Do you think that one of the reasons for the ongoing skirmishes in Iraq is to keep terrorists distracted so they won't attack other countries?

We aren't the ones initiating the skirmishes so the question to me doesn't make any sense. It would appear the other way around if anything - keeping us distracted while they plan future terror attacks.

Terrorists are going to be terrorists and perform terrorism no matter what we do to distract them. The only way to stop them is to shoot them before they shoot us.

I voted no, although I suppose it's possible. I just don't think it's probable. Especially since that's not really what's happening--terrorists are still attacking in other places. There are more than enough terrorists to go around.

If that is Bush's plan, then I really think he needs to be voted out of office. That's pretty loony.

No, I don't think that's the case but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not possible.

yes, I consider that a possibility, but I seriously doubt it. I think the real reason has to do with Saddam's attempt to assasinate Bush Sr, which W is trying to get him for that. I cant say I blame the guy, but its not exactly a pure motive either. Thats the main reason imo, but I am sure getting rid of one more dictator and making the public FEEL safer is a smart and feel good motive as well. I think that the Bushes (and Clinton to a lessor extent) were planning on getting rid of him years ago, but they never got a chance to because something always came up. If 9-11 hadent happened, we would have gone to war much sooner, but 9-11 became a distraction, so the adminstation had to put a spin on it to make it look like it has a lot to do with terror. Not a bad plan really. Morally speaking though, this is sort of low and pushing it, even for a polititian (ok, maybe not that bad), and they should of waited until after the solve that terror thing first. But that would been a risk because bush might have not been relected and the next guy would have not done it. Yeah, I guess I understand his motive behind it, and cant say I wouldnt have done the same in his position.

No. I think that is a rather silly idea. I'm sure that the "terrorists" are quite capable of setting their own agendas without any help from the Bush administration. Besides, since when are the "terrorists" preoccupied with Iraq? All the reports I've seen seem to suggest that Iraq is being defended by Iraqi militia groups, jest a bunch of good ol' boys defending their little piece of sand from the foreign invaders. What the hell does terrorism have to do with Iraq? I don't even see how it factors in.

so we are allowing our young men and women die for "bait". so if thousands die as bait that is better some how?
you know instead of fighting the real fight/war and making the world "safer", they are bait?????
why are you using the explanation to try to sway the answers!!!!!

That would suggest forward planning and thinking outside the box. So no.

maybe a small plus to the already complicated picture...but there's much more to it than that!!!!

It's possible, but I doubt that's one of the primary objectives.