Amlord from a poll asking if Iraq was connected to 9-11

I previous poll I posted about Iraq and the connection to Al Qaeda was a little loaded to come out in the negative. But I did this in the light of public opinion polls that showed the American public found a direct connection between 9-11 and Iraq.

I think this is a more interesting and debatable question.
I answer no. Iraq's connection to terrorism is not the type that led to attacks on America. Iraq supported Palestinian extremism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But with the mild connection of Iraq to anti-American terrorism we would have to wage additional wars against Iran, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Libya too.

Saddam is a bad man. But he is one of many bad men who lead countries.
(Zimbabwe, North Korea, Libya)

I have not seen sufficient evidence to show that Iraq was connected to the network of terror that caused 9-11.

I don't think the answer to the war on terrorism is to plow over sovereign nations and rebuild them to our liking. It just creates an even bigger justification to those islamic fundamentalists who preach Jihad. I think we could do a lot of good by guarding our borders instead of occupying troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Europe, etc.... If we had our troops guarding our borders to begin with, we probably would not have had a 9/11 or the 93 bombing as well. Not helping the situation any, the past 11 years we have had one president who was way to soft on terrorism, and now one who is way to stern, an emperor to boot. I see no logic in us being in these nations, or even affiliated with NATO.

Straying off topic for a bit on NATO, I find it ridiculous that we get absolutely no benefit from it at all. The only beneficiaries from it are the smaller countries that we protect. I think america's foreign policy needs some reform big time, but we need an honest person seated as president. Not one who will dive into partisan politics, but one who will do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

--Rob

Being the middle east is the highest concentration of Muslims in the world, and the nations in the middle east being made up of a majority population of Muslims, i think it would be rather easy for say a group or individual that the coalition could label a terrorist to live in one such nation. That being said how many nations in the middle east may have these terrorist existing somewhere under cover or not in them? I find attacking a nation to hit terrorists rather silly for multiple reasons. One is the terrorists themselves do not, or may not listen to any government body, if Iran was to tell some cell to leave, how could they exactly do that? Or more two the point i doubt that any nation over there has the capability to defend against harboring such individuals period. SO to attack a nation to get a few people that will most likely slip away in the chaos not only seems rather dim, it does not speak of health for the world or our country. So overall, i don’t think that fighting something that requires a scalpel with a sledgehammer as a smart move, but one the terrorists themselves most likly wanted being they attack economics, like with the WTC.

More to the point as is evident within the bush administration, energy and resources related like oil, are the real gold in the world. There is no real infrastructure to run off anything else and entire economic systems just about live or die off of it. So more or less, i think that the attack on Iraq may have been motivated by the attempts to gain or corner the oil market in the world, being we have strong ties with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, now we have Iraq.

Terrorists do not have the capability to fight a "normal" war so they go to unconventional means of conducting their agenda, i also don’t imagine they would just nicely set themselves up to be attacked, as per say, setting permanent roots in a nation, how much terror are we defeating in Iraq? or are we in a way maybe making more? The administration gave many reasons for the war, from wmds and freedom from oppression and all kinds of things. But when you look across the board, it is very selective on such operations. Plus all those other nations or the u.n that did not abide by our standards of why war, were convicted of being oil people out for the oil! But not us, we are the selective liberators slowly cornering world power away from everyone, and if you have not got it yet, most no one has fallen for it.

We do not have a very positive image in Iraq, we also don’t seem to have any plan or ability to protect anyone or our own troops. Its a bleeding wound and i would gather that it is not going over very nicely with the rest of the moderate Muslim world, or the Muslims that are not terrorists. I don’t want to say these bad policies may illicit a war of cultures, but i doubt the overall handling of it is not being positive on the other hand, also in light that the u.s wants to run the show and have all the control and say so over other nations that participate.

In closing i would like to say that most any nation over their may or could have a case against it for harboring or supporting terror, even if the are or not, or even aware of such activities. The attacking of innocent populations to get a select few individuals seems to me at least to be a bad decision. Overall i feel that the terror situation was a good window to not only combat such individuals, but also control more of the worlds current source of life, control of such that we refuse to share.

What exactly do you base this on? All of the perpetrators had been living in our borders for some time before the attacks--all the soldiers could have done was watch the outcome just like the rest of us. And how do you think our pulling back from world events will eliminate terrorism? Keep in mind that those that hate us are just upset with us for the times we have NOT intervened as they are for the times that we have.



Access to oil has been a long-standing national security issue for the U.S. for decades, and has nothing at all to do with the current situation. And the goal has never been to control the oil, just guarentee access to it. Unless, of course, you'd rather be paying $5/gallon for gas, have restrictions on the amount you could purchase, and be out of work because your company either couldn't afford or couldn't get access to sufficient oil or energy?



And this is based on...? I have not heard many poll results of the people's attitudes towards us over there--leading me to believe that they are either positive or neutral, as they would certainly be on the front page if they were negative. As for protecting our troops, while I certainly grieve for all those lost, the numbers there are exceedingly small compared to the number of troops there (further showing that the attitudes towards us there must not be negative, for then there would be a much higher level of unrest).

Which is not to say that I think we were welcomed there with open arms, particularly by non-Iraqis. Rather, I think the overall attitude has been 'wait and see'. Which is an attitude I think that many of those over here would behoove themselves to adopt. I'll certainly admit there are reasons for skepticism--but it is also certainly far too early to make any claims for either success or failure.

I think Iraq was linked to the war on terror, though indirectly. A major gripe of Saudi Wahabists, who are fertile recruiting ground for Al Qaeda, was the "polluting" of their holy sites in Saudi Arabia by the presence of thousands of non-Muslim American troops. Those troops could not be pulled out of Saudi Arabia because they were necessary for maintaining a successful containment policy towards Saddam and his regime. With the containment policy, American troops were likely to be remaining in Saudi Arabia for decades. Saddam was in good health and his position was secure, and he had two sons who were groomed to replace him. Keeping thousands of troops there was counterproductive in the war on terror but necessary to deal with Saddam.

There was also a great possibility that the containment policy would fail. With growing opposition to both the Saudi monarchy and the American presence in Saudi Arabia, it was a possibility that the monarchy would be overthrown or the U.S. asked to leave by the monarchy, giving Saddam a free hand to develop WMD unmolested.

I think this was part of the reason why we invaded Iraq. It gave the U.S. an exit strategy from Saudi Arabia while also dealing with Saddam. The reconstruction of Iraq is a long process but a successful containment policy of Saddam would have required a much lengthier stay in the region. The population of Iraq is also far more secular than their Saudi cousins.



I agree. The U.S. military's field of expertise isn't in immigration and law enforcement, nor should they be. A large military presence in the U.S. would not have prevented 9/11.

This is an obvious point Rob. Of course America could probably single handedly destroy the rest of NATO. But seing as America is easily the most powerful nation in the world, don't you think its right that it should be part of an organisation that states all member nations must help other member nations? Whats wrong with it benefiting those who are not as powerful? I agree NATO is dated, and its existence is not good for relations with Russia, but I do think it helps smaller nations - and thats a good thing IMO. Also we have to remember that the only nation to make use of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is in fact the US.

Anyway back on topic. I voted No. I agree that Hussein clearly supported terrorism, but see no clear evidence linking him or Iraq to attacks made on America.

A VERY important point which should not be underestimated. This was the point consistently cited by Bin Laden as the reason for his feelings against both the Saudi Monarchy, and the US, and the stated purpose of his jihad (to remove the 'infidels' from Holy ground).

And such a good point was never attached along with the myriad of reasons for such a war, after all, i am sure Americans would complain about bringing troops back, and cutting down on terrorism

Most Countrys these days and even back 30 years ago, when egypt and syria did a suprise attack on Israel...we new that these countrys where somewhat part of this so called "Holy War", but we really don't have much evidence to prove this opinion.

What do i think? I voted, Middle. there is no doubt that Iraq had some connections to such terrorists groups that are rooted all over the world, but maybe they didnt.

Other countrys i believe we would benefit in wageing a war against would be Palestine, You notice that they are the most extreme as they come within the region, but most terrorists within Palestine, may have come from other neighboring countrys, such as: Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Turkey, etc.

if the state of Palestine recieved the proper action, in takeing out Groups such as hamas, etc, part of the middle east problem will have been solved.

I'd be inclined to agree, but dont have much faith in figthing terror with terror. Even if you get every last one of them, there will be people left over who are upset that a nation came and killed their friends/families and end up becoming terrorists themselves. On the other hand giving into terrorism will only encourage other groups to step up the terror.

I think thats the sad thing about the whole 'war on terror'. It really does have to be thought more through. Im not saying I can think of a solution, just voicing my fear that people think it can be beaten with lots of firepower.

http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Rea...df10062003.html



Bush had wanted to do this for a long time. Here was an excuse. Get the American people to believe that Saddam was complicit in the plots against the United States, lack of evidence to the contrary.



Building up the drama, Do we attack Iraq or not?, George W. Bush played the United Nations and the American people for fools. And his administration loyally (to Bush, not the country) remained silent on the subterfuge. It didn't matter what Iraq did or didn't do regarding UN weapons inspectors; GWB was going to start a war. No doubt Saddam knew this.

So the question is, if it wasn't for the WMDs, why?

(edited)

Well, looks like the Democrats best friend, Sadaam, won't be trying to assassinate any other US Presidents. I am embarrassed when my fellow liberals support a mass murderer who paid the family of terrorists. Of course the war on Iraq was part of the war on terrorism. It was a terribly inefficient way to combat it, but it was part of the war on terrorism.

<Insert favorite conspiracy theory here>

I think this horse is dead Hugo...

Nobody here is supporting Saddam. Nobody here supported his regime. What we are attempting to explore is the duplicity involved in actions against him. Can you honestly state that the ends completely justify the means? Does the fact that Saddam was a tyrant give Bush a carte blanche to buck the World Order and violate over 150 years of established foreign policy protocol and lie to the general public of America and the world at large?

Hugo wrote:



I am embarrassed when my "fellow liberal" claims that any opinion differing from his own must be in support of Saddam Hussein. I supported Saddam Hussein just like I am supporting your unfounded accusation--NOT.

(edited)

You make quite a few accusations here, none of which you can back up.

The world has changed and with it, the way we must keep ourselves safe. Included in those changes is a new direction in foreign policy. Once we're convinced diplomacy won't work it is up to us to take them out before they can get to us.

Kay's interim report makes it abundantly clear that Iraq had no intention of disarming. Absolutely none. Believing otherwise, after all we've already found, is pure idiocy. Just look at the dozens of bio-labs that were secrected among their intelligence service's offices. And not mentioned to those vaunted UN inspectors. Is this an indication of a leader who intended to be a law-abiding member of the world community?

Gimme a break..............

Care to back that one up, or is proof only something you demand of other people?

People keep acting like that it was standard protocol before for the US to have wars approved by the UN. It never has been. Korean Conflict, Vietnam, the many minor conflicts in the Cold War, no UN approval.

The only way to defeat terrorism is to provide hope for those who have nothing to lose. If Iraq could become a shining example of a free and democratic Arab state it would go a long way toward defeating terrorism. Of course that is a big if.

How do you know if that is what people in the Arab world want. This way of life is what you know and agree with, i am sure there are some Arabic people on the net that can say why we should be more like them, the point being who is right? Maybe the Arab world is angry at us being an influence in there world, and most of there history, i don’t sympathize with terrorists, but i don’t sympathize with the narrow perception of we are right and that is that.

I feel if Iraq was this clear cut danger of being a terrorist nation, we would have not met such opposition by so many, it was not just France and Germany and china. Many nations all over the world did not go for this idea and still reject it, i feel if it was just terror, such the reality of today would be much different, but i guess gaining all the support of the world was not important enough to show the evidence that allowed us to know Iraq was what we claimed it to be.

People in Iraq pelt themselves with chains in religious ritual, you must remember the human element in all of this.

You also have to think of all of the innocent civilians that Saddams regime had been repsonsible in killing, mass murdering, of human beings. As one of the Biggest and Strongest countrys in the world today, we also must look at the other side of all this WMD business, but look at a iraqi country that had suffered for over a very long time.

We are trying to do what we can, and hopefull things will work out, in the long run.

Wrong on that one. The North invaded on June 25, 1950. On that same day, the UN issued resolution 82, among other things calling for all Member States to render every assistance in enforcing the resolution. Two days later, on June 27, Truman issued the order for US forces to assist South Korea. The first US infantry unit arrived on July 1 and the first US participation in combat (USS Juneau) was the next day.

Maybe it could be said that we didn't wait for a UN mandate before we entered Korea, and would have done so with or without the UN. Such a claim is somewhat dubious, and the fact remains that such a mandate did exist at the time we took action. More topically, the evidence of immediate threat did exist in Korea and did not exist in Iraq. The important thing is not that the UN withheld support for an invasion, but why they withheld support. Blaming the UN is like shooting the messenger.

That is one thing that i feel is some kind of sick joke about this war. There were many reasons giving for it to occur, and as some go away for the time being, like lack of wmd and terrorist ties, certain people play other angles to justify the actions committed. While i guess i am glad saddam is gone, i yet to see major change in Iraq, we are there to make them a democratic nation right, yet another reason for the war, not to try and morph the very fabric of the Iraqi culture and subcultures, something i feel many people agree with doing, and will result in horrific ends.

Once again, just with all the reasons giving for the war by this administration, you can see it is not about terror, or just about terror, and in the long run i feel it is making more terror, not cutting down on terror, as for innocent Iraqis, i think that they are still dying. If we were to make Iraq a democratic nation it should occur now, with support, i feel that could help draw in u.n support.