything dedicated to just this question, it has come up in other threads but is usually just comments back and forth in relation to something else**




posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I see an underlying strategy in Iraq that I think Bush and his people are afraid to dicuss very openly. If you listen to their speeches carefully especialy in the wake of no WMDs you can gather that they planed to use Iraq as a base from which to transform the middle east.

This whole idea of a winning the war on terrorism can't really be done while the middle east continues to act as a breeding ground for religious extreemism bent on destroying the US. You can catch a million potential terrorists, and send them all to guantanamo, but as long as kids in Iran, Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are being reppressed by their governments and then told all their pain is caused by the U.S, more terrorists will be produced every year. If Iraq can be made to work as a democracy friendly to the west, and if it is free from religious control of government, then people all over the are will think they should have the same things. And from a purely strategic point of view, having bases in Iraq allows the U.S to quickly respond to situations erupting in the area.

The WMDs issue, and the violation of UN resolutions was one of convinience allowing the administration to get the public along for the war, Iraq was seen from day one after 9-11 as a crucial strategic target Bush was going to do this anyway. I will concede influence by oil companies, and others such as Haliburton but I don't think this can be said to be a reason to spend billions of dollars, and risk thousands of lives as some have argued. I also think personal feelings about Saddam trying to kill his father influenced Bush in his decision.

Although, I personaly believe that if we had a better leader with a little more character that the American people and others around the world would have been more supportive had we made this about transforming the middle east, instead of the as of yet inconclusive WMDs.
Giving these people a better life, and taking down the terrorist networks, and repressive governments by force if nessesary is the only way we can truly win this battle.



posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 12:06 AM
link   
The President of the United States lumped the Iraq invasion together with terrorism all the time in his speeches. The rest of the U.S. administration did as well as well as the media. There should be no doubt in anybody's mind that the Iraq invasion was part of the greater war on terrorism and it failed utterly and miserably.



posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Iraq was a part of the war on terror, as it is a known sponsor of hezbolla suicide bombings....iraq has been a very unstable part of this region, and quite frankly was an easy target both millitarily and diplomatically as +12 yrs of UN sanctions and the worlds speculations on iraqi wmd...the world agreeg their was a problem there, just not in how to fix it....
as far as it being a faulure, that remains to be seen, i however think its about damn time some butt whipping got distributed from the USA to hostile, and threatening governments.




top topics
 
0

log in

join