>>>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.
>>
>
>But I thought the whole idea of the world wanting Obama to be the US president was that we would be humble and contrite and worthy of talks with Iran? So why no talks? Hasn't Obama publicly apologized to the the "world community" for our sins? Hasn't he been annointed by the Nobel Prize Committee with an accolade previously awarded to doves like Yassar Arafat, Kissinger and Begin?
>
>
>>>
>>>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 think the other thing the two countries have in common are the delusional nature of their leadership (though of course in a head to head competition N. Korea still wins ) and aspirations of nuclear weapons.
>
>I would say any rational nation must have as a goal that both of those things would change in both Iran and N. Korea as the world can hardly benefit from either of those leaders having nukes.
>
>>>
>>>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.
>
>Once agan you are comparing an ideal on which we can all agree with a reality with does not offer the choice you pose.
>
>>Can you give me one good reason / circumstance where this is ok.
>
>Surely you are familiar with historical examples where the death of an individual would have saved millions of lives. I won't even bother to point out the obvious.
>
>>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.
>
>Aha! An *Oracle* and not a FOXPRO database! Your apostasy is duly noted. <s>
>
>>Do you think this is all ok and legal ?
>>
>
>OK and Legal are not the issue.
>
>My point is that the death of individuals directly involved in something that threatens the lives of millions is far preferable to war or to bombing.
>
>
>>>
>>>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 ?
>
>I'm not sure what planet you live on but on this one nukes are definitely not a thing of the past.
>
>>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 ?
>
>Who in their right mind is not the issue. I realize that Ahmadinejhad may seem more delusional to me than he does to you, given his recent statements on 9/11 etc but I would not feel comforted depending on the the current regimes of N Korea or Iran as falling into the category of those in their right mind.
>
>>
>>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 ?

A little bit about what drives Iran's leader Aminadinnerjacket. http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/12th-imam.htm