Taking the war to the enemy, so we don't fight it here: True or false?

[prolesunited]

"We fight them in Baghdad, so we don't fight them in Boston"

We keep hearing this phrase or variations of it over and over again. Not that I expect their talking points to make sense, but why does this appear to resonate with so many?

So, did they uncover plans for Iraqis to come here? How would they get here? Just because we're bombing them over there, how does it stop them from still coming here to do something again?

Tied into this is that they are doing it because they hate freedom and democracy. Say someone is living a nice, comfortable life. One day they are just going to wake up and say, "I hate that those people have freedom, let's go kill them."

Dem or Repub, how could anyone fall for this line of faulty thinking?

[eyesroll]

1. Fear is a powerful motivator.

I think anyone would rather fight them in Baghdad than fight them in Boston, and too many of us don't bother to pay attention, so we (they) don't realize that, well, they're really not in Bagdhad.

By phrasing it as an either-or, the powers that be make the assumption (and we follow along) that an attack is inevitable. Either Baghdad or Boston, which one do you want?

[rkc3]

7. I keep forgetting...

Who was president the last time we were attacked?

[usurper4]

23. Last time?

Uh, George W. Bush. Prior to that, FDR. By a country that actually had a Navy. Unlike Iraq, who didn't even really have much of an Army.

[TomClash]

2. Nonsense

This was NEVER mentioned before the war started.

People believe this becasue they need to believe their country is in Iraq for some noble cause, though many people understand it is really because we want to secure oil reserves.

[sally343434]

3. Lazy press

It seems to "resonate?" I've only heard it on RW radio (and today's newscasts.) Its just another lie which gets repeated over and over, courtesy of our lapdog moribund press that just copies the neat little handout they were given by their GOP handlers.

It's this year's version of "Gore invented the internet, tee hee."

[DinahMoeHum]

4. I heard and read the same shit 30 years ago about Vietnam. . .

when the saying was: "...if we don't fight the Communists out there, we'll be fighting them in San Francisco..."

:evilfrown:

[JimmyJazz]

5. It's fear mongering pure and simple. Cheney said

he didn't mean to say a vote for Kerry means we'll be hit again, but that is exactly what he meant to say and others have been repeating the same sentiment over and over. People are afraid that another 9/11 can happen again and this administration plays into those fears.

[Terran]

6. clearly false

The idea pre-supposes that "terrorists" are like moths to the flame, that the mess in Iraq will attract each and every one of them to it, and none will think to come here. What juvenile thinking.

[TheDebbieDee]

8. I think it's true..................

Our government has (intentionally or not) turned Iraq into a "Roach Motel" for terrorists from all over the world (The terrorists go in but hopefully they don't come out.).

And while Iraq may not attract each and every terrorist, the situation in Iraq may be enough of a distraction to slow down any plans in the pipeline to attack us here.

The biggest problem is that the terrorists are taking a lot of innocent Iraqi civilians and coalition troops with them.

[prolesunited]

9. The infamous "flypaper strategy"

As explained by Andrew Sullivan:
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20030906

[htuttle]

10. They forgot something about flypaper...

It's sticky on BOTH sides...

[kcwayne]

15. I disagree completely

The insurgents in Iraq are not terrorists in the same sense as the 9/11 Saudis. They are largely comprised of Iraqis who want to evict the infidels from their homeland. The people coming in from the outside are coming to fight for Islam, which they view as being threatened by the US presence in a Muslim country.

They want revenge for the tens of thousands of innocent civilians our military has killed or injured. They are attacking their enemy, which is any infidel in Muslim land.

When they start blowing up kindergartens in Peoria you can call them terrorists. While they are defending their homeland and culture, they are freedom fighters.

We had the same problem with enemy identity in Viet Nam. The military and politicians referred to the people they were fighting as communist infiltrators, when in fact they were Vietnamese nationalists. They were highly motivated to fight for their way of life, just as the Muslims fighting us in Iraq are.

To the west, their beheadings of the people they are kidnapping are terrorists tactics. But they do not distinguish a military infidel from a civilian infidel. To them, both are the enemy, and murdering them is an act justified in the Koran. I am not supporting their acts and think it is morally reprehensible. But that is their view, and unless our leaders come to grips with it, we will get engaged in a killing contest that will not end, and millions will die just as they did in Viet Nam.

[yardwork]

16. I don't think that will work, unfortunately

Watching Fahrenheit 9/11, I saw film of men and women tossing their children's body parts into trucks and crying out to God. They said that they would get revenge on Americans if it was the last thing they did, and I believe them.

The war in Iraq is keeping a lot of people busy fighting for their lives, but eventually some of them will get out of Iraq and they will be bent on revenge and they will be focused on us.

[annabanana]

18. it makes a lot of faulty suppositions

It assumes that every Iraqui that wants us out of their country is a "terrorist". It assumes that, having lost a family member or loved one the aggreived doesn't become a 'terrorist". AND it assumes that real terrorists (like Al Qaida) who want more than anything to kill
Americans will ALL head for the one place on earth that Americans are armed to the teeth and waiting for them.

[Bridget Burke]

21. Do you have any real proof?

We're lacking details on the people who planned & carried out 9/11. How do we know that anybody who's left of that group has gone to Iraq--& not Pakistan? How many of the "anti-Iraqi insurgents" are not Iraqis? How does a car bomb in Baghdad compare with hijacking passenger jets in the US & crashing them into buildings?

You've really bought the lie that we're safer because of the illegal invasion of Iraq. There's no evidence that the shadowy group of 9/11 terrorists have been inconvenienced at all. But new terrorists are being born every day in Iraq.

[TheDebbieDee]

24. I haven't "bought" anything.....................

I merely pointed out the fact that, intentionally or not, Iraq has become a terrorist "Roach Motel" as a by-product of our military's efforts to "Liberate" Iraq.

And who is to say that some of the terrorists outside of Iraq aren't coordinating with or supporting the insurgents inside Iraq with weapons, funding, etc.

I can't "prove" it, but I know that Iraq must a distraction to terrorists.

[catmandu57]

11. It's a simple answer for a complex question

Americans want simple answers, they don't want to use the 10% of their brain that functions. They want to skip by in life using just 5%, fighting them there is false, because it is just a matter of time before we are attacked here again.
The thing is it's so damn easy to kill Americans in Iraq, if that's the goal then the question should be where do we want American's killed? here or there.
That should be the question, fighting doesn't mean dead, and if you can't connect dead with fighting then it's always going to be fight them there.

[Torgo4]

12. Hmmm...Over Here?

I kinda doubt Al Zaquari' crew would be here decapitating my nextdoor neighbors.
We'd have never heard of the punk if not for W's glorious war.

[leesa]

13. Very faulty, considering Iraq didn't have a terrorist problem

before we illegally invaded them. The only net result of what we are doing in Iraq is more terrorism and terrorists are quite mobile. It's a childish, simplistic approach to disaster.

[SOS]

14. This line of absurd "reasoning"

could only resonate with people who have no concept of the world beyond the borders of the US.

[fob]

17. The assumption being that there is a finite supply of "terrorists" and

that like bush* they can't do two things at the same time.

9/11 was (allegedly) pulled off by 19 (20?) mostly Saudis with boxcutters, and creating a war in Iraq affects this how exactly?

The war in iraq actually makes a future strike MORE possible. Look at it this way, the planning for 9/11 took some time, energy and lots of money. Now since bush* has obliged by sending American troops TO them, they don't have to spend money on incidentals like plane tickets, living expenses, etc. So they are free to engage us there WHILE they plan for the future. That's why they NEED bush* to win, Kerry will actually readjust the focus to THEM.

Here's another aspect; Define "terrorist". As in, in the I/P conflict who's the terrorist and who's the freedom fighter? In the Mess-O-potamia, which one's are the terrorists, which the defenders against a foreign occupier? In the Revolutionary war, were the colonists terrorists, of freedom fighters? I know alot of people will be upset by that question and may get a lot of "Obviously you're an idiot, the British King was oppressive and had to be overthrown,..." and for those who feel that way answer this; In the expansion to the west, were the Native Americans defending their freedom or terrorists?

As is typical, for the above questions it's the winner that get's to write the history, so in the Revolutionary War "WE" were the good guys, but in the slaughter of the Native Americans, "WE" were the good guys?

The bottom line is bush*s "doctrine" of good v. evil, black or white, is dangerous, uniformed tripe and gets people killed. It's only a matter of time before "they" get here with that strategy.

[Nordic]

19. It's not working!!! There are Iraqis in my backyard!!!!

Oh my god save me!!!!!!

Uh ..... wait ........ when did Iraq ever attack us?

[nostamj]

20. it's just more of the HF&I mantra of the bushies

HATE FEAR & IGNORANCE

we tell you who to HATE
we tell you who to FEAR
and we keep you IGNORANT about the realities of the mess we've created.

AQ has members in at least 60 countries. or, is that 61 now that our occupation has brought them to Iraq?

[bloom]

22. Sadly, I know several very intelligent, worldly travelers who think

that the war in Iraq is making us more secure.

And how they trust Bush* - I'll never know.

They apparently think I"m ignorant or naive because I don't think our soldiers in Iraq are helping our security one iota.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. We have to fight the Poles in Poland so we won't have to fight them

in Germany.

We have to fight the Vietnamese in Vietnam.

We have to fight the Phillipinos in the Phillipines.

We have to fight the Cubans in Cuba.

We have to fight the Koreans in Korea.

We have to fight the Nicaraguans in Nicaragua.

etc, etc, etc.

Same old shit as used by the aggressors throughout history.

[paulk]

26. There may be some truth to it

There are some foreign fighters in Iraq (about 1,000) and this may be tying up some resources the "terrorists" won't be able to use somewhere else. I doubt it's in the range the Bush junta would like to believe (or like us to believe).

The problem with the whole "flypaper theory" is that it postulates a set number of terrorists. It leaves out the fact that the fighting in Iraq is steadily generating new recruits for Al Queda and other organizations, not just in Iraq, but throughout the Muslim world.

You don't fight terrorism by killing terrorists and the inevitable innocents - you fight it by eliminating the conditions that breed terrorism.

[Redleg]

27. Not only false but fucking stupid.

The terrorists don't dance to our tunes- they would like to attack us here AND in Iraq and around the world.

[no name no slogan]

28. Bullshit-- our enemy wasn't in Baghdad

If anything else, we took the "war" to a third party's house, and invited the terrorists in so we could beat them up.

Even Dubya has now said there's no connection between Iraq and 9/11, and yet we still get the "taking the fight to them" argument, as if Asia is all one big homogenous place.

This is a bogus argument. Always has been, always will be.

[prolesunited]

29. Thanks all!

Many excellent points to respond with if someone makes that statement.

[knowbody0]

31. hubris

sending kids to get killed in the name of what? it's ok to kill innocent civilians there? i am so ashamed of my government. this statement makes some people feel safer.alice in wonderland-up is down

[Disturbed]

32. In the meantime the Neo Fascists....

bombard the Amerikan public with terra alerts and proclamations that the terrorists will strike Amerika soon.

Anybody have a sense of smell anymore?

[Katherine2]

30. This line always kills me.

Since when were we worried about Iraqis invading our country? Uh, NEVER. And I wonder how the newly "liberated" Iraqis would feel if they knew Bush was using their country and their lives as his personal battleground? I wonder every time I hear some dense GOP or RNC hack using this line why someone doesn't call them on it.

[Ilsa]

33. By the same reasoning,

if Canada and Mexico declare war on one another, it must be okay for them to fight it out in Nebraska and Kansas and to hell with the U.S. civilian "collateral damage".

[prolesunited]

35. Uh, yeah

That would logically follow. But since when do the people who fall for this line bother to think anyway. I think you're example, though, sure sums up the absurdity of it.

[Nordic]

34. "let's build a wall around Ethipia to keep them Mexicans out!"

Makes about as much sense.

The terrorists weren't in Iraq, or Baghdad.

We invaded the wrong country.

We're like a surgeon who amputated the wrong leg.