I don't disagree with that. In fact, I am arguing Ron Paul's case on Iraq largely for the purposes of sparring, as I actually don't reallyl agree with him. (However, I agree with him 100% on everything else).
The problem is this: We are, right now, passing this off to another generation. Mucking around in Iraq while ignoring the Saudis, Iranians, and just about every other muslim nation is not taking care of business. All we are doing is meddling around in their affairs, while at the same time not diminishing the threat.
My philosophy is simple: Either mind our own business totally, which is what I think we should have done after WW2 rather than taking over all of France and Britain's colonial problems. OR, kick ass and wipe out our enemies.
The worst thing to do is to go in half-assed... mess around with them, piss them off, etc. and then not take them out. That is what I think we are doing now. That is what we have done in one form or another for hte last 50 years. So, although I basically disagree with Paul on Iraq, I don't think what we are doing now is a particularly sane or well-reasoned policy.
Personally I don’t have a problem with Ron Paul in fact I regularly recieve his freedom reports. In fact I would love to see someone like him in the AG slot.
I agree with you that we need to fight a total war or not at all.