What to do about Iran?

[Coach]

What to do about Iran?


1 ) Nothing outride of shooting down their drones. Let them take ships and try to sink them.


2 ) Escorting oil tankers in the Gulf outside of international waters with USA navy ships.


3 ) Airstrikes and ship to ground strikes.


4 ) A combination of #3 and destroying all suspected nuclear sites.


5 ) 3 + 4. War with troops on the ground


6 ) War with an intended governmental change, just like Iraq

 

[Ron Burgundy]

What to do about Iran?


1 ) Nothing outride of shooting down their drones. Let them take ships and try to sink them.

The U.S. is a net exporter of oil. We don't need the Muzzies, thank you President Trump. Let the Brits and Liberians and Chinese handle their business. Not our problem.

 

[Coach]

The U.S. is a net exporter of oil. We don't need the Muzzies, thank you President Trump. Let the Brits and Liberians and Chinese handle their business. Not our problem.

Religious nuts trying to get nuclear weapons is our problem. We don’t want a world wide recession caused by high oil costs either.


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[Iron95]

What to do about Iran?


1 ) Nothing outride of shooting down their drones. Let them take ships and try to sink them.


2 ) Escorting oil tankers in the Gulf outside of international waters with USA navy ships.


3 ) Airstrikes and ship to ground strikes.


4 ) A combination of #3 and destroying all suspected nuclear sites.


5 ) 3 + 4. War with troops on the ground


6 ) War with an intended governmental change, just like Iraq

If one of the EU nations need our help let them beg for it.

 

[IndySteel]

Bomb the **** out of them.

 

[deljzc]

A world-wide halt on nuclear proliferation was always a bit of a naive idea.

I mean, it would have been hard to stop new countries from gaining nukes even if Russia, China and the U.S. were best friends, but given the fact we are kind of enemies? No way. It just seems like the logic we are going to somehow keep nukes away from billion dollar economies and countries for ever and ever seems like a short-sighted plan.

If India and Pakistan can survive with nukes pointed at each other, I can only hope Iran and Israel pointing nukes at each other will stabilize the same way.

We can make is HARD for countries to get nukes, but I think it is now proven that eventually, if a country is dead set on becoming a nuclear power and spends billions of dollars and years of investment, it will happen. Whether the world likes it or not.

I would think Saudi Arabia is next after Iran.

Current Nuclear Arsenals:

U.S.
United Kingdon
France
Russia
China
Israel
Pakistan
India

Has NATO Nukes within their borders:

Germany
Turkey
Belgium
Italy

Likely to have Nukes but limited Ballistic capabilities:

North Korea

Next to the table:

Iran
Saudi Arabia

Would have interest:

South Korea
Egypt
Nigeria
Ukraine (as a NATO state)

I would also be remiss not to mention that if North Korea and South Korea actively participate in nuclear proliferation, then Japan might want to as well. Other Southeastern Asian counties certainly have the economies and GNP and population to get nukes. Indonesia being the primary example.

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

Tell them to stop living in the past and change their name to Irun.

 

[ark steel]

Unless you are ready to put boots on the ground or completely obliterate the land, you might as well never start anything.

If you are not willing to completely obliterate the land, just dropping a few bombs here and there over the years doesn't seem to fix anything. You have to send in the people to break things on the ground and not handcuff them with overly micro managed rules of "combat', which tend to be "rules to allow them to kill you before you can fight back". Non-combatants will get hurt. Nobody likes it, but it will happen.

If you are not willing to do those things, might as well sell them the nukes and get the BS over with.

 

[ark steel]

A world-wide halt on nuclear proliferation was always a bit of a naive idea.

I mean, it would have been hard to stop new countries from gaining nukes even if Russia, China and the U.S. were best friends, but given the fact we are kind of enemies? No way. It just seems like the logic we are going to somehow keep nukes away from billion dollar economies and countries for ever and ever seems like a short-sighted plan.

If India and Pakistan can survive with nukes pointed at each other, I can only hope Iran and Israel pointing nukes at each other will stabilize the same way.

We can make is HARD for countries to get nukes, but I think it is now proven that eventually, if a country is dead set on becoming a nuclear power and spends billions of dollars and years of investment, it will happen. Whether the world likes it or not.

I would think Saudi Arabia is next after Iran.

Current Nuclear Arsenals:

U.S.
United Kingdon
France
Russia
China
Israel
Pakistan
India

Has NATO Nukes within their borders:

Germany
Turkey
Belgium
Italy

Likely to have Nukes but limited Ballistic capabilities:

North Korea

Next to the table:

Iran
Saudi Arabia

Would have interest:

South Korea
Egypt
Nigeria
Ukraine (as a NATO state)

I would also be remiss not to mention that if North Korea and South Korea actively participate in nuclear proliferation, then Japan might want to as well. Other Southeastern Asian counties certainly have the economies and GNP and population to get nukes. Indonesia being the primary example.

I'd say the difference is that Pakistan and India understand the idea of annihilation and aren't run by ******* nutjobs.

 

[deljzc]

I'd say the difference is that Pakistan and India understand the idea of annihilation and aren't run by ******* nutjobs.

I would argue Pakistan is run by nutjobs and is not as far away from Iranian Sharia law as you'd like to think.

And what is the alternative? If we convinced ourselves that Sadaam had WMD's to justify our war with Iraq (which is over-simplifying the whole timeline and discussion at the time), if Iran has WMD's is that reason to invade Iran, which is 4 times the size and twice the population and borders on the same mountainous areas that make Afghanistan a nightmare to fight in?

It's not a realistic course of action. I just don't see it that way.

The only other thing would be engage only in air strikes. Use not only economic sanctions but bomb any/all nuclear processing facilities which would kill civilians as well as military targets (Iran will eventually use human shields to hide their uranium enrichment locations). I'm not sure that's a good course of action either. To me, that will create a generation of Iranians that hate the U.S. (as if the propaganda they hear isn't enough already). That hatred will lead to terrorism.

The last thing is to just let them go. Say **** it. If they show any signs of aggression let the world police them and use us as their muscle.

If Europe has their way, they will be 90% green energy by 2050. We produce all the energy we need. Let China and South Asia worry about Iran. Let Russia worry about Iran.

I'm just not convinced that if we continue on our energy independence production that we need to worry so much about the Middle East now, other than continue to support Israel and those that adopt democratic governments when they so choose.

Really, it's just thinking out loud. I'm not sure I 100% agree with this idea or not. I haven't thought it through from all the angles. All I know is that America doesn't seem to want to invest in a Marshall type plan that should have happened in Iraq and now Iraq is just proxy-Iran and lost back into Sharia Law and majority/elite rule with no real Bill of Rights to protect the minority.

We GAVE Iraq a chance at democracy and a republic and a Bill of Rights. We lost 5000 lives and spent almost $1 trillion for them to have that chance. And they rejected it.

At least I know when we fight for what's right in Europe, they appreciate the effort and use the opportunity to build a better government and better country. I just don't see that in the Middle East at all.