We have to fight them there so we don't fight them here?

Question

Is there any logic to this assertion? Terrorists already attacked us.

It's not like leaving Iraq will let them know where our secret base is...The only possible explanation is that it is more convenient for them to kill our troops over there, rather than having to go through the whole trouble of attacking America.

So Bush has essentially set up a terrorist quicky mart, with our troops as snacks. Good job!

Answer 1

...as opposed to graphically demonstrating to them that we will not fight either there or here and setting up a "terrorist quicky mart" with American citizens as snacks.

Yeah....even better job, huh?

This is what you and yours simply don't get--they want to kill US. They couldn't care less about our party affiliations, ethnic delineation, social status, etc., etc., etc. They'd just as soon kill a bleeding heart lib as they would a chickenhawk neocon and they spend their time planning and devising ways to do just that--wherever and whenever possible.

This being the case, I, for one, would rather it be over there.

Answer 2

It's stupid. The idea is to keep people thinking that if we leave Iraq, some unnamed, faceless army is immediately going to invade the United States.

It has never happened, and it never will. The last time we fought a foreign army on our own soil was the Revolutionary War, and even then, it wasn't really a foreign army, as the people who lived here were still British citizens at the time. So one could say that no American has ever had to fight a war against a foreign army on American soil. 9/11 was not a war, nor was it an act of war in any traditional sense. The "jihad" that al Qaida declared against the U.S. was declared LONG before that attack. And by acknowledging their ridiculous war, we're giving them credence in the eyes of the world. We should have gone after Osama and whoever else had a direct hand in that attack, executed them on live international television in the most horrifyingly excruciating way possible and been done with it. Instead, we're the clowns in an international three-ring circus.

Answer 3

It does not make any sense ........first of all none of the attackers had any link with Iraq and no one could prove it till yet......its just a pantagone statement and they attacked Iraq on that........the issue highlighted more was MDW and saddam agreed with the inspection team to search for that.but bush didn't accept that and attacked........And obviously the result was negative......I guess Your governament is running short of excuses......they should work more in this department.......and they realy need to prepare a "strong" propaganda....because none of their excuse ever made any sense

I believe that your country would have been more protected, if you had kept your troops at home.......its like opening the door for terrorists by sending the troops out..best way to keep your place safe is to defend it while being strong on your own place..but ofcourse bush has some other intensions !! I also feel sorry for your troops who are being killed just for the sake for political gain.its like they are being slaughtered as a sacrifice to make the "Political gods' happy !!

Answer 4

well from the beginning Iraq was the 2nd largest Al Quaida stronghold. Saddam would have never let them operate there without his cut (did he seem like a philanthropist?). So it makes sense that once Al Quaida was on the run from Afghanistan that we pinpoint the 2nd largest group to put an end to.
So the logic is....if we are fighting them there, keeping them busy (ie...dying) then they can't come here and blow us up.

Put it this way...if your child was attacked, are you going to sit at home watching your wife cry, while the attacker kills others, or are you going to the attackers home and save the police some work?

Answer 5

I appreciate to the fullest when bogus questions like this are reiterated with someone trying to make sense of how someone has some twisted mental process to even think that is applicable. Think of it this way, our military is the most advanced in the world to fight a war. The country we have invaded & held hostage is in a region that has been at war between tribes & religious factions & such for what 3000 years? We are going over there to eliminate insurgents? what are we duck hunting? Our military cannot occupy in urban warfare, especially against an enemy it cant identify. We could easily win a war, we showed that in 2003 when we went to war with Saddam, we won in what 7 weeks? now we are taking his place being a dictator, our strength doesnt rest in policing an area....Well stated explanation though, enjoy your star!

Answer 6

Think now...if you know (and we DO know this) that an enemy, if given the opportunity to assemble and organize into a coherent force, will then seek to attack your homeland and civilian populace. You have but two basic choices...
1. Fight them on their home ground and minimize civilian casualties in your home country.
2. Let the cancer grow to a point there will be no stopping it and the amount of bombs (suicide and other) going off in Iraq will look paltry compared to the number being set of in our own Malls.

You want that life? President Bush is not the bad guy here...the media which has portrayed his decisions as irrational are at fault for that. Also, those who would allow their minds to be so easily duped into believing this liberal hogwash.

The President could have made much better decisions in the way in which he as gone about his goals for securing your and my safety, but the final results would have always been the same. I ask that you just step back and look at the realities for what they are. There are larger issues at work here than Oil or a petty dictator with no real future. Think...the future of our kids and theirs depends on it.

Answer 7

This one's easy . Well easy if you're open-minded and listening .

Al Queda has grown in Iraq . That's true . But they've also grown in other countries(30 or more) that we're not fighting in . So there goes the theory that they only are growing there because of our presence . Now, if we can occupy them there. . Great . It is they who are bogged-down, not us . If we left they wouldn't be bogged-down and thus be free to spread their world-wide terror elsewhere . Who's their #1 target ? WE ARE . They could focus their efforts and manpower directly on us . It could happen eventually anyway, but I like the fact that we're killing them there and not here . Could you even imagine our troops fighting in the streets of New York , Chicago, Los Angeles etc ? No matter what, American Civilians would become unintended casualties by our own troops . That's war my friend . It would happen . And while our troops were fighting Al Queda and accidentally killing Americans in the process. . . Al Queda would be killing our Civilians ON PURPOSE .

Answer 8

I mean seriously.. I love the people that are like "if the dems get their way you better be prepared to fight them here" ... ok.. I live in the south.... if there were an 'invasion' of terrorists the could be fought like that... .... .. they would "disappear" in about 2 days... and realistically the easiest way for them to sneak in would be threw Mexico... so don't worry America.. we Southerners won't let the boogie man come and get you.. it's ok.

Anyway.. does anyone remember how terrorism aided in the fall of Russia? they got them into a long drawn out war and bled their resources dry... hmmm... sound familiar?

Answer 9

I think the questioner was trying to point out how ludicrous the situation is.

They already enthusiastically will tell us terrorists are ALREADY on US soil in order to garner support for the War in Iraq-- Oops! I mean the "War on Terror"...

So I guess distracting them in Iraq and fighting them there isn't really working so well after all...

Answer 10

Yes. It is always better to be on offense then it is defense. If we sit back and do nothing about terrorism as democrats constantly say we should, then there will be no limit to the amount of terrorist attacks we have on our soil. One by one America needs to knock off the state sponsors of terror irregardless of who is in office. History shows those who dont stand up to tyranny, become a victim of it.