What should be done about Iran's Nuclear Ambitions?

[Jucon]

What should be done about Iran in their supposed ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons; either by America, the U.N., or the international community?

Would a war with Iran be worth it?

There's obviously a lot of different directions we can go with Iran, but I tried to list some of the more common options.

Of course there's the very real possibility that Iran doesn't have nukes... just look at our intelligence in Iraq.

If you have other ideas post them.



The reason I am making this thread is because on FoxNews.com they have a poll on the same topic (FOXNews.com - What Should Be Done About Iran?), and with 7000+ people who have voted, around 70% voted to "bomb the nuclear sites". I personally think that's a bad idea, because from that point on we would have a third war in the Middle East. Just look at the mess we have with our other two wars in the Middle East. A third is the last thing we need right now.

If anything is to be done, it should be an international effort.

 

[justabubba]

i think we should expect them to discontinue their nuclear weapons development IF israel agrees to rid itself of all its nuclear weaponry
otherwise, we should provide iran nuclear parity from our own arsenal to eliminate iran's need to develop its own nuclear capacity

 

[Pal]

Considering how much our short sighted and frankly selfish intervention has messed up Iran in the past, I think the best thing we can do is stand back, not interfere militarily or economically, but encourage the people of Iran to take back their government from religious extremists and make it serve their interests again.

If military or economic intervention becomes necessary in the future, it should be handled through the United Nations. Our track record in Iran is awful and the last thing we need is another Iraq.

i think we should expect them to discontinue their nuclear weapons development IF israel agrees to rid itself of all its nuclear weaponry
otherwise, we should provide iran nuclear parity from our own arsenal to eliminate iran's need to develop its own nuclear capacity

Why do you believe we have a right to nuclear weapons but we can take them away from other nations?

 

[Orion]

A better option would have been to stop funding Israel. The second that power shifted to Israel, nations like Iraq and Iran wanted to balance that power. It's too late now to withdraw support from Israel, but that is basically the source of it.

Even though I hate the mullahs and the theocracy of Iran, I support Iran creating a nuclear deterrent so that it can be immune to invasion from Western forces. I also support the Iranian people in their struggle to return to democracy.

 

[jujuman13]

i think we should expect them to discontinue their nuclear weapons development IF israel agrees to rid itself of all its nuclear weaponry
otherwise, we should provide iran nuclear parity from our own arsenal to eliminate iran's need to develop its own nuclear capacity

Israel has NEVER EVER threatened another Nation with whatever Nuclear weapons it may have.

Israel has never suggested that any other Nation should be wiped from the map.

 

[Phantom]

Let's crank up that Tea Party Express bus, put Sarah Palin on board, and ship it off to Iran. The Iranian government will die of laughter and we will no longer have to worry about nukes. :mrgreen:

 

[Fiddytree]

We can forge an alliance with Iran of sorts to allow them to pursue some of their ambitions and get them to support some of ours-namely Afghanistan. It has its own flaws, of course, like any option.

The US does not want Israel to strike, and the United States also obviously does not want to strike Iran. Sanctions are meaningless due to the lack of cooperation from both China and Russia. Regime change is unlikely, as the regime does not find the rebellion a serious threat.

The United States does not want to be tied down in the middle east, and neither does Iran want the United States to continue to have enormous troop presence on two of its borders. It has succeeded in having an Iraqi regime sympathetic to its wishes, and continues to influence the region with violence if necessary. Russia wishes to see the United States tied down in the middle east so it can continue its campaign of gaining more and more influence in its former satellites. And best of all, neither country seems to be in conflict with the oil problem.

 

[Sentinel]

I didnt vote because the poll lacked the Obama Ultralibtard approach to all foriegn matters..

Kiss Irans ass..lick the mullahs toes, Invite Almajeroffadon to Columbia College again so he can bash Israel and the USA and claim there isnt any homosexuals in Iran..<now theres a reason alone to allow them to have nukes>
Then have another world teleprompter tour to tell the world SEE we kissed Irans ass..would any of you muslim countries like for Me to replace your toilet paper

 

[Camlon]

Well, first they should warn Iran, check their sites and still propose to let them enrich uranium abroad. Then they should santion them and warn them that they may bomb their sites. If nothing is done, then bomb the sites and leave right afterwards. Don't try to make Iran stable, just make sure that they get hold of no nuclear weapons.

Operation like that will probably not take more than a week. Actually it will probably be better if Israel does it, because they are much more efficient.

 

[Apocalypse]

Massive efficient sanctions, covert operations, and as a last resort, preemptive strike.

 

[alexa]

Massive efficient sanctions

I don't think sanctions are a good idea. That would just hurt people who can do nothing to change the situation as we have all seen by them doing their best to do over the past few months. Indeed according to that video I put up in the Iran Nukes section that might just work in gathering the people more on side with their government.... come to think of it so might your other two ideas.

 

[Apocalypse]

I don't think sanctions are a good idea. That would just hurt people who can do nothing to change the situation as we have all seen by them doing their best to do over the past few months. Indeed according to that video I put up in the Iran Nukes section that might just work in gathering the people more on side with their government.... come to think of it so might your other two ideas.

I disagree.
While the Iranian people would indeed suffer from the sanctions, the sanctions' target would be the Iranian regime, and I do not believe that it would cause a change of hearts among those who already oppose the tyrannical regime.

At the end of the day, the objective is to prevent the Iranian regime from producing nuclear weapons.

 

[justabubba]

I disagree.
While the Iranian people would indeed suffer from the sanctions, the sanctions' target would be the Iranian regime, and I do not believe that it would cause a change of hearts among those who already oppose the tyrannical regime.

At the end of the day, the objective is to prevent the Iranian regime from producing nuclear weapons.

why is it ok for israel to own nukes, with its chronic history of precipitating armed action against soverign states, but iran, which has not initiated a hostile action since the early 1800's, is to be forbidden from developing such weaponry
please let us know why such a disparate stand should not also be found hypocritical

 

[Camlon]

If military or economic intervention becomes necessary in the future, it should be handled through the United Nations. Our track record in Iran is awful and the last thing we need is another Iraq.

UN can't do anything. They just write resolutions while the world fall apart. Maybe send some few peace soldiers to negotiate, or whatever.

It won't be another Iraq if US keeps themselves to destroy the nuclear facilities and then leave. That's why Israel probably would do a better job, because they have a history of solving wars in a quick matter.

why is it ok for israel to own nukes, with its chronic history of precipitating armed action against soverign states, but iran, which has not initiated a hostile action since the early 1800's, is to be forbidden from developing such weaponry
please let us know why such a disparate stand should not also be found hypocritical

Because there is no threat that Israel will use nukes against any other peaceful nation or pass it off to someone else. We also should prevent any nation from getting nukes, because we do not want every single nation in the world to have nuclear weapons. However, Iran having nukes will not be good, and could also be a easy source for terrorist. At least North Korea is sealed off, Iran isn't but is just as corrupt. A terrorist with a nuke will have no return address and will have no problems of destorying any western city.

 

[Jucon]

Well, first they should warn Iran, check their sites and still propose to let them enrich uranium abroad. Then they should santion them and warn them that they may bomb their sites. If nothing is done, then bomb the sites and leave right afterwards. Don't try to make Iran stable, just make sure that they get hold of no nuclear weapons.

Operation like that will probably not take more than a week. Actually it will probably be better if Israel does it, because they are much more efficient.

As I said in my original post, bombing their sites would start another war. The operation may take a week, but what about after that? You think they'll just say "uncle"? I think that's being overly optimistic. Especially if Israel did it. Iran would have a much harder time waging war with America, considering we are thousands of miles away. But Israel is much closer, and it's possible that other neighboring countries would join Iran in their retaliation. Even if America did bomb the sites, they might just attack Israel anyways just because they are allies with us.

 

[justabubba]

UN can't do anything. They just write resolutions while the world fall apart. Maybe send some few peace soldiers to negotiate, or whatever.

It won't be another Iraq if US keeps themselves to destroy the nuclear facilities and then leave. That's why Israel probably would do a better job, because they have a history of solving wars in a quick matter.Because there is no threat that Israel will use nukes against any other peaceful nation or pass it off to someone else. We also should prevent any nation from getting nukes, because we do not want every single nation in the world to have nuclear weapons. However, Iran having nukes will not be good, and could also be a easy source for terrorist. At least North Korea is sealed off, Iran isn't but is just as corrupt. A terrorist with a nuke will have no return address and will have no problems of destorying any western city.

i love this silly argument.
because we can trust israel to do the right thing
so what that they have a chronic history of initiating hostile action against its neighbors
we can trust israel to do the right thing

somebody needs to read the Goldstone report and then explain to us why we can trust israel to do the right thing

 

[Camlon]

As I said in my original post, bombing their sites would start another war. The operation may take a week, but what about after that? You think they'll just say "uncle"? I think that's being overly optimistic. Especially if Israel did it. Iran would have a much harder time waging war with America, considering we are thousands of miles away. But Israel is much closer, and it's possible that other neighboring countries would join Iran in their retaliation. Even if America did bomb the sites, they might just attack Israel anyways just because they are allies with us.

They could, but I think they will find that Israel with support from the US is a hard target to beat. Attacking targets far away is more difficult than defending and Iran won't be able to attack Israel very efficently, especally since Iran is a poor country without a very good army.

I don't think they will dare, but if it happends, then it's a good opportunity for the US to destroy all public bouldings, military and palaces for Irans leaders. They won't like that and will probably stop fighting. If not, you can pretty much just ignore them. They don't have a military anyway.

 

[Camlon]

i love this silly argument.
because we can trust israel to do the right thing
so what that they have a chronic history of initiating hostile action against its neighbors
we can trust israel to do the right thing

somebody needs to read the Goldstone report and then explain to us why we can trust israel to do the right thing

First off, the Goldestone report have been heavily critizised and it was made from UN. For instance, they said in the report that Hamas only fired two missled against Israel before the Gaza offensive, when the answer is more like 100. It's not a very good report.

But the report as far I have read in the summary mention nukes no where in the report. The danger of Israel passing on their nuclear weapons, especially to terrorist is very low. While for Iran it's very high. As well, the risk of Israel using nukes is also much lower than Iran using nukes. Another argument is that we don't want any other country to have nuclear weapons. Why should Iran get nuclear weapons, when we don't even want Germany to have nukes?

 

[Apocalypse]

First off, the Goldestone report have been heavily critizised and it was made from UN. For instance, they said in the report that Hamas only fired two missled against Israel before the Gaza offensive, when the answer is more like 100. It's not a very good report.

But the report as far I have read in the summary mention nukes no where in the report. The danger of Israel passing on their nuclear weapons, especially to terrorist is very low. While for Iran it's very high. As well, the risk of Israel using nukes is also much lower than Iran using nukes. Another argument is that we don't want any other country to have nuclear weapons. Why should Iran get nuclear weapons, when we don't even want Germany to have nukes.

It's very inspiring to see that you actually take your time to deal with history revisionism.

I simply ignore those posts.

 

[Camlon]

Misuderstood what you were saying. I thought you wrote recidivism.

 

[justabubba]

First off, the Goldestone report have been heavily critizised and it was made from UN. For instance, they said in the report that Hamas only fired two missled against Israel before the Gaza offensive, when the answer is more like 100. It's not a very good report.

But the report as far I have read in the summary mention nukes no where in the report. The danger of Israel passing on their nuclear weapons, especially to terrorist is very low. While for Iran it's very high. As well, the risk of Israel using nukes is also much lower than Iran using nukes. Another argument is that we don't want any other country to have nuclear weapons. Why should Iran get nuclear weapons, when we don't even want Germany to have nukes.

more foolishness
the UN Goldstone report was criticized by the zionists. wonder why
offer up the proof that you can find proving the Goldstone report to be in error
PROOF. more than your unfounded opinion is required to evidence errors of the Goldstone report. i'll wait for your reply

tell us why there is a high expectation that iran would pass on its nation's nuclear devices to terrorists. document it; this should be rich

why do you insist that israel would be unlikely to use its nuclear weapons? we have seen time and again where israel will cross soverign borders and initiate hostile military action
yet, such hostile inclination has not been evidenced by iran in almost 200 years
and if israel has no intention to ever use the nuclear devices it has spent substantial resources to build, then why did it build them at such great cost

in short, your conclusions are based entirely on emotion and are without anything resembling logic

 

[Ikari]

What should be done about Iran in their supposed ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons; either by America, the U.N., or the international community?

I'm from Buenos Aires and I say kill them all!

 

[Apocalypse]

I'm from Buenos Aires and I say kill them all!

Calm down now Johnny Rico. :2razz:

 

[Jucon]

They could, but I think they will find that Israel with support from the US is a hard target to beat. Attacking targets far away is more difficult than defending and Iran won't be able to attack Israel very efficently, especally since Iran is a poor country without a very good army.

I don't think they will dare, but if it happends, then it's a good opportunity for the US to destroy all public bouldings, military and palaces for Irans leaders. They won't like that and will probably stop fighting. If not, you can pretty much just ignore them. They don't have a military anyway.

By destroying public buildings you will destroy locations that are either inhabited by or surrounded by Iranian citizens. These locations are still part of the infrastructure of Iran. Destroy them and their entire system could collapse.

Imagine another country bombing our capital. I'm going to assume most people would be pissed that a foreign country violently interfered with our government rather than allowing the citizens to handle it through our election process.

You cannot kill Iranian citizens, whether involved in the government or not, and assume all Iranian citizens will then come to the side of the UN or America. Attacking them will likely either cause them to fight back, killing more people on both sides, or start a civil war in Iran by multiple sides trying to grab the most power. I don't think the current Iranian government has enough power to be able to control it's citizens once bombs start falling.

Again, look at what happened in Iraq. Have people forgotten already? Aren't we supposed to learn from the past?

I'm from Buenos Aires and I say kill them all!

Wow someone is blood thirsty.

If any violent action is to be taken it should be strictly limited to bombing the nuclear production sites. And even then the information used to determine these sites should be confirmed by using every resource available to us. And it should be confirmed that these locations are specifically being used to produce nuclear weapons. Any bombing of a location that is not directly linked to nuclear production would be greatly looked down upon by the Iranians and the international community.

 

[SgtRock]

A better option would have been to stop funding Israel. The second that power shifted to Israel, nations like Iraq and Iran wanted to balance that power. It's too late now to withdraw support from Israel, but that is basically the source of it.

Even though I hate the mullahs and the theocracy of Iran, I support Iran creating a nuclear deterrent so that it can be immune to invasion from Western forces. I also support the Iranian people in their struggle to return to democracy.

Do you believe that the Twelvers in control of Iran now only want nuclear weapons as a deterrent? If so you need to do some reseach on thier beliefs. Ahmadinejad and the mullahs believe they are to prepare the world for the return of the madhi. Do you have any idea what they believe this entails?