>>Now let's see in the 1920's someone wrote a book about what they intended to do given the opportunity, a few years later he got the opportunity developed the means and enacted what he had written with a few modifications and which resulted in turmoil and immense human suffering.<<

Who is that? Hitler? Why don't you mention him by name?? Let's see why...

>>In Iran today we have a person in position to act, who has stated clearly what the goal of every Islamist should be, who leads a country that has developed a capable delivery system for ballistic weapons and who now is trying to convince the world that it only wants to develope the capability to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.<<

So let me get this straight: Hitler caused mass suffering and this Iranian guy wants nuclear capability. So, you say, we know that Mr. Iran is going to cause mass suffering because Hitler did? Care to explain that? Moreover, Hitler did it without a bomb. And moremoreover, the Iranian hasn't actually done anything! So you're comparing a guy who caused mass suffering without a bomb to a guy who wants nuclear capability who hasn't done shit. but one is as bad as the other? Am I the only one looking around trying to find someone who understands what the hell you're taling about?