"I want to remind us all of how many completely unnecessary deaths have occurred in Iraq. None of these heroes should have been sent to die there."

They were ordered to go to Iraq by the President of the United States. The Congress of United States has funded this effort. The elected leadership of Iraq wants the miltary support of Coalition. The majority of Iraqis see that the coalition forces are needed in Iraq. The majority of Iraqi did not want to be ruled by Saddam.
The only people who agree with what you say are wackos and those who cheerleading for the terrorists.

"I support our military action in Afghanistan. It was fully jutified by the need to topple a regime which was allowing foreign terrorists to plot against American citizens."

Wonderful, you seem to apparently distinquish yourself from a handful other wackjobs. And obviously, you support the US invading Afghanistan [for the reason you stated].
[It should noted that invasion of Afghanistan was not sanctioned by UN and had less international support than invasion of Iraq. In beginning of Afghan conflict the NATO did not want to get involved, and with Iraq NATO and internation support is gaining quicker support than as compared to Aghanistan].
So one can not say that Donald is against war in general terms, he is a "warmonger" for certain types of invasions and "imposing of democratic goverments".

"This was not the case in Iraq. We had no business going there. The loss of 1,746 american soldiers in Iraq was completely unnecessary and unjustified. That's why I post these reminders - to remind us of the every day loss of life in a war that was completely unnecessary and utterly without justification. "

See above. Also Security Council warned the Iraqi regime that it would face "severe consequences"- unlike Afghanistan. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan did not invade a country e.g., Kuwait, nor was given 12 years to comply with a cease fire agreement [and fail to do so]. Unlike Iraq the Taliban did not have as much relative control over it's nation [it was still in a civil war and this fighting was going on for decades]. Considering the relative power of the Taliban and state of general disorder in the country, the govt of Afghanistan was given very little room to avoid an invasion- unlike Saddam who could have probably avoided a war merely offering to step down power. Saddam's Iraq was aggressive to other countries in region. He was brutal to his own people, he amassed wealth for his benefit, he was doing nothing to bring peace to the middle east, rather he did everything in his power to do the opposite. It was because it was realized that Saddam could not be persuaded towards a peaceful path that Clinton Adminstration decided that the only possible option, as long as Saddam was in power, was regime change.

"Instead of starting an unnecessary war in Iraq, we should have focussed our resources in completing the job in Afghanistan and reserved our capacity, both diplomatic and military, to pressure Iran and North Korea into abandoning their nuclear weapons programs."

We didn't start a war in Iraq. Saddam never ended his hostility. Sanctions are an act of war. There is no other explanation for controling Iraqi oil exports other than as an act of war. The only semi-valid reason given for lifting sanctions was that they were not effective in bring about an objective of ending the war- not that they weren't legal or proper action in which the UN security council could do. Sanctions are a tool of war favored by some people, seen as an alternative to using direct miltary force. The reason we continue sanction and continued controling much of Iraq airspace was because Saddam's regime had not fully complied with the cease fire agreement. And we now have definite proof that Saddam's intention after sanctions were lifted was to do actions which would have violated the cease fire agreement.

"We're stuck now. In the meantime, Iran and North Korea thumb their noses at us knowing full well we can do nothing to stop them. And the violence continues in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Mr. Bush has gone a bridge too far and the toll is beginning to mount."

We are not limited by the miltary operations in Iraq from doing anything in regards to N Korea or Iran. We could* invade Syria and it still would not make any difference. We could* attack Syria and Iran, and this would affect what we could do in N Korea [and/or the Tiawan straits].

*We could attack Syria and/or Iran, but it's not at this moment in our national interest. There a number of reasons for this. The first and most simple reason is we don't go to war unless there are not better alternatives. And at the moment there are better alternatives. Obviously if either or both of these countries attack us directly, we won't have an alternative. The question regarding possible covert warfare by either of these State is the reason why I say "at this moment". If we know the these States are not supporting and are actually opposed to supporting fighting going on in Iraq, then we have NO reason "at this moment" or any other moment. And of course, there is also the issue to do with Iran illegally making nuclear weapons.
BUT if either of these countries use conventional or other kinds of blatent miltary force against the Coalition forces or Iraqi forces in Iraq, they will be stopped within hours and be completely and utterly defeated in terms capablity of any miltary action in days or weeks- and no we aren't going to occupy these countries, we will use conventional weapons to flatten infrastructure and/or armies [generally an approach that Tom always seem to think would been a better approach [as far as reducing US causalities] in regard to Iraq [which btw I regard as wrongheaded/or even a strawman issue- except as I said in response to a direct miltary threat from Syria, Iran, China, and/or N Korea. Btw, troops massing or major preparation for war could be enough of theshold of a threat in this regard].