Incendiary rhetoric is no justification for starting a war.  The truth is Iran almost certainly does not possess the capability to wipe Israel off the map, whereas Israel almost certainly does have the capability to do so to Iran.

I highly suggest you study more about the realities of the world around you.  Just exactly how many or how big of a nuclear device do you really think it would take to wipe Israel out ?  Did anyone ever really think a dozen or so terrorist could walk into this country and fly our own airliners into our buildings and government?  You seem to be one of those who did not learn from the experience or you have already forgotten the lesson.  If you think Iran cannot nuke Israel you better think again...the reason they will fail is because the bible says they will.

Just because something is fulfilling prophecy doesn't make it a good thing!  Whatever some Christians think, Armageddon is not something we should look forward to; it is the result of man's sinfulness.  We do have the consolation of the hope of Christ's return, but that doesn't mean we should rejoice in evil.

I don't think anyone is rejoicing at evil, the drama is cute though, but scripture says we should look forward to His return.

Actually, Irvin Baxter predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall among other things.  However, this statement of his was not a prediction but a statement of what had already occurred.  I'm not sure how to apply your somewhat bizarre metaphor, but all I was saying in regards to the president is that having to deal with difficult situations does not absolve him of his folly.  Leaders must be held responsible.  If we fail to hold them responsible, they will not be restrained.

My metaphor was fairly simplistic, if your mother waited to give birth to you until she felt like she could be a perfect parent at dealing with difficult situations, you would never have been born.

As to the war in Iraq, I happen to believe that the sole purpose of the U.S. military is the defense of the United States of America, not intervention for humanitarian reasons.  Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator, but there are many horrible dictators in the world, and while we seem to be trying, America simply cannot afford to be the policeman of the entire world, and in fact no nation or organization can.  China has a horrible human rights record, and unlike Iraq, actually has nuclear weapons and a massive army.  Do you suggest we attack them?  I hope not, because might very well be the destruction of our nation, or at the very least the loss of untold thousands of lives on our side.  There are also the oppressive regimes in North Korea, Cuba, and not a few African countries.  Why don't we invade them as well? The truth is that our current foreign policy, while not quite so drastic as the scenario I have suggested, is bleeding America dry and making us weaker.  Also, while Saddam's regime was abominable, thousands of Iraqis have been killed due to our invasion.  Liberation doesn't do you much good if you're dead.  In addition, almost the entire Christian populace of Iraq has been killed or driven out of the country.  Those few who remain beg the American soldiers not to help them, because if they do they will be killed.  It is also my understanding that in Afghanistan, where we have supposedly brought democracy, sharia law is still being enforced.  It is also worth noting that Saddam Hussein was one of multiple evil dictators and terrorists (including Osama bin Laden) that the U.S. has supported in the past.

I would have employed all of America's intelligence and manpower
 to apprehend Osama bin Laden and his cronies.  I would not have invaded a country which had nothing to do with 9/11 and I would not have engaged in fruitless nation-building efforts.