Clearly everyone is talking about Iran.
But lets take Iran out of the equasion. Let's say North Korea.
They have the 4th largest army in the world. They have nothing else. No food, no oil, no natural resources. Nothing.
If the new leader is about to invade South Korea, and launch a missle attack on the Phillipines, Japan, and Tiawan. If the world does not give them food, fuel, and arms.
Would South Korea, the Phillipines, Tiawan, and Japan be with in their rights to launch an attack to take out the North Korean missle sites or cripple the ability of the army to move South?
If a person is pointing a gun at you and says give me your wallet or I will shoot you, do you have to wait to be shot or shot at before you can shoot at them? If they say they are going to attack you, if they say do this or else, physical or deadly extortion allows you to protect your self or others. Why would it not be OK to do the same thing nation to nation?
I am glad you brought up N. Korea, they are one of the most misunderstood Nuclear countries, and they have NOTHING to lose.
However a counter point, if the largest army on earth was camped on our border would WE consider that an imminent threat?
We have been camped on their border for 60 YEARS? 
?
Also the last time anyone was near enough to point a gun at us (and hit us) was the Cuban Missile Crisis, before that Pearl Harbor. In the mean time we have invaded; Korea, Vietnam, Iran (hostage rescue), Bosnia, Sebia, Kuwait, Somolia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan (OBL kill) etc.
Who's pointing the gun at whom?
I am all for DEFENSE when the US or our CLOSE allies are threatened (for real). You attack us, prepare for the end - no holding back in a PC war effort.
9/11 is a different case, and in my opinion DID NOT warrant invading Iraq or staying in Afghanistan. Did we invade Michigan when Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal building?
I feel the NeoCons are leading us to war with Iran - but the ones who will profit are not the ones who will pay that price.
NWBear
Our so called invasions lets look at them. Korea in 1950. The leader of South Korea was a huge anti communist and the US feared he would invade the North and start the capitalist communist war and did not give him weapons for protection and instead acted as a protector. When an armed North Korea invaded the South trying to enslave them the US army filled the role of the protector and fought the North back to China at that point the Chineese invaded and attacked us. We are camped there as the war hasd not ended. It was a truce not a treaty ending the war. The truce is a prolonged cease fire and that is why we are sitting there. I had a SGT in military school that had just come back from Korea and had been on multiple ambushes in the south where he was in fire fights from invading NK troops. In the 80's there was a tunne lfound under South Kora that streached about 20 miles behind the DMZ.
Viet Nam was a fiasco, we were there for the wrong reasons, the war was not winnable with too many restrictions and the lack of support at home that caused the enemy to act bolder. Gen Giap said that he was about to surender but the Peace movement in the US had a second wind to his campaign and if it were not for them he would not have won.
Panama, and Gernada were p[olice actions. One was a rescue operation the other was to arrest a drug lord that had taken over the country.
Kwait, was to stop Sadam and hios lust for power and protect a Westernized Arab country and protect Saudi Arabia, an other of our allies in the area
Bosnia, and Somolia were Clinton goofs in trying to use the Army as meals on wheels.
Somolia - was an al Quida attack on the US Military directly and with Clinto pulling out made Al Quida stronger and bolder to attempt to kill more.
The failed attempt to rescue the hostages in 1979 was a reaction to an attack on US soil the Embasy is US soil! The occupation and taking of hostages was a direct attack on us.
The invasion of Afganistan was as a result of the 9/11 attack and the attempt to get the planners of the attack. When the leadership of the country protected the terrorists we went in to get them. We gave them every oppertunity to hand over the terrorists. They said NO.
Iraq the second time was due to intelegence that both the Bush and Clinton administration understood that Sadam was developing weapons and the understanding that they were looking to work with the terrorists to hurt us. On the flip side of that coin. So far we have freed millions of poeple, torture is not longer the rule, rape rooms are no longer used.. You no longer have a dictator and his evil sons drivbing down the road picking this person or that and torturing them because they dared sneeze, there wife was pretty and they wanted her. Reguardless of your political leanings both parties administrations said he was developing WMDs again. That there are millions of people better off for he sacrafice that our military has made to free them.
I am not for war with Iran, but on the same note I do not think we should back down from them. If we think they are building a bomb we need to stop it. If we as a country say we are going to stop them, we are going to protect our allies. And we are willing to fight them to stop theur agression. They will back down. If you have the Ron Paul crowd that says well even if we are attacked well as long ads they do not invaed ...... they will push their hate adgendas. Be it Iran, North Korea, or the New Egypt, lybia or China.
