Going to war with Iraq is imminent and must be undertaken for the citizens of the United States to remain safe in an unstable world. Eliot Walker's Oct. 4 column and Andy McKinnon's Oct. 8 letter are extremely naive, and if their policy was to be undertaken, Americans would probably perish in subsequent attacks upon the United States.

I would like to remind these "blame America first" advocates that nearly 3,000 Americans died on Sept. 11. The president stated after the attacks that, "If you harbor a terrorist, you are a terrorist," the president told the American people that these nation states would be dealt with accordingly, if they continue their policy of harboring terrorists.

I would like McKinnon, Walker and any other pacifist to consider this scenario, and any reader to think about what these same people would be saying if the circumstance I'm about to present had actually played out.

It is July 11, 2001, and the president comes on television for an evening address to the nation from the Oval Office. He says that at this moment, the United States military has launched a pre-emptive strike in Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden and destroy al-Qaida.

The United States is going to remove the Taliban government, which is extremely oppressive to its citizenry, free enslaved women, and help bring democracy to the people of Afghanistan. The president says the threat posed to the nation is too great to ignore, and that pre-emptive action is necessary.

What would have these two gentlemen said in response to this policy if it were to have happened? I'm a betting man, and I'm willing to bet that they would be pushing the same "Can't we all get along" rhetoric that they are now.