>No, Kevin. It has little to do with nuclear retaliation. If you want to create huge hoards of true Jihadists all over the planet and especially in the U.S., then I can't think of a better way than to nuke the middle east.
>
>We have true Jihadists all over the world and in the U.S., and we never declared war on Tehran (despite multiple acts of war on their part).
>
>So let me get this straight....if we do nothing, we continue to have Islamic radicals who want to kill infidels. And if we do something, we incite Islamic radicals who want to kill infidels.
>
>The fact that we'd piss off people after an attack is not lost on me. We'd be foolish not to expect retaliation from what would be left. Anyone who wants a 100% safe solution is better off setting up camp at the North Pole.

In your very own words! Now, maybe there is some thread of decency and inormity that has held terrorist back from actually using a nuke, or dirty bomb, on a US or UK city - just perhaps. But after your solution the last thread of restraint would be removed and sure as eggs is eggs they'd go hell bent for leather to nuke the fuke out of us!

Where's Howard? Even he talks more sense!!

>
>But there's one thing that's far, far worse than potential retaliation from bombing Tehran - allowing Tehran to develop a bomb.
>
>
>
>(by the way, despite our differences, I do appreciate that you and Chris acknowledged that race has zero to do with anything I've said.)

Noooooo. You just want to take out huge chunks of people of a certain race cos some of them are mad.