If the terrorists want to hurt us here at home, their time to do it is NOW.

• Our borders are wide open.
• Our government is jailing its own border guards who are sworn to protect us.
• Any attempt to protect us is stifled immediately by Congress (still no fence) and the White House (border guards have no right to do their jobs).

So, why would terrorists have to wait until our troops withdraw from Iraq in order to "follow us home"? They can come here now. Nothing stops them from coming in.

Coming here now would save them from having to fight our troops in Iraq. They could walk straight into LA and do whatever it is they plan to do. They can still die for Allah over here and collect their 70 virgins, if that is really so important for them.

Question: What is better for national security: Fighting them "over there" while leaving all borders open over here (Plan A) - or bringing our troops home and having them protect our borders (and stop prosecuting border guards who want to keep us safe ? Let's call the latter option "Plan B".

Of course, there is still the third choice: Fight them over there AND protect our borders.  I would be totally behind that if it was effective - and if it was necessary.

However, even though our borders are completely unprotected, we have not had any terrorist attacks back here in the US for six years So, once we pull our troops back and station them on the border with orders to arrest all illegal border crossers and shoot to kill any armed Mexican convoy's on sight, there will be even less danger.

Far less, as a matter of fact. There would also be far fewer drugs and drug-peddling gang-bangers in this country.

What additional measure of safety could be achieved by offering our soldiers as cannon fodder in Iraq and elsewhere? Even if they "stay on the offensive" (against a hard to define enemy moving effortlessly within his own country and culture, which is hard to do ad costs American lives), how can we ever hope to "eradicate" terrorism?

How can we ever hope to get the people of these countries to foreswear terrorism when our very presence there gives them reasons to become terrorists?

If we stay militarily engaged in countries whose populations are naturally hostile to our presence, how do we assemble and make viable a regime that can control that country without our military support when it is already clear the population will regard any such regime as a US puppet regime?

What is the point of continuing such an occupation out of strictly national security concerns? If we are already safe under Plan B, if implemented,  without needing to sacrifice our soldiers in other countries, why continue with Plan A which requires us to sacrifice our soldiers with no added sceurity benefit?

It would seem, then, that Plan B (Ron Paul's plan) would a far better choice from a national security standpoint.

Is anyone up for a rational discussion of these issues?