Despite the recent NIE, the US would be justified in taking military action against Iran

http://afp.google.com... http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.guardian.co.uk... http://www.breitbart.com... These are just four of the many articles that describe Iran's role in Iraq. What exactly do you consider "credible evidence?" Do you want video footage of a troop of Revolutionary Guards entering Iraq? Do you want Ahamadenijad to come out and say it? Do you want me to buy you a ticket to Iraq so you can see for yourself? Since none of these things are possible, you're just going to have to take the "hearsay" from officials in the Department of Defense. Is there any evidence against such a claim? If not, then I don't see how you have any basis on which to doubt that claim. There is a huge difference between insurgents originating in a country, and actual uniformed military personel of a country attacking and aiding insurgents in attacking our boys. But you bring up a good point. Maybe we should give Saudi Arabia a good kick in the pants while we're at it. Unfortunately, we're slaves to their oil, no thanks to the Democrats. I agree COMPLETELY that regime change would be prefferable to military action. Unfortunately, nobody has offered a plan to do so. If such a plan did exist, and was at all viable, I would back it 100% over a military option. No such plan exists that I know of, and until you or anyone else comes up with one, the military option is all that we have. "According to Article 2 Section 4 of the UN charter, the use of force against any state in the absence of an acute and imminent actual threat is illegal" This is impossible, since the U.N. is a very loose confederacy. We are not obligated to follow any of its laws, and reserve the right to do so when national security is at stake. It is a very stupid security doctrine to wait until something is an imminent threat before dealing with it. Again, WWII poses a relevant example. If Neville Chamberlain had used military force to stop Hitler's rise to power, WWII would never have happened. Instead, Great Britain waited until the Germans were ACTUALLY bombing their cities to do anything serious about it. "Iran does not pose any imminent threat to the security of the United States" This is what we are trying to establish. How can you use your own conclusion as an argument to support your conclusion? "and the problems we have with Iran can be resolved through diplomacy instead of bombs, therefore any invasion would be unjustified." If it were true that our issues with Iran could be solved diplomatically then I would agree that we would not be justified in invading Iran. However, you cannot reason diplomatically with a radical religous lunatic like Ahmadenijad. Diplomacy must be based on trust in order to be effective. Until there's a regime change, we must at least leave the option of military force open. Diplomacy must also be based on leverage. Strangely enough, we now have exactly the kind of leverage we need to conduct diplomacy, namely, our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the possibility of a successful democracy in these two countries. However, we stil lack a trustworthy partner in Iraq with which to conduct discussions.