[Valpal1]

1. Yes, invading Iran instead of Iraq would have been harder and costlier in lives and money and we would have had to do it entirely without the support of any other country. Britain and Australia would not have supported a unilateral action against Iran at the time. There were strategic military reasons for doing Iraq first, not the least being that we were fairly certain no other muslim country would also declare open war against us to help him. That is not what would have happened if we had invade Iran instead of Iraq, we very likely would have instantly faced a very united opposing coalition of Arab nations.

2. Technically the failure to abide by the ceasefire terms from Desert Storm was the provocation and another declaration or provoking act was unnecessary.

3. Declare multiple wars on multiple fronts? LOL, yeah, that's feasible. I prefer a WOT with the identified Axis of Evil.

4. Human history is generally a chronic state of war with an occasional peace breaking out. Get used to it, the cold war is over and it's now lukewarm. The time for total war is not yet, and may even be avoided if eurotrash pull their heads out of their keesters in time. I don't know that the US will pull their nuts out of the fire this go round.

I do not call people who openly support taking out Iran's nuclear program chickenhawks. I was referring to those who secretly hope someone (Bush or Israel) will do it, but do not openly support the action. These are the same people who will vetch that Bush did nothing or will recoil in horror at his gunslinger mentality if he does. You know the type, they want something "done" without having to take responsibility for it, typical leftist magical thinking. You just can't win with these creatures of the welfare state.

Also you seem to forget that the WOT has electronic and monetary fronts that naturally are kept out of the press as much as possible. Iraq is a just one battle, one move on the chessboard that keeps the focus and the energy of the enemy over there and not over here.

Every soldier wounded or killed over there is personally protecting me and my family from harm and I remember that always.

[TeenagedConservative]

Declare multiple wars on multiple fronts? LOL, yeah, that's feasible. I prefer a WOT with the identified Axis of Evil.

Please explain how North Korea is guilty of "terror."

It is not. Our government is very eerily waging an undeclared war on anything we deem to be an enemy. Now, again, I must issue the disclaimer that I support 100% all current battles the US is fighting, so that I'm not mistaken for a lefty. I am a libertarian; I fear government. I do not want eternal war.

Human history is generally a chronic state of war with an occasional peace breaking out. Get used to it, the cold war is over and it's now lukewarm. The time for total war is not yet, and may even be avoided if eurotrash pull their heads out of their keesters in time. I don't know that the US will pull their nuts out of the fire this go round.

Actually, the time for total war is anytime our troops are being massacred, which is currently usually in cold blood. If there are levels of deserving war, this enemy deserves the worst level. No restraint should be shown them. They fulfill none of the characteristics the Geneva Convention lays out as those defining a legitimate fighting force. They murder civilians intentionally. This enemy, and anyone who does not openly abhor and oppose them, deserve the very worst that our military can unleash.

This feeble semblance of war in which we currently hover is useless. If our enemy deserves to die, let's COMMIT. Either we deploy no troops, or throw the industrial might of the this economy into obliterating Islam's militancy forever.

You say we can still avoid war. This makes no sense. 9/11 was war. You say "avoid war" like a commie, "war" being defined by the US fighting back. Are we at peace when we suffer the occasional terrorist attack every two years?