Current TV news regularly shows thousands of goose-stepping troops and weaponry parading in Iran and North Korea. Such military displays also feature violent anti-U.S. rhetoric by those nations' leaders.

Recalling identical displays from Hitler's Third Reich circa 1938-40, it is "deja vu all over again"!

Remember also the efforts to appease Hitler and the "Peace in Our Time" fruitless endeavors of Neville Chamberlain. How similar it is to the "generous UN package" being offered Iran to discontinue producing weapons-grade nuclear material.

Recent threats by Iran's president -- and his nation's support for Hezbollah attacks on Israel -- make nuclear war a very real possibility as soon as Iran possesses a nuclear weapon. With this background, divisive U.S. political posturing on the Iraq war seems almost ludicrous. Why isn't the U.S. presence in Iraq considered a military asset?

A valid reason for invasion of Iraq is to provide a strategic military base to challenge surrounding nations that supply training, support and safe harbor for terrorists (as President Bush promised).

Isn't "bring our boys home" a form of political pressure, as well as Rumsfeld's (lean force) approach, each preventing realization of full U.S. military capability in Iraq and its strong influence on Iran and other terrorist nations?

Isn't it time our political factions tell us where and how they plan to carry out the war on terror?

Gerry Prange

Pinehurst