2007-07-14 18:43:00 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Define "over there" !
2007-07-14 19:34:19 · answer #1 · answered by willow, the yodakitty from hell 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question.. unfortunately you will get those that don't know how to answer the question and they will just rail on your grammar. Extremely childish...
Anyhow, Libs are reactionary. They don't believe in evil or that anyone can be bad until they come up and "bite" them. Evidence of this is everywhere... Even with Iraq... they deffend Saddam to their death. So, until someone smacks them, they pretend everyone is just good and dandy. Then when they do get smacked they would rather just try and talk it out.. (in between getting smacked as the bully laughs).
Cora... I've read several of your answers and they are well stated... however, how can you say:
There is no evidence -- none, zero, zilch -- that our presence in Iraq has had any impact or effect on stopping terrorist everywhere else in the world from engaging in terrorist activities.
How about the fact that we have not been attacked since? They know what a second attack would do. There would be no holding back our forces at that point. Despite the liberal media and the libs attempts. There were several attacks during the Clinton administration... they didn't just fulfil their goal on 9/11 and go home. If they could, they would hit again and again.
2007-07-15 02:01:00 · answer #2 · answered by Mr. Perfect 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
They mean over there in Iraq, which is a good reason. Our presence in Iraq has no huge effect on terrorist actions around the world. There is No evidence that what were doing in Iraq is decreasing terrorism. This is because most of them are not in iraq, yes, there are quite a few, but not on the scale that afghanistan had them. S how is fighting in a place whwere most terrorists are not there helping defeat terrorism on a large scale. We should be in afghamistan, finifhing the job ther
Even the most tree hugging liberal would not have had a problem with going into afghanistan after what happened, but then we wnt into iraq, and no 3,000 americans and i million iraqis died. And terrorist groups are actually DOING BETTER the longer we stay there, because it has no large scale effect on terorist actions throughout the world.
2007-07-16 10:38:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I certainly can't speak for all liberals, but these are the issues that concern me 'here' and 'there'...
I want it to be safer here for us all. Therefore, I'm very concerned about the article last week regarding the relative ease in buying nuclear material (to potentially make 'dirty bombs') in our own country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/12/us/12nuke.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The "no fly" list isn't effective either because it includes the names of dead people and excludes some of the most dangerous known terrorists because the personnel checking IDs at airports aren't cleared to know those names.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/05/60minutes/main2066624.shtml
This war in Iraq doesn't seem to be working either because we have not gotten any closer to 'bagging Bin Laden' and terrorist activity has actually risen as a result. Oppressed people under occupation tend to react negatively, as evidenced by Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia that was formed after, and as a result of, our invasion of Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/opinion/08pubed.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.gsnmagazine.com/oct_05_02/alqaeda_letter.html
I don't want to fight them 'here' rather than 'there', I want it to be safe here and the terrorist organization(s) that were really responsible for 9/11 to be erradicated. I don't want a misguided war on terrorism that actually increases terrorist activity.
2007-07-15 05:02:15 · answer #4 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why would you rather each hamburgers than watch sunsets?
It's a nonsensical question. One has nothing to do with the other.
There are terrorists all over the world. As indicated by terrorist attacks occurring all over the world.
There is no evidence -- none, zero, zilch -- that our presence in Iraq has had any impact or effect on stopping terrorist everywhere else in the world from engaging in terrorist activities. So, fighting them "over there" in Iraq does nothing to prevent them from coming here, because most of them are not over there in Iraq.
They're in Afghanistan and Syria and Pakistan, and dozens of other countries. And nothing we do in Iraq gets in the way of the terrorist who aren't in Iraq.
Why is that concept so difficult to understand? And where is there any logical support or evidence to the contrary?
2007-07-15 01:49:14 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋
By invading Iraq WE became the terrists.
2007-07-15 01:52:13 · answer #6 · answered by cornetpalyer 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
They would rather not have riled they up as much as we have. And for that matter, they probably would have preferred to finish the fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan where they actually were.
2007-07-15 01:54:26 · answer #7 · answered by Deep Thought 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ooh. See the tiny problem was that we attacked the wrong country.
And, if there was a man attacking your mother and a man plotting to attack your mother a block away, who exactly would you attack first anyway?
2007-07-15 03:18:01 · answer #8 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they're not "over there". They're "over here". The only one's "over there" are Iraqis trying to fight off an illegal and immoral invasion.
2007-07-15 02:11:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Hooey you is askin' some deep quesshions tonite rebus.
Them libs are bound to be peein' their pantaloons.
2007-07-15 01:47:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because theyre courageous enough to fight them if they did something so stupid as to actually come over here.
Unlike you, perfectly fine with playing cheerleader while someone else dies defending your right to play cheerleader.
2007-07-15 01:49:59 · answer #11 · answered by Harry Bastid 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋