The threat to the United States (and the western world) is the entire middle east. Afghaistan was step one. Iraq is step two. If the other countries in the region do not get the message, then one of them will be step three.
We are at war.
During WWII, our troops had to fight in a lot of differnt countries before reaching Germany. That is going to be the case now.
So the entire argument as presented makes as much sense as if someone would have written an argument against landing in France during D Day, after all we were not at war with France.
I think one of the points made, and one of the questions asked but not answered, is why is Iraq step two? WE DO NOT HAVE EVIDENCE OF THAT AND CANNOT PRODUCE IT. I feel much more immediate danger from Dearborn, MI and from the followers of Farrakhan in Chicago than I do from Saddam.
Even if I were to see evidence of involvement, I would ask, what's next after step two--whether the other countries get the message or not? Even if they do not and we take them out, then what do we do? Do we set up an American hegemony there? No, we cannot. Then what? Go after other Islamic nations or nations with large Islamic populations? Are we going to Indonesia? China? Even England and Germany? We are setting ourselves up for disaster, IMHO.
No, one of the main answers to the question of what to do is the immigration question--the very one that Pat Buchanan raised (BTW I voted for Bush, not Buchanan).
To: Boonie Rat
"If Iraq was the only target, perhaps this article would have a point...Afghaistan was step one. Iraq is step two. If the other countries in the region do not get the message, then one of them will be step three.
We are at war..."
# 16 by CIB-173RDABN
WE are not at war. President Bush is at war.
If Congress wants to declare a war of conquest in the Middle East, they would have my full support.
Make it legal.
Have Congress DECLARE war.