>>1. Agression will induce more agression. [...]
>Tell that to Iran's president, Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, Hamas, the terrorists. Who started?

Terrorism is a type of aggression that is difficult to fight. Who started is debatable. If your parents were murdered because of US bombs, and you decide to fight using terrorism. Who did start? You'll never get a true answer to the question who started, they'll always blame the others. The arguments likely will go back 1000's of years.


>>2. It serves no military goal, other than it will enforce Irans decision to develop nuclear weapons and will use arguments of the right to defend itself.

>But what if such a fierce attack on Teheran effectively destroys Iran's capacity to further develop nuclear weapons? In that case it would be a military (and political) goal.

That would only be accepted if the strike was specifically aimed at the nuclear targets, avoiding innocent lives to be lost.

>>3. It will have a negative effect on the US image world wide as it now would reflect the strong muscled guy who acts like an elephant in a chinashop.

>A negative effect on who? Do these people think positive about the US now then?

What about the european countries, what about asia, what about other middle eastern countries? Such a strike would certainly not have a positive effect on the WORLDs image of the US.

>>4. Nations like china, north korea and even russia will build up their military forces and expand their influences as they realise that they could be next.

>Do the US currently threaten China and Russia? Why should they feel they might be next? They might also decide to cooperate.

Because they feel there was no reason to launch an attack. If the US bombs down a city without a valid reason, you could feel that North Korea could be the next target. And this also applies to countries like pakistan which currently are cooperation with the US.

An in a sense Russia already is not happy with what went on in iraq. It feels ignored.


>>5. The international finance market could react [...]

>It will sure do. But if it results in a lessening of the threat that Iran poses, it may well lead to a positive effect after a while.

I highly doubt that. If I give you a smack in the face for something small, would you not feel angry? Would you not let me pay? Would you not take your brothers and friends to make me pay? I find the thought of a quick lesson very simplistic and I have to see a real life example of where it did work. You either have to knock out your opponent entirely or live with the consequences that you'll pay for it in some way or manner.

We both know, that europe already is a breading place of young muslim who are willing to give their lives to fight for their cause. We know their anti-american feelings. If the US is doing something stupid as trying to bombing a muslim city to a parking lot, you simply know it will induce a lot of anger amongst the muslim population. IOW, you'll seed a new and large population of new terrorists. Even in countries that have good relations with the US (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, Egypt), the population might make it impossible for the government to be still supportive to the US cause with all consequences.

We have seen the trouble of freedom of press gave with the cartoons of mohammed gave already. Can you imagine what would happen in this case. IOW, it would spell big, big trouble..

>Now, these were all counter arguments that might be brought in. I'm not suggesting here that I am pro-bombing Teheran. And I'm also not trying to start a new debate. So, don't feel urged to reply. :)

You know me, I always feel obligated.

Walter,