Why do you think it has limited benefits? Iran publicly states it wants us destroyed, and it was developing a nuclear weapon. The benefits to the American people seem obvious and substantial.

Why do you not support it, when you "no doubt" supported Obama's wars (against Libya, just for example...ELP had a good link below on this). There was no benefit at all to the United States in participating in that war. In 2004, Libya shipped its nuclear materials and equipment to the United States. After Bush's "if you are not with us you are against us" speech, they had basically become an ally in the war on terror. But, Obama attacked them anyway, which was contrary to the interests of the American people (and communicated to the world that our allies could not trust the US government to consistently stand by them...and maybe they should develop a nuke to keep us at bay, especially if Obama was willing to help pay for it in the case of Iran). Did you support the war on Libya which had no benefit to Americans, but you now oppose this attack which at least has a chance to benefit the American people?

I don't know if this "war" is right or wrong. I questioned the attack on Iraq in 2003, and I always said the war would be easy but the peace would be hard. I was right. But, once the president decided to move forward, I hoped for the best. That is how I feel about this "war," which has clearer benefits to the American people than the Iraq invasion.