Okay, suppose we go to war with Iraq. Suppose (and this isn’t considered a stretch, no matter what you think of war), either during or after the campaign, there’s a major terrorist attack in the U.S., using whatever means you deem most likely. Either right then or later, we find out either that the given reason was the war in Iraq (assume that they’re telling the truth, or at least that some of the perps wouldn’t have been there had it not been for the war), and/or their weapons came from Iraq.
If you were a war supporter, would you still think the war was worth it? Basically, what I’m doing is pretending that the original CIA scenario (before someone or something changed their minds) of Iraq not giving away their WMDs unless invaded is true. Now, I know that war supporters, including the Administration, argue that the lives saved will be greater than if we didn’t go in, but really, who’s going to do that sort of assumptive math when there are real life casualties, both in and out of the battlefield, to count?
I’d really like to hear some opinions about this, especially from war supporters. Thanks!
It was said that bin Laden thought we would do nothing after 9/11, because we were nothing but a paper tiger. Do you think that pulling our troops out because of the possibility of terrorist attacks will change his mind? It takes al Queda 2 years to plan an attack, so if there is a terrorist attack after we invade Iraq, it will be because it was already on the drawing boards. Of course, it will be claimed that it is in response to what we have done.
[ul] [sup]Then there is the theory that there is no connection between Saddam and the terrorists.[/sup][/ul]
We were holding a Brit here in Boston for trial - Richard Reid, the one with the explosive sneakers. (Or non-explosive, as it were.) One of the reasons given for his unhappiness with the US and his wish to blow up a plane (containing many Parisians I understand) was the fact that we’ve caused the deaths of 2 million children in Iraq.
One of the reasons given by a member of the group that bombed the World Trade Center the first time in 1993, I read in one of the papers: they were casing Jewish sites. The WTC was supposedly full of Jews. Thus, a perfect target.
Two examples there of a garden variety fundie (captured) terrorist. They are either lying or brainwashed, or just bone-stupid, or all three, and interestingly enough might already be convinced of our atrocities in Iraq. There’s not much certainty about what would appease these people at this point or what would guarantee that we wouldn’t have another attack, so I do not see the wisdom in going that route. (And I would be even more convinced that removing Saddam from power was a great idea, after an attack with his weaponry.)
I am worried that if we attack Iraq, the result will be a big increase in the number of people throughout the Middle East who hate the U.S.and are therefore motivated to join terrorist organizations, which would lead to more terroist attacks on us.
We’ve been suffering with terrorist attacks for years now. 9/11 was just the first foreign terrorist attack in the continental US in recent history. We’ve had the embassy takeover in Iran, kidnapping of Americans and the attack on the Marine barracks in Beruit, the disco bombing in Berlin, numerous attacks on aircraft carrying American passangers where Americans where specifically targeted, the Cole bombing in Yemen, the embassy bombings in East Africa, the list just goes on and on. So, while I don’t think this war is going to better the situation, avoiding the war is certainly not going to stop it. Will more people in the Middle East hate us if we invade? Maybe. There’s enough people who hate us there already that we’ll still be attacked even if we don’t invade.
I’m against this war, not because I love Saddam or because I’m a peace-at-any-price person, but mainly because I don’t think it’s going to help anything. We need to have a comprehensive reevaluation of our policy in the Mideast, and this war could be a part of it. But if its just this war and then back to business as usual, then I don’t see how it does any good.
So, if another terrorist attack comes, it won’t be because of this war. It will be because of a much larger problem with regards to our policy in the Mideast. But that’s probably a discussion for another thread.
[sup]Then there is the theory that there is no connection between Saddam and the terrorists.[/sup][/ul]