And Reagan once proclaimed that the USSR was going to be destroyed and that the bombing would commence in 5 minutes. Once again, anyone can spew out rhetoric. Kruschev didn't bury us as he promised. He backed down when faced with the consequences of nuclear war.

Iran's leader is saying those things because he knows, just as Bush does, that strong virulent rhetoric energizes his base. He also knows we're pinned down in Iraq and can't really react. It's no new news to Israel that the Arab world hates them and I doubt they're changing their strategy because of his words.

I hate nuclear proliferation but I'm not sure there's a way to put the genie back in the bottle once it emerges. Just as there are obvious problems with simply allowing anyone to have nuclear weapons, there are just as many potential problems with using military action to stop selective countries from processing nuclear material just because they seem scary. Innocent people die when you do operations like that and their families tend to be the ones that turn into suicide bombers and people that pilot airplanes into our buildings.

Like you I'm disgusted by terrorists and their brutal tactics but Osama Bin Laden and his followers lost the battle of 9/11 initially. The world was shocked at the horror they witnessed and radical Islam took a major hit in the PR department. Even many moderate Arabs who had tolerated the radical element of their religion were up in arms and calling for Bin Laden's head. Of course we differ about what happened to that good will in the world since then so I won't harp on that.

What I'm trying to point out here is that, if some country or group uses a nuclear device on us or our allies, as horrific as it would be, just maybe it's that one thing that will actually stop terrorism and radical Islam by the condemnation and disgust of the entire world. It's a scary thought but sometimes letting the human species evolve naturally actually brings about change faster than trying to force it.