Do you truly believe that, "We must fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here" will prevail?

Answer 1

I'd rather fight somebody away from my property and loved ones, wouldn't you?

Answer 2

THE BEST FORM OF DEFENSE IS ATTACK,dont be fooled into thinking it wont happen again in your country the chances are that it will ,history shows that if you are soft on defense you will be attacked there is always someone who wants what you may have. i think they may have had a dvd of the poltergeist stuck in the groove of where that little woman says to the ghosts , all welcome, cross over to the light my brothers and sisters ,all welcome, cos they just keep coming and we let them in give them a home, social security an education all without half of them
having the correct documentation to be here in the first place, in the north the advent for the use of heroin has more than tripled, is this correlation a coincidence, i for one doubt it. LF
PS I will fight the buggers if they pop thier heads above the parapet, anywhere. LF

Answer 3

Depends on which war you're talking about. That statement certainly applied in WW II. However, in the present war, once we bombed Afghanistan and drove the Taliban out, thereby striking at Al Queada's ally and depriving Al Queada a base of operation, we should have stopped there.

The Bush administration committed one of the most collosal tactical blunders ever in military history by attacking Iraq. This should now be clear even to the most die-hard war-mongering neocon hawk. For one thing, Al Queada is flocking to Iraq and the daily carnage there is horrific. As much as I despise Hussein, he was not attacking America and no American lives were being lost there. For another thing, Iraq was a stabilizing force between Iran. Now that Iran is enriching uranium, it would have made a lot more sense to ally with Iraq as a persuasive force to get Iran to back down. Iran is now thumbing it's nose at us. As you know, we have armed Hussein before when it suited our interests.

We are more in danger now of being attacked over here for having stirred up that hornet's nest. As you must know, the 911 murderers were mostly from Saudi Arabia. Do you really think that the war in Iraq is to prevent an attack on our soil? Iraq could never attack the United States. They have neither the nuclear capability nor an ICBM to carry the nuke even if they had it, which they don't. It was never about weapons of mass destruction. As I said, this was the biggest military blunder ever. We are no safer now, America's image is totally disgraced in the world community, we have poured $7 TRILLION dollars down a rat hole in Iraq, with no end in sight.

If you're going to fight "them" over there, for God's sake at least pick the right "them."

Answer 4

Hey, its worked since the civil war (a few attacks but no full scale battles).

It is in the best interest of ANY coutry to take its fighting to the other guys home. I am quite sure many Iraqis wish the war would just go into Iran and leave them alone for just ONE DAY!!!!

Answer 5

Yes. After Pearl Harbor, how many full scale attacks did Japan mount on American soil once we took the fight to them? And saying we should have stopped at Afghanistan is like saying we should have stopped with Japan and not attacked Germany - after all the nazis didn't attack America. And suggesting that we could have re-aligned ourselves with saddam??? Yea, we might have helped him out in the 80s, but that was before we knew what he was truely capable of. Mass graves, gassing his own people, his two butcher sons in positions of absolute power, and his policies of providing monetary awards to the families of suicide bombers tell me we did the right thing. Even UBL has said that Iraq is the "central front" of the jihad (war on terror). As long as the islamofascists are busy killing Iraqi citizens while blowing themselves up, and taking pot shots at our GIs/Marines (who are very effective at responding with all sorts of hellfire), they will continue to be too occupied "over there" to do much "over here". Yes, we will probably at some point see another attack over here, but how many have we not seen because the battle front is currently in a different place.
Eventually, I think we now need to take out Tehran and Damascus (completely). Not necessarily with ground troops, but we need to just bomb them back to the stone age. Then they will not have access to the internet and other media, and will be too busy looking for the next dog to eat to be worried about spreading their cancerous culture of submission and death.

Answer 6

Well lets put it this way, they are showing up over there in pretty good numbers so as long as they are busy fighting us there then they are not making plans for attacks over here.

Answer 7

No that is a bogus argument. Just because we occupied Iraq doesn't secure our borders from attack...quite the opposite. What Bush is saying is "if they kill Americans over there they dont have to kill them here."

Answer 8

it has to prevail .....we are not accustomed to a war state of life.....here in the US we protect our own......if we don't prevail this disaster now we will never feel the freedom of feeling safe.........we MUST fight them over there away from HOME......

Answer 9

Unfortunately "them" and "over there" are pretty vague concepts. If we're talking Iraqis, then No, they don't have the ability to attack the US. If your talking terrorists, then yes, except that we're really not fighting them, we're fighting the Iraqis, so the policy is moot.

Answer 10

I believe it is true. I hope the truth will prevail.

Answer 11

Yes, in Afghanistan, where they actually did want to fight us. No for Iraq, where they were only a local threat.