| Yes | 74% | 74% - 58 | ||||
| No | 25% | 25% - 20 | ||||
| Total: 78 | ||||||
No. An attack on New York City was foiled only last week, one of the would be terrorist actually hailing from Brooklyn... The Madrid and London bombings weren't prevented by Iraq - two places never before attacked by Islamic militants.Leprechaun56 wrote:
Dosent the war kind of detract from global terrorism because of all the "jihadists" from other countries go to iraq to fight the us troops?
He's a politician, period. But you failed to answer the question, is this a more dangerous world because of this war?ATG wrote:
He's a political whore who will exploit any angle to make himself look good.
That being said, should we have occupied the country enforcing the U.N. mandated no fly zone forever?
Read, we were occupying Iraq since the end of Gulf War I. The idea was to bring conclussion to that.
Well, no, considering that this was the intention of the Bush administration from the beginning, and that there never were efforts to combat global terrorism.Obama wrote:
the war in Iraq had detracted from efforts to combat global terrorism.
Yes."All of us are glad that we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11
Can't think of any.I think there's some things that the Bush administration has done well"
Yes, although I'm not so sure about the "partly" part"But, we live in a more dangerous world partly as a consequence of this president's actions."
I get that feeling too.ATG wrote:
He's a political whore who will exploit any angle to make himself look good.
Last edited by oug (2007-06-04 07:50:36)
The attacks in Madrid and London, and the NY plot have nothing to do with this war in your opinion.ATG wrote:
My answer is no.
Islamist where hell bent on conflict before. They are now, what has changed?
That is true. The Iraq conflict will be the scapegoat for anything that happens in the future, when in fact someone could argue it was inevitable.ATG wrote:
My answer is no.
Islamist where hell bent on conflict before. They are now, what has changed?
Hey wait... so that means it hasn't detracted... (Still engaged in Iraq, still busted up a plot)CameronPoe wrote:
No. An attack on New York City was foiled only last week, one of the would be terrorist actually hailing from Brooklyn... The Madrid and London bombings weren't prevented by Iraq - two places never before attacked by Islamic militants.Leprechaun56 wrote:
Dosent the war kind of detract from global terrorism because of all the "jihadists" from other countries go to iraq to fight the us troops?
No. Islamic extremist have been stating for years that they will fight until the world is converted to Islam, or dead.sergeriver wrote:
The attacks in Madrid and London, and the NY plot have nothing to do with this war in your opinion.ATG wrote:
My answer is no.
Islamist where hell bent on conflict before. They are now, what has changed?
+1Pug wrote:
That is true. The Iraq conflict will be the scapegoat for anything that happens in the future, when in fact someone could argue it was inevitable.ATG wrote:
My answer is no.
Islamist where hell bent on conflict before. They are now, what has changed?
I'm still on the fence with this guy...better than Hillary so far... After further thought, I wish I could ask Obama follow up questions.sergeriver wrote:
But Senator Obama said the war in Iraq had detracted from efforts to combat global terrorism. "All of us are glad that we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11, and I think there's some things that the Bush administration has done well," he said. "But, we live in a more dangerous world partly as a consequence of this president's actions."
Do you agree? Is the World more dangerous now than before the War in Iraq?
ATG wrote:
No. Islamic extremist have been stating for years that they will fight until the world is converted to Islam, or dead.sergeriver wrote:
The attacks in Madrid and London, and the NY plot have nothing to do with this war in your opinion.ATG wrote:
My answer is no.
Islamist where hell bent on conflict before. They are now, what has changed?
.... and the last attack on our soil before 9/11 was?m3thod wrote:
No! there hasn't been an attack on our soil since 9/11 and thus this should credited to my savior georgous georgey bush.
The World Trade Centre bombing before that one.RedTwizzler wrote:
.... and the last attack on our soil before 9/11 was?m3thod wrote:
No! there hasn't been an attack on our soil since 9/11 and thus this should credited to my savior georgous georgey bush.
So, you think that invading Iraq hasn't pissed off a lot more people (and recruited a lot more terrorists) than we had to worry about before?ATG wrote:
No. Islamic extremist have been stating for years that they will fight until the world is converted to Islam, or dead.sergeriver wrote:
The attacks in Madrid and London, and the NY plot have nothing to do with this war in your opinion.ATG wrote:
My answer is no.
Islamist where hell bent on conflict before. They are now, what has changed?
Last edited by Turquoise (2007-06-04 16:55:07)