Do you want to fight them there or fight them here?

[Postman]

I've heard this reasoning used as logic for the invasion of and continuing occupation of Iraq.

But according to military personnel in Iraq the resistance is home-grown and if there are Al-Qaeda types in Iraq they are of such few numbers that to use such logic as "do you want to fight them there or here?" makes no sense in justifying a "war on terrorism" in Iraq and ignores US policy of supporting Saddam Hussein's secular Iraq against Islamic fundamentalist Iran. (attention rightwing know-nothings: Al Qaeda are Islamic Fundamentalists like Iran was during our backing of Saddam Hussein to check against expansion. Get it?)

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=466409

"The Bush administration has had much to say about the influx of foreign fighters into Iraq - Mr Bush's notorious "al-Qa'ida types". But, though these exist, they appear few in number, and US commanders have questioned their significance. There are also indications from the increasingly vocal Iraqi resistance that its members do not necessarily support the foreign suicide bombers.

The general in charge of the US forces in Baghdad, Brigadier General Martin Dempsey, suspects that cells use foreign "jihadis" when they want to carry out a suicide bombing. But he defines his enemy primarily as "the former regime ... people interested in power, and the restoration of it in their interest".

[DemBones DemBones]

Let's Not fight them ANYWHERE!

As the Cat in the Hat might say. ;-)

[arewethereyet]

17. I don't think thats an option

unless you propose to do nothing in response to the attackes levied by them. I don't think that ignoring them will make them go away.

[arewethereyet]

1. to answer your question

there.

regarding the validity of the concept, I don't doubt that there is some level of involvement by foreigners but there is not enough information to judge .

[Postman]

5. I can judge. It's all BS as far as Iraq being an ally of Al Qaeda

That's just the cover story for all the suckers to swallow si thay can implement Operation Oil Rescue.

Iraq was no threat to anyone. Crippling UN sanctions, No-Fly zones in both the North and South, pratically a naval blockade of the country in the Persian Gulf.

Gimme a an effing break.

[arewethereyet]

6. I believe that the issue involved post-war Iraq

and the question of the extent of Al Queda-esque people involved.

As they have neutralized foreign combatants in Iraq, it can't be ruled out.

Here's you're effing break: "break"

[Postman]

8. Would you consider US forces "foreign" in Iraq?

Just being ironic...

I guess you haven't read what US commanders on the ground have said. The logic of "fighting them there instead of here" only holds water if the people you are fighting are the "terrorists" who attacked you in the first place. Since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that argument is worthless.

[arewethereyet]

13. sure we're foreign, but...

I've read others say the opposite, so who do you believe ? As the truth is generally somewhere in the middle I'd accept that there are foreign fighters aiding the Baathists in their struggle to get their high paying jobs back. That being the case, Iraq would be a new source of terorists irrespective of whether they used to be or not. One other point to consider is that 9-11 was one of MANY terrorist attacks, the most successful to be sure, but not the only one.

[theorist]

2. This is similar to the rationale for fighting in Vietnam.

They used to say, "If we don't fight them there, we'll be fighting on the shores of Pearl Harbor." That was a ridiculous comment then, and the new version is ridiculous today. I've never thought of it, but maybe the "war on terrorism" has many parallels to the "war on communism". (Maybe someone with more knowledge could expound on this.)

Whatever the case, we are headed on the wrong path to winning this fictitious war. We are heading on a successful path toward recruiting new terrorists and the eventual use of nuclear weapons. It appears to only be a matter of time.

[zeemike]

10. You are dead on Theorist

The comparison is a good one.
And from just a practical side, if we fought them here we would have the home field advantage. But when we fight them there they do, just like the Viet Cong had it and used it very effectively.
I am sure by now that our soldiers cannot tell the terrorist enemy from the average Iraqi just as they could not tell the VC from the peasant Vietnamese.
When will they ever learn?

[BigBigBear]

3. Bush and CO

Announce they are setting up shop with 150,000 troops in Iraq to 'fight the terrorists'.

All they get are pissed off Iraqis without jobs, water, electricity, and the terrorists continue to bomb civilians elsewhere.

So much for the 'flypaper effect.' Near as I can tell, we just make more people pissed off at us.

[LouisFC]

4. The phrase

From the first time I heard this phrase, I have wondered how it must make the Iraqi people feel.

We are drawing our enemies into their country so that their civilians die instead of ours. How many hearts and minds do you suppose that wins.

[welshTerrier2]

7. the essential question

this question is a distraction from the essential question which is:

are americans safer or less safe as a result of the war in Iraq ??

al Qaeda recruitments are way up since the U.S. invasion ... and surely, if one can so clearly see the hatred for bush and the U.S. throughout Europe, could anyone honestly believe we're winning many friends throughout the Middle East ??

the "fight them there or fight them here" question makes no sense anyway ... it presumes that terrorists would marshal their forces into a single, central location ... why would anyone assume such nonsense to be true ....

and we're constantly being warned by the right-wing fear mongers how much damage could be done in a metropolitan area with just one dirty bomb that could easily be carried in a small suitcase ... are all the "dirty bombers" pinned down by our forces in Iraq? the "there or here" question is total propaganda ...

[0007]

9. Kind of a dumb question, 'eh?

[Postman]

11. I posted the question because ....

a friend of mine at work has a co-worker whose son is in the Army and deployed to Iraq. The father of this soldier argues the case for invasion and occupation of Iraq by using that question.

[0007]

15. I apologize for being rude, I just thought that was a no brainer...

...like if you had to fight your neighbor would you rather fight in the neighbor's house or your?

Who are we fighting and why? Foreign policy or a natural resource. It appears to be both.

[NNN0LHI]

12. If we leave Vietnam the communists will come here and rape our women

If I heard that once, I heard that a 1000 times during the Vietnam war. Thats right. The more things change the more things stay the same.

Don

[alcuno]

14. We were in Afghanistan and the enemy was in Afghanistan.

We left. How do people explain that? Are they just parrots for the administration with the "we need to fight them there" argument.

Why not invade Bali? Al Qaeda is there. Why not invade Saudi Arabia? Al Qaeda is there. Why not invade Qatar? Al Qaeda is there.

Why go to a country, where the enemy was not? Now the troops not only have to fight the newly arrived Al Qaeda members (they had to chase us down) but also Iraqi nationalists. AND at the same time, the troops have to serve as public relations representatives for the United States as well as rebuild a country that we and Saddam trashed. Talk about multi-tasking.

Had we stayed in Afghanistan, we could have controlled the poppy crop and would not have had as hostile a population to contend with. The Afghan people would not have expected electricity, phone service, or water because, for the most part, they didn't have it before.

[zeemike]

16. But that’s just logic

There is no room for logic in these days of doublespeak and doublethink

[pasadenaboy]

18. you fight them in a way that

doesn't create 3 more from everyone you neutralize.

I supported the action in Afghanistan. It was necessary because it was a staging ground for Al Queda. By going into Afghanistan with international support, we were able to fight terrorism and try to establish a more tolerant, modern state without incentivizing more terrorists. This is a long term project and to turn our attention away from it so early was a grave mistake.

Iraq did not have any Al Quida cells, and our invasion without international support only serves to radicalize the population and create more Anti Americanism. For every Iraqi we kill, we radicalize 3 others to take their place. Its a stupid, counterproductive strategy.

[maggrwaggr]

19. the children, or the donkeys?

Seeing as how everyone in the know has said there's no evidence of any "foreign fighters" coming into Baghdad, it seems like the only ones we're fighting as the 'liberated'.

And don't forget the children who mutilated our soldier's bodies.

[leesa]

20. No where. Absolutely no need as they were not a threat to us.

Pure unsubstantiated rhetoric to frighten foolish Americans