Let's see....We are on the ground at Iran's East and West boarders not to mention having control in a seconds notice of the waters of the Gulf. We have secured the second largest supply of oil in the world so that if Iran or Saudi Arabia say have a little disruption of oil supply it will not send the world into an economic tailspin. Not to mention the little fact that Saddam did have and use in the past, and we have found some of his WMDs. Nor to mention the fact that he was training terrorist and had given haven to islamic terrorist, nor to mention the fact that he felt he had a bone to pick with the US and revenge was very much on his mind.
No strategically I would say that we are right where we want to be...cleaned out one dangerous snake who wanted revenge, secured oil flow in case there are disruptions in other oil supplies (say in case of war or internal uprising(maybe with a little help from our friends at the CIA)) and surrounded a second perhaps more dangerous target with the hope that just the threat alone will cause cooperation and if not...so be it.
I would not want to be Iran at this moment unless Kerry gets elected.
As for North Korea thanks to clinton they are a problem, but we have or are in the process of moving back many of our troops from the boarder and are strengthening our presence in the sea. If I was North Korea I would be more worried about that than if we had left our troops on the boarder within their quick range and grasp.
I think that Afghanistan, Gulf War I and II have shown that we use air power first so moving the troops indicates that we are preparing in case of war. But to be honest I think that China will clean out that nest of snakes before they let us do it. They will not want us on their boarder and the threat that we might go after them might be just what it takes for China to get serious.
I would have to say Yes going after Saddam was well worth it and has placed us right where we need to be on the ground splitting up the islamic world. LOL!
"I would not want to be Iran at this moment unless Kerry gets elected."
DON'T EVEN SAY THAT :)
Totally agree with all of your points except China doing something about NK. RIght now NK is costing us money and attention. China intends to surpass the US as the next superpower. We don't want in NK and the Chinese know this.
This is a more insightful, succinct analysis than you get watching fifty TV policy shows.
We will be at war with Iran in less than 16 months--that is, before the date that we believe they can explode their first nuke.
The defeatist pro-Kerry crowd who thinks we should leave Iraq is evidently too naive to understand that the game is far, far larger than overthrowing Saddam or promoting democracy in Iraq. Because of the election, and because he does not want to spook our allies, especially in Europe, Bush cannot publicly acknowledge the Iranian threat in specific terms. But if you closely read his speeches on preemptive defense, it is obvious what the long-range concern is. Whether or not Iraq has WMD any longer, Iran will have them shortly, and the Iranian leaders are at least as crazed as Saddam.
It is no accident that we have Iran covered from the west, the east, and from the Gulf.