Better to Fight Them Over There?

[Wafture]

Better to Fight Them Over There?

By Bill Scheurer

When our youngest son, an ex-marine, signed up for the national guard to go to Iraq, this was the reason he gave us: “It’s better to fight them over there, so we don’t have to do it over here.” Of all the myths that led to and prop up the misguided war and occupation in Iraq, this is perhaps the most flawed of them all.

Forget about the fact that its premise is simply inaccurate. Exactly who are the “them” that would fight us over here? Even today, the military frankly admits it cannot tell us who makes up the Iraqi resistance that gives them so much trouble -- neither as to their origins, nor their motives. Do we really think that the people who dig in with guns and roadside bombs in Iraq, are the same people that would have the skill sets, motivations, and other resources needed to infiltrate here?

Forget about the fact that Iraq posed no credible threat to the U.S., had no ties to 9/11, and had no weapons of mass destruction. That it was a crumbling regime, crippled by decades of war and international sanctions.

Forget about the fact that the more people the U.S. occupiers kill “over there,” the more the resistance grows, in numbers and force. So, why is this argument so bad? Because, it is so inhumane.

What does this say about America -- that we would go into another nation, bomb it to oblivion, destroy its civil society, capture and kill its people, and build permanent bases of occupation -- all for the sake of turning their homeland into a free-fire zone, so we can fight our enemies there instead of here?

Continued at http://www.peacemajority.org/myview-overthere.htm

[cornermouse]

1. It says we're selfish, we have no morals or scruples, and

our image in the world has become just that...an image.

[LiberalFighter]

2. So much easier for the terrorists to fight their enemies on their own soil

They don't have to be concerned about how to get to the United States.
They have additional finances for their purposes.
They can hide better in their own backyard.
They don't stand out like they would in the United States.
They can easily determine who doesn't belong in Iraq.

U.S. costs also include transporting troops and equipment overseas.

[yorkiemommie1]

4. good thread

sending to husb; he parrots this a LOT.

[Inland]

3. Our troops are bait. Chum in the water, for Bush to waste.

The only reason why "they" would attack us over there rather than here is because it is easier. Bush has set our troops up as easy targets, or at least, as targets with huge political payoff.

A bomb in Miami is difficult, may get retaliation, and is politically iffy.

But an IED on a Bagdad highway is relatively easy, can be done with impunity, and is much less politically unpopular then killing civilian Americans. And Bush cares less, so it's safer all the way around.

That's why terrorists don't bother coming to America. It's a waste of air fare when they can commute to Iraq to kill Americans.

[Wafture]

5. It must be "hard work"

coming up with new rationales for the war. Bush is lucky he has Rove to do all his thinking.

:sarcasm:

[Poiuyt]

6. We are using the Iraqi citizens as a human shield

After all, they are only Iraqis