I never understand this thing about not declaring war, but waging it in any case. If war hasn't been declared, that means a state of war does not exist, and any use of armed force outside the context if immediate self-defence surely counts as piracy or something of that sort.

As I understand it, America has a procedure in its constitution for declaring war, so if being at war is seen as appropriate, what's the big deal about going about it the legal and proper way? Roosevelt didn't say at the time of Pearl Harbour "we've been attacked, so there is no need for us to declare war", did he?

And in any case there doesn't seem any evidence that Iraq was in any way involved in September 11, nor Iran, nor North Korea, nor whatever other countries are next in line.

If the checks and balances in the constitution about that kind of thing are for some reason no longer appropriate, surely the right thing to do is change it, not just ignore it.