Back when all the Tehran talk started coming out of Wash D.C. I heard several middle east experts discuss Iran from the same angle.

I've seen several newstories in the last couple yrs discussing young people in the region. How they are secular for the most part. So they don't want to take part in fundy religious practices. They actually prefer normal teen stuff, like listening to music. They have to go hide in the hills somewhere to kick back and listen to tunes.

According to these experts, there WAS a growing backlash internally in Iran to their govt. And that backlash was going to potentially have some nasty effects on the current govt.

If bush and co. had exercised a little diplomacy, we could have seen how this played out. There is plenty of wiggle room, since Iran won't have nuclear capability for quite a few yrs at best. But by bush and co. pushing so hard against Iran, they have destroyed any change of any internal change happening. They have galvanized the entire region against us.

>In Kevin's defense, I think he was talking more about taking out the governments, and not the physical countries or peoples. Not genocide. Even the Turks weren't able to eliminate all the Armenians (although they put a lot of effort into it.
>
>Thanks, that IS what I'm talking about. Obviously, a large-scale attack would affect innocent civilians, and sadly there is no way around that. However, nations like Iran that promote and fund terrorist activities are the ones ultimately putting their citizens at risk. And I'll repeat what I've said here before - we've been justified since 1979 in bombing Tehran and taking out their government.
>
>Kevin