do   you   think  iran   can    realise   its    nuclear   programme    in  the   face   of opposition  by usa
445913
twin,\n\nI certainly hope not.\n\nNothing that cannot be solved by a couple of well-placed smart munitions, however.\n\nThe U.S. and the world is right to be concerned about the likes of their ayatollah with nuclear capabilities.  The Iranians are unstable, led by an unstable person.  Who would feel safe with a maniac with a nuke button?
454160
Neutral from front,\nBut the way US is putting pressure on President Perwaiz,We Pakistanis can give Intelligence support against Iran.
353978
I am not expecting too much from Iran. \nThey might not make it to the next round.
429640
The whole MAD business.  If both sides start using nuclear weapons, the world has a good chance of ending.  So, no one actually uses them.  I'm guessing if Iran actually uses them, the US won't retaliate because no one wants to use nuclear weapons.
497359
People above me who are blaming this on Bush, read a newspaper.  This is not a problem that President Bush is inventing.  The United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and Europe agree that this is a problem.  Open your eyes and stop blaming everything in the world on Bush.  The Iranian problem can be solved peacefully if the leadership of Iran will stop trying to get nuclear weapons.  They say that nothing will stop them from their nuclear programs.  If they don't change their minds, the problem will not be able to be solved peacefully.
523838
If we invade Iran it will be a grave mistake for one they can fight back ,its not as easy as invading Iraq (and we've turned that into an impossible situation). Also my personal opinion is that whilst were pointing the finger at Iran and getting all above ourselves there are bigger nuclear issues  that are being avoided like North Korea and China that have nuclear capability and would without a shadow of a doubt, whilst every ones focus is off them attempt to take over the world. (and could quite possibly succeed)
402581
It shouldn't be a first option.  The ideal situation would be an internal revolution in Iran, I can't imagine that the average Iranian is terribly happy with Ahmadinejad and Khamenei though the Iranian police state has so far been able to keep them in power.  I think that diplomatic options need to be exhausted before military options are exercised, but it is up to Iran how far this goes.  If they allow the IAEA in to monitor and verify their claim that they are trying to generate Nuclear power for civilian purposes (which all current evidence indicates is not the case) then the world will probably let them do so, however if Iran begins deploying and/or exporting Nuclear Weapons they will have to be stopped, and it would be imprudent to take any option off the table before their intentions are known.
618415
It maybe.In fact we as people have no idea.But the thing is that as there are lots of radicals in Iran who are ready to be  suicide bomber,America will be stuck in iran.
1113941
I would continue the nuclear program.As long as it's OK for other countries to have nuclear energy(cos i don't think they are building weapons of mass destruction) it's OK for Iran to have it too
1163388
Sure.As long as other countries have the right to nuclear energy,so should Iran.If the Iranian nuclear program is a threaten then so is USA's program and of all the other countries who use nuclear energy.
127119
If us was stupid yes \nI think iran isnt iraq or afganestan
62839
I'm not going to turn this into an anti or pro Bush diatribe (personally, I'm indifferent to him), but the Iran situation is indeed very serious, and it is not just Bush that thinks so.  France, Germany and Britain have been working on this for many years.  China and Russia are stake holders.  Even the Australia Group has issued an opinion.  What you're observing is simply more attention being paid to the matter by the media (don't forget the European Union has been working on this seriously since at least 2000, even before September 11).  Iran clearly wants nuclear weapons and has made overt threats to use them, which escalates the situation above a mere arms race.  Further, Iran has not been transparent with the program, which is a direct violation of an international treaty which the country signed on its own accord.  However, when the EU-3 first noticed that Iran had broken the treaty and bought the issue to international attention, the Iranians suddenly became indignant -- essentially casting asside an agreeement they had made with civilized society.   However, now the attention of the world's citizens is on Iran, I hope that the same level heads that have been working 'behind the scenes' continue to prevail.
548574
Iran is more honest than US
828550
Iran should be nuked but better if they should be warned first to make amends to their nuclear arms program.
474334
It now appears a foregone conclusion that Iran will continue its nuclear program no matter what the United States and European Union offer to stop it. A military strike would likely be futile, since Iran has hardened and dispersed its nuclear complex. \n\nA war, even a limited one, will almost certainly raise oil prices to recession-inducing levels, as Iran cuts itself off from global markets.\n\nThere are fearfully powerful arguments against the use of the military option. But multiplied together, squared, and then cubed, the weight of these arguments does not come close to matching the case for us to stop, by whatever means may be necessary, Iran from becoming a nuclear power. \n\nIf Iran gets safely and unmolested to nuclear status, it will be a threshold moment in the history of the world, up there with the Bolshevik Revolution and the coming of Hitler. \n\nAnd the kind of society we live in and cherish in the West will change beyond recognition. We balk now at intrusive government measures to tap our phones or other intrusions into our civil liberties. Imagine how much more our freedoms will be curtailed if our governments fear we are just one telephone call or e-mail, one plane journey or truckload, one lead-lined cargo ship away from another Hiroshima. \n\nYou ask for a date of the attack, it's unknown, be there are timeposts that military tacticians, i'm sure are looking at. The estimated dates of an operational nuke in Iran is anywhere between 2007 and 2012. \n\nThere are reports that the Israel deadline for strikes against Iran are the end of March. American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted. \n\nTehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in Iraq and Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.
488035
I would also have to agree.\nAlso it is presumbly part of a ploy in order to get Iran to operate in a way that is more acceptable to the West.
354538
If the USA or the UN do not get Iran under control--YES.