It's like you're saying Elvis is alive then asking me to prove you wrong.

You can prove yourself wrong just by doing a little bit of googling and research on weapons proliferation and the current nuclear deal.

I'll respond to valid points, but it's not my responsibility to give you a general education.

I care zero what crap the Iranian propaganda machine spews out, just as I care zero what propaganda the far-right hardliners in the US spew out. But yeah, I guess my skepticisism of the far-right's claim that Iran is developing nukes is equivalent to the blind acceptance of the far-right's claim that Iraq was developing WMDs.

Don't do drugs, kids.

Do they have internet in the looney bin now?

> they know exactly what they are doing and the "who me? this is just for energy" is part of the game.

Maybe. We do need to try to prevent any and all paths towards them building a nuclear weapon. Countries have indeed used nuclear energy programs as covers for nuclear weapons programs in the past. See: Israel.

But I get tired of this unsubstantiated Netanyahu argument that they are making a bomb right now. Do you have any evidence that they are building a bomb? No. You have zip. Am I supposed to take the argument that "OMG THEY ARE MAKING NUKES CUZ THEY ARE BAD GUYS!!!!111" seriously?

Back in 2003 it was 'obvious' that Saddam was developing a nuke. He must have been! He was a bad dictator and he even had the bad dictator hat and moustache! If we didn't attack immediately he would turn the entire USA into nuclear glass!

> To some English-language forum hosted in the US and aimed, primarily, at American audiences? Like Slashdot?

I didn't know "news for nerds" meant it's aimed primarily at American audiences. Unless you think all nerds are American.

YOU made the assertion that they're trying to build a nuke. The burden of proof is on YOU.

Are you trolling me or what?

> You did. By demanding: "Prove it"...

It's not my fault you lack reading comprehension. I recommend finishing grade school.

> What consequences would there be to assuming, they are building a nuclear weapon?

War.

> Eliminating all paths to nuclear weapons is funny too. They have the centrifuges and Uranium mines, how do you eliminate their ability to use them?

With this sentence you have revealed your 100% complete ignorance on the subject.

> while at the same time arguing for their right to have nuclear weapons...

Iran has no right to nuclear weapons. It has a right to nuclear energy. The challenge of non-proliferation has always been finding a way to let a country have one but not the other. It's a tricky and subtle problem, but it's not like we just realized this yesterday. There is a huge international framework in place for precisely this purpose.

> It is admirable, that you wish to apply the "innocent until proven guilty" principle even to foreign regimes, but it is also naïve. Even in the legal system and offender on probation has to continuously prove innocence...

I never said "innocent until proven guilty." I'm saying we don't know yet. Sure, we can assume that they are building a nuke, but unfounded assumptions are dangerous and can have disastrous consequences. The most rational course of action is to close off all paths to a nuke, while letting them keep nuclear energy so they don't have an excuse to just take their entire program underground. That's why we have nuclear negotiations.

About your boring rhetoric on Obama, I'm not American so I don't care, really. Take your rants somewhere else.

> if you don't think iran is building a nuclear weapon you have reached a level of naive idiocy beyond contempt

Say that to Mossad.

> i don't care if you think it is ok for them to build one, or not ok. it doesn't matter if you think they deserve a nuclear weapon or not

I don't think it's ok for them to build one, you lunatic.

Aqa Mohammad Khan (founder of the Qajar dynasty) famously said, "If you want to govern Iran the only way is to make sure the people are illiterate and hungry."

Wrong... about what? I don't even know what I'm supposed to be refuting.

I never said Persia didn't attack anybody. They attacked and killed loads of people during their long history.

I'm just saying it's preposterous to think they would risk everything just to kill some infidels. And it is. Every informed person agrees on this.

If you're going to make the claim that current Iranian leaders are the same as Hitler, you're going to have to offer an argument with a bit more substance than "They're both bad guys, they must be the same!"

It's insane to think Iran would open up its military facilities for inspection. No country has ever willingly done that except those that have surrendered unconditionally after defeat in war (such as Imperial Japan). It would essentially mean Iran gives up its right to exist as an independent sovereign nation.

And they don't need to, anyway. Just monitor their supply chain of nuclear materials. That's what the current deal does.

If you think about it, a military base is a stupid place to build a bomb anyway. There are a million other places that are less obvious and easier to hide. Those insisting that Iran open up its military sites are insisting on something they know Iran won't do so as to derail the deal. Their intentions are not sincere.

Christians AND jews.

Anyway, Iran doesn't scare me. What scares me are the warmongering far-right lunatics who think it's a good idea to bomb Iran.

It is true. And I not only think they will try to skirt the deal, I 100% trust that they will attempt something devious. And that's why there are verification measures in place in addition to the implicit understanding that the deal will be renewed after it expires. The deal all but ensures Iran will not have a nuke. Any other pathway (including bombardment) would lead to Iran probably having a nuke. You really think you can do better than professional scientists, diplomats, and disarmament experts?

> Remember, the Koran promotes lying to infidels to gain their trust before back-stabbing them.

This has nothing to do with religion. Every country will turn its back on a deal if it thinks it can benefit from doing so. Again, this changes nothing.