I never said that it stops them from coming here if they wanted to. All I said is that it focuses them on their soil not ours. And tell me how have I lied? Have there been any attacks like IED's or blowing up cows in the US?

Not that I have heard of. Have you heard of any attempts thwarted?

Instead of the militants that are there performing in training camps Bush has provided them live fire opportunities galore! Not someting to be proud of over ........what was it again..... 9/11 or was it WMDs....or was it......to get rid of Saddam....or was it..... to spread Democracy to the Mid East.....or was it.....Oil !!!

Ilandra wrote:
As I have heard many people say "It is better to fight them there than to fight them on our soil. At least this way our children are safe."
That statement, which certainly sounds good, presumes that if we were not fighting them there, we would be fighting them here. There is no proof, or even evidence, of that. If you think you have evidence, please submit it, but please don't use the tired old "Well, we have not been attacked since 9/11, have we?" because that is flawed logic. It is flawed because it cannot be proven that we would have had more attacks if we had done nothing at all. Correlation is not causation. It is also flawed because there is no proof that fighting them there will stop future attacks here. When General Patraeus was asked if the war in Iraq has made us any safer, he first avoided the question and then when asked again, said "I don't know, actually...."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf3MPSxupjE

Al Qaeda was not even in Iraq until we were. They filled a void left by our taking out Saddam Hussein, and al Qaeda is not the primary problem in Iraq, and never has been. Sectarian strife is.

Are you so sure that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until we went there? I can honestly say that I don't think that we brought them there.
If you don't think that Saddam didn't have anything to do with them than you need to go ahead and reexamine evidence.
And as far as I am concerned I do believe that us fighting them there has kept them from coming here and killing my family and friends.

Ilandra wrote:
Are you so sure that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until we went there? I can honestly say that I don't think that we brought them there.
If you don't think that Saddam didn't have anything to do with them than you need to go ahead and reexamine evidence.
And as far as I am concerned I do believe that us fighting them there has kept them from coming here and killing my family and friends.

"LOL" you go ahead and believe that if it makes you sleep better "LOL"

llandra wrote:
Are you so sure that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until we went there?
There is no evidence they were there before Saddam was removed from power. Saddam was not one to share power in any way, shape or form with anyone else. Dictators are like that. Perhaps you have some evidence you can share to support your premise.

If you don't think that Saddam didn't have anything to do with them than you need to go ahead and reexamine evidence.
See above.

And as far as I am concerned I do believe that us fighting them there has kept them from coming here and killing my family and friends.
Believe whatever you want. You can believe that Saddam really had those WMD's and that he had something to do with 9/11 too if you wish. You can also believe in the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, and space aliens for all I care.

Anything more than belief requires evidence, however. Got any?