Does anyone really understand "If we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here"?

Question

First of all, why aren't we fighting "them" here right now? Are ALL of "them" busy in Iraq, and won't be free to fight us until we lose there? Is that really how terrorism works?

Secondly - even if we declare victory in Iraq - won't that leave a government backed by Moqtada al Sadr and Iranian-backed fundamentalists in charge of the world's second largest oil supply?

Are you SO sure we'll never have to fight THEM?

k1ng - why does our being in Iraq make it harder for terrorists to get to America? That is the question.

k1ng - Iraq-sponsored terrorists have never attacked America, and the war has no effect on their ability to get to the United States. So no, you are wrong.

crabby_blindguy - No, I'm pretty sure that's also the rational for being in Iraq. If not that, what then?

Answer 1

First of all, why aren't we fighting "them" here right now?
__

Do the first, and second, WTC bombings ring a bell? It's a little harder for "them" to get "here" now. mmm kay?


Are you SO sure we'll never have to fight THEM?
______

Never is a strong word. Are you so sure you'll NEVER drown?

EDIT:
<<
k1ng - why does our being in Iraq make it harder for terrorists to get to America? That is the question.>>

It sure doesn't make it any easier for Iraqi terrorists to get to America, now does it?

EDIT 2:

Cut & paste where I said they did? True to form, you attribute some inherently false statement to me that I never said, and then smack it down, and say "I'm wrong". Address what I said.

Answer 2

Feel free to use the terms Islamic militant, Islamic terrorist, or Jihad monkey.

Leaving would create a power vacuum, but the Sunnis in Saudi Arabia and Egypt aren't going to let the Shites take over Iraq. So there will be a giant civil war.

Not killing al-Sadr the moment he started shooting at US troops was a big mistake. Now, he has grown in power and prominence. Not realizing that Iran or Syria may try to de-stabilize the country after the invasion was a huge oversight by the Bush admin. I don't necessarily disagree with the invasion, although trying to impose democracy on peoples who's religion forbids such a notion is ambitious at best, and foolish at worst. Not being willing to attack those who attack you for political reasons is suicidal. Now, they've lost all momentum and it will be hard to win.

We should really do a few things:
1. Start drilling for oil offshore in the US. I don't care if it ruins your view in Nantucket or you are worried the spotted jellyfish might be in danger. Our dependancy on Arab oil is a major cause of all this because of the money they have. Environmental extremism has been a thorn in the side of energy independence.
2. Bomb the palaces and weapons facilities in Iran and send a message to stop supplying the jihad monkies.
3. Restrict immigration from Muslim countries.
4. Deport radicial Muslims in an aggresive way.
5. Leave Iraq and let them fight it out.

Answer 3

Bush isn't fighting anyone effectively anywhere....Bush puts his own agenda ahead of the common good of the country...This troop surge...The American people oppose it. The generals, both active-duty and retired, say that it won't help. But George Bush thinks he can do it anyway.
Ignoring the lessons of history by increasing troop levels is not an answer to the problems in Iraq. Nor is blaming the military for the President's own mistakes an answer, or ignoring the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission recommendations, including an emphasis on diplomacy. And ignoring the will of the American people is certainly not an answer.

The people made their voices heard, and if the president isn't going to listen, the Democratic Congress will.

Answer 4

The Bush Administration has continued to try and blur the line between fighting terrorism and the civil war that he started in Iraq.

The truth of the matter is, the civil war in Iraq has nothing to do with the "war on terrorism". That's just what he wants us to believe.

Iraq is not, nor was it ever a threat to anyone outside its own borders. Not since the end of the 91 Gulf war anyway. The UN sanctions and inspections made sure of that.

Answer 5

Well, that's quite a few questions wrapped up together but dealing with the key point, the first thing to note is that you've slightly changed the talking point that the Administration uses. The actual phrase is: "We're fighting them over there so that we don't have to fight them over here."
The two are almost identical in their implication and both are in fact logical fallacies. They presuppose that it's not necessary to fight them over here *because* we're fighting them over there.

If that were true, there would be no need for a massive Homeland Security budget and long queues at airport security.

The reality is that we have to fight them here anyway but that position automatically invalidates the raison d'etre of the Iraq invasion.

We accept the proposition on the basis that there have been no attacks on the US since we started fighting them over there but that defence (post hoc ergo propter hoc) is equally false. "There have been no attacks on the United States since I started wearing my baseball cap backwards," is an equally valid argument.

So the answer is, no, most people don't understand the statement because they haven't grasped its inheritant sophistry.

Answer 6

First of all, we're not fighting them at all. We're fighting people in Iraq who are resisting the governmental change. They're not terrorists - we just call them that because we have a prejudice against terrorists in this country, and it's easier to get people to hate someone if you call them a terrorist.

A terrorist is someone who uses fear to get people to do what they want. (Come to think of it, in that way, maybe the insurgents are terrorists, but then... what are WE doing? "Become a democracy or we'll kill you all.")

I digress.

The insurgents in Iraq have not threatened this country. They are simply resisting change. (I'm not saying they're right, but I'm not convinced we are either.)

Anyway, you're absolutely right - we SHOULD be fighting them here. "Fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" insinuates that there's no way they're in our country right now.

I'm pretty sure we all felt confident of that on September 10, 2001, too, didn't we?

EDIT: I love that someone gave my comment a "thumbs-down." I guess you don't think we should fight them here, then, whoever you are. You'd get along very well with our President, because he doesn't think so either.

Answer 7

Meaningless propaganda designed to scare people. If Bush is so concerned about stopping an attack on America why are our borders wide open? Why did it take a new Democratic Congress to implement the 911 commissions recommendations, such as scanning containers? Why is Bush signing all kinds of legislation to create a North American Union, which will have completely open borders between Mexico, Canada and U.S.? The list goes on and on.

Answer 8

We have a president that is letting terrorists, drug dealers, criminals, and illegals enter the country everyday. He has pardoned Mexican drug dealers, but won't pardon the Border patrol for doing their job. He is selling off everything he can in secret. He makes deals with China, Saudi Arabia and sends our families to war. America has been sold out and how anyone can't see that, is astonishing.

Answer 9

You are being very rational and logical-but that isn't a rational for being in Iraq. It's a propaganda slogan intended to generate fear--a scare tactic to elicit support based on emotionalism, not reason.

Answer 10

Many, many people remember when the Japanese tried to take us on here on our own turf. It was Churchill who said, " They have just awakened a sleeping giant". Other than the guys hoping for 72 virgins ( sounds like something from a Sat. Night Live skit), we have no other threat here at the moment. Well, of course , we have our own home grown variety, but fortunately, most of them just like to hear themselves talk. They know far too well how the penal system operates here.