Somebody help - best reply to - "better to fight them there, than here"...

Talking with a group of pro-Iraq war people and one said that it's better to fight them in Iraq than here. My reply to him was that out of the fighters, it is believed only 8 percent are foreign fighters and that the damn Iraqis would not have been coming to the USA anyway. He then made the comment about what should we be doing and I said we should have stayed focused on Afghanistan and bin Laden and not Iraq.

So what are other good replies to the "better to fight them there, than here" bullshit line.

That statement implies that there are a finite number of terrorists, and that if we can occupy them in Iraq, then we're somehow safer here. That's simply a false assumption. There have been terrorist strikes in London and Spain, and riots in France. Radical Islamic terrorists can strike any where at any time. Also, he's making the assumption that all of the killing in Iraq is somehow terrorist-related when it's really a civil war in the making.

There's plenty of work to be had in Iraq for those who believe strongly in the mission. Time for them to put their asses where their mouths are.

them from sending a contingent here to raise havoc even though we are fighting some of them in Iraq?

to "fight them here." NO ONE INVADED US, YOU MORONS!!!!!

"WHAT ABOUT 9/11 YOU IDIOT!!!"

That would be THEIR reply to you, not mine. They are still too visceral yet.

I guess one could preface the argument with, "Do you think Iraq was behind 9/11?" And if they say, "No", then that would render that part of their argument moot.

stupid!"

9/11 was not an invasion--an invasion would be a foreign army waging a methodical attack on our people. I haven't seen an Iraqi army on our soil, and not a SINGLE one of those hijackers was Iraqi. Next?

in the first place. We are the insurgents in Iraq.

nt....

cuz they refused to come over here, much unlike the Egyptians and Saudis who flew the planes on 911.

that we are killing a lot of innocent Iraqis? Not to be cynical, I don't think they honestly really care.

The vast majority of people we're fighting in Iraq are people we wouldn't be fighting at all if we hadn't invaded and occupied their country. Many more Iraqis are now motivated to kill Americans -- in Iraq, in America, wherever.

According to the CIA's National Intelligence Council, Iraq has become the recruiting and training ground for the next generation of professional terrorists. More terrorists are being recruited, and they are becoming battle-hardened professionals.

George W. Bush has put a target on your back.

It's a phony argument.

They didn't attack us! They never intended to attack us, they had no MEANS to attack us even they wanted to.

And even if they tried (which they didn't) we have nuclear missles to wipe out the entire country at the press of a button.

In fact, we have enough nuclear weapons to wipe out the entire planet scores over, at the press of a button. We don't have to "fight them over there" so as "not to fight them over here" .

good gawd almighty.

:shrug:

And get some ammo.

www.truthuncovered.com

www.outfoxed.org

www.veteransforcommonsense.org

And if they still want to wear the white hat.... send them here:

www.soaw.org

...and maybe pick off Osama bin Laden in the process?

This "over there" argument in no way justifies starting a war in Iraq when we had a perfectly good war "over there" already started in Afghanistan.

after all, every good Christian know that the lives of their children are worth so much less in God's eyes that the lives of our children".

The Iraq invasion is a massive recruiting tool for Al Quada. The Russian invasion of Afghanistan did the same for Al Quada's predecessors. It took years for the repercussions of Russia's Afghanistan invasion to blow back inside of Russia, but they did. The Taliban is regaining strength in Afghanistan now ironically because the U.S. did not put in the resources to get that justifiable job done right, where we were actually mostly welcomed, because of Iraq. And then we didn't put in the resources to wipe out an insurgence in Iraq either.

Expect big big trouble down the road. Our new enemies are training in Iraq and they are motivated, and we are too broke at this point to put significant money into adequate homeland security measures for our Ports, chemical and nuclear plants, etc. We have more enemies now than we ever did before. They think they can win in Iraq so that is their current priority. If they do they will consolidate their winnings and come after us. If they somehow lose they will be even more angry and will come after us.

it won't matter what argument you come up with. The Dim Son
has proclaimed this to be the case, and his loyal subjects
have bought it, hook, line, and sinker.

So he's wrong. And we're -creating- new generations of anti-American terrorists by attacking people who had nothing to do with it in the first place.

We're in Iraq for this reason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13303

Finding Bin Laden (anyone, anyone, anyone remember him?) would help, but this is like Viet Nam. Terrorists can be anywhere, and don't have convenient central locations and military bases to bomb, so they're the ideal "cold war" replacement. Like the war on drugs. Hahaha.

back around- we planned on attacking Afganistan before the 9/11 incidents- so, they could use that very same 'logic' to justify what was done on 9/11.-

where they actually are. Instead we allow them to hide with "friends" like nuclear Pakistan and reduce all efforts everywhere else- where they are growing and thriving because we are "there", recruiting for them, in Iraq.

Also, we are doing very well at training these newbies we created- "there"- how to kill, demoralize and defeat our very best while otherwise engaged in a senseless war for other men's greed. So intriguing and tempting and valuable as these targets are for their practice and their victories, I would rather march our politicians and corporate hogs up and down the roads of the Sunni triangle.

Then the terrorists would fight our chickenhawk tyrants over there so we- and the rest of humanity- wouldn't have to put up with them over here.

How about the fact that Al-Qaeda has a presence in roughly 60 countries, many of them our allies?

Or the fact that England and Spain got hit even though they had troops in Iraq?

Or the fact that we're creating more terrorists than we can possibly kill?

Or the fact that it only took 19 terrorists to pull off 9/11 -- a very small number that Al Qaeda can afford?

Hope this helps.

legitimate reason by the EU, for instance.

How would we like it when leaders of the EU would say:

"We're fighting 'them' over there in the USA so we don't have to fight them here in the EU."

The "fight them over there" argument is the stuff of which "The Ugly American" image was originally constructed many years ago.

There is such arrogance and insensitivity inherent in the idea.

ie The rest of the world is ours to use at will...

:puke:

other people - inadequately.

There was a CIA office in the twin towers,
The Pentagon was a military target
The White House was as legitimate a target as any one we've aimed at thinking Bin Laden, or Hussein was in.
Making all of the intended targets 'legitimate' as far as 'we' rate legitimate 'targets'-

Collateral damage is a 2 way street.

That kind of thinking is what makes wars- not prevents them.

was my immediate reply. what cowards we are that we would allow all those innocents to die in iraq to save ourselves, not to mention how unchristian that is.

The argument is morally unjustifyable. It is saying we killed tens of thousands, and put Iraqi civilians in the crosshairs of a war to save ourselves from the danger. Even IF it made sense logically, which it doesnt, it can never be justified morally

When did Iraq develop the capability to travel 8000 miles to attack the USA? Do you think Iraq had the air power or Navy to mount an attack on the USA? Could their military get off one shot at us without being destroyed?