Daily Kos

Fighting them "there" and why that is a flawed argument.

Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 06:05:29 PM PDT

I don't write too many diaries but I felt the need to start one on the consistent argument by the Bush Admin about Iraq.  

And that argument is;  

"We are fighting them there so that we don't have to fight them here."

While this may be a nice bumper sticker argument for the Republican loonies out there, it just simply doesn't make sense.  

Do you really believe that spending billions of dollars fighting an insurgency in an occupied country with little to no leadership is preventing an attack on American soil?  

The amount of time and money spent overseas fighting this ridiculous war could have been much better spent on the REAL security within this nation's borders.

We have already seen countless times where our airports security has failed and we've watched numerous cuts being made to first responders.

Part of the issue is that Democrats are struggling with the media and their war votes. Difficult to listen to someone who may come across as a hypocrite.

Even in Murtha's speech he speaks of bases here at home that are weakened.

Remember if you want to protect yourself, you start at home.

Poll

Where does our national security start?

0%0 votes
100%35 votes

| 35 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: Iraq, terrorism, war (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 11 comments

  •  Thank You (4.00 / 3)

    For taking the time to read.

    Bush? He can't run one country and you expect him to run two?

    by ScrewJack on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 06:03:39 PM PDT

  •  Why is it flawed? (none / 0)

    Ask Spain, Britian, and Jordan.
  •  I've always thought (4.00 / 3)

    this was one of the poorest excuses of all....they are INSURGENTS...if we weren't there they would have nothing to INSURGE against...here, there or anywhere else.

    My other least favorite excuse is the one about "honoring the sacrifices" made by those who were killed....to me, that sounds an awful lot like asking people to martyr themselves for a cause.

  •  Fighting them there, is a distraction.... (none / 1)

    ...that makes us less safe here.

    While we watch the fire works over there, the emeny could be setting up shop over here right under our noses.

  •  As if here and there are different places. (none / 1)

    Over here, over there, it's the same everywhere
    A boy cries out for his mama before he dies for his home

    from Everywhere
    -- Billy Bragg

    What's so hard about Peace, Love, and Truth and Progress?

    by melvin on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 06:18:17 PM PDT

  •  not to mention that (4.00 / 3)

    turning another country into complete and utter hell, leveling cities the size of cincinnati and killing tens of thousands of civilians just to make ourselves feel that much more comfortable over here is beyond morally dubious.

    it's criminal.

    "after the Rapture, we get all their shit"

    It's time: the albany project.

    by lipris on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 06:45:49 PM PDT

  •  Flypaper (none / 1)

    So our soldiers are supposed to be drawing "the enemy" to themselves in Iraq, (like flypaper) so that America itself won't be attacked? That's the logic?

    Even if it made sense (which I don't think it does) I don't think most Americans, particularly the parents of young soldiers, want our soldiers to be used as flypaper.

  •  Where have we heard this before? (none / 0)

    As things started going badly for the Third Reich on the Eastern Front, Hitler frequently resorted to the same "if we don`t fight them there we will have to fight them in Berlin" rational to counter his increasingly disillusioned generals.  When the Wehrmacht drained itself to exhaustion fighting them "over there", there was nothing to prevent "them" from coming "here".

Permalink | 11 comments