Yes, but the current positioning of the USA enables threat of force rather than it's actual use as a sufficient deterrent

It is clear in Iran's case that popular will against the regime's more extreme elements exist, and that by deterring their use of force with threat of force while promoting development towards the people itself, the extremists can be marginalized

I dunno.  Obama is on pace afterall.  Bush started 2 wars in 2 administrations, and Obama strated 1 war in 2 administrations.

Come to think of it, Clinton started what... 2-3 wars in 2 administrations too?

Bush senior had Iraq.

When the hell was the last time we didnt have a president activly go to war?

Did Reagan have any active war's... i'm drawing a blank.

Of them all, really only afghanistan could be justfied as defending ourselves in a way that's not preemptive.

Well arueably Iraq 1 as well... although from what i hear there actually is some evidence that Iraq's claims of slant drilling were true.

Well that's because Joe Biden is marginalized because in general he's nothing but an embaresement.

While Cheney (although also an embaresement) was competant at what he did, and was essentially given power like a cabinent member would have.

You could argue a lot of Bush's mistakes were due to Cheney's prodding.

Biden you just keep away from everything because your afraid he's going to say he wants republican lawmakers to be raped or tell some outlandish lie about his life, like saying he was the top of his class when (he wasn't) or how he was the first in his family to go to college, (He wasn't) lying about how his wife died to score political points.  (Said she was killed by a drunk driver, police reports show he wasn't drunk and she was likely at fault for the accident.  I mean... the hell?)

I'd marvel at the fact that Joe Biden somehow was a senator for so long... if it wasn't for the fact that we had a senator around in 2003 who used to be a member of the Segregationist Democrat party.  (Strom Thurmond).

Political primaries and only 2 parties sucks.

Yeah as I was saying we think Cheney is a old senile bastard but he also had a huge huge negative effect on the Bush Presidency. I cannot think of a recent VP who had such influence over a President. I think it was around 2005, Bush stooped listening to Cheney but the damage was already done.

I think many people do not remember after the 2004 election, the Iraq war really was hurting the President but Bush's poll numbers around what Obama had today.
It was the mishandling of Katrina that really made people finally see the incompetence and led to the big midterm loss in 2006 that made him pretty much a lame duck president.

I believe it was Cheney who pressed Bush over a lunch to suspend Habeas Corpus.

"Did Reagan have any active war's... i'm drawing a blank."

I assume your Joking lol!

@Mr. Khan:
"Yes, but the current positioning of the USA enables threat of force rather than it's actual use as a sufficient deterrent. It is clear in Iran's case that popular will against the regime's more extreme elements exist, and that by deterring their use of force with threat of force while promoting development towards the people itself, the extremists can be marginalize"

I agree with you to an extent, but diplomacy has never worked with a tyrant, nor can it do anything to eradicate extremism as we define it. Any extreme point of view towards governing, whether religious or socially minded like communism for instance, always incorporates violence as a means to power and control. In your statement above you say that extremists can be marginalized by uniting their opponents; by incorporating the mutual wills of moderates, pacifists and the unassociated and developing their social ideas towards beneficial change. But, all that will actually effect is an opposing force to stand against them, violenct act for violent act.
I honestly can't think of a single example in history where diplomacy alone defeated a tyrant(s).

@Kasz216....

wow.

What wars exactly, you know.... 2 or 3 of them like you said, did President Clinton start?
I would really, really love to know.
What war did President Bush Sr. start?
and how 'bout Reagan.... what war is he guilty of starting?
.....and Obama, I'm kinda surprised to hear he's already in his second administration as President. Whew.. time flies huh? but enough about Obama's second term, I'm more interested in learning what war he started.
and what about the younger President Bush, hmmm, you say he started 2 wars. Which ones would those be?

With Iran, based on the size of the protests last time...

The next election in Iran could cause the country to become destabilized

However based on the 2009 election, Ahmadinejad won the last election handily even if it was a big fraud.

Even the case to go to war against Afghanistan was iffy at best. For starters the Taliban requested evidence that Bin Laden was behind 9/11 before handing him over and none was provided. The request was perfectly reasonable. However the Bush administration refused and were adament Bin Laden was responsible. As the Taliban would not back down war was unleashed. The FBI was then tasked with finding out who was responsible. It took them over a year since the invasion and subsequent occupation to come to an unsatisfactory conclusion that Al Qaeda was possibly responsible but the evidence was circumstantial at best and would not hold up in court to indict someone. It's why the FBI never mentioned 9/11 as to why Bin Laden was their most wanted man. So war was unleashed without any solid proof. 10 years later, hundreds of thousands killed, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, much more terrorism and millitant activity in the region and nuclear Pakistan dangerously unstable we have to ask ourselves surely there was a far better alternative? If only they listened to the experts who advised the whole saga be treated as a criminal case rather than a war on terror.

There was the whole Iran-Contra debacle.  While we weren't technically at war we did give weapons to help fuel a war.  Funny that we were so scared of WMDs from Iraq (I wasn't) when we allowed the use of chemical warfare against the Iranians and the Kurds.  It is pretty obvious USA needs to stop messing around with other countries (especially the Middle East and Latin America).  Every time USA tries to interfere/intervene with another country they usually mess things up.  The world would be better off if USA would stop trying to interfere with every country.

You can add the bombing of Libya and the invasion of Grenada to that list as well. The funding of the Contra rebels nearly destroyed Nicaragua all because the elected Goverment was socialist.