Are we still fighting over there to keep from fighting them over here?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071212/ts_nm/security_usa_dc


Stay tune for another installment of how the lies turn.

Answer 1

That has never been the true reason for fighting them "over there". Think war profiteering. Think gas at $5 per gallon. Think evil intent. They are going to enact revenge for our horrible war and we will see blood shed in our country again. We are creating more and more terrorists daily with our illegal and immoral war. There will be bloodshed in America. Sad, but true. Only then will the public wake up to the devastation Bush and Cheney have wroth upon our country. God help us.

Answer 2

Yeah, right. To use a phrase from the academics who analyze texts ad communication, lets "unpack" this particular slogan:

The idea (with no emprical evidence to back it up) is that the war in Iraq is tying up al-Qaida, thus preventing another attack at home. Now, this leads to a question--what evidence do we have this is the case?

The asnwer is: zero. The Madrid and London bombings, plus a wealth of other data,show al-Qaida is entirely capable of launching attacks anywhere. Thus, there is no reason to suppose the Iraq war has done any good. In fact, given the costs--in lives, money, international standing and influence, its obvious that if anything, its al-Qaida who has snared the US, not the other way around. Now--that might explain the lack of further attacks, except tha tal-Caida obvously has sufficient resources to play their cards in Iraq as well as launch further attacks.

So, wy haven't they tried arder to do so--if they have made a really serious aattempt at all? Well--it would not be in their interest. The last thing al-Qaida wants is a renewal of the widespread sympathy (and support) the US had between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.

Now, jsut to complete theanalysis: let's assume, jsut for the sake of arguement, that the "either there orhere" arguement is valid (as I've shown, it isn't). Now, the invasion of Afghanistan was legitimate--and the arguement would have applied and been valid IF we had continued to focus on that region, where al-Qaida actualy operated.

Instead we invaded Iraq--without just cause. So--in the context of the actual situation, this "there or here" argueent acutally "unpacks" to mean the following:

"Bush invaded a country (Iraq) which had no ties to al-Qaida and was not a threat. In arguing ta twe are "fightng them there rather than here" this means invading country, killing hundreds of thousands of people, virtually wrecking the entire country--sacrificing an entire society, their lives, their hopes, their children--just to create a convienant killing field to shoot some terrorists."

THIS is supposed to be American? An example of "moral values." Patriotism? YOu'd have to start building concentration camps a la Hitler to manage to sink any lower than that!

Oh. . . .Bushis ding that, too. It's enough to make you puke.

Answer 3

One concrete fact that you cannot argue with is that there have been no attacks on US soil since 911. Why is that?

I am always amazed at all of experts on here in history, economics and politics. You all are so much smarter than the people that are actually in the midst of the conflict and the ones that are over there fighting in the war. Get over yourselves, grow up, and quit dissing America. You dont realize what harm you do to your country when you spew out this ridiculous rhetoric.

Answer 4

I'm sure Iraq would have invaded the US if we hesitated


because now Bush says he never linked 9/11 to Iraq, so that must have been what he was talking about ... and the same morons who still believe him will all be voting (see above, no attacks since 9/11)

I hope they learned something over the last 8 years, I know I have

Answer 5

Not a bit. On the one hand, we're told " We haven't had an attack since 9/11" On the other, we are told " We have stopped 237 attacks on American Soil since 9/11" This tells me we are already under attack, just not successfully!!

Answer 6

Thats merely a simplistic slogan used by conservatives to prove that we should loose the lives of our troops in foreign countries rather than here where it would be far more noticible and less palatable,,

Answer 7

If you talk to the far right, you'll see that they are cemented in the idea that Islamofascists will kill us all. They are extremely obediently fearful folks.

We are all much more likely to die on our way to school or work tomorrow than be killed by a terrorist, ever.

Answer 8

people will fall for anything. americans are surprisingly dim sometimes... that ONE line has gotten a lot of play, hasn't it? fight em over there, so we don't gotta fight em here...

if that WERE the scenario, then we could chat about it. we are actually fighting and killing and destroying people in iraq who have no intention of coming here to fight us.

Answer 9

chickenhawks don't fight.

Nice link:

"The United States faces a heightened threat of terrorist attack "for the foreseeable future" but any attack will likely be homegrown, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said on Wednesday"

How long until bush & his supporters label chertoff a "traitor"?

Answer 10

Well put...I couldn't have said it better.

Sorry the link didn't open.