[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

Sorry, but I don't agree with your connection to reduced chance of attacks due to an invasion of Iraq. For every Jihadist we eliminated there is a good chance we created 3 more.

Lots of people thought that might happen in Iraq. Josh Marshall at TPM was a chief proponent of it at the time. There is not much evidence that it happened though

I also don't agree with the "flypaper theory" that was espoused at the time and see it as just another justification for an unnecessary invasion. These terrorists were not then nor are they now grouped in any one area. We can see that by the countries the 9/11 hijackers originated from. Heck, 15 of them were from a country we are supposed to be friendly with. Add that to various countries where they are still operating and any claim to having reduced their numbers by an invasion of Iraq does not have a solid enough basis to be provable.

Not being "from" a country is not the same thing as going to a country to try and defend it from westerners.

The terrorists that were killed in Iraq were from all parts of the Islamic world. Hence the "flypaper" strategy.

Here's the real bottom line to the invasion. We invaded under certain pretexts such as WMDs and Sadaam being an imminent threat to the region along with his support for terrorism.

WMDs was only one of many,many reasons given in the joint resolution to invade Iraq that Congress passed.

When the weapons were not found and we found out how fast his military crumbled it was necessary to run damage control. This was accomplished by coming up with any number of viable sounding alternative reasons we invaded.

Again, go back and review the joint resolution that passed in the fall of 2003, several months before the attacks. WMDs were most certainly NOT the only reason for the invasion codified there.