Khamenei says US can not be trusted

[Serpentine]

So you invite bombers over your country. I hope your new government will be wiser than you.

Thanks for admitting that rule of jungle thing.

grow up please, and just accept that the countries that have nuclear bombs atm are not going to get inspected by Iran.
they've got a proven trackrecord since at least 1946 that they can keep those things safely and SECUREDLY stored and that they won't use them in anger (aka: as a first strike).

you've got a lot to learn about preventing wars with nuclear bombs, Iranian friend..

Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons (and no proof that it's building one) and you jumped in to conclusion that it's going to launch a first strike against U.S,West or Israel?
Let's assume this ridiculous theory is right for one moment, how is Iran going to start a nuclear war with less than 10 nuclear warheads against countries with thousands of nukes? Have you ever considered that even a 2 year old girl would laugh at this?

 

[Etiene]

reasonable co-operation (not servitude) with washington might be the best option for Iran really.

seriously, Iran with nuke bombs creates within 10 to 50 years some very serious problems for all enemies of radical islamists. and everyone who is not a radical islamist is an enemy of radical islamists, so do radical islamists keep saying and acting like..

note that i'm not saying all Iranians are radical islamists.

and i'm not kidding about the potential for wealth and joy of green energy development instead of nuclear energy development by Iran either.

Sure.
And a good way to make a foe of Washington cooperative would be to weaken him economically and politically. Of course these measures taken by Washington could be because of a genuine concern of an ongoing nuclear weaponization in Iran. Then it's a matter of examining the arguments for that this is actually occurring. How have you reached the conclusion that it is?

 

[PeaceGen]

Sure.
And a good way to make a foe of Washington cooperative would be to weaken him economically and politically. Of course these measures taken by Washington could be because of a genuine concern of an ongoing nuclear weaponization in Iran. Then it's a matter of examining the arguments for that this is actually occurring. How have you reached the conclusion that it is?

yes, i honestly think it is, and the logic I posted here is truly what I think NATO and Israeli military commanders think about Iran (and later other countries in the Middle East) with nuke bombs.

we of NATO and Israel had hoped sanctions would result in the Iranians stopping their restricting of the nuclear inspectors, which they did ever since the inspections started, and do to this day.

i went against the US republicans on an American forum when in 2006/2007 they heavily advertised in all US media that a bombing mission on Iran would happen within weeks or months.
I told 'm that with Iran not even having any nuke bomb parts yet at that time, any bombing of iran by nato/israel then would result in massive recruitment and support increases for muslim terrorists, and how that in turn would lead the EU to probably be forced to drop their support for the US+Israel against Iran in that case, because we have pretty large numbers of muslim minorities who migrated for economic purposes to the EU in the 1960s, well before any of this religious-war-bullshit started.

But it appears, according to the Israelis who are known for accurate spying, that the Iranians are nearing the capability to build nuke bombs. And the Israelis have drawn the line at that Iran can't have production facilities of any kind for nuke bomb parts.

If the Israelis/Americans find convincing evidence that nuke bomb parts / production facilities for those parts do exist in Iran, well, military action against Iran by all of NATO could happen pretty quickly then. You'd probably only get 1 last chance to dismantle it yourselves under unrestricted nuclear inspections.

 

[PeaceGen]

Thanks for admitting that rule of jungle thing.


Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons (and no proof that it's building one) and you jumped in to conclusion that it's going to launch a first strike against U.S,West or Israel?
Let's assume this ridiculous theory is right for one moment, how is Iran going to start a nuclear war with less than 10 nuclear warheads against countries with thousands of nukes? Have you ever considered that even a 2 year old girl would laugh at this?

oh, Iran (or any middle east/african nation after that) could do that uber-simply by not launching it with an icbm (way too obvious), but shipping it in or driving it into the target city, detonate, then claim all their own nukes are accounted for and that another country must've passed these 'unislamic terrorists' a nuke bomb.

and since a nuke bomb when detonated kinda tends to vaporize all of itself besides a good portion of the city block it was in when detonated, it's kinda f-ing hard to find evidence of who created that nuke, afterwards.

so; hell; i would even see plenty of muslims conspiracy-pushers afterwards claim that the countries victimized by the nuke strike used their own nukes for it, so they can blame and/or attack muslims.