Do you want to show me where we keep ours? All of them? You don't know what they are capable of unless you have been there and seen it do you? You think America has shown all that it can do in Iraq? NO, we haven't, you have no idea what Iran is capable of. Now Iran is a threat because Iraq is no longer there to keep it in check(The only downfall of the war.).
Oh, and Iran test-fired a long-range missile off of a submarine. That missile had nuclear capabilities. It was all over the news. I'm glad you have knowledge of treaties and embargos and cease-fires and defactos and all that crap. But, when it comes right down to it that's all just signatures. Treaties are made to be broken buddy, you watch.

Theres no need to find out if the US has them either, because everyone knows we do. As for everything we can do in Iraq, yes we have shown it short of deploying 500,000 troops and sending them to the guilotine in the hellhole that is fighting in an Arab country armed to the teeth.

It is irrelevant whether Iranian missiles have nuclear capablility at the momment, because they simply don't have the warhead. Nations have a right to possess ballistic missiles as well, and frankly, almost every nation in the Middle East has them. Your delusional if you think they don't.

Iran is only a threat if the US starts treating it as one. There are ample carrots that the US could begin using to disuade the country, especially the one that involves 1 on 1 negotiations. Simply put, treating a country with a bit of dignity instead of running around the world like a hapless child screaming terrorist doesn't work.

I'd come at you for a statement as foolish as Iraq not keeping Iran in check being the only downfall of the invasion, although that's better saved for later. For someone to say that however means you probably do not understand the Middle East in any way save for the garbage that continually comes out of the neocons in much of the US. The Middle East is a power keg on the end of its fuse because of the arrogance and stupidity of this administration, if you bothered to learn more about what is actually happening, maybe you'd understand.

I'd beg to differ; we could have decided to be truly nasty and deal with the Iraqi insurgency the same was we dealt with that in the Philippines a century ago.

But scorched earth fighting, concentration camps and wholesale massacre aren't as popular these days, what with media everywhere.

1) The term Islamic Facsists, for being a term, is not wrong describing these people who say they are doing the things they do in the name of Islam but who are everything Islam DOESN'T stand for.

2) The issue here is that some Muslims who are as much against these groups as everyone else, feel like Bush and his goverment are meaning them also in that term. A proof to that is the case of Muslims in London. Since the subway bombs, Muslims have been margined there and are being looked at the wrong way. if 0.0001% of these people is a terrorist, does that mean the 99.999 other % are also terrorists? That's what the Muslims are raging against.

3) Muslims around the world and especially in the US and GB are feeling like they are the terrorists they have been fighting to not be. That's all there is in the story. Americans and the whole world should be able to distinguish between people who want a good peaceful life in a good wrold from terrorists.

Are you suggesting that media influence has forced us to fight a war in a politically correct style?

I do think that the media publicizing the actions of the military makes the military a lot more self conscious about its actions. Which is good in the sense that it does sort of keep a leash on what they are willing to do to achieve victory.

In some ways, yes, the media is a negative influence, then again it also sort of acts as a body which indirectly carries out the will of the people through its influence "against" what may be field commanders' designs.

However, I don't think we'll really see any benefit from that on our end, because our enemies aren't really members of the "free-world" and thus have no such thing as a free-press and aren't concerned with public opinion.