If you believe that an entire country can be judged by the actions of its leaders, then we disagree fundamentally and argument would be a waste of both of our time. Supporters of Bush here are like supporters of Ahmadinejad there: unrepresentative of the overall population. Iran is not synonymous with its leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Yes, but to imply, as Kumars and Shara did, that Ahmadinejad's actions are unimportant is foolish and naive. I think your comparison of Bush with Ahmadinejad is unfair, but that's beside the point. No one would argue that Bush is an impotent leader; his actions have consequences, whether or not you feel they're representative of the American people. Likewise for Ahmadinejad--whether or not he represents the majority of the Iranian population is ultimately unimportant in deciding whether or not to go to war [though it's tangentially important if he could be popularly removed, which would avoid the whole possibility of war]. Kim Jong-Il is not supported by a majority of the North Korean population, but if we were going to wage a war against North Korea, saying we shouldn't fight because "most of the people there don't hate the U.S." is not a valid reason. I find your acceptance of Iran as an inevitable nuclear power disheartening and frightening.