There are two ways to solve the problem of terrorism: eliminate the root causes or make it impossible to conduct. Eliminating the root causes would require that all countries be brought to economic near-parity, to get rid of class-based hatred, and ensuring that all political disputes, especially in matters of occupation, can be resolved in a fair and effective manner. While this would be incredibly beneficial, I don't see it happening anytime soon, given the nature of humanity. Making it impossible to conduct requires a police state of incredible proportions. While much easier to execute, this plan eliminates many of the human rights which we consider worth defending. I think it's a good idea to look at which of the two our president seems to prefer.

I certainly don't claim that Saddam is a victim. I think the world would be a much better place if someone pt a bullet or three through his head. I simply believe that an American war of aggression, and quite possibly conqest, will create many more problems than it solves, especially if Saddam really does have WMD's. I'd be interested to see how the incasion of Iraq constitutes "a long range plan for a lasting solution to the terrorist problem."