Well maybe we should “get out of Dodge” while we still can?

Brilliant.
I really can’t believe our overlords are still beating the drums for war. Of course we can’t afford it, not to mention the millions of innocent people we may already be hurting through our sanctions. I would visit Iran in a heartbeat if I could afford it. I am far more afraid of governments (particularly ours) than I am of “terrorists.”
It is beyond a military-industrial-complex now. The worst of the worst have gotten on top. Go back to sleep, America. The World Series is coming up soon.

One politician’s lip flapping is no more persuasive than another’s, but I don’t see any Iranian military bases surrounding my neck of the woods.

I get the point about the bases. It’s ridiculous that we’re there. However, how many bases do we have surrounding nations that didn’t occupy our embassy, take hostages, fund terrorism, and stream violent rhetoric towards us for 33 years? Yes, yes, they had reasons to be angry with us. But that doesn’t justify the support of terrorism. The infidel armies wouldn’t be there (and weren’t there) till they restarted the Mahdism.
So, our presence there is perhaps unwarranted but it is a contributor, not the sole cause, of the problems between the nations. The base problem is a religion that some construe as a demand to wage aggressive war against non-believers. This has been used by a series of tyrants there to justify plunder and conquest.
Aggressive Muslim conquest was not completely checked until technological superiority allowed Westerners to spank them pretty good. They sure toned it down after Omdurman.
“Whatever happens, we have got the Maxim gun and they have not.” –
Hilaire Belloc
I wonder what the story will be after they have an arsenal of nukes and anti- US allies who arm them with modern weaponry comparable to ours and obviously superior to that of neighboring countries.? When that “Maxim gun” advantage is gone, would there be any sort of lasting peace?
For this reason I see the argument as tactical, not moral. Break the movement now or hope for the best and risk seeing half the world subjugated.
What we’re doing now is actually neither. Provocation w/o backing it up. My personal choice is isolationism, but that’s not going to happen.
PS. I find the fact that many here are painting the Iranian President as a sweetheart because he issues English Language speeches for world consumption beyond disturbing.

Cause Ahmadinejad (who doesn’t even control Iran, a country nowhere near as powerful as Germany or the USSR were in the 1930′s) is comparable to Hitler or Stalin

Read fast because it is my understanding that Tom censors opposing views that are backed by fact and logic:
Iran is a violent, terror exporting thugocracy astride over 70% of the globe’s cheapest most accessible oil.
Moreover, when/if they acquire a nuclear weapon capability, we will see an arms race in the most extremist, violent, despotic, and faith-based region on the planet.
Yet, pacifist ideologues like Woods are apparently incapable of seeing the obvious clear and present danger that will result when Iran, then Saudi Arabia, then Turkey, then Syria, then Egypt, then Ethiopia, then Georgia, then Azerbaijan, etc.
Indeed, these same ideolouges discount the violent means that Islamists use around the globe to achieve their faith-based ends. Hence, they are exporting violence and undermining peaceful peoples to a far greater extent in states and regions where the USA does not hold sway.
Unfortunately, pacifists like Tom believe that the only dangerous statists reside in the USA and none abroad. Tom’s thinking is ostrich-like when it comes to external threats, but why am I not surprised, he hates the USA and wants to undermine and disrupt our entire political, economic, and civil society and replace it with the utopian fantasy of anarchism that he mistakenly believes would be peaceful.

1. What does this have to do with us? It isn’t our job to protect Iraq and the Gulf States. And on that point, our war with Iraq has resulted in a government there that is friendly to Iran. Also, you ignore the fact that he has no real power in Iran. The presidency there is not like the presidency here
2. The only way to exercise that power would result in the annihilation of Iran. Call me naive, but I’ve noticed that it’s never the leaders of these groups who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the Greater Good.
3. Okay, so we have to invade, because some time in the distant future, Iran might become really powerful? What? And what about China? They’re no more a threat to the security of Americans than they were 60 years ago. What are they gonna to do to us?
4. Germany and Japan invaded and conquered neighboring countries (including the US) repeatedly. How is that comparable to anything Iran has done? Also, based on the latter part of your comment, you seem to think that everything will be fine once we overthrow Iran’s government? Really? That’s gonna stop terrorists in all the countries around the globe from wanting to harm the USA? And why should I expect his war to turn out better than Iraq and Afghanistan did? You can’t fight a “War on Terror” like WWII, because it’s not a conventional war in any sense. The enemy doesn’t have uniforms, borders, a capital, an army, supply lines, infrastructure, etc that make it easy to identify, target, and eliminate. As long as there are people willing to kill over political and/or religious beliefs, there will be terrorists.

I agree it’s not our job. But we stick our snout in the anthole there and think we won’t get bit. You cannot have an economy dependent on middle eastern oil and with corporate assets spread accross the world, combined with a political system that yields de facto power to those corporations with money to buy politicians, and not have our military be put there as “muscle”. You’re tilting at windmills if you think that will happen. You should be complaining about a corrput political system, not a military strategy.
I didn’t say we should “overthrow” anything. Or that we “should” do anything, only that this is the thinking of those who want to stop them now. Therefore, this is not a moral but a tactical argument.
We don’t need to “invade” anyone. Or anhillate anyone. Iran could be put back in the stone age economically and technologically within a few months. . Every bridge, power plant, major factory, oil delivery system, large warehouse, communications center, and airport could be rubble within a few weeks (after a period of buildup). This is not w/o risks and costs, but it could be done. No invasion necessary. The reason Sadaam remained in power was that not that we didn’t invade, but that we did a half arsed job. You are either AT WAR or you ARE NOT.
I agree he has little power w/o the mullahs. But does it occur to you that he wouldn’t be president unless he was doing and saying things they and many of the people wanted done and said? He may be the fall guy soon for their economic problems. Which is one reason why still we have to fear them no matter where our troops are. . Tyrants with economic problems use scapegoats to divert attention. Their particular method of scapegoating tends to yield terrorism.
China could not effectively intervene TODAY. They are building a blue water navy and growing economically while we fail, and could indeed prevent any action in the next few decades. THIS is my point. You either act now or do nothing, We are not doing either. We are continuing the provocation w/o making any progress. Provacative words w/o the bases there still inflame them against us.
You also fail to understand the dynamics of a Mahdist type movement. They are doing it because they feel all their problems are caused by others. Yet their problems are mostly of their own doing. If you have ever dealt with a person like that you would understand that no matter of appeasement will erase the idea that they were “wronged” and that you need to suffer for their unhappiness. If it’s not “the jews” it’s the great white satan, or its Sunnis, or its Muslims who don’t obey enough. It never ends.
There is a lot to be said for punitive wars. There is also a lot to be said for the lesson of Carthage. There is also a lot to be said for minding one’s own business. But we are not doing that.
Many Libertarians want open borders and free markets, sometimes regardless of the wishes of a majority of people. . But you fail to understand that the real world reality of that is you get drawn into other people’s conflicts. Because when you set your economy up to be dependent on foreign goods and heavily invested in trade, you cannot ignore their problems. The US is one of the few nations on earth completely self-sufficient in most things. Subtract massive military spread around the world, the oil used up over decades in global trade and travel, and we could meet our own needs for energy.
Globalism or peace/prosperity. Pick one. Now continue with your rant about globalism lowering prices. Great, my christmas tree lights were dirt cheap. Meanwhile my taxes support families w/o jobs. What a victory.