Grant thinks that pictures from a war about 35 years ago should cause us all to moon, think seriously upon the gravity of the moment and then decide he's right - all war is immoral.
Grantt: I get it. I really do. I really, REALLY do. You no like ALL war. You no think war good for no reason. Babies die. Children die. Pregnant mothers die. Innocent civilians die. Pets die. Domesticated animals die. Wildlife dies. Bambi dies. People like you and me die. Die die die die die.
One problem with your analysis: you have removed any responsibility from Saddam for causing the current situation. You will break your back before admitting North Korea is causing the current situation. You will never understand that war is not something people take lightly, and that the reason it has taken so long to get to this point (12 years and the WTC attacks) is because of that very fact.
IMHO, I view anyone who simply is against all wars no matter what the reason as not being moral, but in turning a blind eye to those times when evil (of a humanistic level, not religious) becomes intolerable and a response is necessary. I'm sure a lot of people with the same feelings as you, not you necessarily, were happy that no one decided to go to war against Pol Pot in Cambodia or Rwanda in 1994 - there was no reason after all. Of course, you have to ignore the stench from the millions of dead bodies that resulted from inaction, but then those millions are only photographs and bones picked clean - 'peace at any cost', right?
THAT'S the cost.