Who THINKS THAT WE SHOULD HELP IRAN TO GO NUCLEAR BY PLACING 3 TO 4 WELL PLACED NUKES  ON THEM?
459616
Personally I do not think that we need to go nuclear on anyone. Iran is a Middle Eastern country that we should not have involvement in. This country (US) is great on spreading democracy but other than oil what is our interest there? Why in the world do we need to be making everyone do our bidding? We need to focus in this country on how to improve our own job situations, education, over population, excessive oil use, and  focus on our country not theirs. That is my opinion.
595842
AA my good friend, I think we may AGREE on this one. Iran's primary motivation is to construct nuclear weapons, nuclear power would be a secondary benefit and of course like any good sociopath, Iran is playing the "energy end up" while minimizing (to the outside world) the thought of developing nuclear weapons.
655572
I think they should. W wants to use nukes on Iran. That would be shear insanity. He wanted to use them in Iraq.\n\nThe damage that depleted uranium tipped bullets and projectiles do in Iraq already is atrocious. We should be ashamed.\n\nWe should also take the lead role in destroying all of our nukes. Instead we are making more.
464057
Iran is a fine country.  But the people that run it need to be taken out in the street and shot.  And if that doesn't help it, then nuke it and turn it into a wasteland.
625577
Iran saying that they are enriching uranium for power generation. Security council should closely monitor the pace in which they are enriching. I dont think Iran has much power demand.\n\nyes its ok if the are using nuclear power for peaceful means & for their nations security. Because every nation has the right to protect themself.
41523
Your country's "President" needs to be wiped off the face of this earth and all it's Mullahs stripped of their power and moolah. ;-)\n\nOtherwise, I think we should nuke Iran.
385099
We do not consider the proliferation of nuclear technology for WMD's progress.  When Iran is sitting on one of the largest known oil reserves on Earth the idea she would spend enormous resources to build nuclear power plants is not credible.  \n\nYour President's threats to destroy Israel don't reassure us that your intentions are peaceful. For me your comment that God only shines in Iran suggests your religion and/or culture is superior to mine.  Persons who believe their God only shines on them can use that to justify bad things.    \n\nProgress can take place in many areas that don't threaten the existence of life on our planet. Americans and the world would rejoice if an Iranian found a cure for cancer,  or even the common cold, and we would all hold you in our hearts forever. \n\nIt is not Iranian progress we are concerned about, it is survival
564024
yes iran should be able to have a nuke. and we should deliver it to them by air, and maybe one for syria, palestine, and turkey oh and no korea. good people in those countries should start packing up and moving out
724732
Give them both a chose give up the nukes or take them away.\nWe can stop N. Korea with embargos do not let anything in or out \nWith Iran let Isreal take care of them
539266
Firstly, I believe that Iran being the 3rd major oil producer in the world has more than 20-30+ years of oil production. My guess in around 100 years or so. And this issue of nuclear energy is just getting ridiculous. Its every country's right to improve and Iran just like us has this right to have nuclear energy. I think we should stop being a bully to all these countries, all these wars have cost us dollars that could go in our education and health is going into killing innocent people AND we are paying MORE on gas.
777045
Get your facts straight.  The IAEA just issued a report on the amount of spent plutonium discovered upon inspection, which was far more than was required for a peaceful energy program.  If Iran wants to act like a stubborn child they deserve to be treated like one.
841424
Its worth a shot, would be even better, or easier to do if Iran wasnt trying to get Nukes.  Look its not in Iran or Syria's intrest to see Iraq completly out of control, they just want to it to be on the brink to embarass us, if it spirals out of their control they will have a serious problem on their hands.  I agree that we should not usually negotiate with rogue states, that is how the whole North Korea mess got out of hand, but this is a special problem,  realisticly not matter how long I support this war, a weary American public( unjustifiably so, but so nonetheless) will not support the war indefenintly, therefore we should take the correct steps for a gradual exit, if we can control the radical elements in Iraq in the short term by cutting off their support from Iran then we can crush them later.
560662
My god what are they teaching in the schools these days. Some one said so what we have em, Israel has em..... \n Are you that stupid. If we let Iran have them, then they will end up on your lap one day when you go to eat dinner. That dude is a Nut ball and has already said that his plans is to take Israel off the map. After he takes out Israel where do you think he would attack next? Yes that's right, right here in the USA. Think its to big of a job for him. Well maybe, only because we already took out Iraq(which you probably was against as well)and The Taliban. Good grief what is wrong with you people, Don't you know what a Nuke is. There are to many in the world already and if we let anyone else have them then its that much more of a threat. Especially some mental case. Go USA. I still live here. If you don't like it then move over with them. Be decent for once, Support your president and your country. I still love this place. You should to.
1095327
I think we shouldn't give up diplomatic efforts until a) it is clear  that diplomatic efforts won't work or b) we are convinced that Iran is just using the delay to press full speed ahead towards a weapons program.\n\nHowever, from what I hear from the EU as well as the US, b) isn't far away, unfortunately.
207668
Well, I'll clear up all the bias here.\n\nWhile it would be a good idea (we certainly shouldn't let them keep nuklear weapons) to invade Iran, I personally think that Bush is too unpopular now to start another war. If he's going to do that, he needs to spend a year or so after this war focused on internal problems. His approval rating is pretty low.\n\nI would also suggest he put more of the actual combat on the shoulders of the UN, since they would definitely be behind us in this endeavor.\n\nIn case you're wondering, I am a very conservative person, and I approve of what Bush has done so far. But I realize what must be done. Wars begun with a low approval of the leader have a tendency to turn out badly.\n\nEdit: And to the post above mine, thank you for not realizing how nuclear power works. A nuclear reactor is far more complex to construct than a bomb. A reactor needs cooling, containment. A bomb just needs two chuncks of enriched Uranium and a couple sticks of dynamite.\n\nNow, if *you* were a sect of radical Islam bent on killing all of those who weren't your belief, and you had the option of spending a few million dollars to build a bomb or a few dozen million to develop a reactor, which one would you choose? Which would be more helpful in your present situation?
856738
I've been saying this for months. I've told EVERYBODY that after the elections, the U.S., Great Britain, and/or Israel WILL strike Iran.\n\nThink about it...  . . .We're not about to let them get NUCLEAR BOMBS.
880890
England is entitled to its Nuclear program in my opinion because it was a part of the Great three in WWII.  I dislike Iran getting ahold of the nuke because of the numerous middle east wars and a country like that would not hesitate a first launch.