First, I don't believe our enemies consider us terrorists. On the contrary, they consider us spoiled, rich brats who owe our wealth to the world, and that we can't be a wealthy nation. Many also dislike our belief in a Christian God, and think their only allies are people who worship like them.
With that being said, I think your analysis is fair, I just happen to disagree. Where you think this war was a choice, I believe it was a necessity. Had France and England invaded Germany the minute they attacked Poland in WW2, perhaps WW2 could have been minimized. Had they attacked at that point, you could argue that their military action was a choice, not a necessity. However, in hindsight, we see it would have been a necessity, because we know the history that unfolded after the Poland invasion when Germany marched across Belgium and into France.
As for Iran, I wouldn't expect anything different from them. Their regime is extremely threatened with the liberation of its neighbors Iraq and Afghanistan. Democracy and freedom are the biggest enemies to Iran's regime.
With N. Korea, I also think we set a precedent for how we deal with threats to our security, and how we back up our words with action. This can go a long way in how our enemies interpret our words.
In the end, I think the difference between our opinions, or at least one of the differences, is that I believe in defending our country from a position of power. I feel your views involve defending our country from a position of fear and weakness, i.e. afraid of what other countries might do, instead of having resolve and faith that doing the right thing is what has made our country so great. It's open to debate as to who is right.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
