What is the difference between the "war on terror" and the war in Iraq??

[kentuck]

After all, we haven't had an attack on our soil since 9/11, they tell us. Would we already have had an attack if we had not invaded Iraq? Where are the terrorists? Did all of them really move to Iraq and are now blowing themselves up in car bombs? I doubt it.

The "war on terror" is another "creation" of this Administration. Whatever "terrorism" we were fighting in Afghanistan has long since been over. There is no war on terrorism. There is an ongoing civil war in Iraq because we invaded that country. If that decision had not been made, to invade, the "war on terrorism" would have been over. Unfortunately, Saddam would have still been in power. Also, 1700 American troops would probably still be alive. But, with the invasion, they created a "war on terror" that did not exist.

[Mr.Green93]

1. Both are phony

and will be over in Jan. 09 or 06 if we get the congress back.

[kentuck]

4. I don't know about that...

Too many Democrats have bought into this phony war. After all, our country was attacked on 9/11....by "terrorists"...We will fight them until they are defeated. What they don't know is that they were "defeated". If Osama had been captured, that would have broken the back of any terrorist movement that might have been out there. No doubt, we will always have acts of terrorism. That cannot be defeated. The more you try, the more terrorists will be created.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. One is costly with little ROI, the other is costly with gobs

of ROI. Too bad we have to spend American blood to satisfy corporate
mandates. Imagine the billions Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater, and others would be out had we not decided to commit these warcrimes.

[EVDebs]

3. The War Against Terror (TWAT) goes on forever......

Iraqis can ask us to leave, but with 14 'enduring bases' it looks like we're going to be spending lives and money for another '10, 20 years...that's not so bad' as Sen McCain says (see Bob Herbert's 'Heads in the sand' article, Sept. 2004 NYT)

[pinto]

5. one's a propaganda war and the other is an armed occupation.

[Postman]

6. Had we invaded Iraq before 9/11, would it have prevented 9/11?

HELL NO!!!!!

IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

[kentuck]

7. Sorry... would we have had another attack after 9/11 ?

if we had not invaded Iraq? Was the point I was trying to make...

[Postman]

9. They're unrelated. The animals who perpetrated 9/11 were not Iraqis.

as I'm sure you are aware.

There is no relationship between the Iraq invasion and the fact that there hasn't been another terror attack in the US.

There is no evidence of that being the truth. Iraq had NO AL-Qaeda before 9/11, in fact, they were enemies, one secular, the other fundamentalist.

You could argue with the same logic that there hasn't been another terror attack since 9/11 because the US invaded Haiti a couple of years ago. It holds the same weight.

The fact of the matter is, the FBI, the CIA, and everyone else involved dropped the ball. Or it was allowed to happen, for which I have no proof other than the PNAC's website where they site the need for "another Pearl Harbor" to set there agenda in motion.

[madrchsod]

8. there is no difference

it`s about making the world safe for the world corporations and those who profit from the lowest cost of production. any means justify the ends. this hasn`t changed since humans decided to form civilizations.

[Evergreen Emerald]

10. Iraq is to the war on terror as broccoli is to the war on terror

Neither Iraq nor Broccoli have anything to do with 9/11