Fight 'em over there, So we won't have to fight 'em here.

Setting aside the obvious absurdity of that statement , the argument itself is so completely immoral that no sane person should make it. Let me make an appropriate analogy to demonstrate my point:

You have an enemy with whom you seek to settle a score through violent means. Rather than fight the enemy at your house and risk damage to your property or injury and death to your family and neighbors, you invite the enemy meet you at another neighborhood several miles away. You contact the people in the neighborhood of choice and tell them that you are coming to improve their neighborhood, bring jobs, and improve their lives. You then meet the enemy at the other neighborhood where you engage him in a prolonged violent battle. The battle destroys the neighborhood and many of its inhabitants are killed, maimed, or uprooted in the violence. Unemployment rises to near 70% after you turn it into a war torn wasteland. When the people in your home area begin to feel guilty for the horrors you are creating in the other area you tell them "hey guys, wouldn't you rather destroy their property, uproot them from their homes, and kill and maim their families than ours? I lied to them and told them we were coming to make their lives better, however my plan was to could draw the enemy into their neighborhhood and turn it into a violent battleground. Better them than us right?"
"

Politicians and pundits use this argument, but no one using it ever discusses why we have never used it as an explanation to the Iraqis to explain their dire circumstances. If it is such a reasonable and moral argument, we should share it with the world. We should make the argument with the UN and the European union. But those using it know that it is morally corrupt and that only the ignorant and immoral in America will embrace it.

Meanwhile, Doug Feith, another neocon moron, is being exposed for his part in the international crime that is Iraq.