What should the West do about Iran?

[meredith]

"The West" should beat the Iranians at their own game by nuking Israel first, since that illegal colonial settler state, and our support of it, is in large part the root cause of the reactionary anti-Western anger that fuels Islamic fundamentalism. Wipe Israel off the map, since it is a completely illegitimate state to begin with, and if that doesn't settle the rest of them down, well, we're already spending billions of dollars every month on perpetual war with no results, so what's a few more billions over a few more decades with nothing to show for it.

 

[LBP 76]

"The West" should beat the Iranians at their own game by nuking Israel first, since that illegal colonial settler state, and our support of it, is in large part the root cause of the reactionary anti-Western anger that fuels Islamic fundamentalism. Wipe Israel off the map, since it is a completely illegitimate state to begin with, and if that doesn't settle the rest of them down, well, we're already spending billions of dollars every month on perpetual war with no results, so what's a few more billions over a few more decades with nothing to show for it.

I take it you're not Jewish.

 

[bodie54]

And I have said it once before: the yanks should have no say in who should get nuke status. As those fucking bastards have used nukes in the past. And all because they couldn't beat the opposition. So that should make their say on anything nuclear void for all tid.

:wtf:

The opposition was already beaten, they just weren't about to accept the fact. The bomb saved an enormous number of lives: Americans, Japanese; and those outside the home islands who, at the time, were still under the yoke of the extraordinarily murderous Japanese empire.

 

[AFA]

With Iran, the admin blew it again, with the same buttheaded approach they use with Cuba because they can't control it for their own use. Reps from Iran made an appeal to the US immediately after 9/11 to both distance themselves from the terrorists, and try to have 30 years of sanctions lifted. They were denied, eventually lost power and were replaced with Ahmadinejād.

 

[mongo18]

We should invade Iran, take all their oil and make bucketloads of money, just like Iraq!

 

[Violator79]

You mean America. Those clowns are more fussed about the advance others make than anyone else in the world is. They dont want competition in any form for what they do themselves.

And I have said it once before: the yanks should have no say in who should get nuke status. As those fucking bastards have used nukes in the past. And all because they couldn't beat the opposition. So that should make their say on anything nuclear void for all tid.

Calling us clowns are you? Ok, I'll try not to take offense to that...too late.

:wtf:

The opposition was already beaten, they just weren't about to accept the fact. The bomb saved an enormous number of lives: Americans, Japanese; and those outside the home islands who, at the time, were still under the yoke of the extraordinarily murderous Japanese empire.

That's the truth in every way. The Japanese were beaten the moment that first bomb was dropped at Pearl Harbor, only they didn't know it yet. The Atomic Bomb was THE only course that was rational to take. 200,000 Japanese lives, who in one way or another was helping their war effort, or 1,000,000 lives needlessly lost over an invasion that didn't need to happen. We made the right decision.

 

[L3ggy]

How about nothing?

 

[ChefChiTown]

How about nothing?

Eggs act lee.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

How about nothing?

There's just one problem with that.

[SARCASM}If the Americans do nothing, then who is invading Iran?

Doing nothing sounds boring... Why do nothing when you can blow shit sky-high?[/SARCASM]

 

[LBP 76]

How about nothing?

sounds good to me

 

[vegasbadboy702]

There are no easy answers as to how to proceed.

1) Surgical Air Strikes - Could be effective, the Iranian air defenses, although far superior to anything Iraq had, would not likely be able to stop a coordinated attack on any and all nuclear facilities.

Pros – Eliminate the facility, minimal loss of life
Cons – Difficult to know if we’ve hit every facility, any military strike could lead to Iran attacking our troops in Iraq, a further increase in Iranian sponsored terrorism against the US

2) Ground Invasion and Occupation – Iran is a much larger country than Iraq with a population of 68 million as opposed to the 28 million of Iraq, most whom are of fighting age. We would still retain our technological advantage, but with our continued need for presence in Iraq we would stretch our forces very thin. Our recruiting problems would more than likely necessitate a draft.

Pros – Eliminate all facilities, known or otherwise
Cons – High loss of life, difficult to justify the removal of democratically elected regime simply because we do not agree with them, further suspicions in other states of American imperialism

3) Sanctions – Difficult to enforce, the second largest supplier of oil, and reduction in supplies would send prices well above the $80.00/barrel mark possibly approaching $100.00. Securing the borders to the west would require further deployments of US troops in Iraq, while additional troops would also have to be stationed in Afghanistan. This still leaves the Iranian – Turkmenistan border in addition to the Pakistan border

Pros – (I’m at a loss on this one) I’d normally state no loss of life but it is usually the case that the most innocent suffer the most as a result of sanctions.
Cons – China has already indicated it will oppose any sanctions on Iran and will support its right to continue research.

Good summations of the options hedgehog which I agree. The world unfortunately is changing and the US has lost alot of its leverage now with two open wars going on, a bad economy, terrorists in other countries, which has changed our focus. Not only do we have rogue states, we now have rogue groups within neutral and or friendly states that can cause trouble. I agree any invasion of Iran would mean a draft, there is no way otherwise to get the needed manpower, and quite frankly it would take us and at least one or two allies to get enough people IMHO. I think a strike could temporarily eliminate the threat but does not end it, and Iran would then escalate its rhetoric and funneling to terrorists groups in Iraq and Afhganistan and elsewhere to attack us which would probably still result in a war. Sanctions truly only work if all countries are on board and like hedgehog said China is definately not and the Russians are changing the tune.

 

[Ravenholm]

Calling us clowns are you? Ok, I'll try not to take offense to that...too late.

Take offence. You dont scare me, bitch. You will get your skull cracked just like the ancestors of the bitch English you are butt buddies with got. They out numbered us and lost, many times. The same will happen to you. Rate me negative in points like you did, I dont care. Because it is all you can do anyway to try and make yourself feel better through the truth I told. Yankie land has never won anything major in the past 60 odd years. Picking on smaller countries doesn't count. The yanks can't win anything that is long and drawn out, it needs to be over and done quick for any chance of victory for you clowns. Y'all are cavemen with big guns and money to burn. So be nice or I will tell Charlie and he will kick your ass... AGAIN :thefinger

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

Take offence. You dont scare me, bitch. You will get your skull cracked just like the ancestors of the bitch English you are butt buddies with got. They out numbered us and lost, many times. The same will happen to you. Rate me negative in points like you did, I dont care. Because it is all you can do anyway to try and make yourself feel better through the truth I told. Yankie land has never won anything major in the past 60 odd years. Picking on smaller countries doesn't count. The yanks can't win anything that is long and drawn out, it needs to be over and done quick for any chance of victory for you clowns. Y'all are cavemen with big guns and money to burn. So be nice or I will tell Charlie and he will kick your ass... AGAIN :thefinger

... Didn't they win the Cold War? :dunno:

Or does that not count, cause it wasn't long enough?

 

[georges]

"The West" should beat the Iranians at their own game by nuking Israel first, since that illegal colonial settler state, and our support of it, is in large part the root cause of the reactionary anti-Western anger that fuels Islamic fundamentalism. Wipe Israel off the map, since it is a completely illegitimate state to begin with, and if that doesn't settle the rest of them down, well, we're already spending billions of dollars every month on perpetual war with no results, so what's a few more billions over a few more decades with nothing to show for it.

Israel is the one of the most important allies of the West in the Middle East along with Jordan and Egypt. We should nuke Iranian nuclear plants and destroy all Iranian air bases because Ahmadinejhad can't be trusted.

 

[L3ggy]

Or maybe stop acting World Police.

 

[Facetious]

Iran has enough nuclear material for a bomb, Mullen says

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs reiterates U.S. concern about a nuclear-armed Iran. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says Tehran is not close to building a bomb, and he emphasizes hope for diplomacy.
By Julian E. Barnes
March 2, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- The nation's top military officer said Sunday that Iran had enough nuclear material to make a bomb, but Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Tehran was not close to building such a weapon.

Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN's "State of the Union" program that he believed Iran had enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon.

full story

So what are we going to do, sit here and watch this cancer metastasize ? Obama said it himself - we will not allow Iran to make a nuclear bomb - (paraphrasing).


After a crude nuclear bomb detonation, the ripple effect of the chaos that will ensue is alarming ! . . it's basically every man and woman for themselves .

 

[Facial_King]

Pentagon's Gates says Iran "not close" to nuclear weapon:

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5359955/pentagons-gates-says-iran-not-close-to-nuclear-weapon/

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran is not close to having a nuclear weapon, which gives the United States and others time to try to persuade Tehran to abandon its suspected atomic arms program, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday.

"They're not close to a stockpile, they're not close to a weapon at this point, and so there is some time," Gates said on NBC television's "Meet The Press.""

=====

So, clearly, based on what we've learned from stopping Saddam's nuclear program (MUSHROOM CLOUDS, people!!!) by invading Iraq even when there was much less than a consensus that any WMDs even existed, we've obviously got to charge into Iran with guns-a-blazin', as the U.S. has clearly demonstrated that we're the only country that can be trusted with nuclear weapons, the only country that has the good judgment and restraint to possess such weapons but not actually use them.

When it comes to Iran, we gotta shoot first, use diplomacy later (to come up with bullshit excuses for why we went in - liberate the citizenry, keep the terrists off the American streets, spread "democracy, etc.).

 

[Facetious]

Missile threat to British troops
Michael Smith

IRAN is supplying the Taliban in Afghanistan with surface-to-air missiles capable of destroying a helicopter, according to American intelligence sources.

They believe the Taliban wants to use the SA-14 Gremlins missiles to launch a “spectacular” attack against coalition forces in Helmand, where insurgents claim to be gaining the upper hand.

Although British and American helicopters operating in southern Afghanistan are equipped with defensive systems to deflect an attempted strike, the SA-14 can evade such counter-measures.

It was a shoulder-held SA-14 supplied by Iran that was used by Iraqi insurgents to shoot down a Lynx helicopter over Basra in May 2006.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5822094.ece

"They're not close to a stockpile, they're not close to a weapon at this point,

Huh ?
So what is it ? They're not close to a stockpile or they're not close to any such nuclear weapon, whatsoever ?

. . .and so there is some time,"

Time for what ? Oh, nevermind, I'll just take a nap right now if you don't mind