Fighting terrorist in Iraq instead of our own backyard

[capaylib]

The argument that we are better off fighting "the war on terror" over "there" than in our own backyard is so arrogant it turns my stomach. Bush commented on this during the debates.

How could any American with good conscious believe that it is OK to invade a country that was not an eminent threat to us and had no connections with the attacks on September 11, and turn it into our battlefield against terror. What right do we have to do this?

The fact that Bush gets away with this argument, without challenge from anyone, continues to baffle me. Am I alone? The same people that let him get away with this would be fighting mad if a neighbors dog crapped on their lawn and didn't clean it up.

[DebJ]

1. drives me nuts,too. Especially when the same person who

utters this nonsense will subsequently agree to my statement that "Chechnya could happen here any day". People speaking with forked lizard tongues

[dogtag]

2. Welcome to DU! I agree with you 100% on the utter

sleaziness of the "over there" slogan. It only works because so many people are so damn superficial. Anyone who thinks it through can't possibly support the premise. It's also makes no sense. An attack within the USA has zero to do with any fighting in Iraq, IMO. Apples and oranges.

[Jokinomx]

3. I couldn't agree with you more capaylib.....

I am at a loss on a GREAT rebuttle to this type of selfish, arrogant attitude. No wonder so many people hate the U.S.

It shows how self centered the repugs can be.

:kick:

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. This is the reason for most of the treast that has been committed

by the likes of these....

[agates]

TPM had a great post on the flypaper theory

Also known as fight them over there rather than here

<snip>

The only thing complicated about this argument is calibrating a hierarchy of all the levels of foolishness it embodies. Logically it is nonsensical; strategically it is moronic; morally it is close to indefensible.

The key fallacy, as so many have pointed out, is the notion that there are a finite number of 'terrorists' who we can kill and be done with.

<snip>

As a TPM reader put it to me both hilariously and brilliantly more than a year ago, this 'fly paper' thesis is like saying we're going to build one super dirty hospital where we can fight the germs on our own terms.

<snip>

Read the rest at http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_09_12.php#003466

[Poiuyt]

4. What's to stop someone from doing a suicide attack here?

Just because there's a war in Iraq doesn't mean that a person couldn't strap some dynamite to themself and walk through Time Square.

Bush has done very little to enhance homeland security.

[Disturbed]

6. Fighting terrorists in Amerika.

There are many types of terrorists in Amerika. Many are not Muslim extremists.

If al Q. would have wanted to attack in Amerika again does anyone really think that they could not have done that? Winning the War on Terror is the most idiotic concept I have heard in a long time. One might as well say that the next war will be the war on stupidity. How many terrorists does the US need to kill before the war is won? After a few million there will never be any more terrorists? Both Repubs and Dems have said that the US will win the War On Terrism. We are living in the Twilight Zone.

[capaylib]

7. Let's come up with an analogy

What if some extreme group in Canada...maybe the French Canadians... attacked China. China responds by invading...say Idaho...because they have good intelligence that Idaho has been harboring French Canadians and pose an eminent threat to China. Subsequently they find Idaho wasn't really a threat, but since the invasion, French Canadians are flocking to Idaho in droves....so China decides to stay in Idaho to fight against the French Canadians??????

I know someone could come up with a better analogy, I didn't want to use the entire US...that just seem too implausible.