Gee, how did I know you would be the author of this one.

Iran is a fully sovereign nation - like the UK who has nukes, like France who has nukes, like Pakistan who has nukes, like Israel who has nukes.

Say again for me, why the world has the right to tell this sovereign nation that they cannot - whilst being surrounded by nuclear powers - develop their own nuclear program.

Oh, yeah, I forgot, 'cause the US doesn't want them to.

To which I, like Iran, can think of only one response: "Big fucking deal."

Did someone appoint uptight as politics editor or is this just a freak occurance?
Just when I thought the SG bar was already below the floor, out comes another trailerload of thinly veiled fear and ignorance

What Nick said.

He has been an editor for a bit now. And it's not so much who cares if they have nukes it's that the more countries that have them the more likely they are to being used. India and Pakistan came very close to nuclear war not to long ago. Iran is a potentially hostile nation to both the US and Israel, and it's not unlikely that they would use Nukes for the purpose of striking Israel, who would then retaliate in kind. Poof there goes our oil.

Isn't the position that they are refusing to suspend enrichment as precondition to talks? It seems implicit in their willingness to have talks that they in fact do see there being something to talk about.

There remains the tricky situation that the non-proliferation treaty, signed up to by all the big players here (apart from Israel), gives Iran the right to a civilian program. Enrichment being a key part of the process. You can argue that it's a stupid agreement, but it's still plain they are being pressured to stop doing what it was settled they could do.

Is there any real evidence that Ahmadinejad's belief in the "12th Iman" is driving Iranian policy in any concrete way, other than some quotes from speeches?

That is, any evidence that it's driving Iranian policy more than Bush's belief that the Book of Revelation is literally true and there will be a Rapture may or may not be driving American policy?

Look, I don't want religious fanatics of any stripe to hold power, when it comes down to it. But you've gotta do better than that.

I like Europe's tack here. They seem to be calling Iran's bluff: if this is truly about peaceful nuclear power, making it easier for them to get it will prove that. If not, this will show that once and for all.

For three years Iran had democracy, and then the US led a coup to install someone else. That became the Ayatollah.

Source: Autobiography of a Blue-Eyed Devil by Inga Muscio.

Fuck that, go to the National Security Archives and read the declassified CIA documents that brag about how they did it.

Yep, making up fake terrorists groups (hmmm, "al-queda" anyone ?), engaging in false flag events, using propaganda to turn public tide, staging events - the whole nine yards.

Additionally, the U.S. and U.K. backed the Shah (the monarchy) since Mossadeq attempted to nationalize the Iranian Oil to the dismay of BP (British Petroleum) who had many oilfields there; the Ayatollah led the extremist religious faction that overthrew the monarchy after that government granted suffrage to women and did all manner of things that run contrary to Islam.

Iran's centrifuges are right now not even in a state to enrich enough uranium in the period of an entire year to make a single small scale nuclear bomb, nevermind the issue of actually deploying the bomb.

And CNN reported that they agreed to a 2 month suspension of enrichment, which I think the article failed to note.

I am not worried about what they might do in the next year, it's what they might be cabable of doing in the next 10 years that bothers me.

Well then I guess we shouldn't have sold the equipment to Iran in the first place. It would seem to me that the more we get involved in the destinies of other countries the more we decide we don't like the results. Don't like terrorists? Don't fucking train them! Don't like countries with nuclear power? Don't fucking sell it to them.

Damn right. We helped to did this hole and know we need to get out of it.

Christ on a crutch. How many times do you need to be told that this is not about nukes.

It is about Iran continuing to sell their oil in petrodollars.

Prediction: in a year - maybe two - there will be an agreement that Iran joins the nuclear club. A private codicile of that agreement will be that Iran agrees to sell their pil in dollars.

That is assuming that Israel doesn't go off half cocked and start bombing Iran. In which case we better start looking for sources of whale oil.

Although I am suspicious (are are many others) of Iran's intention of uranium enrichment, I do think it's important that we wait until president Ahmadinejad addresses the UN with his reason. We're supposed to be a country that treats its citizens as "innocent until proven guilty." Sure you can have your doubts, suspicions, hunches, whatever. But there's no need to take action unless we're absolutely sure. Oh, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to have at least ONE other country take action with us (and stay the course) if Iran *does* turn out to be "guilty."

I just hate how we're a nation of finger pointers. Everyone is awesome at finding wrongdoings and nobody (and I do mean nobody) is doing a fucking thing to provide any solutions.

Here's an idea - when it comes to election time....don't go by the stupid party affiliation of the candidates. That's a joke to begin with. Instead, look at their voting history. Look at whether or not they do what they say they are going to do. Do your homework. These are the people representing YOU. If they aren't doing what they say they are going to do....get rid of them. I'd rather see a "nobody" in office with no track record than ANY politician in office who has never (or rarely) kept their campaign promises. At least a "newbie" has a clean slate. The worst that can happen is they'll be as shitty as the current politician. If they're ANY better, it's a win/win situation.

This would be so much easier if only we could count on the candidates to do the same.