Please explain the logic of the statement, "We fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here"

Question

When Bush says this, do you picture running gun battles with Al-Queda insurgents in your downtown, or IED's taking out school buses on Main Street? Does this make you afraid of daily gun battles in your neighborhood? Do you consider that something like that would even be possible?

And when the government foils a terrorist plot, isn't that just proof that the logic is flawed, because the terrorists are still trying to fight us "over here" regardless of us fighting them "over there"?

So what exactly does Bush mean when he cites this as the reason to continue the Iraq war?

I'm not looking for justifications for the war, just an explanation of the logic behind that statement.

Ok "This Girl", you obviously need to get in touch with reality (check with your doc for some medication). Iraq WAS NOT INVOLVED with 9-11.
It is a documented and proven FACT that Saddam HATED Al-Queda.. Iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11..so why are we there? Huh???
If it weren't so funny that you believe that, I would laugh. Instead, I'm scared, because you probably vote.

Alyson C: McVeigh was a homegrown terrorist who was angry about Ruby Ridge. NOT Al-Queda. Check your facts.

Jay: Actually, there are several thoughtful answers, the ones from "jeeper" and "John H" particularly so. But I guess you're just a typical Retardican; instead of thinking, you just slander those who disagree with your delusions. All I asked for was an explanation of the logic.

Conranger1: Didn't the 9-11 Commission conclude that Iraq had nothing to do with that tragedy? Besides, comparitively speaking, Saddam was a 2-bit dictator compared to Kim Jong Il, but we're giving him "concessions". Oh right, there's no oil in Korea.
"Who funded them? Who supplied them with safe houses, who assisted in their training?" Um, that would be the Taliban in Afghanistan. Do you even FOLLOW the news?
"And lets not forget the invasion on Iraq was to remove a dictator, who was trying to manufacture weapons of mass destruction..." Remember Hans Blix? He stated to the UN that Iraq DID NOT have WMDs, and I believe him more than the Bush team. And I thought the mission was to spread democracy?

Answer 1

Although the logic of the statement is somewhat skewed, and I'm certainly not a Bush fan, there is a small element of truth in that statement. It's called "allocation of resources". The enemy is now required to exert a maximum effort to battle our military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, or they will lose credibility. Their limited resources are stretched thin. This means that there are limitations on their ability to cause too much hooraw on the North American Continent.

For the time being, we have them attacking people who have the ability to shoot back and do some damage themselves. Should we pull all of our forces out of the Middle eastern zone, then the bad guys will be able to concentrate all their effort on attacking the American homeland, and you know that military bases are not going to be their number one targets.

The unfortunate part about all this is that the longer our troops stay over there, the more people we make angry at us, and the more powerful they become.

It's one of those scenarios in which no decision will be the "right" decision. We've grabbed a bobcat by the gonads and haven't figured out how to let go.

Answer 2

I think this statement is supposed to mean that in Iraq there are lots of terrorist organisations (such as AL-quida) resisting western forces presence which is going to use up a lot of manpower and resources, but also that the USA is targeting al-quida operatives in both Iraq and Afghanistan which all helps to reduce the threat of a horrific terrorist attack on western soil- such as 9/11 or 7/7.

Answer 3

Explain the logic
Okay ------- It's twisted !!
As it has already been mentioned -- If ANYONE believes for a second that the enemies of this nation would not be in our streets with daily attacks if they could --- regardless of what is going on elsewhere --- they are abject lunatics !!

And, what does Junior mean when he cites this as the reason to continue the Iraq war ? FEAR -- it is his greatest tool for the support that he wants to continue this madness into fiscal suicide !!!!! That is the one tool that has ushered in the Patriot Act --- Dozens of Executive orders that literally circumvent the Constitution --- and given this administration the Carte Blanche they've needed to run up a national debt that will strap our great great grandchildren to a wagon laden with debt for the next hundred years !!! FEAR !!!

Answer 4

I think the term is used for the following reasons.

Al-quada used Afghanistan as a protected base of operations to plan the 911 attacks.

If we allow terrorist a safe haven to plan attacks, then they will surely do so.

And more than likely, those attacks will be carried out, inside the US.

But if we engage the terrorist overseas and do not allow them a safe haven to plan attacks.

They will be so busy actively fighting us, that they would not be able to plan any future attacks inside the us borders.

It's not about hundreds of terrorist, fighting in American streets,

It's about disrupting the terrorist infrastructure and personal, gaining intelligence,

To make the likelihood of any future terrorist attacks inside the US as remote as possible.

Answer 5

We already have been given that proof on more than one occasion here in this country. With our military between us and them we are taking Americans who can protect and defend themselves from those whose preferred target is unarmed citizens to include women and children. The fact that they are attracted to the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan has given us the advantage of meeting them with force and not by surprise by a suicide bomber at your local bus stop. This scenario is working already clerics throughout the Middle East are now turning away from Wahhabism and even Al Jeseera their media is reporting good things we are doing and the wrong Al Qaida has done to its own people. Before this war in Iraq and Afghanistan they had the funding to send almost the same amount of terrorists here to this country for the same kind of actions that are taken in Israel daily. Does this help or is it too biased?

Answer 6

To me " they'll follow us home " sounds about as valid as the domino theory . Is even Dick Cheney pretending that this conclusion is based on intelligence analysis ? Why are Congress and the media not jumping all over this claim every time someone spouts it and asking if CIA or any other intelligence agency believes this ?

But just for the sake of argument , let’s concede " they " will follow us home . But for this to be worse than staying the course in Iraq " they" { the terrorists } would have to pull off the equivalent of 15 London Metro bombings or 4 Madrid train bombings every 3 months to kill as many Americans as we have lost every year in Iraq ! Is the Homeland Security Department still so incompetent and the National Guard so hollowed out that we will be that vulnerable ? Hey I thought we were better secured - I guess it just makes one wonder .

Edit - " they'll follow us home" is the same theory as " we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here " - They are both nonsense .

Answer 7

Its a totally false argument. The terrorists can't buy a map. Give me a break! Supposedly, they are going to go fight in the desert against us in Iraq, when it would be easier for them to get into our country through porous borders and lax security checkpoints. By all accounts, the terrorist are already here. Remember Timothy McVeigh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

Answer 8

Funny the poster of this question has never heard the Arab saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Its sound military strategy to fight your enemy on a ground of your choosing not his.

Have you definitive proof there was no Iraqi involvement in 9/11 besides the fact that none of the hijackers were from Iraq?

Who funded them? Who supplied them with safe houses, who assisted in their training?
Do you know if they ever had contact with and Iraqi Terrorists prior to 9/11?

And lets not forget the invasion on Iraq was to remove a dictator, who was trying to manufacture weapons of mass destruction (given time he would have succeeded and he would have given them to a terror group to use in the USA or Europe).

But a geek like you would prefer to wait until one goes of in the U.S.A. then you would be whining "But, Why Did We Allow It To Happen!! and "We Should Have Taken Out Saddam Before This Could Have Happened!.

Answer 9

In the case of Bush it is just scare mongering to keep people supporting his so called war on terror.
But most armies prefer to fight their battles in somebody elses country as it keeps their own national resources free from attack.

Answer 10

We are losing good people anyway and if 'they' followed us overhere, we would know what we were fighting for. We would still have the Constitution unfiddled with.