No Concrete Proof Iran Nuclear Program Is Military

[Kärnfysikern]

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/No_C...itary_999.html

UN nuclear inspectors have found no "concrete proof" that Iran's nuclear program is of a military nature, a senior official close to the UN nuclear agency said Thursday. "Inspectors have not uncovered any concrete proof that Iran's nuclear program is of a military nature," the official told reporters on condition of anonymity.

So what is going to happen now?

I read that no sanctions will be imposed even though the deadline has passed. Annan urges the world to use diplomacy, russia wants to continue talks. US is pushing for sanctions. EU wants to continue talks.

[IronFreakX]

LETS NUKE EM ANYWAY!!!!

JK

Well then I suggest we wait a bit, just send UN inspectors then nuke em....again kidding....but yeah thats what we should do.

[Kärnfysikern]

it seems like the US is the only country that wants to impose sanctions on Iran right now so that probably wont happen.

But it sure does look like talks wont lead anywhere. Iran is to stubborn. But the alterantive to talks looks to uggly

[Kärnfysikern]

Iran expects EU response on nuclear next week
http://www.spacewar.com/2006/060903075750.bcqr2jni.html

Iran said on Sunday it expected the European Union to take a stand next week on Tehran's response to an offer aimed at ending the standoff over its nuclear programme and insisted that negotiations were the only way out of the crisis.

[IronFreakX]

it seems like the US is the only country that wants to impose sanctions on Iran right now so that probably wont happen.

But it sure does look like talks wont lead anywhere. Iran is to stubborn. But the alterantive to talks looks to uggly

I say we stand alert, observe it closely but do not move until aggrevated or sure of an attack,

If this happens, a couple of more years down the road, we're looking at WW3.

[Kärnfysikern]

I say we stand alert, observe it closely but do not move until aggrevated or sure of an attack,

If this happens, a couple of more years down the road, we're looking at WW3.

Yeah I agree. Wait is the only thing anyone can do it seems like.

I dont think it could ever turn to ww3. No way that any real nuclear nation would support Iran. US could probably make some sweet deal behind the scenes with Russia and China to get them to look the other way and keep shut except some fake badmouthing in the press.

[mcpeepants]

negotiations have barely started and are the only way to solve the situations. the US and Iran need to sitdown and have direct talks over grievances, particularly since the two nations haven't had diplomatic relations in almost 30 years.

[RA]

it seems like the US is the only country that wants to impose sanctions on Iran right now so that probably wont happen.

But it sure does look like talks wont lead anywhere. Iran is to stubborn. But the alterantive to talks looks to uggly

Weve tried diplomacy..imo, we should keep trying for now..but soon it will be time for the U.S. to do the heavy lifting.

[Kärnfysikern]

Weve tried diplomacy..imo, we should keep trying for now..but soon it will be time for the U.S. to do the heavy lifting.

I think its time like mcpeepants for usa to also sit down and talk. So far the us is only in the background sharpening there knifes while europe does the talking. Maby you need to sit down and convince iran they dont need nukes to protect themself against you?

[RA]

I think its time like mcpeepants for usa to also sit down and talk. So far the us is only in the background sharpening there knifes while europe does the talking. Maby you need to sit down and convince iran they dont need nukes to protect themself against you?

Right, has Europes talking got them anywhere? As I recall they tried to appease hitler the same way.

[Kärnfysikern]

Right, has Europes talking got them anywhere? As I recall they tried to appease hitler the same way.

Europeans like to talk

Cant say I know the history of diplomacy so I dont know if it has done any good But other countries has given upp wmd programs without violence. Syria and south africa. I have no clue who did the talking in those cases??

Either way usa should be part of the talks if they want to justify violence later on.
If you talk to a dude for a while without it doing any good and I suddenly rush into the room and punch him in the face I act stupidly. If you punch him in the face on the other hand you can say you had a reason since talking didnt work

[RA]

They have our offer..they have the mighty u.n.'s offer. They have Europe begging. I say fine lets talk..but what happens when they say no? What then?

[Kärnfysikern]

what has the us offered?

If they continue to say no we have to ask ourself what is the bigger evil. Going to war against them or letting them have nukes. Cant say one looks worse than the other to me.

[Teabagger]

N. Korea has nukes now and I don't really see them as a threat nearly as much as Iran. N. Korea is just using the nuke ploy to blackmail the developed nations into supporting it economiclly. Iran on the other hand Iran is rich in petrodollars, has no neighbors wanting to destroy it, but still seeks offensive nuke weapons. The leader is a true believer, and that my friend is the scariest of all personality types.......N. Korea will never launch a nuke, I believe Iran would and with little provocation. But we'll live to see in our lifetime if history repeats itself..........appeasement and eventual World War, or peace. I'm betting on World War, except this time it will not take years, but only minutes.

[Prada]

Iran has it's interest as a regional powerhouse even though it is surrounded by Arab nations, emerging influence of India and China, Russia, US presence to the east. Turkey and so on. Each fighting for power in the region and ultimately control. With Nuclear power, Iran would emerge as the leader(or at least it assumes) and influential nation of the region. Economically speaking it has strong ties growing with India and China. A pipeline going through Pakistan into India, against the wishses of the US.

March 7, 2006 -- The U.S. government said on March 7 that it still opposes a proposed natural-gas pipeline linking energy-rich Iran with India.

India and Iran have been discussing a $7 billion natural-gas pipeline that would run through Pakistan.

White House National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said that the United States recognizes the growing energy needs of India and Pakistan, but has repeatedly expressed concerns about international participation in energy projects with Iran.

Jones said Washington's concerns are over "Iran's nuclear activities, [its] support for terrorists, and [its] atrocious human rights record."
(Reuters)

India is playing it's cards well and this is something that will benefit Iran and quench India's thirst for oil as well as diversifying it's relations. Iran wants China to be it's top oil exporter behind Japan I believe.

All to say, it all makes sense what going on in the mid-east and everything is somewhat linked. Iran is like the rebellious, renegade state feeding the enemies which instills less trust and content with the US, for example.
It may seem translucent but it is evident what's going on. Tis the reason why US, as Johan stated, is the only country pushing for sanctions. They have virtually no relation with Iran and it observes its competitors(i.e China, India) growing by the fruits of labour and a strengthend relation. Hence the scurillous rhetoric used against the US. It's all a game but there are many stakeholders in this game, in between the two extremities, the US and Iran.

Tension in Iran raising the prices of oil in N.A is pure and simply a plot to take advantage of the ignorance of people but that's a whole other story.

[KAEW44]

There was no concrete proof that Iraq had nukes, but you dont see us Not-invading them! Invade first, steal oil second, deal with international reaction third.

[Kärnfysikern]

Tis the reason why US, as Johan stated, is the only country pushing for sanctions. They have virtually no relation with Iran and it observes its competitors(i.e China, India) growing by the fruits of labour and a strengthend relation. Hence the scurillous rhetoric used against the US. It's all a game but there are many stakeholders in this game, in between the two extremities, the US and Iran.

Tension in Iran raising the prices of oil in N.A is pure and simply a plot to take advantage of the ignorance of people but that's a whole other story.

The big question in my mind is why US flat out refuses to sit down and talk with Iran? Stubbornnes??
think the leader of the free world should be willing to negotiate before even hinting taking action. But instead the exact opposit has happened. Im not sure suscpision could ever warrant war.
Comparing with the appeasment of hitler isnt good since Hitler had already done alot of hostile things before the appeasment.

Im sure Iran hasnt been forgiven for the hostage crisis or barrack bombings. But I dont think Iran have forgiven US either for the putsch against the demoraticly elected leader in order to restore the Shah.

Maby both countries need to look beyond that?

[Kärnfysikern]

Change in attitude??

http://www.spacewar.com/2006/060903102756.chtrs018.html

But he added Ahmadinejad had also said that "Iran does not accept a suspension (of uranium enrichment) before negotiations".

Might be just nitpicking but Ahmadinejad usualy refuses even the thought of suspending enrichment and here it seems like Iran could consider it after negotiations?

[Prada]

The big question in my mind is why US flat out refuses to sit down and talk with Iran? Stubbornnes??
think the leader of the free world should be willing to negotiate before even hinting taking action. But instead the exact opposit has happened. Im not sure suscpision could ever warrant war.
Comparing with the appeasment of hitler isnt good since Hitler had already done alot of hostile things before the appeasment.

Im sure Iran hasnt been forgiven for the hostage crisis or barrack bombings. But I dont think Iran have forgiven US either for the putsch against the demoraticly elected leader in order to restore the Shah.

Maby both countries need to look beyond that?

Yes it is stubborness. If Israel and Germany can let bygones be bygones then one would think perhaps the US and Iran could do likewise? Iran knows that by having close trade and diplomatic relation with Russia, India, China(US arch-enemies or competitors) it will up the ante. US also acknowledges that Iran has one of the greatest oil reserves in world. Here is Iran feeding the enemy and not feeding the lion, the superpower of the world. Hence it is understandable the US is frustrated with Iran and has justified reason, in it's eyes to cause Brouhaha regarding Iran. So you can understand when these pipelines being constructed eastward royally pisses America off. First not only not filling US reserves but also filling the reserves of these arch-rivals Russia,Iran,China always have somewhat of a pro-Iran stance and rhetoric. Iran is just caught in the crossfire but there are bigger players involved. US presence in Iraq has somewhat, if not a lot, to do with this. Obviously it cant be explicit about it.

Now add Venezuela and senor Chavez to the equation(one of the greatest oil reserves as well with cozy relation with the east) and US tolerance reaches it's pinnacle.

[Teabagger]

There was no concrete proof that Iraq had nukes, but you dont see us Not-invading them! Invade first, steal oil second, deal with international reaction third.

Steal oil?? Where are you from...the US has not received one drop of oil from Iraq...leave the village idiot Michael Moore talking points at home, they are old, tired, and simply lies that don't stick any longer.

[KAEW44]

Steal oil?? .

You cant say what will happen when we go for iran, they got tons of oil and all french companies operating it, ofcourse we want to screw them over and take it. Not to mention the wonderfu stability and peace that will cover the country of iran after a war/invasion.

[Logan13]

negotiations have barely started and are the only way to solve the situations. the US and Iran need to sitdown and have direct talks over grievances, particularly since the two nations haven't had diplomatic relations in almost 30 years.

The vast majority of members at the UN do not want Iran to have nukes, it is most certainly not limited to the US only. This is just another example of how useless the UN is in situations like this. Talks have been useless, how many countries have attempted to speak to Iran to no avail?

[Logan13]

You cant say what will happen when we go for iran, they got tons of oil and all french companies operating it, ofcourse we want to screw them over and take it. Not to mention the wonderfu stability and peace that will cover the country of iran after a war/invasion.

The same was said about us going into Iraq...............

[mcpeepants]

The vast majority of members at the UN do not want Iran to have nukes, it is most certainly not limited to the US only. This is just another example of how useless the UN is in situations like this. Talks have been useless, how many countries have attempted to speak to Iran to no avail?

As long as Iran keeps sending oil, most of the world could careless. The only ones concerned are the US, Britain, the EU, and certain arab states that don't want to change the balance of power. All the talks have been conditional and the US has not made direct (only via Switzerland I think) with Iran. If the US and Iran can't talk face to face, negotiations haven't started.

[Kärnfysikern]

I saw a article about polls in europe if europeans would prefer military actions against iran over them getting nuclear weapons.

Only france had a majority of people that supported military action in that situation. I think in the rest of europe it was more like 30% that picked military action and the rest prefered them getting nuclear weapons over war. I dont have any link anymore to the article unfortunaly.

[Kärnfysikern]

The vast majority of members at the UN do not want Iran to have nukes, it is most certainly not limited to the US only. This is just another example of how useless the UN is in situations like this. Talks have been useless, how many countries have attempted to speak to Iran to no avail?

I dont think it has been useless since there realy is no other option than to talk. No one wants to attack except israel and the us.

[Logan13]

I dont think it has been useless since there realy is no other option than to talk. No one wants to attack except israel and the us.

No one, including the US, wanted to attack hitler either. Even after he took Poland, very few wanted to do anything but talk and appease. Because of this inaction, thousands of people were gased. Hell, France did not even fight when they were invaded. They put their arms down and just watched Germany march down the streets of Paris. In all honesty, Europe and it's neighbors have more to fear about a nuclear Iran than we do. If you guys can't take care of your own backyard I do not know what to tell you. But remember this, whenever the terrorists use a nuclear weapon, Iran WILL BE destroyed as it will be too late to just "talk". Pacifism has never stopped those hellbent on destruction, pacifists by nature are easy prey for the wicked. The US has not stated that it wanted to attack Iran, but we also DO NOT negotiate with terrorists either, that's France and Swedens' niche.

[Logan13]

As long as Iran keeps sending oil, most of the world could careless. The only ones concerned are the US, Britain, the EU, and certain arab states that don't want to change the balance of power. All the talks have been conditional and the US has not made direct (only via Switzerland I think) with Iran. If the US and Iran can't talk face to face, negotiations haven't started.

We do not negotiate with terrorists, period.

[Kärnfysikern]

We do not negotiate with terrorists, period.

No but you have no moral objections to getting rid of democraticly elected leaders and replacing them with dictators or supporting dictatorships aslong as it is profitable. The US can defenetly not try to claim the moral high ground in this situation. That would be utterly ridicilous.

[Kärnfysikern]

No one, including the US, wanted to attack hitler either. Even after he took Poland, very few wanted to do anything but talk and appease. Because of this inaction, thousands of people were gased. Hell, France did not even fight when they were invaded. They put their arms down and just watched Germany march down the streets of Paris. In all honesty, Europe and it's neighbors have more to fear about a nuclear Iran than we do. If you guys can't take care of your own backyard I do not know what to tell you. But remember this, whenever the terrorists use a nuclear weapon, Iran WILL BE destroyed as it will be too late to just "talk". Pacifism has never stopped those hellbent on destruction, pacifists by nature are easy prey for the wicked. The US has not stated that it wanted to attack Iran, but we also DO NOT negotiate with terrorists either, that's France and Swedens' niche.

Well acctualy more french support americas stance than any other euro country.

You can not compare Iran and its leaders to germany and the nazis. Is iran putting people into concentration camps? Has iran invaded any country recently? pre ww2 germany was openly hostile and invaded neightboors. Not to mention they where a acctual threat to the rest of the world.

The only thing we can blame iran for is that we SUSPECT(no evidence) that they want nuclear weapons. That is not reason enough to go to war.

France did fight btw they had the better army and better equipment but germany had much better tactics and overran them. I dont se Iran running over any country soon

Putting iran on the axis of evil and constantly hinting towards military actions is in my book stating that you want to attack. If I where Iran and looking at n.korea I would want nukes aswell since they probably think they are under threat from the united states. The US could do ALOT to defuse this situation. But you can do nothing by sitting there beeing stubborn and refusing to talk. That is kindergarden politics.

But to again show why its ridicilous to compare iran to germany during the appesement times.

Germany pre ww2:
Rounded of jews and other minorities.
Invaded Czechoslovakia and austria.
Where open about wanting to invade Poland
Breach the treaty of Versailles in every way possible.

Iran now:
Suspected of wanting nuclear weapons but far from beeing able to build them. IAEA cant find any evidence...Kind of like no one could find any evidence in iraq perhaps

Yeah thats a valid comparison.
Even Ahmadinejad's speeches arent that overly threatening if they are translated correctly. Something the media isnt exactly doing.

If US wants to start another war, waste countless of lifes, flush one trillion dollars down the train and hurt the global economy over a suspicion without proof then go ahead, but you will be on your own again.

Comparing iran to germany and nazis are just empty and useless scaretactics. What needs to be done is to look at the acctual situation and find out what is justified. Suspicion is not a valid reason for war. Especialy not one that will be so horrible bloody.
The one beeing silly here is you for thirsting for war without any evidence to support the descision of going to war.

[Logan13]

Well acctualy more french support americas stance than any other euro country.

You can not compare Iran and its leaders to germany and the nazis. Is iran putting people into concentration camps? Has iran invaded any country recently? pre ww2 germany was openly hostile and invaded neightboors. Not to mention they where a acctual threat to the rest of the world.

Again, you miss the obvious. The only reason that Iran has not invaded Iraq is because of the US presence there. Were the US not there, they would be openly hostile toward Iraq, not to mention their hostility toward Israel via Hezbollah. Iran has stated that they wish to rid the world of all Zionists, starting with Israel and then on to the US. The fact that you refuse to connect the obvious dots in this situation is alarmingly naive! Again, I must point to your 21 years of accumulated knowledge......

[Logan13]

Comparing iran to germany and nazis are just empty and useless scaretactics. What needs to be done is to look at the acctual situation and find out what is justified. Suspicion is not a valid reason for war. Especialy not one that will be so horrible bloody.
The one beeing silly here is you for thirsting for war without any evidence to support the descision of going to war.

I am afraid that the only evidence that you will listen would be that which occurs after a hostile action by Iran first. No evidence until they acually commit an act of war first......I will make sure to send you a PM saying "I told you so".

[givemethejuice]

Again, you miss the obvious. The only reason that Iran has not invaded Iraq is because of the US presence there. Were the US not there, they would be openly hostile toward Iraq, not to mention their hostility toward Israel via Hezbollah. Iran has stated that they wish to rid the world of all Zionists, starting with Israel and then on to the US. The fact that you refuse to connect the obvious dots in this situation is alarmingly naive! Again, I must point to your 21 years of accumulated knowledge......

Agreed. Johan I respect your opinion and you seem like the smartest 21 year old i have ever seen. But your argument that Iran is not like Nazi Germany is not valid. If hitler were to have Nuclear weapons in ww2 do you not think he would have used them against Jews and the allies? If Iran were capable do you not think they would use Nuclear weapons against Jews and the Allies?

[Kärnfysikern]

Again, you miss the obvious. The only reason that Iran has not invaded Iraq is because of the US presence there. Were the US not there, they would be openly hostile toward Iraq, not to mention their hostility toward Israel via Hezbollah. Iran has stated that they wish to rid the world of all Zionists, starting with Israel and then on to the US. The fact that you refuse to connect the obvious dots in this situation is alarmingly naive! Again, I must point to your 21 years of accumulated knowledge......

And my age has what relevance? Its kind of funny you are the only one on this forum that even tries to use my age against me. The brain is at its sharpest in the twenties so maby you are getting old

I have to say though I dont like the way Iran is run, but I have NO reason as of now to belive they are suicidal. I dont know enough about Ayatholla to say anything and I woud say Ahmadinejad seems more sane than the nutcase running N.Korea
Especialy after reading what Ahmadinejad ACCTUALY said. The correct translations are much less threatening then the ones that the media has given. They are not peacefull. but they give much less of a impression that he wants to eradicate Israel.

The Iran Iraq war ended in 1988 and Iran has had ample oppertunity to invade iraq after that. So stating that they are not invading Iraq right now because of your presence there seems far fetched . If they wanted to invade iraq when iraq was weak why not in the middle of the ninties when iraq was decimated from the first gulf war?
Im sure Iran is enjoying making a bigger mess out of Iraq to tie down you guys there longer. Im sure they are trying to make the most out of this oppertunity to infuence Iraq to become a close future allie. Can you say america would not do the same if you where in Irans shoes?

Zionist and jew seem to be two very different things. There are like 40 000 jews in Iran so if they wanted to destroy jews they would start there. I dont know how to interpret destroy zionist because I have so far not gotten a understand of what exactly a zionist are.
I dont agree with the discrimination against jews or the stoneage view of women. But I would not go to war because I dont like how they run there own country. Let the people handle the goverment if they dont aprove of it.

I am afraid that the only evidence that you will listen would be that which occurs after a hostile action by Iran first. No evidence until they acually commit an act of war first......I will make sure to send you a PM saying "I told you so".

No they dont need to drop a nuke ot convince me.

Evidence would be like highly enrichened uranium. 80+%. 90% is needed for a weapon. They need a instalation 10 times!! the current one to be able to enrichen uranium to that extent. Not something you burry in the destert discretly so they cant have that hidden.

Another evidence would be plutonium. They dont have that either and they dont have the capacity to produce it.

Plants to build a weapon? They dont have that either.

What I want is hard evidence that shows they acctualy CAN build a weapon. Evidence that can convince the IAEA because thats there job.

If nuclear weapons and nuclear power wasnt so grossly missunderstod by the general public we whould not have this crisis. Making fuel for a reactor is a piece of cake, enrichening uranium to weapons grade level is a whole different thing. When someone hear Iran and Uranium they add it up to nukes and skipp 15 steps in the equation.
They are YEARS from beeing able to build a nuclear weapon, all experts except the Israeli ones agress on this. So there is no point whatsoever in rushing towards agression.

Gunpowder doesnt give me a m16 and 5% enrichened uranium doesnt give me a nuke.

Agreed. Johan I respect your opinion and you seem like the smartest 21 year old i have ever seen. But your argument that Iran is not like Nazi Germany is not valid. If hitler were to have Nuclear weapons in ww2 do you not think he would have used them against Jews and the allies? If Iran were capable do you not think they would use Nuclear weapons against Jews and the Allies?

First of all thanks for the complement But please dont make the misstake of beliving I am naive because I am 21....

No I dont think Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel because Israel would retaliate and Iran would get utterly destroyed. Not even Hitler would have used weapons in that situation unless it was the last days of ww2 when russian tanks where rolling towards Berlin.

Remember that Stalin was every bit as mad as Hitler, if not more so, and probably twice as mad as Ahmadinejad and Ayatholla Khamenei put togheter. Yet he didnt nuke the USA even though his whole philosophy was to introduce communism worldwide by force.

What I am saying is that Nazi Germany was acctualy a threat to the world. They had a fair chanse of conquering all of europe. What can Iran at worst do even if they get a few nukes? Nothing, they cant do shit. Every hostile move they make will mean they get destroyed. They will remain a minor player in the world for a LONG time. If they get nukes they get immunity from western agression like N.Korea, but they cant use them.

Frankly Im more worried about N.Korea than I am about Iran. Why would they want to nuke jews abroad when they dont kill nukes in there own country? If they where like the Nazis there would be 40 000 dead jews in Iran right now.

The question I have to you and logan is why you belive Ayatholla Khamenei(he is in charge of the armed forces, not Ahmadinejad) would use nukes even though it would mean his death and the death of his country? Why do you think he is suicidaly agressive towards the west?

They dont like Israel, but I se no reason to belive that they would die and sacrifice millions after millions of countrymen in order to hurt Israel.
But remember they are far from having a nuke in the first place, so talking about what they would do with one is not important.

[Kärnfysikern]

To sum up my above long post

Show me Iran has:

Uranium enrichened above 80%
Plutonium in ample ammounts.
The capacity to enrichen uranium to 90% or produce plutonium.

If they had one of those things I would agree that they want weapons and nothing else....

[givemethejuice]

First of all thanks for the complement But please dont make the misstake of beliving I am naive because I am 21....

No I dont think Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel because Israel would retaliate and Iran would get utterly destroyed. Not even Hitler would have used weapons in that situation unless it was the last days of ww2 when russian tanks where rolling towards Berlin.

Remember that Stalin was every bit as mad as Hitler, if not more so, and probably twice as mad as Ahmadinejad and Ayatholla Khamenei put togheter. Yet he didnt nuke the USA even though his whole philosophy was to introduce communism worldwide by force.

What I am saying is that Nazi Germany was acctualy a threat to the world. They had a fair chanse of conquering all of europe. What can Iran at worst do even if they get a few nukes? Nothing, they cant do shit. Every hostile move they make will mean they get destroyed. They will remain a minor player in the world for a LONG time. If they get nukes they get immunity from western agression like N.Korea, but they cant use them.

Frankly Im more worried about N.Korea than I am about Iran. Why would they want to nuke jews abroad when they dont kill nukes in there own country? If they where like the Nazis there would be 40 000 dead jews in Iran right now.

The question I have to you and logan is why you belive Ayatholla Khamenei(he is in charge of the armed forces, not Ahmadinejad) would use nukes even though it would mean his death and the death of his country? Why do you think he is suicidaly agressive towards the west?

They dont like Israel, but I se no reason to belive that they would die and sacrifice millions after millions of countrymen in order to hurt Israel.
But remember they are far from having a nuke in the first place, so talking about what they would do with one is not important.[/QUOTE]

Trust me, I here what you were saying and I also do not believe that you are naive but my stance is that who knows exactly how crazy or fanatic ( to be politically correct) Ahmadinejad and the Ayatholla are anyway! Go back to 1938 or even before that, who really believed Hitler was going massacre 6 million jews and start a world war. I mean you are saying now that we have nothing to worry about but their is always the possibilty of what if and I don't want to be looking 5 years down the line at ww3 when we could do something now. Look at the horrible events that happened because nobody heeded the warning about hitler.

Also, I am worried about N. Korea too or any other country that run by some nut job with nuclear weapons.

[Kärnfysikern]

Trust me, I here what you were saying and I also do not believe that you are naive but my stance is that who knows exactly how crazy or fanatic ( to be politically correct) Ahmadinejad and the Ayatholla are anyway! Go back to 1938 or even before that, who really believed Hitler was going massacre 6 million jews and start a world war. I mean you are saying now that we have nothing to worry about but their is always the possibilty of what if and I don't want to be looking 5 years down the line at ww3 when we could do something now. Look at the horrible events that happened because nobody heeded the warning about hitler.

Also, I am worried about N. Korea too or any other country that run by some nut job with nuclear weapons.

But the big question is. Is the worry about what Iran might do worth killing hundrads of thousands of good Iranian men along with possibly hundrads of thousands of americans? Invanding Iran wont be anywhere near as eazy as invading Iraq was. Its going to be a extremely bloody war and offcourse will spin of into widespread terrorism in the west.

I say talk until there is no point in talking anymore or until there is proof they can and will build a weapon, its crucial that EVERYONE should be talking including the united states. We dont have to worry about nuclear weapons in Irans hands for several years because they just dont have the capability to enrichen the uranium or produce the plutonium...So its not like we are in a rush.

I think the most important thing is that the US sits down and starts talking because US is Irans biggest threath, if Iran wants nukes I bet my ass alot of the motivation is because they fear US agression. If US shows there goodwill maby Iran will do the same. Its a win win situation. Worst case scenario is that it doesnt work and we are back in the exact same situation as today....

[givemethejuice]

I think the most important thing is that the US sits down and starts talking because US is Irans biggest threath, if Iran wants nukes I bet my ass alot of the motivation is because they fear US agression. If US shows there goodwill maby Iran will do the same. Its a win win situation. Worst case scenario is that it doesnt work and we are back in the exact same situation as today....

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

I agree with this 100%. And I hope that talks are all that is needed to put an end to this situation, but what is talks fail? We will not be at this same situation we are now because we will know that talks will not work but stronger action is neccessary. Will we have the backing from the world (including Russia and China) or only a select few.

[Kärnfysikern]

I agree with this 100%. And I hope that talks are all that is needed to put an end to this situation, but what is talks fail? We will not be at this same situation we are now because we will know that talks will not work but stronger action is neccessary. Will we have the backing from the world (including Russia and China) or only a select few.

Exactly. At some point even China and Russia must stop supporting Iran if all talks with all parties fail...

[givemethejuice]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060910/...a/iran_nuclear

Finally, maybe a little progress has been made!