Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

We're fighting them THERE so we don't have to fight them here !!?!?!?!?!?!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
chicagiana Donating Member (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 03:31 PM
Original message
We're fighting them THERE so we don't have to fight them here !!?!?!?!?!?!

OK, so Iraq was supposed to be the middle east version of a roach motel. All along we've been telling these creeps that it wasn't mutually exclusive. Al Queda could plan terrorist attacks against the US and NATO allies and at the same time conduct activities in Iraq. In fact, the Iraq campaign was likely to make it easier for Osama Bin Laden to recruit by validating everything he has said about the US.

Well, I hope we slam the freepers on the "Roach Motel" theory. See, you can conduct terrorist attacks AND fight an insurgency at the same time.

My prediction:
I predict that some "intelligence" will be found that leads back to either Syria or Iran. Blair will invoke the NATO mutual defense clause to drag Europe into a war against yet another middle east country.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. me too.
probably not Iran though, because they've got a good standing army, but how do we feel about Iran buddying up with Iraqi (Sunnis - right?) like they are right now, getting to be friends for a while anyway.

Syria is tempting BushCo at this very moment. Cheney is reading some Syria scenarios.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DinahMoeHum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. David Sirota's blog today puts the kibosh on this argument.
Link:
http://www.davidsirota.com /

(snip)
The idea that, because our troops are in Iraq, terrorists will only attack us there and not "in the streets of our own cities" is, first and foremost, an insult to our troops because it treats them as if their entire mission is to serve as bait for terrorists. That's not what our troops or America was told this was all about.

Secondly, are we really supposed to believe the same terrorists who masterminded the 9/11 attack can't walk and chew gum at the same time? I mean, maybe George W. Bush and the dolts around him are so intellectually impaired they can't do two things at once but Al Qaeda sure can, and any sentiment to the contrary is idiotic.

But the fact that this line of reasoning insults our intelligence shouldn't be the biggest concern with it. The fact that this rationale has justified spending billions on a war in Iraq while shortchanging basic homeland security is what's really troubling. For years now, experts have begged the Bush administration to adequately fund key homeland security priorities - but they have been rejected at almost every turn.
(snip)


:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. P.S. Note how Proxy Wars are not only IMMORAL, but also WEAK!
If it is all just about "strength", then why are we not strong enough to fight our own wars, rather than have others die for "Us", because "We" say so.

What is the value of "life"?

Pro-Life IS Dead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yankeedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
4. I figured out how to turn the tables on this theory
We should be securing the US because right-wing chickenhawks REFUSE to fight them there.

Of course, we shouldn't fight them there, we should secure the US, but with freeps it's better to fight illogic with illogic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I like that.
We should be securing the US because right-wing chickenhawks refuse to fight Terrorists there. This is the genuinely Conservative perspective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 01st 2014, 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC