I do not think it makes sense to bring up our going to war against Nazi Germany based on knowledge or suspicions of concentration camps. It was based on Germany's invasion of other nations and attacking our shipping in support of the UK. It also didn't hurt that Germany declared war on the US. That evidence was certainly tangible.

IIRC, they refused. A clear sign that they are not so serious about the "peaceful use of nuclear power". A brilliant move on the part of the U.S. to discern their true intentions.

When I have to go, that's exactly how I want it to go down.

Suffocating on a cream pie to the face. Like a Brady Bunch episode gone terribly wrong.

First of all - U.S. was not concerned about concentration camps. That was not why they became involved with WWII.

History shows that if we act impulsively - as in history from about four years ago - we look like asses for doing so - as in Iraq.

I think this misconception has been adequately covered.

As had the fact that its been proven that they want the uranium for a nuke weapon, not generation of power. Guess you did not see that on the thread...

Totally agree. Thank God that we have Israel on our side and they are not afraid to strike when needed.

I would also suggest that we see if we can help address why these countries feel the need to gain nuclear weapons. Addressing one without the other seems like it has less probability of success. :)

Tell us why. They just need a hug?

Reardon, please print Wayne's comment that I quoted, and read it along with my comment. If you still don't follow, please post again for an explanation. It's clear you've miscomprehended my comment, for what ever reason.

Cannot totally disagree. Your comments on their recent action in Syria?

Just for the record, there may not be any homosexuals in Iran. This is the reason why:

http://beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2005/07/2999.shtml

They are being killed by the govt. Proof above in photos....

Suppose some of you guys want the same proof about them making nuke weapons?

That's interesting, yesterday's NYTimes (Sunday) top of page 14 in the caption of a picture of Ahmadinejad, it says " Iran sent large numbers of teenagers, older men and some women in human waves against the better equipped Iraqi forces to die in the name of Islam."

So you are right, he didn't send armed military volunteers forces but unarmed civilians.

Ummm...firstly, the word is "indisputable."

Second - none of what you outlined falls under "indisputable."

From Wikipedia involving Uranium Enrichment:
Countries operating large cascades:
Large cascades of gas centrifuges are operated by France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Netherlands, and China to produce enriched uranium both for domestic use and for export, and by Japan for domestic use.
By large, they mean more than one or 3,000. Note, for domestic use is underlined, and note as well the countries listed. Finally, note the lyric by "The Kings" - Paranoia will destroy ya.

2) A bunker under the desert 30 stories deep? So what? I can't see how that points to the Iranians having a desire to nuke Israel or the U.S.

3) "They have refused the assistance of the Soviet Union to purchase enriched uranium for the purpose of running a nuclear reactor" Which means what?

Meanwhile, North Korea has an active nuclear program and regularly shoots off rocket tests like it's the 4th of July, yet we fail to have the gumption to "nuke" them.

Face it: one country is a credible threat, while the other is a convenient and timely goat to saber rattle against. No, we've learned nothing since Iraq. Find me the WMDs, then we'll talk about Iran's nuclear program.

As if this thread is a bastion of clear, concise and untainted information and truth. You make me laugh. :rolleyes:

First, the band is called 'The Kinks'

Second, the lyrics are "Paranoia, the destroyer"

And third, your belief that Iran is not trying to build a bomb is silly.

Kinks, you're right there.
Lyrics - I won't dispute that.
Third - stick with what you know about the Kinks and lyrics.

dd, I am surprised that you don't see right thru Ahmadienjad.

I suppose you may just be on the contrary for effect.

Iran represents a greater immediate threat to Israel than to the U.S. but is certainly not a friend of either. As far as immediate action, I certainly could understand if Israel decided to take out the Iranian weapons facilities. If we did it, I hope it would be with the goal of (1) preventing the US from ending up in Iran's (or some terrorist group, supplied with Iranian-made nuclear material) cross hairs and (2) looking at the greater good/big picture in the M.E. I would NOT support the US attacking a sovereign country because of a threat to Israel - I would hope we wouldn't be "doing their dirty work" for them. They're an ally, yes - but we should not be their patsy about something like this. Joint attack? Maybe. A NATO action might be better. Iran could certainly retaliate unilaterally against Israel for a pre-emptive strike, as well as against U.S. interests in Iraq (some would say they've already been doing this, which is possible), but not against a large multinational alliance like NATO.

Sorry but throw all of the above out that uses Wikipedia as source/reference material.

I can post on Wiki that my hair is going to grow back and unfortunately its not true.

Find a source that is not biased and credible and lets try again...