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

[chicagiana]

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.

[patrice]

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.

[DinahMoeHum]

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:

[patrice]

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.

[yankeedem]

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.

[patrice]

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.