>>>>>>My greatest political worry today is that Israel will attack Iran and even with public denouncements and denials by both countries, muslim believers world-wide will of course believe otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>>Everything I have read says Iran's nuclear facilities are so deep underground it would be no easy task taking them out. You aren't going to get them by dropping a few bombs.
>>>>
>>>>I don't believe I limited my comment to "bombs." However, i agree with you.
>>>
>>>Given the options, I would really vote for something a lot more focused on "soft" targets.
>>>
>>>Remember when Iraq was going to build a very very big cannon? Gerard Bull proved to be a soft target. No gun.
>>
>>How romantic. So you prefer sending bunch of assasins on a killing spree in Iran? Something like Ocean 11, smooth action, everything just
>>clicks ... Necks broken, throats slit...
>>There is smal problem there. Iran nuclear program is not small venture lead by one western scientist going rogue, it is actually
>>genuine result of their own level of science/resarch. It would hv to be more likely 'Ocean 3000' or something, attacking their coledges, students, scientific institutions etc. Now after that Dubai 15 flick, do you think everything will just click ?
>>
>>Or maybe will be like in that other movie ('Naked Guns') where Steve Martin open the fire from raifal gun into a crowd, and only bad guys are falling dead. Or some sick variation of it; Like next staged demonstrations in Iran, shooters opens raifal gun into a middle of a crowd, and
>>only school chilldren are being shot. As it soon turns out (leaked video on CNN) shooters are all infact undercover revolutionary guards viciosely mixed into the crowd. Then goes civil unrest, overthrowing of regime from outside...
>>But wait a minute, it might not work. Isn't that (outside intervention) what brought up Islamic state to Iran at the first place ??
>>
>>On a serious note, How about some diplomacy and genuine peace offers, instead of ugly old undercover wars which never brough any good
>>to anybody. How about US/Israel start actually talking with Iran for a change. I mean really talk. If the efforts/talks are sincere and genuine
>>they might just work.
>>
>
>I believe our current president was going to rely on the radiance of his own charisma and positive message to change the behavior of Ahmedinejhad. How's that working out?

They did not have any direct talks. Radiation levels in Washington are still way to high for direct talks to happen.
US administration is inherenetly arrogant/hostile towards Iran, this have to change forst maybe.

>
>I think in practically every circumstance diplomacy and peace offers are the way to go. I think there are some particular cases where it may make you feel good about yourself, but it is not going to yield the result you are going for. The regimes of North Korea and Iran are cases in point.

Iran and N.Corea have nothing in common except that they are both on US hitlist.
Now in regards of Iran, what exacty is objective / result US administration wants to achieve ?

>
>I would prefer even the tongue in cheek scenario you lay out to bombing anything. Bombs usually kill a lot of people whose removal accomplishes nothing and anger people who otherwise might be open to persuasion - or at least passivity. There are key individuals, however - many of them foreign "mercenaries" if you will - that make particular parts of the nuclear program possible, and they aren't doing it for love of Iran or Allah but because they are paid to do it. In many cases we know who they are and my guess is Mossad - or more specifically Kidon - knows where they are. There have already been some accidents.

Well this is fundamental problem of yours and those who think like you. Killing people is NOT ok in any way, shape or form.
Can you give me one good reason / circumstance where this is ok. What exactly justifies killing like the one you mentioning here below ? So someone just makes a list and get on with killing who ever is on it ? Today it is Iran's nuclear scientist, tomorow it will be top intelectual who opposes certain things, the day after tomorow list will need Oracle database to keep inn all the names.
Do you think this is all ok and legal ?

>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardeshir_Hosseinpour
>
>I think there will be more.
>
>I think if there were greater risk vs the reward of what iran offers them they would be less inclined to offer their services, thus buying time for the Iranians to evolve to a less fantasy driven government.
>
>To repeat, I don't favor bombing anyone if it is at all possible to stop the current iranian regime from obtaining nuclear weapons any other way, but I am reluctant to let it happen just so we can pat ourselves on the back for being good people and not doing bad things to stop it. If anyone thinks that the current regime in Iran can be deterred by the good opinion of mankind they haven't been paying attention.

Nukes are thing of past. Why do you considered nuclear Iran bigger threat then conventional threat ?
What a heck is the difference ? Chemical/Bio weapons can be just as leathal as nukes, but who in the right mind
would do that kind of things ? Iran did not attack anybody in a recent history so why do you think they would commit such monstrocity all of sudden ?

Now as little excersize, can you please find a 10 year war free period in the list below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

and tell me who do you think is really under threat here ?