Nu2Salt: LOL ! I guess I am glad you are confused..because for the last page or two...you and Val have been making points so off-the-wall that I am making bloodhound faces at the computer. If I came across as confusing, I can only say it was not my intention. Sometimes I have so many points built up that I sound like a constipated Neandertal in trying to express them .

WE have killed/captured half or more of al-Qaeda. However, it is now decentralized. decentralizing the terrorists has good and bad sides. Not being localized in Afghanistan means that it is difficult for them to function as one, monolithic organization having thus to rely on communications (tape recorders, written letters, e-mails, cell phone calls) which means that communications are slowed and risk being intercepted. Losing its centralization however has its benefits (for them) in that like smothering a fire, they have splintered off and formed independent, smaller cells that are difficult to track.

Al-Qaeda is still a threat despite its defeat in Afghanistan and ITS quagmire in Iraq. The 1944 Ardenness Offensive, the Japanese Plan to bomb the Panama Canal, Waterloo, and Kennesaw Mountain (1864) all show us that an enemy practically vanquished still has the capability of punching back. We need to escape the mind set that an obviously crushed enemy is contained or incapable of launching any sizeable offensive.

As for your statement about why haven't we attacked other threats? Do you mean to tell me that if Bush bombed the countries you listed as enemies (North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc) that you'd support it? Well let's see...North Korea had nothing to do with 9/11 so you would not support that, and neither did Iran. If we bomb Saudi Arabia the Liberals WOULD DEFINITELY cry "War for Oil" so we'd be back to negative pacificism. My point is that we are not looking at the war in Iraq 2 or 3 dimensionally; we are not realizing the "what if's" and the secondary links to al-Qaeda.

I agree with you 100% that our alliance with Saudi Arabia is shady at best, and I feel the same about Pakistan. I'd rather attack Saudi Arabia than Iraq...first. However, if we became offensive to Saudi Arabia, either diplomatically or militarily, we scrap ANY possible Muslim support (because of its religious value to Islam), which although minimal, is highly strategic. Jordan and Egypt have disclosed valuable intel on al-Qaeda's operations, especially in Yemen and the Horn of Africa.

Secondly, even Sun Tzu will say to "attack your enemies at their weakest part." Iraq's military (conventionally speaking) is weaker than Iran but stronger than Saudi Arabia (This is according to The Military Balance that says Iraq is the 14th strongest world power...Iran is about 9th, North Korea is 3rd and Saudi Arabia is lower than 14th...I have th book boxed up so I am not sure but am POSITIVE about the first 3... I had to memorize the top 10 for a class taught by a CIA agent ) . The Saudi military is however more organized than Iraq's. I however believe it should be dealt with, but Iraq is more strategic for more reasons:
-isolates Iran between Iraq and Afghanistan
-Puts pressure on Syria
-secure vital oil source (and I wanted this to be a war for oil, ask Spin, we debated alot last year, but I don't see it like that)

Lastly, I am flattered that you compared me to a fascist. But I have already said two or three times that I believe support for a President at a time of war is not limited to party affiliation and that IF Kerry were elected, I'd support him in this war, and the next...because there will be a next. If Clinton waged this war and Republicans would be whinbing about going to war (*which we don't whine because we are more patriotic and even polls support that claim) was falsely claimed, I'd be voting for Clinton and might even be tempted to switch parties.