Is the goal of "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" compatible with Liberating Iraq?

Question

Are we trying to turn Iraq into a lure for terrorists or trying to liberate Iraq's people? these two goals seem diametrically opposed. Your thoughts...

Answer 1

That slogan is as empty as Bush saying "Prosperity with a purpose".

Answer 2

The goal is a nonsensical slogan.

There weren't "there" before we went into Iraq. It's once we toppled Saddam and created a chaotic mess with no order that terrorists were able to establish a foothold. They weren't before.

There's nothing about us being in Iraq that prevents terrorists from coming over here, other than the fact that it's cheaper and easier to kill Americans (more have been killed in Iraq than on 9/11, how's that for keeping Americans safe?) over there.

Finally, they're not like family pets, where they can only get to the location by following us. Even directions to Cheney's VP residence can be found on MapQuest, and, as the guy with drug-resistant TB showed, it's not hard, even for someone on a "don't fly" list, to get into the US.

It's all just nonsense. It was never about democracy, or about fighting terrorists. Those were only cooked up as justifications after previous ones proved bogus.

Answer 3

"Fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" is merely a talking point for the right which is intended to scare people into following their agenda. It is one of the ways they frame the debate. One must ask how those terrorists are going to get here? Are they all going to come en masse on a boat? Are they going to be on some airplanes? Maybe they will swim all together stroke, stroke, stroke. If they were to come on a ship or plane wouldn't our military stop them? Wouldn't there be someone in the Department of Homeland Security in charge of securing the homeland against such invasions? The whole premise of them coming here is preposterous and obviously just a scare tactic.

And now a quote from one of the neocon idols:

“Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the
leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a
simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country.”
--- Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshall, at the Nuremberg
Trials after World War II.

Answer 4

I think it's not black and white. You have correctly identified the military principle of "drawing fire". Radical islamists have declared that civilians are fair game. If one believes the proposition that they are being drawn there instead of coming here, then yes, I would prefer it be Iraqi civilians rather than American civilians. Tough choice, but forced with the choice, better someone else's than ours. If you don't believe they would come here to kill us, or you would prefer they kill American civilians, then you will oppose the war. Notice I have neatly skirted the issue of why they SAID we went there, in favor of discussing what purpose it is serving now that we are there. History notwithstanding, I think we have to give serious thought to what happens here and now if we pull out.

Answer 5

Umm, I thought we were still looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction, looking for Osama in the Pakitstan/Iraqi border and elminating Al-Queda groups that were igniting Oil fields! LOL!

Answer 6

The goal of "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here", has nothing to do with fighting in Iraq. They where invaded for a whole different reason.

Answer 7

Yes.
It may work, but we have to defeat both the Terrorists and the Democrats.
They both are working together to Defeat us.

Answer 8

Still sounds good to me!~!