Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Anyone notice the build up of rhetoric and circumstances all pointing to Bush's interests in a war with IRAN. Here's a short and incomplete list:
1-The Senate yesterday overwhelmingly passed a second resolution which allows Bush's attack. 2-We've move an extra carrier group and Marine Strike Force Group into the Persian Gulf (now the ships literally have trouble turning around they are so crowded.) 3-We've moved strategic nuclear weapons from storage to facilities where they can be quickly sent to the region. yes they believe we can win this war if we just use nukes! 4-Cheney stated he's "considered provoking an exchange of military strikes between Iran and Israel in order to give the United States a pretext to attack Iran." 5- Newsweek, Time, NY Times, Rolling Stone, BBC and more have written articles asking if this war is now inevitable. 6- The Pentagon and CIA have leaked that a "plan of escalation" leading to war is in effect from the White House. 7- Reports of US fighters crossing into Iran to test anti aircraft defenses.
And the official message is alarmingly similar to the talk immediately before the attack on Iraq. The Neocons seem convinced we can "win" with only air strikes.
Now think about it. Iran has 3 times the population of Iraq and more than 65% are under 30 (can you say BIG Army). If they decide to go to war, we will have 170,000 troops trapped in Iraq, easy marks for Iranian troops.
But I keep forgetting, war's are easy. Oh and Fox is running anti-Iran propoganda almost continuously, including an hour long Hannity segment yesterday on how effective it would be and a special this weekend called "The Ticking Bomb"
There was chatter over a war with Iran since the "Mission Accomplished" speech. This is all part of a greater plan. A nasty neo-con plan that they have been pushing since day one.
they had the chance to take him out in new york, i'd like to see a bullet pass rt through his forhead . i hate to hate but that bastard HAS TO GO . .........
they had the chance to take him out in new york, i'd like to see a bullet pass rt through his forhead . i hate to hate but that bastard HAS TO GO . .........
The similarities between Bush and Ahmadinejad are striking. They are both rich boys who have no true beliefs but continue to get elected by pandering to their crazy religious base. The shame is we're the ones who will ultimately pay for their lunacy.
I think there should be a no holds barred, cage match to the death. It's a no lose situation.
Post by mojoworks on Sept 27, 2007 13:21:07 GMT -5
Ahmedinadouche is just a puppet for the theocracy that truly has the power in Iran. Getting rid of him would accomplish nothing. The key is that massive under 30 population that, by most accounts, yearns for more freedom and westernization.
I don't like Bush at all, but I hate to hear people advocating his assassination.
Post by lordrockinhood on Sept 27, 2007 13:26:04 GMT -5
Watch out, whether its humor or not, if the government hasn't flagged this site already, statements like some in this thread will certainly get them to
*EDIT* although, actually, I'm sure this site was flagged a loooooooooooooooooooooong time ago
Post by stallion pt. 2 on Sept 27, 2007 16:12:38 GMT -5
I think we all know war with Iran would be folly, but that hasn't stopped us in the past. I forsee some startling similarities w/ our war(s) in Iraq. A few years of Air Strikes, possibly interrupted/extended if a neo-con mouthpiece fails to win the presidency in 08, followed by a long, drawn out and ultimatly unwinnable ground war filled w/ secretarian violence. Of course, this kind of destabilization is just what we want, since it keeps nationalist leaders from controlling their own natural resources. Of course, going to war w/ a country over their natural resources is illegal according to the Geneva Conventions, but that's never stopped us before. Soon we'll be at war w/ Afghanistan, Iraq AND Iran, all for control of natural gas pipelines and oil shipping lanes out of the Persian Gulf that never belonged to us. Sounds like terrorism to me.
John: We don't even understand our own music Spider: It doesn't, does it matter whether we understand it? At least it'll give us . . . strength John: I know but maybe we could get into it more if we understood it
Post by bamabelle on Sept 27, 2007 17:33:51 GMT -5
LOL! I'm sure this site was marked looong ago....probably by others loooong before anyone in the US Gov tho'!
I don't see any signs of imminent war w/Iran, just lots of rhetoric to appease the hawks and keep the support for the troops in Iraq flowing....and to keep Iran from getting any ideas that they can push the envelope any further. Being a nuclear player now makes a diff.
I think we all know war with Iran would be folly, but that hasn't stopped us in the past. I forsee some startling similarities w/ our war(s) in Iraq. A few years of Air Strikes, possibly interrupted/extended if a neo-con mouthpiece fails to win the presidency in 08, followed by a long, drawn out and ultimatly unwinnable ground war filled w/ secretarian violence. Of course, this kind of destabilization is just what we want, since it keeps nationalist leaders from controlling their own natural resources. Of course, going to war w/ a country over their natural resources is illegal according to the Geneva Conventions, but that's never stopped us before. Soon we'll be at war w/ Afghanistan, Iraq AND Iran, all for control of natural gas pipelines and oil shipping lanes out of the Persian Gulf that never belonged to us. Sounds like terrorism to me.
WAR MEANS WORK FOR ALL ----Frank Zappa, 1967
There's a few things wrong with your post here...And know that I'm in now way advocating a war with Iran, just wanted to clear a few things up.
- There wouldn't be the "secterian violence" that we're seeing in Iraq. Iran is over 90% shia, there are very few sunnis there to even fight.
- Any conventional ground war with Iran would by no means be "unwinnable." We may be learing on the fly in our supposed counterinsurgency, but the US pretty much wrote the book on interlocking land-sea-air-space modern warfare. The Iranian military may have a large pool from which to draw recruits, but numbers mean little in this situation. Ask the Iraqi Republican guard what happened the last time a Soviet built military went toe to toe in conventional warfare with the US. They enjoyed a 5-1 numerical superiority and entrenched defensive positions but were still wiped out in a matter of days. They're just too outdated in both equipment and tactics. It'd be like the 1925 Green Bay Packers going up against the 2006 Indianapolis Colts - they just simply would not be able to deal with speed, strength size and complexity of our military. However, another "insurgency" or guerrilla war would be a different story. The only bright spot is that it would leave a gap for that huge under 30 Iranian population yearning to shred Iran of it's strict religious government and to embrace the western world.
- Just about every war in the history of the world has had something to do with one country's resources. It's pretty simple - "you have something we want/need, give it to us or we're going to take it." I'm not saying it's right or justified, it's just the way it is.
But our army is worn out. Our troops are tired, our equipment is falling apart, we have a shortage of helicopters, humvees and armoured vehicles. And the top Marine Corp General just said just three days ago that the US doesn't have the manufacturing base to keep up with current needs so we definitely can't build the necessary new equipment required for as land war in Iran.
But our army is worn out. Our troops are tired, our equipment is falling apart, we have a shortage of helicopters, humvees and armoured vehicles. And the top Marine Corp General just said just three days ago that the US doesn't have the manufacturing base to keep up with current needs so we definitely can't build the necessary new equipment required for as land war in Iran.
Nothing you said is untrue. But even with all of that, the Iranian military still pales in comparison, that's just how outdated it is. A conventional invasion would be similar to what we did in Iraq when we took a country in a matter of weeks, which no matter how jacked up it was run, was still a phenomenal military success. Then that asshat got up there and said mission accomplished while my guys were still getting shot at in Nasiriyah.
We are in no way equipped to maintain another occupation of any kind, but a conventional invasion campaign would be relatively easy against a greatly inferior and obsolete military. Again, that's not to say this is what I want to happen. I don't even think it will happen, at least not any time soon.
I agree that the US should be able to win any conventional military engagement. We did that in Iraq, and even in Vietnam. But this administration does not truly understand war. We could easily defeat the Iranian Army but would we be better off. I believe we'd be stuck with another Iraq. The problem is not getting in but getting out. That is MUCH more dangerous. While withdrawing you run the risk of stranding elements. And are the odds of leaving a better government behind favorable?
Our own intelligence services say the Iraq war and occupation has resulted in a stronger Al Qaeda and more terrorists, and even Gen. Petraeus will not say has made us safer. An Iranian engagement could not be expected to result in an American friendly government, would further destabilize the region and most likely require long term troop occupation, which like Iraq, sets our troops up as easy and long term targets. So more death, more money and more terrorists. Sounds like a great idea.
I really hope everyone is right and even Bush/Cheney are not stupid enough to attack Iran. But we'll see.
Post by stallion pt. 2 on Oct 1, 2007 12:20:33 GMT -5
badfish said:
- There wouldn't be the "secterian violence" that we're seeing in Iraq. Iran is over 90% shia, there are very few sunnis there to even fight.
It may not be shiite/sunni violence, but every time we invade a country there are those in that country who support the U.S. (usually the ones we give weapons and power to) and those who don't. Those factions inevitably begin fighting.
- Any conventional ground war with Iran would by no means be "unwinnable." We may be learing on the fly in our supposed counterinsurgency, but the US pretty much wrote the book on interlocking land-sea-air-space modern warfare. The Iranian military may have a large pool from which to draw recruits, but numbers mean little in this situation. Ask the Iraqi Republican guard what happened the last time a Soviet built military went toe to toe in conventional warfare with the US. They enjoyed a 5-1 numerical superiority and entrenched defensive positions but were still wiped out in a matter of days. They're just too outdated in both equipment and tactics. It'd be like the 1925 Green Bay Packers going up against the 2006 Indianapolis Colts - they just simply would not be able to deal with speed, strength size and complexity of our military. However, another "insurgency" or guerrilla war would be a different story. The only bright spot is that it would leave a gap for that huge under 30 Iranian population yearning to shred Iran of it's strict religious government and to embrace the western world.
So you're suggesting that invading a country with a larger area and a much larger army than Iraq is going to somehow be EASIER to secure than Iraq? Not to mention how thin our already exhausted troops will be spread between Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. Or do you advocate the draft, too?
- Just about every war in the history of the world has had something to do with one country's resources. It's pretty simple - "you have something we want/need, give it to us or we're going to take it." I'm not saying it's right or justified, it's just the way it is.
Well, the U.S. certainly wasn't after resources when we entered WWII, which may be why many Americans consider it the last justified war we've had. And while I agree most of our military actions since (and many before) then were over another county's resources, that doesn't change the fact that these actions are ILLEGAL under international law. Perhaps that's why we can't get any international support for our continued military actions in the Middle East.
John: We don't even understand our own music Spider: It doesn't, does it matter whether we understand it? At least it'll give us . . . strength John: I know but maybe we could get into it more if we understood it
So you're suggesting that invading a country with a larger area and a much larger army than Iraq is going to somehow be EASIER to secure than Iraq? Not to mention how thin our already exhausted troops will be spread between Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. Or do you advocate the draft, too?
Again, throw the numbers out the window, they don't mean a thing in this case. Wars are no longer fought by million man armies marching across open continent on foot. But I'll go along with it for argument's sake. We've got about 150k troops in the Iraqi theatre, and about 30k in the Afghani theatre. Round that off and let's put it at an even 200k that would be unavailable for any campaign anywhere else besides where their asses are at that very moment. Take that from the roughly 1.5 million active duty military personnel serving right now and you get 1.3 million. Add that 1.3 million to the other 1.3 million we've got in the reserves and what do you get? A whole helluva lot of people not away at war right now.
As for the draft, I think it's necessary at certain times, but right now is by no means one of them, and neither would a war with Iran.
Well, the U.S. certainly wasn't after resources when we entered WWII, which may be why many Americans consider it the last justified war we've had. And while I agree most of our military actions since (and many before) then were over another county's resources, that doesn't change the fact that these actions are ILLEGAL under international law. Perhaps that's why we can't get any international support for our continued military actions in the Middle East.
The U.S. wasn't after resources in WWII - well you'll never hear anyone admit to it anyway. But the truth is that the only reason we got involved is because we didn't want to lose interests in France and England, as well as blossoming contacts in Asia. Fascist dictatorships taking control of all that is a big no-no. Economic Stability is what every war is about. You never get something for nothing, and this was no different. But don't forget that the U.S. didn't enter WWII until December 1941, which leaves almost 2 full years of no U.S. presence - we weren't involved in the start of that war. But why do you think Italy, Germany, Japan and the Soviets were? Resources. Hell, why do you think Hitler turned his back on the Soviets and launched operation barberossa on the Red Army? He even wrote in Mein Kompf that he fully intended to invade the Soviet Union, believing that the German people needed "living space and raw materials."
And I'll bet you a nickel that if you looked closely enough, you could find a way to declare any war that's happening now, will happen in the future, or happened in the past illegal under international law in some way shape or form. They do that on purpose.
Post by stallion pt. 2 on Oct 1, 2007 16:08:37 GMT -5
Your insistance that numbers and area don't matter because of our technological superiority ignores the fact that despite out technology securing Iraq has been a f*ucking disaster. By your logic, Iraq and Afghanistan should be wrapped by now. The fact remains that technological superiority will only take us so far. We have superior tech to Iraq, but we're on our way to 4,000 American soldiers dead with no end in sight. Iran would be much worse. Technology has NOTHING to do with it.
And we entered WWII until Dec 1941 b/c we were ATTACKED. the UK declared war w/ Germany because their ally, Poland, was INVADED and OCCUPIED. Other nations went to war because other allies, or in the case of Russia, their own land, was invaded and taken by force by Germany. The Allies weren't fighting because they wanted Germany's resources. Germany was invading other countries because they wanted theirs, much like the US is invading Middle Eastern countries to secure their oil resources. And your casual dismissal of the Geneva Conventions makes you sound like Alberto Gonzales. The notion of Americans that we should be at the head of a global economy while not being subject to international law or international courts is the kind of thinking (and dooing) that makes everybody hate and distrust us.
John: We don't even understand our own music Spider: It doesn't, does it matter whether we understand it? At least it'll give us . . . strength John: I know but maybe we could get into it more if we understood it
Your insistance that numbers and area don't matter because of our technological superiority ignores the fact that despite out technology securing Iraq has been a f*ucking disaster. By your logic, Iraq and Afghanistan should be wrapped by now. The fact remains that technological superiority will only take us so far. We have superior tech to Iraq, but we're on our way to 4,000 American soldiers dead with no end in sight. Iran would be much worse. Technology has NOTHING to do with it.
Iran would be a completely different war than Iraq or Afghanistan. Aside from the initial invasion, which took all of a few weeks, Iraq has been a guerrilla war/insurgency. It took those morons at the top 4 years, but they're finally starting to treat it as such. Afghanistan has been that way since day one. We're using the right tactics there, but 30k troops just won't cut it. Iran would be a conventional ground war, unless the mullahs want to cede power and turn it into another Iraq, which I really can't see happening - they like the unstability in Iraq only because it allows them to get a foothold in the power struggle, they don't want that in their own house. As far as conventional warfare goes, the US military is the single most powerful and effective force this planet has ever seen. And technology has EVERYTHING to do with that. As I said before, we're learning on the job in Iraq, but the US wrote the book on interlocking modern warfare.
And we entered WWII until Dec 1941 b/c we were ATTACKED. the UK declared war w/ Germany because their ally, Poland, was INVADED and OCCUPIED. Other nations went to war because other allies, or in the case of Russia, their own land, was invaded and taken by force by Germany. The Allies weren't fighting because they wanted Germany's resources. Germany was invading other countries because they wanted theirs, much like the US is invading Middle Eastern countries to secure their oil resources. And your casual dismissal of the Geneva Conventions makes you sound like Alberto Gonzales. The notion of Americans that we should be at the head of a global economy while not being subject to international law or international courts is the kind of thinking (and dooing) that makes everybody hate and distrust us.
We were attacked, and we knew it was coming the whole time. We allowed ourselved to be drawn into WWII because FDR knew that it would take a drastic event to get public support. It worked, and from what we've seen was the right thing to do. But we had a policy of isolationism at that time. They knew that the only way we could ensure our continued interests abroad was to jump into the war ourselves. Again, resources.
And I never said that the Allies went to war to get Germany's resources. In fact, I said the opposite - that it was axis powers who were after resources, a direct result of WWI and the Stock Market crash here in the US. The allies weren't after more, just protecting what they already had.
I'm not sure what the Geneva Conventions have to do with this though. I'm no expert on them by any stretch of the imagination, but as far as I know they deal primarily with the treatment of POWs and civilians. I was referring to the UN. And yes, I "casually dismiss" them as I think it's the most corrupt and inept organization on the planet, above even our own government.
The destablization of the region is all part of the Neo-con playbook. There's a bigger agenda than just individual countries or factions.
OK, one other little thing...
Read up on the Iranian oil bourse. It's a WAAAAYYY under-reported and a good bet for possible motivations for going into Iran.
I don't think anyone would dispute that the chaos in the region is by design. Though I wouldn't limit it to being a "neocon" goal. Our entire government is bought by business, republicans and democrats alike. And peace is bad for business.
The destablization of the region is all part of the Neo-con playbook. There's a bigger agenda than just individual countries or factions.
OK, one other little thing...
Read up on the Iranian oil bourse. It's a WAAAAYYY under-reported and a good bet for possible motivations for going into Iran.
I don't think anyone would dispute that the chaos in the region is by design. Though I wouldn't limit it to being a "neocon" goal. Our entire government is bought by business, republicans and democrats alike. And peace is bad for business.
Iran would be a completely different war than Iraq or Afghanistan. Aside from the initial invasion, which took all of a few weeks, Iraq has been a guerrilla war/insurgency. It took those morons at the top 4 years, but they're finally starting to treat it as such. Afghanistan has been that way since day one. We're using the right tactics there, but 30k troops just won't cut it. Iran would be a conventional ground war, unless the mullahs want to cede power and turn it into another Iraq, which I really can't see happening - they like the unstability in Iraq only because it allows them to get a foothold in the power struggle, they don't want that in their own house. As far as conventional warfare goes, the US military is the single most powerful and effective force this planet has ever seen. And technology has EVERYTHING to do with that. As I said before, we're learning on the job in Iraq, but the US wrote the book on interlocking modern warfare.
Frankly Afghanistan, Iraq wars/occupations have turned out to be very similar and Iran would be very similar also. We invaded Afghanistan with the Clinton plan of using locals to overthrow the Taliban. We had that war won with the population on our side until we abandoned them to go to Iraq. When they saw the Bin Ladin was right and we were not going to stick around rebuild the country, they started seeing us as an occupying force and now 1/3 -1/2 the country has returned to the Taliban.
All occupations heavily favor the indigenous population as they cannot give up and leave. They are already home. The occupiers cannot stay forever and will eventually get tired and leave. All the insurgence have to do is not give up. The only way to win an occupation is by winning the hearts and minds of the populace. All the force in the world will not do it unless you are willing to stay forever and kill a large part of the population (ie Stalin, Genghis Khan.) That's why the British lost the US and India, why we and the French lost Vietnam and why we will lose Iraq (and Iran) if we stick to a military strategy.
An invasion of Iran would mean we stick around, yielding another disasterous occupation or we leave quickly which results in an unfriendly government.
Post by soundtribe_junkie on Oct 1, 2007 18:50:54 GMT -5
Bottom line is: Once Iran gets that nuclear weapon up and ready ( it will happen eventually), the administration will justify attack alllllll day long. Thats what theyre waiting for. *edit oh yeah-this courtesy of military folk
apparently they have huge uranium resources in the mountains also...hmmmm
Post by stallion pt. 2 on Oct 1, 2007 18:51:52 GMT -5
troo said:
badfish said:
Iran would be a completely different war than Iraq or Afghanistan. Aside from the initial invasion, which took all of a few weeks, Iraq has been a guerrilla war/insurgency. It took those morons at the top 4 years, but they're finally starting to treat it as such. Afghanistan has been that way since day one. We're using the right tactics there, but 30k troops just won't cut it. Iran would be a conventional ground war, unless the mullahs want to cede power and turn it into another Iraq, which I really can't see happening - they like the unstability in Iraq only because it allows them to get a foothold in the power struggle, they don't want that in their own house. As far as conventional warfare goes, the US military is the single most powerful and effective force this planet has ever seen. And technology has EVERYTHING to do with that. As I said before, we're learning on the job in Iraq, but the US wrote the book on interlocking modern warfare.
Frankly Afghanistan, Iraq wars/occupations have turned out to be very similar and Iran would be very similar also. We invaded Afghanistan with the Clinton plan of using locals to overthrow the Taliban. We had that war won with the population on our side until we abandoned them to go to Iraq. When they saw the Bin Ladin was right and we were not going to stick around rebuild the country, they started seeing us as an occupying force and now 1/3 -1/2 the country has returned to the Taliban.
All occupations heavily favor the indigenous population as they cannot give up and leave. They are already home. The occupiers cannot stay forever and will eventually get tired and leave. All the insurgence have to do is not give up. The only way to win an occupation is by winning the hearts and minds of the populace. All the force in the world will not do it unless you are willing to stay forever and kill a large part of the population (ie Stalin, Genghis Khan.) That's why the British lost the US and India, why we and the French lost Vietnam and why we will lose Iraq (and Iran) if we stick to a military strategy.
An invasion of Iran would mean we stick around, yielding another disasterous occupation or we leave quickly which results in an unfriendly government.
But what about the TECHNOLOGY????? it's SOOOOO much better......
John: We don't even understand our own music Spider: It doesn't, does it matter whether we understand it? At least it'll give us . . . strength John: I know but maybe we could get into it more if we understood it
Frankly Afghanistan, Iraq wars/occupations have turned out to be very similar and Iran would be very similar also. We invaded Afghanistan with the Clinton plan of using locals to overthrow the Taliban. We had that war won with the population on our side until we abandoned them to go to Iraq. When they saw the Bin Ladin was right and we were not going to stick around rebuild the country, they started seeing us as an occupying force and now 1/3 -1/2 the country has returned to the Taliban.
All occupations heavily favor the indigenous population as they cannot give up and leave. They are already home. The occupiers cannot stay forever and will eventually get tired and leave. All the insurgence have to do is not give up. The only way to win an occupation is by winning the hearts and minds of the populace. All the force in the world will not do it unless you are willing to stay forever and kill a large part of the population (ie Stalin, Genghis Khan.) That's why the British lost the US and India, why we and the French lost Vietnam and why we will lose Iraq (and Iran) if we stick to a military strategy.
An invasion of Iran would mean we stick around, yielding another disasterous occupation or we leave quickly which results in an unfriendly government.
First, I agree with you 110% on Afghanistan. We never should have abandoned that one, we had it in the bag. It's similar to the build up to WWII there in that people are willing to support a dictatorship so long as they've got steady work and food on their table. It's unfortunate, but it's not unexpected.
That being said, the populace in Iran is much different than that of either Iraq or Afghanistan. Iraqis and Afghanis have been kept in the dark by their respective governments and are largely uneducated and really know little of the rest of the world. Iran is much much more modernized and cognizant of where the roots of their problems are. For a large portion of that population, they realize that it's not the "Great Satan" that's to blame for all of their problems, but their own government. And like I said before, there's a huge pro-western movement among the younger generation over there right now. And you can bet your bottom dollar that we're pumping money into it.
Frankly Afghanistan, Iraq wars/occupations have turned out to be very similar and Iran would be very similar also. We invaded Afghanistan with the Clinton plan of using locals to overthrow the Taliban. We had that war won with the population on our side until we abandoned them to go to Iraq. When they saw the Bin Ladin was right and we were not going to stick around rebuild the country, they started seeing us as an occupying force and now 1/3 -1/2 the country has returned to the Taliban.
All occupations heavily favor the indigenous population as they cannot give up and leave. They are already home. The occupiers cannot stay forever and will eventually get tired and leave. All the insurgence have to do is not give up. The only way to win an occupation is by winning the hearts and minds of the populace. All the force in the world will not do it unless you are willing to stay forever and kill a large part of the population (ie Stalin, Genghis Khan.) That's why the British lost the US and India, why we and the French lost Vietnam and why we will lose Iraq (and Iran) if we stick to a military strategy.
An invasion of Iran would mean we stick around, yielding another disasterous occupation or we leave quickly which results in an unfriendly government.
But what about the TECHNOLOGY????? it's SOOOOO much better......
Were you born a jerk off or did you have to work on it? Seriously pal, no need for all the attitude. If it's really that much of a problem for someone to disagree with you then you've got some serious problems. Look at me and troo, we obviously don't see eye to eye, doesn't mean we can't have a civil discussion.
Bottom line is: Once Iran gets that nuclear weapon up and ready ( it will happen eventually), the administration will justify attack alllllll day long. Thats what theyre waiting for. *edit oh yeah-this courtesy of military folk
apparently they have huge uranium resources in the mountains also...hmmmm
Long before they get the bomb the Israelis will bomb the enrichment sites just like they did in Iraq in the early 1980's. Enriching uranium to bomb purity (90%+) takes a large facility and LOTS of energy. It's virtually impossible to hide.
Right now Iran is enriching to about 3%, useful for nuclear power. And IAEA inspectors are on site to watch. If course this is the first step to bomb grade production but they are nowhere near that and until they kick out inspectors and/or exceed power grade enrichment, we have no reason, or need, to do anything.
Pro-western or not, the Iranian population will not view us favorably if we invade. People always prefer their own bad government to a good government imposed by an outside force. (I'd fight any country who tried to depose Bush by force even though I think he's the most dangerous and damaging president in history.)
Bush set Iran's pro-western movement back 20 years with his "axis of evil" speech. An invasion would be MUCH worse and further fortify the radical hardliners.
Some thought Iraqis would greet us as liberators. No, there will be no jubilant masses throwing flowers and candy at us in Iran either.
;D
