Originally Posted by tecoyah

I would be forced to disagree. Take a closer look at what we have been willing to do in a much less threatening situation. We have started two wars, allowed certain liberties to be removed, spent enormous resources, compromised our national ethics, supported military invasion, and kept up support until it was painfully obvious the leadership was incapable of accomplishing victory as defined by not only itself, but virtually all agreed upon standards of warfare.
Now...Imagine what we would be doing right now, if an aggressor nation had decided to invade multiple countries friendly to us, or even allied. And had also blatantly attacked our shores, killed thousands of our soldiers, and destroyed part of our military might. In my opinion this country would react with the absolute decimation of the offending country(s), and have massive support from the population in doing so. Trying to place this scenario into the context of what we are doing in Iraq makes very little sense to me, as it is the difference between invading...and being invaded.