[Skwidd]

...there is a feeling that you need to give great consideration to what comes after, and that unless you're prepared to follow it through, then you shouldn't begin it,"

Hear, hear! I'm as disgusted with Saddam, Iraq, and their 'Islamic brothers' as anyone else, but I am afraid that the administration hasn't completely thought this through. After an invasion/regime change, then what? How do we keep the region stable? Do we keep troops there? How many? How long? How will it affect our other commitments (Afghanistan, Korea, Japan, Europe)?

Someone in another thread said that we must constantly review our policies and reduce our presence if possible. We may eventually find ourselves in the position of having troops all over the world but with none to protect the homeland.

[Guillermo]

Name a country that the USA has conquered, and left...

We're not leaving Afghan, nor Iraq if/when we invade anytime soon. Hell, we're still in Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea. We're even still in Cuba.

[mathurine]

I have been thinking about it for at least 50 seconds, and I still like the idea of taking out Saddam and whipping the arab world around pretty good and pretty soon in order to convert them into frequently loyal allies. Look at how much better the Germans, Japanese and Italians are since we whipped them. It took, and lasted, too.

[green nexus]

How will it affect our other commitments (Afghanistan, Korea, Japan, Europe)?

Someone in another thread said that we must constantly review our policies and reduce our presence if possible. We may eventually find ourselves in the position of having troops all over the world but with none to protect the homeland.

The concerns you raise are valid, and fortunately they are being taken care of by President Bush. For eight years Clinton-Gore neglected and belittled the military. Bush, thankfully, is for a strong national defense, so he will dedicate the proper resources and draw up the right contingency plans.