A soldier understands the cost of fighting, and a fight should never be started without reason. This whole thing started because we supported the Shah, and the clerics didn't. So in effect they hate their enemies friend, even though the US does not feel this way to the Iranian people.

Iran could have ended this at any time. In fact if Carter would have shown some backbone in the 70's this whole thing would probably have been done with then and there. His weakness emboldened a nation that respects only power. Iran needs an enemy to keep their citizens in line. Look to any similar society in history for examples.

So tell me just how many times is it enough for us to reward their bad behavior with more gestures of weakness in the form of diplomatic concessions? How many more hostages should they take, how many more illegal export of weapons can they make? How much support for terrorist organizations is enough to make folks see these people don't subscribe to our idea of peaceful coexistence?

DrJBHL you don't want to see men and women die, and I applauder that. But ask yourself this. How many will die when Iran has a a nuclear device and is not afraid to use it? Israel is a small country in size, and can easily be transformed into a wasteland. Will that be enough dead to take action? And what would be the response? A nuclear attack on Iran? Is this acceptable?

Better to solve this now than to wait until the 400 hundred pound gorilla is 800 pounds. If not the ones you want to save now will only have their fate plus many, many more postponed. If this can be accomplished without war thats great, but Obama's overt display of weakness and submission will not reach those lofty goals. 

Mahdi isn't the anti-Christ; I'm not sure why his arrival would necessarily lead to war. I wasn't aware that you associated Ahmadinejad's anti-US rants with Mahdi and believe that other people would do so too.

If by Mahdi you were referring to the Iranian president's inflammatory statements, then yes, Bush has nothing on him. But being a devout Shi'ite is not the same thing as being pro-violence and pro-war.

Funny, after saying that, you enter this:

Ahmadinejad is a politician before everything else, and he isn't holding the reins of the military/foreign policy. Iran's President cannot stop the bomb-development process, nor will he be in any position to launch them if they existed. But on the other hand, Iran's President is also a good leader of the political will of the people. Iran's elections are coming in June, and such a show by Obama may actually tilt the outcome in favor of a more moderate candidate.

Don't forget that Iran is a democracy too (in a very lenient interpretation of Democracy), so influencing the political will of its people should be considered when you are judging the President's policies.

Elaborate where that is funny? I like jokes but I don't get yours.

Interesting concept, considering you are one of many who like blaming the leaders of this nation for all the actions taken by this country yet in Iran, it's the people we need to convince? Talk about seeing things the way you want to fit your agenda.

Being a devout Shi'ite that believes in providing the signs for the return of Mahdi is violent.

The destruction of Syria, Baghdad bathed in red and taking by Muslims of all non-Muslim lands (Israel) are just three signs.  You know the whole wiping out of Israel thing.

While Mahdi is not the anti-Christ, his return is linked to the anti-Christ’s and the apocalypse.  All that stuff about the four horse men.  Mahdi return will be the second coming of Christ.

Ahmadinejad and many high clerics in the Iranian Government are reported to be members of the Hojjatieh Society.  You know, some of those nut jobs that are convinced the 12th Imam's return will be hastened by the creation of chaos on earth.  In a speech he gave on 16th Nov 2005, he was to "pave the path" to the events that will bring the 12th Imam (i.e. the apocalypse).  The rest of the speech is full of quotes coming from the Hojjatieh Society.

Because of the hypocrisie your argument was seething. You said that it's not right to call someone else bloodthirsty and wanting for violence just because he has an opinion different from yours, but less than too lines later you went and did the exact thing on Iran's policial leader.

You smoke weed or what? You don't even make the least sense. It's perfectly natural to blame leaders of a country when they act wrong, 'cause they are the ones making the decision. But if you want to make them change, you have to influence the electorate. It'll be easier to change a country's direction by changing the man at the wheel than convincing him to do something different.

So, while Iran's current president is perfectly in the wrong about many of his speeches regarding Israel/Jews/others, we should not inflict complete retribution upon the country that elected him 4 years ago if they seem willing not to re-elect him. And to add to this, trying to soften relation between Iran and the USA and making sure the Iranian population knows that they won't loose everything if they do elect a moderate president, because there is the possibility of diplomatic solving makes it even easier for them to go for the moderate approach to this conflict.

If Iran had seen no opening at all (and I can't call Bush's diplomacy any kind of "opening", it's "intimidation"), then they won't elect a leader that might make them being seen weak. It's a 2-man's game, and Obama did the right thing, since he's the Leader of the most powerful country of the confllict, to make the first opening.

my earliest childhood memories include preparation for imminent nuclear attack.  for decades my--and i suspect this is true of everyone who lived in what used to be thought of as 'the first world" from 1950 thru the mid-1990s, was more aware than, say, a rock or tree, and occasionally turned on the radio/tv, picked up a paper or went to movies--life was marginalized by constant anticipation of nuclear war.  which is not to say that i lived in constant fear or continously did things differently than i might have otherwise.  it's just that there never was a time during those years when it wasn't a possibility.

i don't believe i'm alone in looking back now and realizing just how easily it might have happened--by accident or intention--and realizing there was one constant that affected each situational equation throughout that time.  as close as we came to the brink at times, as badly as both sides hated and distrusted one another, as foolish, corrupt, malicious, egotistical and possibly insane as their cold war era leaders and our own may have been, they never stopped talking to each other.

had they stopped...?

you'd have a cave wall for a monitor.

try something and if it doesn't work immediately, discard it as failure? 

you generally resolve all your problems this way?

if so, your life must be such a longass wild ride it turns mr toad green with jealousy

Not even close, Iran is a Theocracy. People assume any country that allows voting is a democracy of some sort. Kim Jong Il just won re-election by winning 100% of the vote...democracy in action right?

Countries like Iran and North Korea attempt to legitimize their leaders in the eyes of the world  with the illusions. It's amazing how many people in the free world believe and perpetuate their hyperbole for them.

Perhaps, but in Iran, the voting process can actually produce different leaders. So it's not like Syria, where there is only one party presented in elections. Iran's system is more democratic than the Soviet Union was, or Syria is. But it is less than Venezuela's, for example.

Again, that is not true. The electoral process in Iran can shift the balance of power between factions. You are merely trying to diabolise this country in every way possible. While it's true that the religious governement (the Ayatollah) isn't elected, and thus the majority of the power of the country is outside of the elected body, you may draw 2 conclusions:

1) IRan isn't trying to be hypocrit. IT's president it really elected, it's just not holding most of the cards

2) Iran's electorate can have an influence on the country's direction. As opposed to Syria's

For those that that would compare the cold war with US /Iran relationship:

Carter negotiated with Iran from a position of weakness. Iran respects power. Diplomacy failed. The Persian Gulf is a more dangerous place.

Reagan negotiated with the USSR from a position of power, The USSR respected power. Diplomacy succeeded. The world is safer place.

Obama attempts to negotiate with Iran from a perceived position of weakness, Iran still respects power. Diplomacy failed, nothing was learned from recent history. The middle east is increasingly a dangerous place as it progresses to toward nuclear weapons development.

Hmm, so what you are saying is we are going around wanting to destroy entire nations? I mean hypocrisy would suggest that I am criticizing and name calling someone for something we do, am I correct?

Let's see, send a video to make peace and have it slammed in your face with the same "you can't tell me what to do" attitude. Sounds like a failure to me, but you would not admit that from you Almighty Obama.

Now Cikomyr, this here is a prime example of Hypocrisy. Boo President Bush for a surge that was claimed would not work but don't boo Obama for a video that clearly did not work. Now this is Hypocrisy. Hope you learned something.

Except it didn't clearly not work. The video is an attempt to thaw relations with Iran and give diplomacy a try. It's not meant to be a miracle video that causes Iran to immediately abandon their entire policy and declare the US as their new allies. As such a better measure of whether the video has had any success would be to evaluate if any progress has been made after a year or so, or if things are just as bad as they were with Bush.

If you say so. I guess now that the surge in Iraq worked, everyone can say I am sorry for my mistake right? Let's start with Obama who would not accept or admit the surge worked even when everyone else said "well, it seems to be working". With Obama we have to wait for the results, with Bush he was clobbered before the action was even taken. talk about different standards, but hey, Obama is a Democrat, his criticism comes with a handi-cap.