Maths proves US won't attack: Iran leader, page 4

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Well they do say no one will stop them from nuclear production and they do have all the data from Pakistan to make them. We have also offered to help them or a country like France to help them build nuclear energy and they turned it down. As I said before their government wants us to invade it is part of their plan to produce generations of extremist.

There's a couple common misconceptions here.
First, Iran has stated over and over that they are NOT producing nuclear weapons. There is, in fact, not a single shred of evidence that proves they have any type of nuclear weapons program. Everything they've done to date is in-line with nuclear power programs. Even the enrichment (enriched uranium allows for much more efficient nuclear power production and research) which they voluntarily suspended!

Second, there was an attempt by the EU3 (France, Britian, and Germany) to set up an exchange program for nuclear power production. This was blocked by the US. Iran was actively seeking this deal. They did NOT turn it down.

Third, what we hear coming out of Iran is often sound bytes that are taken out of context or suspect to mistranslation by the only organization that provides translation to western media (MEMRI, which has strong ties to Israel).
In fact, Iran has long been a proponent for declaring the entire middle east a nuclear free zone. Since 1974, they have been pressing the UN to enact resolutions to ban all nuclear weapons from all Middle Eastern countries. Those resolutions have been put before the UN, but have been repeatedly vetoed by the US (on behalf of Israel).
For an idea of Iran's real nuclear stance, as stated by Hossein Mousavian, a member of Iran's nuclear negotiating team:

It is incorrect to say that Iran's nuclear activities constitute a response to perceived nuclear threats from other states, such as Israel, or to a strategic threat arising from the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is therefore also incorrect to adduce the existence of this threat as evidence that Iran is aiming at a nuclear-weapons programme. Naturally, Iran is concerned by the fact that Israel possesses a substantial nuclear arsenal, but Iran's possession of nuclear weapons would not reduce its fears on this score. Similarly, Iranian concerns regarding the US military presence in the region would in no way be allayed were Iran to possess nuclear weapons. The possession of nuclear weapons would neither conduce to Iran security nor in reality enhance the perception of security enjoyed by the Iranian people.

Global Diolog Winter/Spring 2006
I strongly recommend reading that document. Print it 'n take it with you next to you have to take a sit on the can.

The other part of all this is they are knee deep in keeping Iraq from becoming a democracy of any kind. They would love to see us leave with Iraq still in total shambles much of what they helped generate and then with their Shia base in Iraq basically take the country over to follow Iran Shia rulings. This would mean about 50% of the population would follow Iran and the other 50% would be basically dead or wish they were dead.

Did you know that Iran was a democracy right up until 1953?

In the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower in the United States and United Kingdom removed the democratically-elected administration of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and his cabinet from power and replaced it with a monarchy. The coup was carried out in a covert operation by Britain and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), codenamed Operation Ajax (officially TP-AJAX).

Wiki - Iranian 1953 Coup
The reasons for that coup were straight forward. The US and Britain wanted their oil. Very little has changed on that front.

Again, reports of Iranian involvement in destabilizing Iraq must come under suspicion due to the sources through which we've learned of them. Consider whom it benefits more. A continuing destabilized Iraq ensures that the US presence remains there. Iran's interests would be much better served by waiting until after the US leaves, then moving in with either conventional or covert operations. There is little reason to believe that a stabilized Iraq would be able to defend itself without US aid. On the other hand, by claiming that Iran has supported terrorism in Iraq, the US can focus the attention of the public away from the fact that they are still engaged in an illegal occupation and can continue to play the fear card to keep people in line.

Step back for a moment and ask yourself which scenario makes more sense.

Finally, while we agree that leaving Iran alone really is the best option, I don't believe those in power share our view. Check it out: ATS - Cheney Orders Media to Sell Iran War