BTW, North Korea already has nukes (haven't used them though either). Why aren't you on your hind legs demanding that Bush stop his appeasement policy there of giving the Commies 170 tons grain last year! If we had pursued the "isolantionist" policy, much despised here, of cutting off foreign aid North Korea would have fallen of its own weight years ago...yet Bush (just like Clinton had) kept it on life support. Do you intend also think we should launch an invasion of Brazil (now ruled by a commie) because of the possibility that the might build nukes?
I agree that "taking out," Saddam will not be that difficult. The problem begins when we start to police... err "patrol" (like that better?) that medieval, ethnically/religiously fragmented hell-hole called Iraq and "reconstruct" it.
You may think that building democracy doesn't mean squat to U.S. policy, but if you are right then Bush is a liar. He has vowed that we will "not walk away" from Iraq and build democracy there and make it "stable" (LOL).
The reborn conservative Wilsonians, who were sensible nationalists and realists on Kosovo and Haiti, actually seem to believe in the fairy tale that the Kurds, Shi'tes, Sunnis, with our "help," will hold hands and sing Kumbaya in "new Iraq." It would be funny if it weren't so tragic. Finally, according to the logic of your "take out" theory, Kennedy tried to kill Castro, therefore Castro has the right to "take out" Dubya, or does the logic only apply in one direction?
Again, the best solution for the U.S. is to fortify its borders, stop playing nanny to the world and spreading ourselves thin, and build SDI.
Would a fortified border stopped the sleeper cells on US soil? (A: no)
Would SDI stop airliners from crashing into buildings? (A: no)
Its time for Libertarians like yourself to enter into the 21st century. 9/11 has demonstrated that a small group of determined, well financed and well supplied individuals can do great harm to us. What kind of defense can the military provide against this modern threat? They can cut off the supplies and the financing by taking out regimes that support terror. They can make it highly undesireable for other countries to associate themselves with terrorists by setting an example.
Iraq is perfect for this goal: they finance terrorists, they can supply terrorists with WMD, and they are easily beatable. A bonus to the defeat of Iraq may be the self-collapse of the current Iranian government. OTOH, North Korea would be more difficult to defeat and diplomatic avenues (which is far cheaper than war) have not been exhausted.
Libertarians need to reconsider the value of pre-emptive strikes as a means of self-defense, and in fact consider pre-emptive strikes as a duty of the government. I believe a Libertarian published such an article several months ago (it was posted on the FR, but I cannot find it).