And he said these things at a time when many Democrats who knew (or should have known) better didn't have the political courage to go against the wartime President.

To be fair, they weren't afraid of the President, they were afraid of us, the American people.

Obama didn't say, as Kucinich's band of idiots did and still do, that all wars were bad (that the war in Afghanistan was wrong, for instance). He didn't even say that we should never fight in Iraq and never fight Saddam Hussein.

What he DID say was that there wasn't sufficient justification at that time; that the war would blow back on us; and that we would get distracted from dealing with those who really attacked us (Afghanistan/Pakistan) and those who paid all their bills (Saudi Arabia).

Looks to me like he was right for many right reasons.

And he said these things at a time when many Democrats who knew (or should have known) better didn't have the political courage to go against the wartime President. Lookin' at you, Hillary.

It's an all-volunteer force.

Right. So starting a war with a country that did not attack or threaten us in which they get killed is OK.

Support the troops folks. Wear a lapel pin.

Only if we occupy and colonize.

That's just one way to extend hegemony, we've taken another. In the end, the result is the same: we are forced into perpetual wars against far-away nations to protect far-away lands, and once we defeat those nations we are forced to protect them against even further-away nations.

If we were to attack Iran and topple their government, surely we'd have to stick around to protect them from Russia or China, maybe even Pakistan. And what then?

It's an all-volunteer force. Virtually every single enlisted soldier in Iraq has enlisted or re-upped since March 2003 and most officers either got commissioned since then or have enough time in service that they could have resigned.

WTF does that have to do with anything?

Of course, its not your ass getting shot off in Iraq, so you can afford to joke.

It's an all-volunteer force. Virtually every single enlisted soldier in Iraq has enlisted or re-upped since March 2003 and most officers either got commissioned since then or have enough time in service that they could have resigned.

Give him a cookie

Funny stuff. Of course, its not your ass getting shot off in Iraq, so you can afford to joke.

best intelligence...what was in dispute in the case of Iraq.

Best intelligence, or cherry-picked intelligence that started with fixed conclusions and ignored all evidence to the contrary?

Then we become Rome.

Only if we occupy and colonize.

But it makes sense to take the calculated risk if the target has demonstrated hostile intent and our best intelligence shows hostile capability.

Then we become Rome.

If you're only concerns are what produces the optimal conditions for Americans, then yes.

Certainly, that's my prime concern in deciding whether America should go to war. Followed by our Allies. Then everyone else.

[W]e should be perpetually attacking any power that could threaten us. Morally, however, I don't think either of us wants to go down that road.

I don't think morality is the mean reason to not do that. Obviously, we shouldn't go to war based on outrageous improbabilities. But it makes sense to take the calculated risk if the target has demonstrated hostile intent and our best intelligence shows hostile capability. The latter is what was in dispute in the case of Iraq.

Different stakes. If we had decided not to go in to Iraq and Saddam had acquired nuclear weapons and blown up Israel, or sold biological weapons to al Qaeda, that would be worse than going to war only to find no WMD.

If you're only concerns are what produces the optimal conditions for Americans, then yes. However, if you don't believe that the end justifies the means, then no.

By the first criteria, and given our current military supremacy compared to any other nation on earth, we should be perpetually attacking any power that could threaten us. Morally, however, I don't think either of us wants to go down that road.

Everybody _knew_ GW was dumb as a doorknob. People voted for him because a) he wasn't Al Gore and b) he had announced a cabinet full of Big Names whose expertise and wisdom would supposedly guide him. Obama, OTOH, is _not_ known for his incuriosity (is that even a word?) or his string of business failures that he touts as his "experience" to be a "CEO President".

Second only to being wrong in the "Yes" direction, I would say. Just like I'd rather let a guilty man walk, that let an innocent man hang. But maybe that's just the liberal in me.

Different stakes. If we had decided not to go in to Iraq and Saddam had acquired nuclear weapons and blown up Israel, or sold biological weapons to al Qaeda, that would be worse than going to war only to find no WMD.