Will this war: protect us from Iraqi bio and chem weapons?

Act as a deterrent?

Act as a motivation?

Will terrorists be: more or less likely to attack America?

Have more or less resources afterward?

jjirout

More likely because we are, in their opinion, their sacred land



less because Saddam was their main supplier of chemical weapons

Al-Queda Testing Chemical Weapons

this war will be a dream for the terrorists, militant muslims that are kinda peeved by US policy now, will be extremely peeved afterwards.

regarding those tapes: I don't know if those are real, for two reasons:
(1)al qaeda is made up of fundamentalist muslims, or in other words, muslims that adhere strictly to the quaran, and follow strictly what mohammed taught. mohammed taught that one should harm NO animal.
(2)where in sam hill did they get a well fed, fairly clean golden lab? this supposedly took place in afghanistan, you would think the dog would be underfed, and mangy.

dogs are not generally considered "clean" animals in muslim countries, and most in the arab world are mongrel mutts, that are underfed. it may well have been made by AQ, but I have some serious doubts (these are opinions by the way)

Muslims eat animals, I would say that is harming them.

The war itself will dramatically increase the threat of a bio/chemical attack. Winning the war then would not ensure that the threat has been contained. But it would ensure that Hussein would not create anymore WMDs.

If the aim of this war is to protect the West from terrorist attacks, then it is a monumental act of stupidity.

The war will be painted by the Islamic extreme as an attack on Islam and a flagrant act of sectarian hatred and cultural expansionism and intolerance by the rich, decadent and arrogant US.

Consequently, it will provide the anti-Western extremists with gar ammunition and a far greater sway over the majority of moderate Muslims.

If America and Britain really want to protect their people from terrorist attack, they should be doing all they can to promote peace and conciliation in that region, rather than ferment war.

In other words, they need to make support for Israel conditional on the creation of a Palestinian Free State, stop supplying arms to countries such as Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia, and work to improve the image of the Western nations in the Middle East

I know many would say such efforts are pointless and naive, but I would argue that starting a war to reduce the risk of attack from an associated but quite seperate enemy is even more pointless and naive - and also doomed to failure.

If America defeats and removes the regime of Saddam Hussein, I think it is likely to have two consequences. The first is that it will make the other 'rogue' nations more cautious about funding terrorist training. Countries like Syria, Iran and Libya will be less willing to lend their resources to any anti American cause.

On an individual level though it it will show most hard line Muslims that America is a real threat to their region, and will no doubt give rise to many more Muslims willing to attack America and her allies.

I guess I'd ask this: "After Desert Storm, did terrorist attacks on US soil increase or decrease?"

The answer is obvious. History proves that war begets war. If this is the only solution we can come up with, then we will suffer consequences. We have known this since the dawn of time.

Tomorrow I cover a local peace demonstration, connected to a worldwide effort, as a freelance journalist. I'll be fishing for ideas other than war for solving our problems. Perhaps there are none, but you don't catch a fish unless you try.

As there's no discernable threat at the moment, there will be no difference.


Absolutely not.


Absolutely.


Much more likely. Far more likely. WAY more likely. Thousands upon thousands of times more likely. The Bush administration is doing the one thing that will almost guarantee further terrorist attacks on US soil. One can only conclude that that is what they want.


Roughly the same. Contrary to goamerica's unsubstantiated claim, there is no evidence that Iraq has supplied so much as slingshot to al-Qaeda (or any other terrorist oprganization, to my knowledge). Whatever weaponry bin Laden might have is much more likely to have come from weapons we supplied to the Taliban rather than weapons we supplied to Saddam Hussein.

2 flaws in your statement


1. Technically, the ones we armed during the Soviet/Afghanistan incident were not the Taliban at the time. The ones we armed were ordinary Afghanis. Most of them could have been Soon-to-be Taliban, but some could have been Northern Alliance as well...how do you think the Northern Alliance got their weapons?


2. We didn't give any Chemical Weapons to the Soon-to-be Taliban. We gave them AK-47's & Rocket Launchers

When the terrorists blow up the Eiffel tower the French will junp on the band wagon.

Please try to stay on topic.

As a reminder , the topic of this thread is: