"Fighting Them Over There...": What I Hear.

[Solly Mack]

Whenever anyone says "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" I hear -

Bush and America invaded a country that was absolutely no threat, that absolutely had nothing to do with "911" - in short, America invaded a country for lies and trumped up "evidence" (more lies) just to create a battle stage for any group that may have a problem with America to come on in and duke it out..

That Bush used Iraq and the Iraqi people to encourage any groups willing to come within the borders of Iraq and fight it out.


That Bush was just so willing to destroy Iraq - murder, detain, and torture it's people for a talking point. As well as kill and maim American troops for the very same talking point.



I don't hear what they want me to hear - that this somehow keeps America and Americans safer.

I hear - I want to pick a fight and I pick Iraq as the the staging area - and I don't care who dies, who gets maimed, who gets illegally detained or tortured...as long as I have my talking point. Because I need that talking point to hide behind.

With everything else Bush wanted from invading Iraq, none of it excusable and almost all of it criminal, he callously and without any regard for life, chose Iraq to stage his campaign of domination - not just domination over Iraq (and Iraq's resources)...but to aid and abet his concentration of power to the executive, his marginalization of Congress, his erosion of civil liberties, and his control of America through fear.

Iraq and the Iraqi people were just handy to him.

Much like you and your neighbor deciding to use a third neighbors home to have a gunfight.

That's what I hear anyway.

"We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here"

So basically, what you're saying is:

That my country deliberately and without cause, invaded Iraq - and then without their consent, started a gunfight with somebody else, that had nothing to do with Iraq.


That's pretty cowardly.

[derby378]

1. We're spending our tax dollars over there so we don't have to spend them here

New Orleans, Bush has had his way with you and wants you out of his way. You're only so much gas for him to pass at this point.

God, we need this man impeached so we can get a Democrat in the White House who can turn things around for New Orleans and the rest of the nation - not to mention our troops.

[Solly Mack]

5. Exactly....this is typical of his entire "presidency"

[madmunchie]

46. How about, "It is easier to steal tax dollars there than it is to steal them here"?

Isn't that what is going on??? Funneling money to corporations that mismanage funds and funneling money to that big black hole where they can easily disappear.

[derby378]

49. Nah - I like the original better

It's our tax dollars, legally collected by the government, but spent on an illegal war instead of helping the American people that the government is supposed to serve.

[atommom]

2. Well said. That's how I hear it too, and it turns my stomach. nt

[Solly Mack]

8. Mine too. I don't understand how those who spout that excuse

can't "hear" what they are really saying.

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. Are we that cowardly...

...that we would use innocent women and children as targets to hid behind? We destroyed a county killing, maiming, displacing millions of innocent people to draw the bad guys away from us?

What a load of bull.

[Solly Mack]

6. Their excuse is a load of bull

that's my point....

[Evergreen Emerald]

19. that is because

great minds think alike! :}

[ProfessorGAC]

42. I'll Fight Them Here

The cowards in the radical right are those so afraid of the terrorists coming here. You really think a few dozen thousand radical nutjobs would stand a chance against an angry populace of 300 million. The terrorists really want a fight here, then they should put up or shut up.

We don't need to fight them over there, because they simply won't come here to fight. Hence, i'm not afraid of them but, the cowards on the right sure are.
The Professor

[H2O Man]

4. Well said.

When people say "we can't afford to lose in Iraq," I wonder if they understand that we can only lose by an increasing margin so long as Bush & Cheney are deciding American policy?

[Solly Mack]

7. exactly...

right now we're just debating how bad we're going to lose...because thanks to Bush and Cheney..that America has lost is a given.

[H2O Man]

10. The longer our troops

are there to enforce the Bush-Cheney doctrine, the more extreme the Iraqi reaction will be.

Remove Bush-Cheney from power, and replace them with rational US leadership, and then we may be in a position to add something of value to the search for peaceful answers in Iraq. Those answers will not result from more violence.

[Solly Mack]

13. It will take a different way of thinking to do anything positive for Iraq

I agree

[H2O Man]

36. There are people

who can provide the necessary leadership, including some from the United States. None of them are to be found within the Bush administration. It's a shame that this nation allows these people to make things so much worse.

[AnnInLa]

9. What EXACTLY does that mean?

(fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here) Do they mean that the "terrorists" in Iraq will all leave Iraq and sneak across the border and attack the border towns in Texas? Is it the flypaper theory?

At the airport in Houston, I got into a conversation with a soldier who was returning to Iraq for the second time. He was 19 years old, and looked as if he shaved maybe twice a month. He was extremely proud of being a sniper, and of his shooting skills. After telling me he was fighting them over there, blah blah, he couldn't explain exactly what that meant. I think about him all of the time. He thought he was in a movie.

[Solly Mack]

12. I know what they want us to hear...that we are somehow safer

but that's not what I hear

It's really a meaningless talking point that speaks of a warped way of seeing things.

[DemReadingDU]

57. We fought in Vietnam, they didn't come to America to fight.

We fought in Korea, they didn't come to America to fight.

So we fight in Iraq, will the Iraqi's come to America to fight us?

Maybe Bin Ladin will come back to haunt us again, though.

[mwb970]

31. I assume they think it's like a football game.

It's as if there is a line of scrimmage in Iraq that nobody can pass by and come "get" us. But if we take our blockers away, the bad guys will burst through, cross Europe and the Atlantic and (I guess) attack me in my home here in Columbus for some reason.

Another image is of the bad guys lined up single file in Iraq, since there is obviously no other way to get to America except by going through Iraq first.

How does tying up our entire military in one country make America safer? It's like having all the town's fire engines occupied in the next town over, and claiming that this ensures that your home won't burn. It makes no sense at all, which is exactly why it is a right-wing whining point.

[AnnInLa]

32. Your images made me laugh

[bentley]

11. From the other side of their mouth

They talk about spreading freedom and rebuilding Iraq. How can Iraqis stand up, in the middle of a war on terrorism. Do they really believe they can have it both ways.

[Solly Mack]

14. Yes, for some. Folks like Bush and Cheney don't care

as long as the deals benefit American business interests

[mmonk]

15. As long as you can convince the people they are under attack,

they will go along with any attack on others you decide. It comes from the premise that America would never attack someone without a righteous cause.

[Solly Mack]

16. Yes...the power of myth...it's a trap when myth is taught as fact

[ShortnFiery]

17. And don't forget their #1 pseudo cause - GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR? n/t

[Solly Mack]

18. Precisely!!!

Under the guise of a GWOT...

[abluelady]

20. And What I Hear Is

that Iraqi lives are not as valuable as American lives. It makes me sick.

[Solly Mack]

21. Exactly! That's a big part of it

Why they (they being the Iraq "war" supporters) think it's such a great talking that means anything positive is beyond me. It speaks of very negative and dangerous thinking.

[Norquist Nemesis]

22. I hear, "Look! Over there!"

Distraction. It's sort of like if you walk into my messy house that I haven't cleaned, I tell you to quick look out the window at my neighbor who is doing nefarious things in his yard and tell you to keep an eye while I go call 911 (pun intended).

The longer the mess goes on in Iraq while the Bush sharpens the stick he pokes in Iran's eye, the more I tend to go with the notion that Iraq was attacked because it was weak and Bushetals 'knew' (as in had complete faith) it would be a piece of cake! They'ld been bombing them taking out their planes just prior to the official invasion and blaming it on Iraqis shooting at them in the NFZs. But Iraq's true value was strategic. Location, location, location.

[Solly Mack]

23. It also serves as a distraction, yes

and yes, part of Iraq's value is that it is very strategically located

[seabeyond]

24. first heard spring 2004 in a chapel.... "what cowards we are"

i told the lady who said that to me. i hadnt heard it and that was my immediate reaction..... what cowards we are. what christians to say... better you and your children die than harm come to our children. not christian at all.

i ahve not gotten that out of my head, that moment, with a fundamentalist christian sitting in a chapel. i never let that comment go by without that response...

[Solly Mack]

25. It is extremely cowardly

[nuxvomica]

26. Isn't exactly an appeal to the "better angels" of our nature, is it?

What a horribly immoral and cowardly argument and when people say that they are rarely challenged on it. The criminality of externalizing warfare is bad enough but it doesn't even hold water as a strategy. If there really is a threat, something will happen here anyway and who knows what new threats from justifiably bitter Iraqi survivors we may face in the future.

[Solly Mack]

27. Yet they spout it like it's a good thing, don't they?

It's bothered for me for sometime now but I guess it just reached its boiling point with me.

[nuxvomica]

28. It makes my blood boil whenever I hear it, too

Why don't they just say "We're subjecting innocent Iraqi men, women and children to the real violence of warfare so we can avoid a maybe, possibly, terrorist attack some time in the by and by cuz an American feeling insecure is more serious than an Iraqi being dead."

[Solly Mack]

29. Because it would be the truth.

But you knew that :)

[Booster]

30. We'd probably have a better chance of winning over here.

If we can't win in Iraq, and the concensus seems to be we can't, we sure as Hell better not attack Iran.

[Done]

33. That's why we're going to invade Iran...

so we don't have to fight them in Iraq.
:crazy:

[Solly Mack]

34. Good one!

sadly

[ljm2002]

35. And what I hear is...

...a great slogan that resonates with some large portion of the population. Even though it is patently false, it is effective. That's why the Republic debaters keep using it, and it's why Bush keeps using it, including this morning's speech.

We need a great slogan or two, that captures the futility of the Iraq occupation and resonates in the same way.

[Solly Mack]

37. No denying bullshit can be effective

[ljm2002]

39. Am I imagining it...

...or was your comment somewhat dismissive?

I agree the GOP slogans are usually bullshit. However, it is finely crafted bullshit, geared to appeal to people's emotions in ways that our arguments do not. And we ignore this tactic at our peril.

If only I were an advertising type, I'd try and come up with some slogans for our side.

May I point out, back in the day when JFK beat RMN for th presidency, it was widely noted that one reason Nixon lost was that he and his handlers did not understand the television medium. They didn't use makeup, and Nixon did not project himself well in that venue. Nowadays, the GOP has the advantage of owning or controlling the major media outlets -- and it is a big advantage. But just as important, they walk all over us in terms of understanding how to exploit the media to "catapult the propaganda". All the more reason for us to use every tool at our disposal to get our message across. If that means crafting slogans, then that is *one* of the things we should do. (Aside: we're pretty evenly matched in the Internet arena; they have been very effective in some ways such as using Drudge to beat the drums of stories they want to promote, while we have been more effective at using it as a grass roots organizing and fund raising medium).

Most people are too busy with their work and lives to take the effort to find the facts, and they are fed a diet of active disinformation. Even with that, they are belatedly coming to their senses, as evidenced by the 2006 elections. We need to do everything in our power to help that along.

[Solly Mack]

40. No. I really do know and understand that bullshit can be effective

I was agreeing with you that it was effective...bullshit...but effective.

I don't ignore any propaganda tactics used.

I don't think that dispelling propaganda is best served by promoting opposing propaganda. I believe the simple and direct truth serves that function best of all.

However, I do appreciate a good slogan. Not because I buy into it - whether I agree with the propaganda or not, I respect its power ... and some of it is better than the rest.

If you're going to lie to me, at least make it a good lie and tell it well. Same with propaganda...make it good and tell it well.

[ljm2002]

45. Thanks, glad I was only imagining it...

...I've been a bit touchy lately for a number of reasons not related to DU or the current political situation.

However, I still need to reiterate: the issue is not whether the slogan is bullshit or not. And a slogan does not have to be bullshit. I would really, really like our speech writers to come up with some sound bites we can use. It's all the more important to use the media as effectively as possible, when the media are under the control of the opposition.

But enough beating this (obviously dying) horse.

[Solly Mack]

47. Nothing about propaganda says it has to be a lie...or bullshit

propaganda is propaganda because of intent and method of getting it mass communicated (black, white or grey)

I added more to my post above.

I agree that using the media effectively is key especially when the environment is hostile against you...otherwise, the media will use you.

adding this link


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=184910

something I posted on propaganda a few days ago...no interests in it though.

[ljm2002]

52. I do have an idea for a slogan...

...it doesn't directly address the fighting aspect, but it does address the disastrous economic policies of this Republic administration, to wit:

"Spending over there, so we don't have to spend over here".

We should pin this on them, since they have a philosophical aversion to government spending for the benefit of the U.S. population, yet an uncany affinity for unlimited spending on foreign wars that have no benefit except to enrich the military industrial complex and line the pockets of their biggest supporters. And it has the advantage of turning their own phrase against them.

Just a thought...

[Solly Mack]

54. That would work well with many people

[cool user name]

38. What's funny is that "talking point" isn't even logical ...

... Who's to say they can't come over here while we're fighting them over there?

He really must think we are truly stupid (well half of us are, anyway). :shrug:

[Solly Mack]

41. It really isn't logical, true that.

and I think they count on people being afraid..and stupid.

[cool user name]

44. It's the Straussian principle at work.

The Wise Few advance the noble lie in order for the honorable Gentlemen to carry out policy for God and Country, yet have to terrify the Vulgar Many to support such policies.

Neoconservatism is certainly alive and well. You'd think they were discredited during the Iraq fiasco but the same mechanisms are at play with regard to Iran. These fascist know exactly what they are doing.

[ProfessorGAC]

43. Well, I'll Say It!

I don't think they'll really come here. I really believe that there are lot fewer of these radical nutjobs than the gov't wants the people to believe. They CANNOT change the U.S., and they know it. They had their big play and moment in the spotlight on 9/11. They aren't really going to up the ante. They risk getting everyone killed, and if anything, they're self-preservationists.

So, they won't come here. At the same time, that means we don't have to fight them over there, either, because they are coming to fight us over here. I think the best course of action is to keep our eyes open, but sort of ignore these nutjobs.

We can deal with the rational folks, be a fair broker, and the problem will heal itself. No fighting them over there. No fighting them here.
The Professor

[Solly Mack]

48. I don't lose sleep over that one either

[rhiannon55]

55. It seems to me that too much "fighting them over there"

will likely CAUSE them to come here to fight us. Those poor people can only take so much abuse. What asshat morans those Bushies are...

[TransitJohn]

50. Off to the greatest page with you.

Thanks.

[Solly Mack]

51. Nooo - Thank you!!!!

:hi:

[lukasahero]

53. What I hear is

"The people of Iraq are worth less than the people in the US."

I get sick to my stomach every time I hear it.

[Solly Mack]

56. Yep! It means just that in a nutshell