Great rant, Redskull; and mostly right on.

Your defense of Israel fails to mention the extremely problematic formation of that country, and the fact that most palistinians and Arabs do not feel their land should be taken to compensate the Jewish survivors and other Jewish victims of the European Shoah (Holocaust).

Offering Nevada, for instance, or somewhere to Israel for alternative settlement was mentioned, but it's more a good thought experiment to be eliminated.

The not-failure/ not-success of the US to do a good job in "colonizing" Afghanistan is also a negative about the after effects of a US led invasion/ regime change. In fact, internal terrorism hasn't yet ended in Afghanistan; just become much less a threat to US interests.

Finally, I agree with the need to go to war, and the willingness to act alone. This is certain to be tested, might as well demonstrate it on Iraq & Saddam.

But there is still the issue of after the war. Even if Bin Laden is gone, and Saddam is gone, there will be radical leaders advocating violence.

I think it would be better to accept the "white man's burden" of colonial cultural reorganization more honestly, and work towards instituting real democracy. At the local level first; and this must mean better internal security for the "peaceful mayors" who are willing to work with the Western powers.

The oil wealth available in Iraq, as compared to the real dearth of most value in Afghanistan, argues that there is a lot of potential for rapid development. I'd argue more for property rights, rule of law, and contract enforcement, but that's where the real slam against Islam starts moving. Property rights leads towards human rights, and limits on gov't power. That's what Islam needs, but it seems they don't really want it...