Also, you know... you're wrong on that too.

There is world opinon polls that state "Should there be an attack on Iran" in which it is answered now.

If you phrase the question "If negotiations fail to get Iran to stop it's nuclear plans should there be an attack".

The answer is yes.  Most people trust in the negotiations.

The majority of EU states population agree to an attack.

Well for one because nuclear weapons are a threat to homeland security.  More proliferation is a HUGE threat to homeland security, hell there is already a pretty big homeland security threat with people like Pakistan having nuclear weapons.  You don't see the security risk in a place like Iran developing nuclear weapons?  What with their funding of terrorist orgizations, the revolutionary guard, and the fact that they could be taken down at anytime by the population who hates them leading for a free for all for nuclear bombs?   So the answer is, because it already poses a threat to homeland security, and nuclear weapons would be a further threat.

Two, because Iran is a threat to Europe.  The Wikileaks cables pretty much show as much (for those paying attention) due to them buying missles used for nuclear weaponry that are mid-range and could strike and threaten europe.  Most of europe is in NATO, it probably wouldn't even be a US airstrike but a joint US/EU airstrike

First off, I agree that the USA is a bigger risk to any country then they are to the USA.  The US is a sueprpower That doesn't mean other countries don't pose a risk to it, plus despite the horrible things the US does, the US is a lot more responsible then most countries.

Furthermore, Iraq was not about oil.  Have you not noticed that oil prices have done nothing but go up?  To say it's about oil is about the most ignorant statement you can make, even beyond weapons of mass destruction.  I mean, on a list of 20 things iraq was about... oil wouldn't even be on the list. 

Besides, who is saying anything about a war?  We are talking about a bombing campaign like the 4-5 that went on during the Clinton ones.  Stepping aside and letting Iran develop nuclear weapons would be the epitome of stupidity.

Before we get on with that then, your admitting you were wrong about Iraq being about oil?

I mean, i get that's why you are completely trying to change the topic at hand... that you realize your wrong now.  But lets start with that.

Personally, i've NEVER thought the war in Iraq was a good Idea.  You can fine that being my consistant stance... BEFORE the war, which is something most people can't say now.

I'm just saying anyone who thinks the Iraqi war was about Oil is ignorant... because we don't even control the majority of Iraq's oil contracts, China actually holds the biggest piece of the pie.

Though yes, as it turns out Bush WASN'T lieing about Saddam trying to buy Yellowcake from Nigeria like everyone though he was... go figure.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/wikileaks-confirms-other-ignored-reports-about-iraq-wmds

If were were going to do anything, it should of been Clinton style bombings.

Before we get on with that then, your admitting you were wrong about Iraq being about oil?

I mean, i get that's why you are completely trying to change the topic at hand... that you realize your wrong now.  But lets start with that.

Personally, i've NEVER thought the war in Iraq was a good Idea.  You can fine that being my consistant stance... BEFORE the war, which is something most people can't say now.

I'm just saying anyone who thinks the Iraqi war was about Oil is ignorant... because we don't even control the majority of Iraq's oil contracts, China actually holds the biggest piece of the pie.

Though yes, as it turns out Bush WASN'T lieing about Saddam trying to buy Yellowcake from Nigeria like everyone though he was... go figure.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/wikileaks-confirms-other-ignored-reports-about-iraq-wmds

If were were going to do anything, it should of been Clinton style bombings.

Did you even read that article? The yellowcake was before the 1991 Gulf War and under UN safeguard since and well known. That's why the Bush administration didn't make a big deal about it as they would've been found out to be exaggerating.

Iraq was a strategic defeat for the US. They didn't manage to achieve what they wanted due to constant massive peaceful demostrations and to a lesser extent the insurgency. Hence bids going out to Chinease companies, Shia Iranina political influence etc. The decision makers have decided it's not worth it anymore just like in Vietnam, it's doing more harm than 'eventual' good which looked increasingly unlikely.

You're one seriously deluded person. Of course Iraq was about oil. This is very well understood. It's been US policy since the end of WWII to control the vast energy reserves of the Middle East. It gives the US critical leverage over it's industrial rivals. Nothing to do with oil prices! You think Exxon Mobil and Chevron and all the other western oil companies cry when oil price go up? You don't think think they have a say in US domestic and foreign policy?

And the US a responsible power? Are you serious? Right under the noses of successive US administration who turned a blind eye in each case Israel and Pakistan became nuclear weapons states. Millions of people around the world were killed and tortured as a direct result of either direct US military involvement or military, economic and political support of the US for the most vile regimes on earth.

By your reasoning the US should bomb itself since the US has done all what you accuse Iran of but on a much larger scale. And it was well understood if the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq terrorism would massively increase. And guess what...it did. Pakistan and Afghanistan are both far less stable than they were before the invasions. And how is Iran a threat to Europe or the US? Because they may be able to deter an attack? That is the real issue here. That Iran maybe able to defend itself. Cause military they are not a threat offensively. They spend less than most countries in the region on their military and their posture is purely defensive. Iran has massive amounts of American firepower that surrounds it because they are an independant nation in the heart of the worlds major oil producing region. They are the ones under threat.

We don't actually have hard facts Iran is building nuclear weapons.

About SOTA nuclear power plants, you sure your not confusing Iran with North Korea? Link?