You-Read-It-Here-First Forum Index You-Read-It-Here-First
A collection of textual novelties
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
If you want to read the articles here, go ahead, just click on a forum and find a thread that interests you...no need to register! If you want to post something... either new or in response to someone here, then click the Register link above. It's free... and it's fun to write your ideas here. You can even create a "blog" by starting a personal thread in the Daily Life Every Thread A Diary section...

Fight them over there...

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    You-Read-It-Here-First Forum Index -> Political Euphemisms
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:14 am    Post subject: Fight them over there... Reply with quote

I've finally heard this once too often not to comment.

We're told that our military needs to be in Iraq so we can
Quote:
fight them (terrorists) over there, so we don't have to fight them here


First, the logic of it doesn't make sense. It's not as if we have a contract with terrorists where we agree on the field of battle. Fighting in Iraq does nothing to ensure that fighting does not occur in the U.S.

Secondly, the non-U.S. fighters in Iraq are not necessarily terrorists. This term is thrown around so easily that one has to be careful not to get caught up in the hysteria. More on this topic under a separate post in this forum.

Third, to the extent that there are terrorists in Iraq, our attack has likely created them. I've heard of Rumsfeld himself quoted as saying that anti-U.S. insurgents are being created faster than we can kill them. Not a good argument for "fighting them over there".

Finally, this has become one of the many "reasons for the war". I don't think I need to list all the shifting reasons why this administration told us we needed to go to war in Iraq. WMD's. Aluminum tubes and mushroom clouds. Killed his own people. Freeing oppressed Iraqis. Bringing democracy to the middle east. I know I'm leaving out some. Most of these are discredited and then another is trotted out. Or, they are not compelling. There are plenty of tyrants we don't oust from power. Or even accomplished! Saddam is standing trial. So now we have a new reason.

Think about it. If this is really a valid reason to go to war, then if and when things calm down in Iraq, we'll have to start a new war, so the "terrorists" will gather where we attack, so we "won't have to fight here". Is that how the U.S. is going to operate now? Giving up our lives and treasure and the lives of tens of thousands of innocents in order to provide "terrorists" a place to gather?

Its just a lot of blather. I'm convinced that we attacked in order to be in place for the "end game of oil". Not a particularly noble aim, but if the administration broke out of its pattern of pathological lying, at least we'd have something real to argue about.

-Brian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    You-Read-It-Here-First Forum Index -> Political Euphemisms All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group