Do you believe Bush's assertion that: "If we don't fight them over there, we will have to fight them here"?

Question

(With reference to the terrorists) Why or Why not? Please explain, logical and rational answers are always appreciated.

Answer 1

Anything is possible, but in reality it's doubtful that the arab states will cross the ocean, land on the shores of Jersey, establish a beachhead and then move inland behind a massive tank force under the cover of overwhelming air power. Could some guy blow himself into @#$ and air in a shopping mall? Sure could! Could some guy rent a plane and crash it into a busy freeway at rush hour? It could happen. But none of that has any bearing on this occupation of Iraq and the total #$%^ up in Afganistan. These are two seperate things...fighting them 'there' won't do a damned thing to prevent 'them' from violent acts here. Preventing violent acts here involves massive intel and good police work at all levels of government. With all the borrowed money spent on these foolish wars we could, for a far lower cost, actively gone after the movers and shakers of the 'enemy' and also exited the middle east, stopped importing their oil and moved onto a 21st century way to keep the wheels on the road. Eventually, we're going to have to do that anyway. We need to radically change the algebra of the situation to our favor. If we do that, we won't have to 'fight' them either there or here, and if we do have to 'fight' them it will be on our terms, not theirs.

Answer 2

I think what he said is true . because the US took on it's shoulders the burden of fighting Islam as a social and a governmental structure the way they did with communism long before Alqaeda came to exist . the muslim countries didn't have the guts to fight back and of course that allowed the radical Islam to prevail and the mob took over the task , so all that terrorism occurred
and the US felt the heat for the first time in 9/11. the US found itself fighting ghosts . it was just hit and run . so there had to be a place where they can fight face to face . it looks now that Iraq was their ideal choice both . but what the American strategists may haven't realized is that the US is not good as a colonial power . they don't have the experience the British have . occupying Iraq was by crushing it to death . the mistake started with a lot of lies convincing whole world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and ended by lying to the Iraqis that they will be a democratic nation .
of course none of that happened and every night they find tens of people executed in the back streets of Baghdad while the Americans who are supposed to be the law and order keep hiding in their barrackses not defending anybody leaving all these matters to friendly militias who are going to be the new terrorists in a decade from now .

Answer 3

No

1. This is an appeal to fear - a logical fallacy of the basest kind.

2. There was 8 years between the first WTC attacks and 9/11 - terrible yes, but hardly a massive campaign of terror attacks on US soil (The Brits faced far worse with the IRA)

2a. If Al Qaeda was serious about attacking US they could easily do so. Look at the havoc two losers with a hunting rifle and crappy car wreaked in DC a few years ago. Think about our open borders, our unsecure ports, shopping malls etc.

I could go out today and buy everything I needed to raise holy hell - gunpower, gasoline, bulletts, guns, poison. Simply cut 100 guys loose in different cities with a shopping list for Wal-Mart and orders to kill as many people as possible.

McVeigh built his bomb from fuel oil and fertilizer. Remember Columbine? Two kids with pipe bombs, illegal guns, and molotov cocktails.

If they wanted to attack us here, they would already.

And for those of you who will say that Homeland Security is doing a great job I ask how come we can't staunch the flow of drugs or illegal aliens, but somehow we should believe that disrupting potential terrorist attacks has been a smashing sucesss - and if it has why isn't it all over the news?

This silence is too quiet.

3. I doubt Al Qaeda is so stupid as to follow Bush's game plan - especially if he is broadcasting it to the world.

4. I'm supposed to believe anything that comes out of Bush's lying pie-hole after all this time - hardly.

Answer 4

Bush's blind, reactionary actions in invading Afghanistan and Iraq have done more for publicizing the cause of Al-Qaeda than if was actually hired to be Al-Qaeda's PR agent.

What was once a small, regional terrorist group is now a huge international terrorist group.

Because of Bush, fighting them over there, we may be fighting them over here...

Answer 5

No. One of the reasons is this. If illegal immigrants are flooding over the borders in there thousands, why haven't the terrorists picked up on this obviously simple and easy way to access the US ? Answer: The terrorist threat has been seriously overemphasized in order for Bush and his Neocon nutcases to scare the crap out a gullible and foolish nation so that it can pass laws to restrict and undermine our constitution and civil liberties.

Answer 6

Was that the plan? I thought it was to export terrorist manufacturing jobs overseas so we can have cheaper explosions and better paying terrorists jobs over here.

Seriously, if the best defense against terrorism is to test out their ability at multitasking then we've completely failed. If we were planning to get rid of Al-Qaeda by invading countries overseas we've failed at that as well. I'm pretty sure that the only reason the US hasn't been attacked again is that Al-Qaeda already accomplished it political goals when it attacked the US the first time.

Answer 7

nope

they cant hop on buses and drive to NYC and strap a bomb on and go the mall and blow us up

Osama wrote years before 9-11 that he intended on luring the US into a war in the middle east so he could bleed our army dry just as he had defeated the Soviets in Afganistan

he really hit the jackpot when we not only invaded Afganistan but also Iraq!!! bush walked right into Osamas trap

brilliant!

Answer 8

No, because we are not fighting them where they are, which is everywhere. Bush believes if we kill off all the terrorists in Iraq, that takes care of it. But there are terrorists all over the world, in Europe, Africa, Southeast Asia, etc., and they will still be there even if we build a 20 foot wall around Iraq. The war in Iraq is simply irrelevant to the war on terror except for the fact that it is giving ammunition to those who consider us an evil empire.

Answer 9

No I don't. It's also in direct conflict with the whole liberating Iraq story. Did he go in to liberate Iraq or to make it into a battleground to attracted terrorists so they wouldn't come to the US? It can't be both. The commies were suposed to be comming after Vietnam as well

Cheap empty rhetoric. No basis in reality

Answer 10

yes and no. i think there is a chance it may be preventing some fighting and terrorist attacks, but the cost of the war is still pretty high if not higher for preventing those, in terms of money and life. im not going to argue, they really are probably more of trade wars than wars to protect our national security. it is good though that we are establishing a foothold in a very economically important and politically unstable region