but that's not what you said

There is no contradiction there. I will say it AGAIN. The longer we stay in an undeclared war, the more likely it is that various personal and political agendas will become part of the mix. We lose sight of what the goal is. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Do you remember any protest from Democrats in 1975 when Saigon fell to the communists? Hopefully Obama will have our troops out of Iraq by August.

Mission creep is a well-documented phenomenon in military actions. I'm not entirely sure how it applies to Iraq however, except maybe its duration.

That is a good point. Since I don't know what the original mission in Iraq really was, I can't say with any certainty how much it has crept. However, it was sold as something that could be accomplished relatively quickly and as a mission that would pay for itself through Iraqi oil sales. The reality on the ground there is quite different. If the ultimate plan is to make war on Iran, we are well situated from a tactical point of view.

And World War I would be over before Christmas. The problem is there was no real plan for after the invasion as far as I can tell - it was open-ended and remains so.
No that's crazy talk. Iran is five times the size of Iraq and soon to be a nuclear state.

I seem to be at odds with most American Christians. I am devout, yet I am against war. (I'm a pacifist...which is what Christ taught.)

The hawkish factions in the U.S. and Israel have been stating for years that Iran will never be allowed to go nuclear. Are they paper tigers? If dissatisfaction with the mullahs grows to a point where internal collapse happens can Iran be kept in one piece, or will Kurds and other minorities try to carve out their own homelands?

The original mission in Iraq was: Seizing/Destroying their weapons of Mass Destruction and deposing Sadam Hussein.

The new mission: Bring peace to the Middle East through military force. After all nothing says lovin like a good ass-kicking. I'm not sold that peace can be obtained by a war machine though.

Also, the only real difference between Republicans and Democratics is that Republicans want to take my money and give it to the rich, while Democrats want to take it and give it to the poor. But neither of them want to give me squat.

Call me old fashioned but I believe in the values the country was founded on: Non-intervention, minimal taxes, a union of the States, and the government stays out of people's business (read: healthcare/medicare/medicaid, excessive foreign aid, war on drugs, social security, wellfare and any other hot social reform like taxing pizza so people aren't fat... wtf??), and guns .

But those ideals are a thing of the past. So I don't follow politics very closely anymore.

If you believe in minimal government, why are you concerned that neither party wants to give you anything? You don't think they should be anyway.

Obama is a one-term President. Plain and simple.