It appears as if I may be the victim of my own sense of humor, and the trouble some people may have in distinguishing between those occasions when I'm kidding, and those when I'm serious - no offense meant to anyone.

Or, some have chosen to reply humorously, which, if that is the case, is perfectly all right with me.

But just so you know, I'm being perfectly serious here.

I'm not gonna go hunting through the dozens of threads that involved our reasons for invading Iraq, but I know that there were several posts in which various members (I honestly don't remember which ones, but I have a few ideas. If anyone wants to help me out that does remember....) approved of the invasion based only on the fact that the removal of Sadaam alone was justification enough.

Interestingly, BTW, today's New York Post has both a news article and an opinion column about what, if anything, we should do about Iran's nuclear capability:

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/62097.htm

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/62033.htm

Anyway, I know that there are members here who believe - and they are certainly entitled to their opinions of course - that we should do something militarily somewhere, once our Iraqi adventure is over, either in the name of the "War on Terror" (like in Iran, for example) or simply for "humanitarian" reasons (like in Sudan).