Yet many use it. If it was true that we would fight them "There" to prevent from fighting "Here", then how can one explain the many "Terrorist" scares that have happened since the war on terror started, scares that did not happen "There" were we are suppose to be fighting them?
2007-03-13 06:12:18 · 21 answers · asked by Fiesty Redhead 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Anybody that believes in that crap is incredibly naive. It's like they think that Al Quada needs everyone in it's organization in Iraq to fight. Who in their right mind thinks they can't spare a few people ?
As far as the ignorant argument that it's evidence that the strategy is working because we haven't been attacked since 9/11, I'll remind people that the first World Trade Center attack occurred in 1993. Eight years later it got attacked again. We are now only six years later.
That rhetoric that says, "fight them there so we won't have to fight them here" is for fools. That's not the reason why we are in Iraq in the first place. That is not to say that attacking the enemy abroad won't help. Sometimes when the enemy is concentrated, and clear goals are in mind ( such as in Afghanistan) it's gainful to indeed attack them there. However, Iraq is not one of those situations. We need to concentrate more on a defensive strategy, instead of wasting our resources abroad. And no an offensive strategy in Iraq is NOT a good defense.
2007-03-13 07:47:19 · answer #1 · answered by Count Acumen 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's nothing but Bush rhetoric. If the terrorists want to get in to the United States, they won't have any more trouble than the illegal aliens who do so. They would have you believe that we are fighting the balance of terrorists in Iraq and that simply is not the case. There are thousands of them all over Afghanistan for example, and the increase in terrorism cells in other countries has been news for a long time. Busying ourselves with policing a civil war is emboldening the terrorists, not subduing them. Al Queda, by its history, takes an average of five years to plan large scale attacks like 9/11. So I don't get too excited when those who support Bush's policies point out we haven't had any terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11.
2007-03-13 06:20:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
"Scares" is the operative term. There have been no attacks.
We can be right 99% of the time but the terrorists only have to be successful once.
If we stop fighting them there, they will take that as a cue to attack us.
2007-03-13 06:23:59 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know about you, but I'd much rather fight "over there"! There are terrorist cells in every country, and Bush was working on the ones here in The U.S. until the liberals got their panties in a knot about the phone tapping....I guess thats what the libs want; to fight over here, where our children are at risk. Maybe to them, better our children than theirs (Iraq). But I tell you what! No liberal is going to put my children at risk!!
2007-03-13 06:19:46 · answer #4 · answered by panthrchic 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The phrase does not hold water. Since we started fighting them 'there,' terrorists have bombed the London Underground, London buses, and in Spain. Fighting them 'there' does not prevent them from attacking us 'here.' It only gives them more fuel to pour on the fire, more reasons for them to hate us, more material to boost recruiting.
2007-03-13 06:17:24 · answer #5 · answered by Chredon 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
If we have to fight them here that would mean that the President has failed to secure our borders.
And after all isn't that the best way to protect our country?
2007-03-13 06:25:33 · answer #6 · answered by PARKERD 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terrorists scares here on U.S. soil since the war started on their turf? HMMMMMMMM nope can't think of any your going to have to list them for me since you know of them, I'll be awaiting your public posting on these.
2007-03-13 06:20:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Since we have risen our awareness here and are fighting them there, we have lessened the chance of it happening over here. Nothing has fallen on its face and the fact that it hasn't happened is proof that our diligence is paying off.
2007-03-13 06:18:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Not to mention the London bombings a couple of years back. Hmmm--though they were supposed to be fighting "over there"?
2007-03-13 06:16:48 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
That's just it they were "SCARES" did not happen. We have not had an actual attack since 9/11. Progress!
2007-03-13 06:21:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋