"Fight Them Over There..."

[BeFree]

"So we don't have to fight them over here" is the last call for war-a-holics.

We need to fight that meme. We need to utterly destroy it as soon as it is spewed from the lips of the cretins, before it drools down their chins.

DU, lets hear it..... what is the best come back for that stupid phrase?

[hijinx87]

1. unfortunately . . .

it will probably take another incident where they fight us over here.

[tularetom]

2. For most of them it's more accurately

"Fight them over there or else they might come over here and hurt MEEEEEEEEE!" My only comeback for that is to ROFLMAO.

[knowbody0]

3. you just know they have nightmares

of them breaking into their homes and beheading them.

[Skittles]

4. here is what I say

I'm sure the Iraqi children really appreciate that

[Debs]

5. First of all its useless

Wingnuts never and I mean NEVER give up on a talking point. They are like the undead, its impossible to drive a stake through the heart of a talking point they deem necessary for propaganda purposes. YOu can PROVE its wrong, they may slink away but they will repeat it again when its useful. There are many reasons that talking point is worthless. I Personally think the best argument is a moral one. We have no right to make the Iraqis pay the cost of a war we are having with someone else because we dont want to have it here. It is about like testing a bomb at your neighbors house and when you blow it up telling him you didnt want to blow up YOUR house. There is of course no reason to believe its true. What is stopping them from bringing the terrorism here as it is? The last attack took 20 men, a bit of money and a few boxcutters what terrorists cant multitask? There is no reason they cant send a small contingent here to attack us when they want just because we are destroying Iraq, and the fact we ARE destroying Iraq makes it MORE not less likely they WILL. However the problem with these arguments is they are logical. Wingnuts care nothing about truth, logic, or facts. They care only about the pretty story they have made up in their heads.

[calimary]

6. Dang, that's a good one! "They are like the undead."

They ARE! GREAT way to put it. Especially since it's true.

[stansnark]

9. they CAN'T fight us here

that would be like the cincy bengals showing up in the wrong town for their playoff game. sheesh!

[maxsolomon]

16. i'm sorry...

what playoff game would that be?

ain't gonna happen.

[calimary]

17. Welcome to DU!

I don't care WHERE the fight is. Our boys and girls are DYING for a lie. ANYWHERE you position that is a sin. And a crime. A capital crime. NO ONE should have to die for a LIE.

Hey, you know what? That's my answer! I didn't really have a useful one til now.

[BeFree]

10. They are illogical, our opposition

So our logical arguments can't reach them? I disagree. It is only through logic that we ever win. Hence my OP, thanks for replying.

The logic appears to say that since we haven't been attacked here again, our attacking over there makes sense.

Of course if you believe 9/11 was an outside attack, it makes sense.

Then there are those who believe, as a poster above said, they are scared shitless of the Muslims and fear they will slip in and kill them while they sleep. Only that has not happened, has it? So that fear is baseless and illogical.

But we really have to, imo, find a counter meme to this "attack them there..." because that's about all they have to keep them engaged. Besides, if we are attacked again, they'll be calling us chickens for not wanting to fight them over there.

[Debs]

25. I admire your tenacity

I also admit the problem with my final sentence it is Hobbs choice. If you act on the assumption it cannot be done then you assure that as the outcome. The main point I wanted to make was the frustration about your desire to kill a meme, and in my experience NOTHING will do that. Certainly individual conservatives can be reached others cannot and you don't know one from the other beforehand but I have yet to see any rightwing meme killed, they are immortal no matter how often or well debunked.If you can perhaps name me one that has been successfully destroyed AFTER it was shown useful for propaganda purposes I would be interested in hearing about it. I am STILL hearing about Gore saying he invented the internet. I am still hearing that Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors in 98. The FACTS have no effect on the rightwing in general repeating their propaganda no matter how completely debunked. I am still hearing that Iraq had WMDs and we found them. Hey I am not saying you don't toss out the facts when confronted with them but I am not holding my breath expecting ANY of their memes to be abandoned.

[BeFree]

26. Well

Not too keen on remembering the r-wing memes but there have been one or maybe two demolished. :(

Was hoping DU would come up with a meme that contradicts the "fight them over there..." and in this thread are some pretty good starts. Definitely some new thoughts and ways of looking at it that I have never imagined.

Thing is that unless we can sway the idiocracy that spews that meme then that meme carries weight. And the "fight" meme is quite heavy, hence the effort.

[nytemare]

7. Why is the Iraq there better than the Afghanistan there?

Couldn't that have been said for Afghanistan well enough without invading Iraq? Had we gone in there with enough troops, we might actually have caught Bin Laden, and the administration wouldn't have to worry about which excuse for war in Iraq works now.

[stansnark]

8. if we fought them over here,,,

wouldn't WE have home field advantage ? like the playoffs ?

[No Exit]

14. And WE would be "the insurgents"!

Wouldn't THAT be a kick...

[MurrayDelph]

11. and I keep snapping my fingers

to keep polar bears out of the San Fernando Valley.

[BLUSH]

12. fight them over there ....

[No Exit]

13. "Yeah--they might come over here, like the North Vietnamese did

after we pulled outa Vietnam, or like the North Koreans did after we pulled outa there!"

How the hell are all these cave-dwelling A-rabs supposed to GET here? Even in their worst attack (which, btw, I am not even sure was perpetrated by THEM), they had to use OUR jetliners. They have no ocean transport. They have no air force. They have no super-long-range missiles. They have no single government to raise funds for such very expensive weapons.

And, above all, it has always been my understanding that they don't WANT to come over here: they allegedly see our country as a godless wasteland. They allegedly see our people as empty shells, running around after meaningless objects of pleasure, hedonism, and purposeless wealth. (Us? Not US!) Why in the HELL would they want to conquer such a place?

I hear that what they really want is for US to get out of THEIR area of the world. How dare they!

[hcil]

15. but...

thats just them.

[calimary]

19. And a big Welcome to DU, to you, too!

[No Exit]

20. Er... YEAH! And going around the world putting McDonald's

in ancient cities and drilling for oil and bringing tight jeans to everyone and making sure everyone switches from, like, yams, or something, to TWINKIES--so they can all be as healthy as we are!-- and invading countries just to make piles of money for a few old avaricious bastards, and opening more military bases around the world, and starting all sorts of swell prisons around the world, and making sure "free trade" brings to everyone the great happiness it has brought to US... well, that's just us! :)

[maxsolomon]

18. in like 500 years they might get their shit together

and build an ICBM, launch it at us, and do a victory dance while we retailiate by annihilating every city in the muslim world.

they hate us, but they're not fucking crazy.

oceans DO protect us. its our government that failed.

[BeFree]

21. They kicked our ass on 9/11

Pissed us off. America adopted a lynch-mob mentality in revenge.

Since 9/11 was a failure of our military and we aren't honest enough to admit it, our fear has overwhelmed us and made us lash out.

[seabeyond]

22. what COWARDS we are.

i was sittin in a church chapel in spring of 2004 when a 'christian" friend told me that. the first thing out of my mouth was what cowards we are. how dare us to be so afraid that we say it is ok to kill and maim the innocent children over there because we want nothing to happen to our own children. how unchristian that is. everything about that comment is offensive to me that we prize our childrens life over other children. i was truly offended like i have not been on anything else the right has spewed.

[KKKarl is an idiot]

24. Got to love those

self loving Christians. Jesus says in their version of the Bible: "love all neocon Americans & kill the rest, by this shall all men know that you are my disciples".

[BeFree]

29. My worst is

The: "We oughtta just nuke 'em"

That one brings me to a boil. Really, what cowards they have become to utter such trash.... as if they are tough or some shit. Heck, if they are that tough they ought to pull themselves up by their bootsraps and go over there and fight...

[KKKarl is an idiot]

23. Then why are we not fighting them in

Saudi Arabia & the UAE after all a lot of the terrorists in the 9/11 attack came from Saudi Arabia & people from the UAE did some major financing of the 9/11 attacks. None of the terrorists came from Iraq & no money either. If I remember clearly GW was willing to give Dubai a "heckya deal" to buy some major US ports & Dick was kissing the Saudi Princes a couple of weeks ago.

[durtee librul]

31. And let's not forget

the shoe bomber....maybe we should go bomb GB as well? Using bushylogic, it fits....

[kentuck]

27. Spend our Treasury over there so we won't have to spend it over here...

seems to be the end result.

[EndElectoral]

28. They said that about N. Vietnam....now GW wants to trade with them

[CBHagman]

30. The phrase came from GOP pollster Frank Luntz.

More than two years ago The Washington Post pointed out that any variations on the sentiment "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them there" came from a Frank Luntz talking points memo. Yes, we dare whisper it: The Republican Party relies on pollsters and focus groups.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54906-2004Jun19.html

Among his suggested talking points, in the nine-page section on Iraq and terrorism:

• It's not the war in Iraq -- it's the war on terror. "You will not find any instance in which we suggest that you use the actual word 'preemption' or the phrase 'the War in Iraq' to communicate your policies to the American public. To do so is to undermine your message from the start," it said. "Your efforts are about 'the principles of prevention and protection' in the greater 'War on Terror.' "

• Remember: better there than here. " 'Prevention at home can require aggressive action abroad' is the best way to link a principle the public supports with the policies of the Administration," it said. " 'It is better to fight the War on Terror on the streets of Baghdad than on the streets of New York or Washington.' "

• Don't forget the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. " '9/11 changed everything' is the context by which everything follows. No speech about homeland security or Iraq should begin without a reference to 9/11."

• Don't forget Saddam Hussein. " 'The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein.' Enough said."


As for that snappy comeback:

"Uh, they've already BEEN here. Didn't you hear about September 11th?"

"Fifteen of the 19 September 11th hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and none of them came from Iraq."

Besides, it's incredibly stupid to assume that invading one country is going to block every last belligerent on the planet from performing acts of terrorism anywhere else on the globe. It's like claiming that as long as your doctor screens you for diabetes, you'll never get cancer.

[justinrr1]

32. this doesnt kill the talking point but.....

whenever someone tells me that I say then why are you here and not fighting them over there? Are you a chickenhawk or just plain chickenshit?

It really pisses them off. That reply also applies to the "We need to kick their asses"

[CBHagman]

33. Orrin Hatch caught using this talking point on January 4th, 2007.

The GOP won't stop recycling the Luntz memo.