>>>>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?
>
>While in the same time 400m undercover budget is in motion, working hard to destabilise Iran. What kind of negotiations do you expect ?
>Tongue in cheek or not, I do fear attrocity in Iran or elsewhere to occur, and to be blamed on Iran.
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>
>That is cheap shot. Iran IS Islamic country, but fyi even Ehud Barak publicly gives them a credit of NOT being dellusional.
>N. Corea otoh is kind of strange case of runnaway train.
>
>Now can you ellaborate little bit on rational sense in Washington in october 2001 and the years thereafter ?
>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>
>
>
>Only thing that is obvious, is total absence of international law and order. You have people kidnapped, tortured, killed,
>countries attacked on a short notice, chaos in international relations, stock crush, economical depression. Quiet resembling actually situation before WW2. Now, I am sure that some Germans back in 30ies believed that Gestapo agents were actually devoted patriots, doing hard things in order to protect/benefit their country, but both you and I know how far is this from the truth.
>
>
>>>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.
>
>So you think who ever dear to question 9/11 is actually dellusional ? Well, that would make almost half if not more then half of US
>population delusional. There is great number of very prominent people (schollars, engineers, scientist) who question official 9/11
>story. BTW, as we speak ,there is major international channel airing debate on 9/11. (google 'CrossTalk' in a couple of days)
>
>Being angry about 9/11 is ok, wanting revenge for 9/11 is not ok but is understandable first reaction, being suspicious and rising questions about 9/11 is more then understandable considering lack of answers to a very seious questions.
>
>What I find actually puzzling, is that there are still people out there who DO NOT question official story about 9/11.
>
>Now let me ask you hypotetical question, hoping to indulge your formidable intelect into a little exersize;
>
>When there is lot questions without real answers, conspiracy theories are naturally thriving. So let's take just 3 major conspiracies
>of a recent past;
>
>1) Kennedy was assasinated by some branch of some branch of whoever in US government.
>2) Moon landing was faked in Hollywood
>3) 9/11 was actually false flag operation
>.
>.
>
>Now, pls do not insult my inteligence (again) and accuse me of being conspiracy theorist or something, because this is purely
>hypotetical, but very serious qustion;
>
>Imagine if ALL 3 are actually true. Just like now everybody simply turn their head away and dismiss it as lunacy,
>all of a sudden obvious and irefutable evidence is revealed, proving , that all 3 are actually true, so people suddenly have to get into terms
>with this new reality. Ok, take discount, just 2 out of 3 happen to be true, How would you feel ?

1) re the JFK assassination (and RFK) I have no problem with conspiracy theories as they are more plausible than the "lone gunman" theory and the coverage of the crime and its followup was suspicious at best. My personal theory involves Carlos Marcello, a Corsican sniper, and some people who also had ties to Cuban exiles and therefore, peripherally to the CIA, but only as what were called UCLAs ('unilaterally controlled Latin assets') and their runners. I think I'm right about that one.

Oliver Stone had it completely wrong because he followed Garrison and Garrison was a front-man for Marcello, diverting attention to a "political" motive. The JFK and RFK hits were, I believe much less complicated than that. One crime family took revenge on another for a perceived betrayal.

2) is so delusional as to not require serious rebuttal but I would be interested to know if you believe it.

3) Conspiracies become less believable when they would require levels of secrecy and collusion that are not believable. I just don't buy it. If some element wanted a motive to got grab oil someplace there were cheaper and more easily controlled ways to do it. I've read the arguments and find them silly. The number of people that would have had to be involved in the kind of operation the 911 doubters postulate puts it into the realm of fantasy.

But how about the Bilderberger conspiracy? The Illuminati? The London Jewish Banking Conspiracy? The Myth of the Holocaust? The Masonic conspiracies of the 1840? P2 ? Black helicopters? New World Order secret messages in on the dollar bill? Let's imagine all those are true. I know how to make the case for each one.

Imagination is fun. It just has limits.

You obviously have different limits than I.