[sinkspur]

The problem with your assessment is we have a pared down intelligence and just determined that our economy can only support a 'one-war' effort.

The problem with your (and Pat's) assessment is that taking out bin Laden and the Taliban is a band-aid.

Pat's bottom line is for the U.S. to withdraw support for Israel, which is not going to happen.

While I don't favor a Western War with Islam, something is going to have to be done about Saddam Hussein before he develops a nuclear weapon.

[ex-snook]

I believe this was about the Bush-Powell position. Notice you did not mention Bush. Buchanan agreed with Bush. Are you a real Bush supporter?

[ouroboros]

The problem with your (and Pat's) assessment is that taking out bin Laden and the Taliban is a band-aid.

It isn't our responsibility to perform invasive surgery on the world.

We need to erase those people (and ONLY those people) who dared to murder Americans on American soil and then extricate ourselves from the whole business as quickly as possible.

[Zviadist]

Pat's bottom line is for the U.S. to withdraw support for Israel, which is not going to happen.

I don't think that it Pat's line at all. If you read with improved comprehension, Pat is saying that we have no business fighting Israel's wars. That is different than saying "end support." Many of us feel no reason to NOT support Israel, as we would any other friendly democratic nation. But it's a hell of a stretch from that support to fighting another country's battles, which is what the neocons here are clearly demanding from Bush -- or else. Nice guys. Why are THEY so obsessed with Israel?

[cicero's_son]

What about Iran?

[streetpreacher]

Checkout this post to see how best to deal with Saddam. This is according to Scott Ritter, former UNSCOM Weapons Inspector, Intelligence Officer for Gen. Schwartzchoff, Cold Warrior, Marine... not some policy wonk in Washington, D.C.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3bb15ee646fb.htm