So you're saying we should ignore what happens on Iran and let them stone all the women and hang all the homosxuals they want?

french is more romantic.

Nah, French sucks.

Have you ever thought that maybe your being manipulated by the corporate media?

Iran isn't the only country with a media that consists of extremists, liars and manipulators. Honestly some of the stuff I hear and read in the US press and radio are so extreme and downright lies.

A spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry has distanced themselves from the event and even released a statement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11141301

Yeah that's exactly what I said.

No, I said we shoudl ignore the things the idiotic leaders say. Like this or the octopus story or the artard comments on there being no holocaust, etc.

We should never ignore crimes against human rights and welfare. Two different issues.

The US invaded Iraq over some stuff to do with WMD (dont remember all the details, was fairly young in 2003 and not going to claim to have all the facts straight now) and Nuclear weapons. Iran actually does have a Nuclear agenda, meaning the US (and Israel) have and stronger argument for an invasion.

Really though, what would it solve? Probably nothing apart from whens WW3 going to start.

Under international law there is no argument for invasion. Zero, nilch. The supreme crime under international law is one of aggression against another nation. There are many ways apart from blowing a nation to smithereens to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons if indeed that is what they are trying to acquire. One is to prevent it's proliferation which the US has been at the forefront of being in one way or another a party to (Israel and Pakistan for example) and a nuclear free  Middle East/world. Another is to demilitarise and stop making threats. Iran has for example over a  hundred thousand US troops nearby in various countries and faced with masses of firepower that would rain down on it should the US decide to make war.

One thing that almost certainly won't happen is WWIII. Why people say that I'm not sure. I mean how would WWII break out if Iran is attacked? The Middle East isn't the world.

It wouldn't solve anything but it would like the invasion and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq enormously increase the threat of terrorism, instability, death, destruction, you name it.

Neither was Poland at the start of WW2, or Serbia in WW1, but there was a very quick knock-on effect. If Iran was attacked, then other middle eastern countries would become involved, such as Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. And its likely anything involving Iran would involve Israel, which would polarise most of the other countries in the region and quite possible drag Europe into things, which in turn will most likely drag in Russia. And with most of the great and super powers tied up else where, other countries (like North Korea for example) might try and further their own aims. A North Korean attack would drag in South Korea, Japan and China. Oh look, the war now spans 4 continents. 

That's why I still support the assassination solution, obviously avoiding direct involvement of the West.

BTW, did anybody notice that air disasters hit pasdarans' aircrafts more often than world or Iran itself average?