>Hi Srdjan,
>
>I subscribe to the theory that proactively containing an aggressor nation is a good thing, in summation.
>
>The root problem is that Iran uses it's finances to support destabilizing groups in a bunch of nations. They are the major supplier to insurgents and terrorists in most, if not all, of the nations in the Middle East.
>
>Simply put, it doesn't matter which side you are on, instability is bad. People die. How does one curtail Iran's negative influences?
>
>When it comes to international relations, legality is always difficult to pin down. I don't have a pat answer for that.
>
>On the other hand, if proven that Iran is supplying arms and aid to forces acting against legitimate governments then I think there's no question that we have the right to stop that as a "force majeur" as long as we can document the reasons behind our actions to the global community.

Hi John,
Apparently opinion like this is common in US. That is what is really scarry.
If you put things this way, then nobody in this world is really safe.
'Force majeur' can do whatever some heads there see fit, for as long as 'presentation/documentation wizzards' do their homework properly.
WMD was prety clear example of such homework, aldough was not exactly all that well done. It 'did the trick', got almost entire western block do what US/Israel/Britain wanted but then at the end WMD's were never actually found.
Surprisingly (or not) absence of WMD's (lie told) somehow did not ring any bells in US. Colin Powel did right thing by resigning, but nothing changed. Loud Mantra and middle east 'Rodeo ride' show is still on and as it seem there is lot more comming.

Personally, after WMD blunder and Colin Powel leaving White house, I hv dificulties taking seriosely anything said afterwards ;
CondyR talking about Iran 'misconducts' and ParisH talking about her new shoes - rings about the same sensor in my head. Sorry if this sound disrespectfull but that how it is.

As for Iran supplying various muslim groups is very well known fact, just
like very well known is the fact that various US and other 'free world' agencies are doing moreless the same out there - if not worse.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5837
Up to now pretext 'we are good guys' vs 'those bad guys' somhow washed up (in western block that is) for doing equally bad things but that 'funny mirror' got huge cracks lately, and picture is not all that comforting any more.
You might see 'power majeur' (US military might/supremacy) as something good, pleasent and to be proud of, but think of all bad things that can happen if all this military might gets out of control, and gets abused for fulfilling some other interests, rather then real interest (defence??) of ordinary American people. Can you positively exclude this as a possibility ? I wld say this is pretty scarry to the rest of the world.

When/If this happen then you get exactly what you are against yourself above;
Instability of great proportins, wars where meny people loose their lives and millions are displaced. It simply to much even if war is for 'good cause'.
Now think, if strikes on Iran instead of dettering Ahmadinejad from
nuclear course, end up strengthening him (like 1991 sanctions to Milosevic) and leading to another long war simillar to those in Iraq and Afganistan. You already hv damages size of a multiple Nukes deployment (thks God minus radiation) do we really need more ?

I sincerely hope that US foreign policies will be seriosly reconsidered,
and that new conflicts will be replaced with reconcilliation driven
politics and actions. Otherwise next 20 years will be traumatic experience
not only for this regions but entire world.
I might be to much of a pessimist (or I might be even naive in thinking that things can be any different), but what I see really does not look any good.
It is time for change.

Peace :)