Wow. 50% before the administration has even started talking it up.

I don't think we'll need to fight Iran. I think the mere site of the fledgling democracy to their West will push the people over the edge, and Mullahs out the door.

Poll: When asked the name of the leader of Iran, 47% in U.S. responded "Saddam Hussein, DUH!"

I kid, I kid...

I think that if we start talking about war with Syria and Iran and Nort Korea thent he world will look at us as Imperialists.

I say let our actions in Iraq talk for us. That sends a louder message than beating the war drums.

I agree with George. Let's take care of Iraq and not pick fights elsewhere unless we're provoked.

Here's where a domino theory might actually be proven.

I think that if we start talking about war with Syria and Iran and Nort Korea thent he world will look at us as Imperialists.

Uh... George, "the world" thinks we're imperialists because Big Macs are sold in Paris! I, for one, couldn't care less what "the world" thinks.

I read that Iran was ripe for a revolution, so it might make sens eto use an approach similar to what we did in Afganistan, which is the insertion of Special Forces, etc. to aid the resisting factions in Iran and help them take out the Tehran.

I also remember reading that Iranians, once liberated from their own regime, may change the name of their country to Persia, that their belief is that they are in fact Persians, not Arabs. Tell a particular Iranian that he is Arab he'll probably smack you in the head. That is one strange country.

Aside from whether it's wise, I'm pretty amazed by this polling result.

Depends on what you are thinking of when you say "reconstruction".

I think the UN should be involved in humanitarian efforts, possibly physical infrastructure improvements - but not the construction of the government. There will be enough problems getting various parties together without adding the probability of UN involvement taking more years than I have been alive and worsening the situation.

If US helps Persians a little, they showed be able to get rid of the mullahs themselves. There are 65 million iranins under 30 who hate the regime but have no guns.

I know a lot of Iranians and they all hate the Mullahs. Same thing is going on within Iran. People need some help from US to destroy the regime. Mullas will be cut in pieces. That is how much Iranins hate the regime.

Iran too,

Might as well take on the world...As a nation we need to stop "taking care" of people who don't even ask for our help and concentrate on domestic policy. btw...Attacking nuclear armed countries is generally a bad idea...

Hell, don't send the Marines. Send Charlton Heston!!!!

Hell, don't send the Marines. Send Charlton Heston!!!!

Hell, don't send the Marines. Send Charlton Heston!!!!

I like the phrasing of "But 50 percent said the United Nations, not the United States, should lead the reconstruction effort there." You could flip it around, and it would be just as true: "But 50 percent said the United States, not the United Nations, should lead the reconstruction effort."

Wouldn't it have been less biased on the AP's part to phrase it as "The nation is split on whether the UN or the United States should lead the reconstruction effort"?

and have we learned nothing from history...

Never arm an Arab, it comes back to haunt us...

The Iraninan regime is financing most terrorist acts against the jews and they are also the mastermind. The mullhas are using all the oil revenue and support terrorist arround the world. Persians are the nicest people but they are seeing some hope now with US next door. Us needs to focus on Iran immediatly because they are non-Arabs, have a significant natural resources and love Americans. I agree that Persians hate these Mullahs and paople want to see America to intervene.

Iran is not like Iraq. People are reday to explode. They hate the Mullhas. US need to light it and people of Iran will take care of the rest.

What's all this I hear about Persians being part of the axis of evil? What are we doing invading a sovereign state with highly educated people just because we don't like their viewpoints?

Oh. Parisians.

Nevermind.

Jerry: Nobody has anything against Persian people. It is the government that needs to go. President made that distinction between the people of Iran and the regime in his state of union speech. I think bush is on the right track.

"and have we learned nothing from history...
Never arm an Arab, it comes back to haunt us...
Posted by Original Mark at April 5, 2003 01:55 PM"

You apparently haven't learned a thing from history. Iran is not Arab.

Iran's nuclear power program of course is the brainchild of the U.S.

Finally, your condemnation of Ronald Reagan, who beleived illegaly arming Iran would help, even after the hostage taking, is one good point.

I think, along the lines of some of the previous comments, an interesting poll would seek to determine what percentage of IRANIANS would favor US military intervention. ;)

But seriously, I think a substantial willingness on the part of the US public to go to war on the mullocracy of Iran could be a useful diplomatic tool, even if we have no intention of firing a single shot. THe more credible is the threat of force, the greater leverage we have on the world stage.

The name "Iran" is not derived from and has no relation to anything Arabic. It's an Indo-Iranian/Indo-European word, not a word from a semitic language. More on Persia/Iran here, and on Persian/Farsi here.

Stupid Carter is who lost Iran. Iran used to be the US’s best friend in the region and with its military power kept the region very stable. Of course when Jimmy became president after bankrupting his farm, he lost Iran. I guess things could be worst (Gore could be President)

I agree. Where is Jimmie when Iraqis being killed by Saddam and Iranins put in prisons. Giving him the Noble price was a joke

No kidding bob rosenberg, the chaos and destruction that America has had to go thru due to peacenik democrat administrations is mind boggling.

I think it would be a (just a little) bit foolhardy to think about attacking Iran right now. Most of the reports say that the people (especially the younger people) are ripe for an internal overthrow. The right thing to do would be to consolidate our position within Iraq, start up some good old fashion cross border infiltration. You know lots of music, news, TV, etc. Provide for as open an exchange between Iraq and Iran as possible to let the people of Iran see what they are missing. At the same time of course there should be CIA types moving into Iran making sure that the people there know that the US would be fully supportive of a new (perferably democratic) regime.

If (dare I say when?) Iran and Iraq are soemthing close to democratic states, you will have a massive long term cultural impact upon the region. The Arabs viewing Iraq, and people of faith (not the clergy, but the secular) impressed by both. Over time this could easily lead to any number of revolutions in the region which would be difficult in the short term, but would hopefully go a long way toward halting the exportation of terrorism from the region.

I am pretty sure that this is the "neocon" hope, and if it pays off (a pretty big if) the world will be a better place.

I am a little stunned at the level of ignorance as to Iran here. The Iranian language is closer to Dutch than it is to Arabic.

Once might as well call the Chinese Arabs.

Iran is not "ripe" for revolution. It is ripe for what it is undergoing, slow and dificult change.

As far as Iranians wanting to be invaded, in order to overthrough their government, I would point ou that this is never the cas ein history with any country (despite our wishful thinking with Iraq).

You can find people interested in breaking up their country calling for intervention, but even people under the most oppressive regimes for the great part do not wish to be "liberated."

Whoever blamed Carter ought to read their history and talk to Iranian Americans. They fel as though what happened under Carter's watch was unavoidable. They do however deeply despise subsiquent republican administrations for being so supportive of Saddam while he was using gas on Iran.

Do some reading.

Mike...if you are going to troll the postings maybe you could come up with a few alternative buzz words. We've heard your pat anti-Bush phrases ad nauseam.

In case you haven't noticed...the CP has a diverse variety of opinion on all sides of the political spectrum, both pro and anti-war.

How about an original thought? Got one?

Feste,

Ok if you want an original thought how about this... I voted for Bush in 2000 because I still believe he would have done better than Gore.

Secondly, I am a Republican by my very nature.

Thirdly, this war bothers me STILL it scares me because of the way we did things. The only thing that has turned me anti-bush is that I question how and why he did this....I supported him even though he isn't the brightest President we have had up to now...

There you go...

Apotheosis, without kidding, i'd like to know how many Americans can tell
-where Iran is,
-what is its regime,
-are these people Arabs,
-whether the regime before Khomeiny was a democracy
-whether Reagan illegally sold weapons to it in order to get money for the contras.

I hope that the US do not plan to bomb every country that 50% of the Americans think it should be invaded according to a biased question in a poll given to less than 1000 people.

Mike sez "btw...Attacking nuclear armed countries is generally a bad idea..."

And then he claims we should be containing Saddam in other threads -- when we know he was still developing nuclear capabilities, supplied by some of the members of the UN Security Council. "Containment" wasn't stopping him -- the clock was still ticking.

Consistency... I guess Mike can't be bothered. The important point is apparently just to hate Bush and whatever he does. Sad... but predictable.

who gives a S...t about people knowing where Iran is. We need to do something now because people of Iran are ready to explode. I agree, Carter is the worst president ever altough a close runner up is Clinton. About Bush, he may not be a skilled speaker or a slik willy but he sure has a vision. We are very lucky to have him. Can you imagine Gore as president after Sep 11th. He would have probibily proposed an economic sanction or some dumb thing like that

Troy

1) I was not anti-bush at all until this war, I am a Republican by nature and am not against everything Bush does, hell I voted for him... I have stated as much in posts in this forum for God sake...Please read
2) Iraq has NEVER had nuclear capability. Iran and N. Korea have it. Developing and having it are two different worlds.
3) Yes attacking nuclear armed countries is a bad idea, but what does that have to do with containing Saddam? I cannot follow your logic. In my quote I am talking about N.Korea and Iran. It seems like you are trying to say 1+1=3 here?
4) If the U.S. wished it, it could have eradicated Saddam's program..it is not like we tried and failed...A policy of containment would work if the U.S. imposed one, up to this point it really has not.

Mike, you seriously need to do some research into the history of Saddam's Iraq and his weapons development programs. The inspectors have been caught out several times, thinking that he had no nuclear development program and then having it revealed that he actually did. Every proposal for containment which might actually have found the hidden programs was effectively an invasion, albeit one without freedom to actually force Saddam to do anything.

"Containment" is a proven failed approach with Saddam; if we try to "contain" him, he'll eventually be a nuclear power (and sooner rather than later... all he lacks is the fissionables) -- and by your own statement, not to be messed with.

I can't imagine a better recipe for disaster.

Nick:

"Iran is not "ripe" for revolution. It is ripe for what it is undergoing, slow and dificult change."

I have only spoken with one former Iranian, he did not believe that transition from the current theocratic Islamic republic to something less theocratic would happen without some form of revolution. Now I will admit my sample set is too small from which to draw any conclusions; however, I have also read quite a few articles that indicate that many Iranians (especially the younger generations) want to be free of the theocracy.

I do not think that the religous leader currently running the country will allow their power to be gradually sapped away (although it may happen), to the extent that Iran would eventually because a reasonable republic through the slow gradual change you claim.

I completely agree that very few people in any country want to be "liberated" as we are liberating Iraq. But many people would want to change their own goverments, the question is how that happens. I hope some of that will happen by example _if_ the US does things right in Iraq (that is a really big if)

I work with a lot of Iranians in LA. I have never came a cross one that likes anything about this regime. This is the best opportunity for US to help Iranians eliminate their regime and become our best ally. The good thing about it is that you are going to have the most powerful country in the region as your ally and people who are non-Arabs and pretty smart.

-where Iran is
East of Iraq
-what is its regime,
It has a parlimentary system, but there is a layer of theocratic (and autocratic) control through the mullahs that overides Parliment, the secular government and the courts.
-are these people Arabs,
Mostly, no. They are a multi-ethnic mix. Many are "aryan" and consider themselves to be far removed from their Arab brethren
-whether the regime before Khomeiny was a democracy
Nope. The "King of Kings" regime was a fairly repressive monarchy, though it was still the most free, sucessful and secular state in the region, aside from Israel, before the revolution.
-whether Reagan illegally sold weapons to it in order to get money for the contras.
The sale of weapon was not illegal, and the weapons sold were defective Block 1 TOW missiles, that had about a 60% failure rate and were moldering away in Army warehouses while they came up with the money to dispose of them. We sold defective weapons, at a profit, to our enemy, and got money to buy cheap Polish AKs to arm our Contra friends, in violation of the unconstitutional Bolan Amendment. Sounds like a brilliant intel op to me. Anyone write North up for an MSM for that one?

Iran IS unstable. Hell the government almost fell over frigging soccer riots last year. 3d and 5th SF Groups will be quietly moved to Iraq, and in a couple of years, the mullahs will be removed by an insurgency...

Rusty: looks like you know more about Iran than Iraninas themselves. They have also great food. I think the time is now. Two years is too far out. We are on the 10-yard line with 3 downs to go. NOW IS THE TIME