No, surely not. Iran is up to no good in Iraq, of course. It is only the Americans who are up to "good". The "good" is quite demonstrable as there's almost 5 years of it. I have no idea who you people think you are fooling!

There's a big difference on how the US Navy responded to an unprovoked assault on our warships yesterday and the British response to an attack on their sailors last year. If you stand firm and fight back, chances are the Iranians are going to back down and leave your ships alone. I doubt the Iranians will want to go after our warships, unless they want to lose badly. The British gave up easily and were humiliated as a result of that incident. Lesson: Stand tall against these maniacs and you will win.

Life is hard, but it's harder when you're stupid .... quick! Someone buy "Amannuttjob" a clue! Needs a little deodorant for the stench of underarmed ill intent, in my opinion:

DoD News Briefing with Vice Adm. Cosgriff at the Pentagon, Arlington, Va.
Mon, 7 Jan 2008 15:43:00 -0600

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4116

(Excerpt)

"With respect to the encounter yesterday morning local time in the Strait of Hormuz, I think the facts are known to many of you. USS Port Royal, USS Hopper, USS Ingraham were in bound the Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz routine transit.

In the early hours of the morning, daylight hours of the morning, they were encountered by five total small high-speed craft that we assessed to belong the Iranian Revolutionary Guard navy. The five boats approached the formation on the formation's starboard bow in international waters slightly inside the gulf from the apex of the strait, broke into two groups, one to one side of the formation, one to the other. The groups maneuvered aggressively in the direction of the U.S. ships. They were called on radio; they were -- ships' whistles were sounded, those sorts of things, to draw attention to the fact that their maneuvers were a cause of concern to the commanding officers.

At one point during this encounter, we received a radio -- the ships received a radio call that was threatening in nature, to the effect that they were closing our ships and that the ships might -- the ships would explode, the U.S. ships would explode. Subsequently, two of these boats were observed dropping objects in the water, generally in the path of the final ship in the formation, the USS Ingraham. These objects were white box-like objects that floated, and obviously the ship passed by them safely.

The encounter continued, with the boats maneuvering close to stern and after -- under 30 minutes total, they returned in the direction from whence they came, to the north, back towards Iranian territorial waters.

So I would reiterate it was a transit passage in international waters incidental to a routine inbound transit of the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. ships were clearly marked, at daylight, decent visibility. The behavior of the Iranian ships was, in my estimation, unnecessary, without due regard for safety of navigation and unduly provocative in the sense of the aggregate of their maneuvers, the radio call and the dropping of objects in the water."

---end---

Historicly, the facts are clear....you don't make love or war half-way.....ain't nobody gonna be satisfied, no way, no how..so why on this blue Earth would anyone contemplate the folly of thinking a few cruse missiles ( or diplomacy alone) will equal "behavior change" from a theocratical mindset that takes its cue from some poor kid who fell into a well hundreds of years ago?....Like he's gonna climb out any day now....Yeah Right!...."Space Aliens from the Pentagon" was and is a better prospect, in my opinion.....for whatever that's worth..(chuckle).

That regime change as policy should have been implemented yesterday....well, guess folks will have to keep tallying up dead Coalition troops and civilians via Iranian made IED's until our collective patience has just flat run out.

I know mine has.

If the US should decide to act on the next taunting by IRG, I truly hope we do not stop with those boats. We need to take it all the way to Iran. So many neighboring countries are in fear of Iran, that they must speak out against the US and the international unity forming. I truly believe if we crack the Iranian's back, there will be a flood of support by that entire region. Jihad is real. If Iran calls a full Jihad that really takes root and they act on it, the NATO countries and any country wanting to be free of the oppression should wipe out any Jihadist. DON'T TREAD ON ME! Iran has been poking at the US for years, now they are treading on her! Time to flex!

There are so many reasons aready existing as to why someone should step on the Grand Ayatollah's neck and the collective neck of the Iranian government, that this latest NIE is worthless to those who would seize upon its conclusions to achieve "peace at any price".

My idea of a "diplomatic effort" would be to offer the Mullahs the chance to go back to the mosque and abhor politics forevermore, to preach peace so they could live in peace, or suffer serious concequences.

If the final tally of pro's and con's are summed up in decision making by the intent to save lives; as to whether the international community can afford to allow this abysmal excuse for a government to continue to exist...period..as a continued threat to global peace and security....Then let us hope we have the common sense and purpose to ensure the quickest, most effective regime change ever executed via force of arms and diplomacy.
I mean everybody. Russia, China, NATO....be the first time in 60+ years we've stood on the same side against terror and tyrany. Funny how things come full circle sometimes, naturally, and of necessity.

To bomb or not to bomb is not the question. Rather when does it become nessesary to level the playing field for the Iranian people to have half a chance to realize a future free from ethical infants who are driving their people over oblivion's cliff?
And dragging the entire region into chaos along with...is not acceptable. Naturally enough, those who sponsor terror should live in fear.

I would remind those who consider anything "limited" as an option of the human cost of leaving Saddam Hussein in power after Gulf War I. The Taliban and Ussama...9/11...and the results of "limited" is quite obviously that we'll be back to clean up a mess and get the job done right in a few years hense, leaving increasing risk ever present until then.

I'm for doing things effectively the first time...you save lives that way....even in war....and we are at war whether we want to be or not, whether we admit we are or not, we are in a state of hostilities with the government of Iran,....28 years on now since they publicly endorsed our demise as a nation and invested time, manpower, and state resources to achieve it.

One would think 70 million Iranians wouldn't let their government put them at risk if Uncle Sam and Co. decides to change the ethical infant's diapers, but 28 years of organized oppression has had an effect on the Iranian people's ability to act of their own accord in an organized manner to change their system of government.

Some say that the best way to prolong the regime is to bomb it......based obviously on an eroneous premis that there will be a regime left to contemplate tapping into some mythical "people's support" after the bombs fall.

In that 1.3 billion Muslims apparently have no interest in answering bin laden's call for jihad, I doubt if the mullahs can do a better job in croming the turd.

1.3 billion Muslims arn't stupid...at the end of the day, what has jihad built? Capital investment? A better standard of living? Better schools, housing and infrastructure? Security? Peaceful coexistance? A prosperous society?

Khomeni's "Utopia"?????