Europeans doesn't go and invade other countries though so what does moral got to do with this?
And ehh, you invaded Afganistan, then Iraq. Dunno what other wars you are refering to except the civil wars perhaps, but don't see what that has to do with this either. Ah and ofc the israeliens vs the palestinians and Libanon where you give bilions each year to the israelians... so you are a part there as well:)

And yea, you do have loads of problems to deal with in your country so don't really understand why you went to Iraq (except for the oil) at all.

And yea yea, they have a bad democracy but they have one. I think your democracy is extremely flawed as well (a little better then the one in Iran yea), that doesn't make me want to invade you though...

Ah and ofc, the values in christianity and the ones in islam is quite similar in many ways:P

"There was an agreement (that every nuclear country in the world was signing) to reduce nuclear weapons, USA refused which made Russia refuse. Now. If USA would start reducing the nuclear weapon arsenal then they could ask other countries to do the same. They do not however, so they have no authority in this at all, meaning that this is no base for an invasion."

Key word there is reducing the nuclear arsenal. The US has many times more nukes than any other country. so if we had to reduce our russia would have to reduce a lot less. plus i dont think any country would want to give away all of their nukes. you also act as though the US and russia are the only country with nukes. what about china, india, israel, france, and britain?

"Just like Skoe says... USA is controlled by religious people (Christianity) and Iran by religious people (Islam) so..."
where is the evidence that the bush administration makes decisions based on christianity? we separate religion for politics. don't go making claims that you can't really prove.

your whole argument is that if the US has nukes, then everybody should have nukes. Fortunately for the world today, we have nukes. it causes stability and the superpowers of the world wont go to war with each other or each others allies. Also fortunately for the world, only a few people possess the power to press the button for the nuclear attack. now what if you gave that button to every country that watns it?

It looks as though you will try to use anything to say that america is a warmongering country but its not true. i see it all the time people like you come up with stupid arguments that sound good to most people but in reality it would never happen.

"There was an agreement (that every nuclear country in the world was signing) to reduce nuclear weapons, USA refused which made Russia refuse. Now. If USA would start reducing the nuclear weapon arsenal then they could ask other countries to do the same. They do not however, so they have no authority in this at all, meaning that this is no base for an invasion."

Bollocks. There was indeed such an agreement, and they were both dismanteling atomic bombs for a long time. Then the US decided to work on the Star Wars project again after the 9/11 attacks, and now they're both competing again..

Agh,

what you fail to realize about the number of nukes is that as  you constantly lower the number of nukes on both sides..... you get down to a number in which its "possible" to "win" a nuclear exchange. The old soviets had documents come out saying tht if the number dropped low enough, if one side or the other were to able to strike at the others nukes first....they would be able to dictate terms for a surrender, thus making it plausible to start a war if one side decided to strike first.

America has disabled whole fields of nuclear launch silo's. Taking out the Titan II missile tubes (either selling the land or filling the silo's with concrete as per the treaty under international inspection) which were the backbone of the US nuclear arsenal.

some of the key points on why there isnt more of a reduction:

1) US's position was to reduce the number of land based weapons. Russia wouldnt agree. They wanted to eliminate all sea based nuclear arsenals. Reason being that Russia knows the US's "Boomer" subs are accurate as land based silo's but cant really be detected until they launch their missiles.  If they only have land targets, makes a war that much "easier".

2) The US tried to get ALL nuclear countries to reduce their number or weapons. Russia refused to help influence China and North Korea to join (which they flat out refused to). Russia wanted all of Nato to reduce more compared to themselves.

3) The US started to develope the missile shield when diplomacy wouldnt work. This made Russia jealous and they refuse to talk now at all about reductions as they dont have a shield system in working development.

The US tried several diplomatic avenues before going with the shield. Look up all the START talks. There were 2 other agreements between the US and Russia on nuclear reduction but I forget the names of those talks. (and I am leaving for work so I have no time)

Dont be so naive and just be a hater.  Realistically, we'll never have 0 nukes in our lifetime. Once a technology is developed....it cant be undone. Someone will always be able to build it.

BTW dumbasses.....this topic isnt about why to invade Iran.....it clearly states why NOT to invade. Learn to read.

We can't wait for the president elections.

Democrats means end of war in foreign countries.
Republicans means another wave of wars and mostlikely in Iran too.

I (as European citizen) agree with the U.S. way of doing this. If no-one leads the world, what will become of all this. If I were the President of the U.S. and have rumors that Iran is producing Nuclear Radioactivity I would worry too yes. There have been many conflicts between Russia and the U.S. about Nuclear wars.

What would the world become if Iran indeed has Nuclear weapons and has an alliance with a corrupt country such as North Korea, Iraq, etc.
Would you (as President) ever forgive yourself of not doing anything?

Its obvious that Skoe is just trying to insight pointless arguments with his last posting...

Im done.

btw Flint, the thing in the philipines has been documented (bullets dipped in pigs fat)

wow Skoe was active in here to surrender our debate, and some other threads...

If we invaded Iran we would control Irans oil easily, and could easily just give it "free" to "Charity Organizations" which would be a wonderfully funny thing to do. An organization selling the oil to pay for food for starving nations due to the biofuel efforts in the United States and elsewhere would be very ironic

Twisted Puppet that biofuel is saving you 1 cent btw, and adds 50% to the dmg done to the environment, and starves people around the world, makes for a nice warm and fuzzy feeling huh?

Oh and wait for prices on popcorn to double