What evidence is there that if we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here?

Question

Does anybody else note the inconsistencies in the conservative pro-war arguments? Here is my favorite one, and it is the reason I asked the above question:

We should be allowed to torture our enemies because they are not prisoners of war since they wear no uniforms; yet apparently they're strong enough and organized enough to come to the USA and invade and overpower our military if we don't keep our troops in Iraq.

Since even the President isn't pretending any more that the war in Iraq is remotely related to 9/11, that means that the OFFICIAL story is that the events of 9/11 were not the start of this war. (Which makes sense since this war wasn't actually started until March 20, 2003.)

So where is the proof that the insurgents in Iraq will head to the U.S. if we pull our troops out? When has Iraq EVER invaded the U.S.?

Cookie: No, actually, I don't consider 9/11 to be a fight, I consider it to be a terrorist attack. Those who view it as an act of war are empowering terrorists in exactly the way they want to be empowered. They want to be recognized as an army, and we're doing just that.

Meanwhile... this country has been around for 231 years and no enemy has ever invaded it. So I'd say that's pretty sufficient proof that we don't have to worry about a few hundred insurgents from a Third World nation (read: they don't have any MONEY) finding their way here. And if they did... then what? Do you REALLY not have faith that our military would protect us?

Answer 1

Some say 9/11 proves otherwise; I disagree. Some say we haven't been attacked since because of Bush. I say we haven't been attacked since despite Bush. 9/11 was an extraordinary event that only occurred because the powers that be along with the rest of us were asleep. Well we are all very much awake now. Nobody's sneaking up on us anymore.

It was sorta like sneaking up on sleeping grizzly bear and bashing him with a stick. We (the bear) woke up and gave chase then got distracted by a beehive full of oil (um, I mean honey). The bees were settled until we stuck a paw inside the hive. Then they swarmed and are now giving up their lives just to plant a stinger in the bear and the bear doesn't have enough sense to realize that his own presence is causing the swarm and that everything will settle after he leaves the hive. Will the bees follow the bear back to his cave? Ridiculous. Its not what they do. But the prankster that started all of this to begin with is still out there being ignored.

Answer 2

That statement is pure propaganda. Think about it. How would they get here? Why would we let them any where near our country? Wouldn't there be military available to stop them? Isn't Homeland Security supposed to stop people at ports of entry and on the borders? Wouldn't ordinary citizens be on the look out for signs of such people? (Like the guy in the camera shop) If it happens again it is because we have let our guard down or have decided to let it happen.

NO, there will not be any hordes of mean and nasty Muslim terrorists poring across our borders that will require every man to arm himself and fight those bad old Muzzies door to door, street to street, hand to hand. It is a myth designed to scare people into going along with the Administration's illegal actions both at home and abroad.

Answer 3

If we believe that being in Iraq is keeping terrorists from attacking us here, then okay. I don't happen to believe that. I think attacks on us here are being planned right now. So, are we saying that our intelligence is better because we are in Iraq? The only thing I see us accomplishing in Iraq is making the terrorists concentrate more on Iraq. And of course killing them. Which is a good thing but I think we are killing more Iraqi insurgents than terrorists.

Answer 4

I've never heard it stated that the terrorist could overpower our military. That aint gonna happen and no one is stating that.

The terrorist can and have attacked (not the military but US Citizens) in our own country. Its important to be on the offensive and not the defensive when it comes to the war on terror. Whether or not you believe that our current occupation in IRAQ is occupying the Terrorist enough to keep them out of the US is not really important. The fact that there have been no attacts on US soil since 9/11 is. Will it happen again? perhaps but it is imperitive that the US do everything in its power to prevent that from happening, period.

Invading IRAQ may not be the best solution to prevent this but its a step in the right direction..

Its naive to think that American Policy can prevent terrorism. The only policy the terrorist would approve of is converting to ISLAM.

Answer 5

Good point. The assumption of a regular "terrorist" level is really amusing to me, if it didn't lead to such horrible policies. So, there are terrorists out there, they have to be killed, and its better to kill them elsewhere than have them risk American lives. Well, ok, but what if terrorist levels increase and decrease based upon American policies. Then it would seem like we could prevent some people from ever becoming terrorists. Isn't it better to not have a terrorist than to fight them "over there"?

In other words, good policies that don't drive people to terrorism- Priceless.

Answer 6

Well thats not too hard to answer. If you don't think 911 was an attack on US soil I don't know what you would consider as an attack first of all. Second, how many US planes have been hijacked since we began our retalitory attacks? None. We haven't had one plane blown out of the sky. American citizens haven't been put at risk because we took the fight directly to them. It was past high time we responded to terrorists and countries that harbor and feed them. Now when is the next time you will see uninvolved citizens taken hostage? They are darn sure now if you mess with this country we are going to come after you most riky tik.

Answer 7

People are still scared.

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the 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. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

--Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

Answer 8

Considering that he military admits that only 2-3% of insurgents are al qaeda, I'd say no. Most Iraqi attacks are by Iraqis who want us out of their country (just like I'd probably attack foreign troops occupying the US).

We could better contain Al Qaeda by concentrating on them and securing our borders than by using our whole military to occupy Iraq.

Answer 9

The only solution to a terror free world is justice. Until there is justice, and powerful countries don't infringe on others for their own short term political and financial gains, there would never be any reprecussions in the form of terror.
Terror is a reaction, not something others do "because they hate our freedoms".

Answer 10

When we were not fighting "over there", we were attacked over here. Not only here, but all over the world.

There may not be a true correlation, but I would rather have our military fight them in Iraq then take another 3,000 civilian casualties in Manhattan.