Do You Believe We're Not Going to Fight Them Here? (1 Viewer)

[26 X World Champs]

OK...let's speak about this propaganda that the Bushies like to spit out at us:

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

Do you really believe that the war in Iraq is stopping terrorists from planning attacks against us on US soil???

Comments please....

 

[disneydude]

yeah....that's one of my favorite Bush Apologists talking points. And they love to say that Bush has been successful because we haven't been attacked since. However, they fail to recognize how few times the United States has been "attacked" in the last 5 decades.

The "politics of fear" is about the only card that these neo-cons have left to play.

 

[Joby]

Just read the new Time Mag interview with Condi Rice.

When Time asked: "between lebanon, israel, iraq, iran, and afghanistan, people are saying the current policies are worsening the situation.

Condi said something like, well, Saddam killed 300,000 people in mass graves so why don't you ask them.

It's like, how can you say, It's funny in a sorry kinda way because you know these people run your country and they have no idea what they're doing and they just say no matter the criticism 'Saddam Bad, Democracy Good'

What about the civil war could easily kill more people in 5, conservatively, years than Saddam killed in what, 25?

They didn't ask, idf only to avoid the 'hard transitioning period' response.

 

[tecoyah]

I find it extremely unlikely, that any major players intent on attacking within the United Staes....pay much attention to the minor players in Iraq. They have "Better" things to do", just look at todays headlines to see what I mean.

 

[RightinNYC]

Obviously a biased poll, I chose the first option even though I don't think its true the way it's worded. Of course the nothing can guarantee we wont be attacked, but I think that our actions since 9/11 have significantly decreased the abilities of the terrorists.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I find it extremely unlikely, that any major players intent on attacking within the United Staes....pay much attention to the minor players in Iraq. They have "Better" things to do", just look at todays headlines to see what I mean.

Agreed! If anything Iraq is like a minor leagues for terrorists, a training ground. They learn their craft there and then have the potential to move on to make life miserable for us elsewhere.

I think the truth is the exact opposite of the propaganda slogan...we've created so many new terrorists, so many new anti-Americans that it is frightening. Living in NYC I definitely feel less safe today than I did before 9-11. I take the subway everyday and that is where I am worried the next attack will come on the subways....

 

[26 X World Champs]

Obviously a biased poll, I chose the first option even though I don't think its true the way it's worded. Of course the nothing can guarantee we wont be attacked, but I think that our actions since 9/11 have significantly decreased the abilities of the terrorists.

Why do you think it's biased? In this very forum just in the last day or two multiple posters have written "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" so my poll asks if you believe that to be true?

I think it's an absurd statement yet it is repeated here over and over again.

The poll is simple, either you agree with that statement or you disagree. Measuring if we're safer is impossible because a successful attack belies that as a fact. It's not like there's a stop terrorist batting average...

 

[Voidwar]

There is no denying that Iraq has acted as a magnet for foreign terrorists and Jihadis, due to the many and varied nationalities of insurgent casualties in Iraq. These armed foreign nationals were not present in Iraq prior to invasion. So they were Jihadis looking for a road game. To assume they didn't want to bring it here is foolish, and to ignore that they HAVE brought it to Iraq is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Voidwar]

Measuring if we're safer is impossible

Then why oh why would you want to imply the opposite, that we are less safe, when you just said gauging that is impossible ? ? ?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Then why oh why would you want to imply the opposite, that we are less safe, when you just said gauging that is impossible ? ? ?

I live in Manhattan and for me and my wife and children I can tell you that we do not feel safer, that is genuinely how we feel. We've altered what used to be our everyday routine since 9-11 and as the Iraq war has dragged on endlessly.

When you feel like you have a target on your back it creates fear and terror...exactly what our enemy wants...I just don't feel that our policies are working well (and I'm being kind).

My memories of what made America admired around the world were our sense of fair play and freedoms and justice...all of which have declined under the Bush Administration. This "Decline" fuels our enemies and creates more enemies and that if why I feel less safe not more safe...

 

[RightinNYC]

Why do you think it's biased? In this very forum just in the last day or two multiple posters have written "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" so my poll asks if you believe that to be true?

I think it's an absurd statement yet it is repeated here over and over again.

The poll is simple, either you agree with that statement or you disagree. Measuring if we're safer is impossible because a successful attack belies that as a fact. It's not like there's a stop terrorist batting average...

Like I said, I'm not defending the original statement that prompted this poll, but your phrasing presents a false dilemma.

Are We Fighting Them (Terrorists) There but Not Here?

Yes - The Iraq War will prevent any Terrorist Attacks on US Soil
NO - That's a sorry line that is only good until the next attack

I would submit that these are not the two only answers.

As I said above, I believe that fighting them there is helping to prevent us from having to fight them here. However, its foolish to say that ANYTHING will "prevent any terrorist attacks." You know this, just the same as anyone else here, which is why I suspect you made that one of the options.

 

[Deegan]

Obviously a biased poll, I chose the first option even though I don't think its true the way it's worded. Of course the nothing can guarantee we wont be attacked, but I think that our actions since 9/11 have significantly decreased the abilities of the terrorists.

:ws :lol:

Yeah, the poll is a$$, and I'll kick anyones a$$ on the same poll, in a rational, and logical scenario.

We are kicking terrorist a$$, I love it, you should love it too!

 

[26 X World Champs]

:ws :lol:

Yeah, the poll is a$$, and I'll kick anyones a$$ on the same poll, in a rational, and logical scenario.

We are kicking terrorist a$$, I love it, you should love it too!

What does your post say, please? Do you mean to say that the Iraq war is preventing terrorist attacks here? If yes, how exactly, please and maybe without the macho bluster?

 

[Deegan]

What does your post say, please? Do you mean to say that the Iraq war is preventing terrorist attacks here? If yes, how exactly, please and maybe without the macho bluster?

I was just fooling ya Champs, jeesh, lol.:lol:

You know I think we need to be there, and not just for Iraq, or even afgan. it's about Iran my friend. We have destroyed Iraq, and we lost 3,000 men and women in three years, but have changed the life, and thinking of millions!

Hearts and minds are words we use to calm the liberal in all of us, but what we mean is, we are bigger then you, and if you f**k up, we will kill you! I live in a macho world, so do you, don't hide behind me when the **** goes down, get out in front, and stop this while we can.

We can all go back to being good liberals, but certain people have to go away, certain ideas have to go away, and the U.S, Britain, Australia, Japan, And eventually, China, Russia, and whom ever the f**k we tell to get on board, will do so. Now if we make more enemies there......so be it, these enemies I can deal with rationally!

End of story, turn the page, good night!

 

[Navy Pride]

So far its worked. we have not had another attack on this country since 9/11/01 in spite of all the democractic obstruction tactics.........

 

[justone]

There is a term in war fair, - reconnaissance in force. You make the enemy get involved in firefight in order to obtain real intelligence on the enemy’s position and force. Now, we have a good feeling of what we are dealing with in the war on terror: - there is no war in Iraq - there is only war on terror,
the terror showed to us on 9/11.

 

[DeeJayH]

I did not vote because the poll options, as so many are, are BOGUS

while there is merit to the argument that after they attacked us on our homeland, we took teh battle to them and thus averted further attacks on us
but that is no guarantee
and it seems to be quite common sense that if the 1000s we are currently fighting, were not battlin us in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc... they would be sitting around UNEMPLOYED planning/executing attacks on ourselves/allies

the bulk of the enemy is engaging our military so they do not lose muslim lands
while but a few are plotting/executing attacks on us directly
whereas all of the enemy would be plotting/executing attacks on us if we just rolled over and played dead like Spain after the attacks

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

Wait a minute…if we’re fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them here, why the **** is this administration slowly bleeding America of its principles and civil liberties in order to prevent a terrorist attack? If fighting them over there makes us safer than not fighting them over there, exactly how much danger do they think we’d be in if we hadn’t pre-emptively attacked?

Right@NYU:
A false dilemma you say? But…those words, “We’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” were sifted directly from the offal that came out of Fearless Leader’s mouth! Unless you are publicly accusing George W. Bush of misleading the American people, how can this possibly be a false dilemma?

 

[DeeJayH]

Right@NYU:
A false dilemma you say? But…those words, “We’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” were sifted directly from the offal that came out of Fearless Leader’s mouth! Unless you are publicly accusing George W. Bush of misleading the American people, how can this possibly be a false dilemma?

put the bong down and try to follow the conversation stoney

 

[Navy Pride]

Wait a minute…if we’re fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them here, why the **** is this administration slowly bleeding America of its principles and civil liberties in order to prevent a terrorist attack? If fighting them over there makes us safer than not fighting them over there, exactly how much danger do they think we’d be in if we hadn’t pre-emptively attacked?

Right@NYU:
A false dilemma you say? But…those words, “We’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” were sifted directly from the offal that came out of Fearless Leader’s mouth! Unless you are publicly accusing George W. Bush of misleading the American people, how can this possibly be a false dilemma?

You know the English have a much more lenient PA then we do......If they had not been able to monitor telephone calls they would have never caught those terroists yesterday............

I guess the question begs to be asked............is your life more important then losing a few civil liberties........

 

[RightinNYC]

Right@NYU:
A false dilemma you say? But…those words, “We’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” were sifted directly from the offal that came out of Fearless Leader’s mouth! Unless you are publicly accusing George W. Bush of misleading the American people, how can this possibly be a false dilemma?

Again -

The statement "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" is true. That's the purpose of fighting them over there. I agree with the president on this account that fighting them over there helps us in our GOAL of not fighting them over here.

However, that statement does not claim that we will NEVER be attacked. It may very well be the case that one day we will be attacked again, but that will not have changed the fact that we are fighting them over there in order to avoid fighting them over here. Might not always work 100%, but thats not the point. It's a false dilemma to present two options as if they were the only ones, which is not the case here.

Thus the flaw in the poll.

 

[Navy Pride]

Again -

The statement "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" is true. That's the purpose of fighting them over there. I agree with the president on this account that fighting them over there helps us in our GOAL of not fighting them over here.

However, that statement does not claim that we will NEVER be attacked. It may very well be the case that one day we will be attacked again, but that will not have changed the fact that we are fighting them over there in order to avoid fighting them over here. Might not always work 100%, but thats not the point. It's a false dilemma to present two options as if they were the only ones, which is not the case here.

Thus the flaw in the poll.

Its been almost 5 years since we have been attacked but I am afraid we will be attacked sooner or later and if the democrats take over and do away with the PA it will be sooner...........

 

[26 X World Champs]

You know the English have a much more lenient PA then we do......If they had not been able to monitor telephone calls they would have never caught those terroists yesterday............

I guess the question begs to be asked............is your life more important then losing a few civil liberties........

See, once again you're twisting truths to make another false argument. Where is it written that we cannot wiretap suspects? HMMM???? All we have to do is get permission to do so through a secret court. This (plane plot) investigation has been going on for almost a year so getting wire tap warrants is not a problem nor would it be....you're simply writing bullshit propaganda against something that doesn't exist, again.

And yes Navy Pride I do have a real problem with giving up my civil liberties, AKA principles so that whacked out fear mongering people such as yourself try to scare away our rights through false patriotism which in reality is as Anti-American as it gets...so yeah, I do think you're entire premise is WRONG...

 

[26 X World Champs]

Its been almost 5 years since we have been attacked but I am afraid we will be attacked sooner or later and if the democrats take over and do away with the PA it will be sooner...........

Navy....I am totally and completely offended that you would rabble rouse like this, again. Shame on you for spewing such incredible hate....The truth is that you are so prejudiced against anyone who disagrees with your Fuhrer that instead of making factual and truthful debating points you instead make up untruths that are not based in facts, at all. Why don't you stick to the truth, ever?

The TRUTH is that in 2006 we are less safe than at anytime under the last Democratic administration. Bush has generated more anti-Americanism than all Presidents before him endangering all of us. That is fact, not fiction. What is fiction are statements like you wrote which sound just like Cheney or Rove who you obviously parrot since you always adopt talking points of the Republican party.

Why don't you admit to being a Republican? Huh Navy? You always write that "Liberals are ashamed to admit to being Liberal" yet no one in this forum has denied party affiliation in the face of the most obvious partisanship than you have Navy Pride. You're not fooling anyone but yourself which is pretty scary for a 70 year old dude to do to himself.

What scares me are people like you who spread hate and are all for killing anyone who's not American if they object to American policy...like the French or Germans, two of your favorite whipping boys...

 

[Spartacus FPV]

is your life more important then losing a few civil liberties........

No, my life isnt more important than our civil liberties.