>Why are you defending George Bush?
>
>Kevin, Bush was not a very good president - but I give him credit for one thing. No attacks on U.S. soil after 9/11, and a pretty good argument that he prevented future attacks.
>
>The man increased the size of the fed govt, he went after the wrong country that began with the letters 'IRA', but at the very least - he arguably prevented future attacks.
>
>And that's one more item than I give Obama credit for, so far...

I worked with a guy a few years ago who was a diehard republican (Hey, nobody's perfect) and we had this argument all the time.
The reason there's been no attacks on US soil is because the islamic nutjobs can kill all the Americans they want right on their own turf. It's like bringing the lambs to the wolf.

The fundemental problem behind this whole war is that they hate America and what we stand for. Period. And they'll kill American's anywhere they can. So, if we go over there, they'll kill us there. If we stay here, they'll come here.

Therefore, isn't it more prudent to address the underlying issues than to wage endless wars that accomplish nothing? The US can never eradicate the islamic fundementalists, so why not try to make some kind of peace. Weather it's "You leave us alone and we'll leave you alone", or like Rodney Kind said, "Can't we all just get along". This is what I see Obama trying to do. I think his approach is all wrong, but he seems to be trying to extend the olive branch of peace.

War isn't always the answer. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. I think the islamics know they can't beat the US, and we now know we can't beat them.