Gosh. This is why I usually don't bother responding to letters, and try to confine comments to Glenn. You guys don't read very well.

Archtype: "It seems you are under the assumption that the US Military possesses some sort of technology in 2009 that allows us to avoid all "collateral damage"" The original point made by Glenn was that thousands of civilians who are protesting now would be dead because of our bombing. Nothing he (or you) has said has justified that.

Iokannan in the Well: I'm arguing that a bombing campaign would be wrong, but it wouldn't kill thousands of potential protestors. The political impact of such a wrong-headed military action would be tricky to predict.

Chris Sinnard: Thanks for the glowing review! Yes indeed, I'm a strong supporter of Israel. But I don't fall into any of your pigeonholes, and that confuses you. You quoted letters of mine where I support unilateral talks with Hamas, where I come out against Israel's action in Gaza (but understand it), and am tired of thugs running governments. I am and always have been against any sort of military action against Iran.

That you think any of this makes me a liberal means you're completely ignorable.

I love it when the left thinks I'm conservative and the right thinks I'm liberal. I can't stand it when people have knee-jerk reactions to phrases and don't bother to read the material in question. I'll post this, then you can have the last word if you want. I'm outa here (until next letter).

Do you have any idea how many targets were being discussed in the standard Bomb Iran plan? Have any idea?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke-fac.htm for a start, would be my presumption. And that was a 30-second Google search that you challenged me on. Another 30 seconds got me to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/07/AR2008080703026.html , which also thinks bombing wouldn't work but does name targets. (This answers some other letter writers as well.)

I don't think either of these is definitive, but if I can find likely targets in minutes, better intelligence is likely to be even more specific. Heck, just ask KBR where they shipped the equipment to...

And since you don't know what their plan is (or would have been) either, it's presumptuous to throw that as an argument in your favor. What we can reasonably assume from a "bombing campaign" is that it wouldn't be an infantry assault.

The thinkprogress.org page you pointed to simply enforces the basic agreement between you and me: Bombing Iran would be a really bad idea. You can't use arguments that we both agree on to augment our disagreements.

You still haven't proven your case.

Presumably, any military action against Iran would have targeted against specific installations and civilian deaths would have been minimal.

You mean the way our military actions against Afghanistan and Iraq caused only "minimal" civilian damage? Or the way that Israel's actions in Lebanon and Gaza did the same?

Yes, Glenn, that's exactly what I mean (minus the sarcasm). All the actions you describe are infantry invasions, looking for non-existent WMDs or trying to rout out missile launching sites.

Bombing runs are an entirely different animal. The Israeli bombing of Iraq's nuclear plant in 1981 resulted in, apparently, no casualties. The nuclear fuel producing targets in present day Iran are well known and away from civilians.

Again, I think that bombing Iran was and is a bad idea, but to say such a limited military action would have caused thousands of civilian deaths and prevented the current pro-democratic movement is more than a little disingenuous.

Glenn, I fully agree that we should not have taken military action against Iran and that Giuliani/McCain/et al were saber rattling fools, playing to the GOP "base" of knee-jerk pseudo-patriots.

That having been said, I don't think you can speculate, "imagine how many of the people protesting this week would be dead if any of these bombing advocates had their way". Presumably, any military action against Iran would have targeted against specific installations and civilian deaths would have been minimal. Whether such unilateral actions would have fanned the flame of Iran's knee-jerk pseudo-patriots or caused convulsions in the political system leading to reform is difficult to predict. Iran is a young country, with nearly a quarter of the population under 15. I'm not going to predict how teenagers will jump. Surely, any action on our part would have changed the political landscape and most likely for the worst, but you can't just assume thousands of reformers would be lying dead in the streets.

There was certainly a fairly major "Beat the Lakers!" undercurrent in the latest NBA championships. Presumably, some of that sentiment was shared by some Muslims. That's almost always the case in championships: Rivalries and home-team spirit put the "fanatic" in "fan".

Almost any important decision is controversial and some people will be indignant no matter what. Refusing to disclose prisoner abuse photos because some people will be even more mad at us is foolish. Glenn is making the point that such refusal is bad politics, which it certainly is. I'm attempting, in my own snarky way, to make the point that it's an incredibly weak excuse for a number of reasons, some of them darkly humorous.

I won't explain again, because it wouldn't be funny. Besides, I was rooting for the Magic.

if the sole object of American policy was to avoid inflaming anti-American opinion which would put our troops in greater danger, then the Lakers would be prevented from winning a championship.