Appeasement of Iran or preemptive strike against it, which woud you recommend?
81868
Between those two, a preemptive strike would be best. We want to hit them BEFORE they have nukes, not after. But personally if I were running things I would warn them and then launch air strikes and special forces actions all across Iran's military bases. Hopefully we would cripple their nuclear programs and their military, and they would back down.\n\nIf not I'd want the EU to get my back, I'm tired of fighting alone. And I wouldn't topple the government--the last thing we need is another Iraq. THe best thing we can do is teach them a lesson, and make them back down.
1065229
God! To most of those answers so far, you guys have been so brainwashed by your media. To anyone that thinks Tehran should be nuked, think on this, your very attitude gives those in Iran who may or may not hate you, the very reason to attack you.  \n\nWe all have to live on this rock called earth together, your idiotic xenophobic remarks are NOT helping a very delicate situation.\n\nWould you like to be nuked? because if the USA did Nuke Tehran, there WILL be a response in kind from Russia and China!\n\nYou are calling for your own destruction, by wishing a nuclear attack on Iran. it would be a world wide cataclysmic all out nuclear war. You would not win that because nobody would win it.\n\nIran is NOT afghanistan or Iraq. They have not broken any international laws, they are LESS of a threat to the international community than the USA who is rapidly becoming a rogue state, illegally developing masses of WMD, Biological chemical and new nuclear weaponry  and your leadership has maintained a right to use this internationally banned weaponry against anybody they choose.\n\nThe fact that your country poses a much greater threat to the peace and stability of Iran, than they do to you means that they have a right for the international community to defend them, and yet YOU want THEM to be attacked? how the hell do you think they feel? they ARE threatened, unlike you. and you want to lash out???? You are fuckwits if you truly want them nuked.\n\nThey should not develop nuclear weaponry and they constantly claim that they have no itention to do so. I don't know whether to believe them, but what I do know is this, they do have a legal right top develop a peaceful nuclear energy program. They have a right to produce their own nuclear fuel. \n\nWhat I also know, is if they where to ever develop a nuclear weapon to be used against Israel or any ally of the USA, we all know, Especcially the leadership in Tehran, that Tehran would be turned into green glass.\n\nSo why would they do it? They could never destroy the US as a whole, but the US could Destroy Iran, many times over.\n\nLeave the international diplomats to try and sort this out in a peaceful manner. the alternative does not bear thinking about.
706670
They need something over there to be bombed.  I think a few cruise missiles are in order simply to wake up ahmadinejad and scare the sheet out of him.  There must be some actions and repercussions for what they are doing.  If there aren't, why would they ever stop?  It needs to be done now BEFORE they have a nuclear arsenal.  Same goes for north korea.
399088
Forget about the politics & people.  \n\nA radioactive dust bowl comes to mind if Ahmadinejad doesn't pull his head out of his *ss.
1176367
W seems to have tried "bomb first, ask questions later" twice now (Afghanistan and Iraq) -- and look at the mess he's in.  Not that I think he *learned* anything from those, just that we don't have enough troops to deal with Iran the way he'd want to right now.\nDiplomacy is almost always the best solution.  It's certainly the best one to TRY FIRST before bombing someone.  And if you think the US would use nuclear weapons on Iran, you're sadly mistaken (unless they used them first) -- that's just not going to happen.  Which means any attack would be a "conventional" attack, would lead to invasion/occupation, and...we'd have Iraq II to deal with.\nGive diplomacy a chance.
449214
The only way to have "Mutually Assured Destruction" is to be opposed in your ability to destroy by an entity with equal ability as yourself. \n\nThe only country on earth with as much Nuclear Power to destroy us is Russia: and even their power is limited. \n\nBut - in the case of Iran (which is why I'm guessing you're asking about this) there is wisdom in the "MAD" doctrine, to the extent that it is a HUGE discouragement for our enemies to use Nuclear weapons if they fully believe that we will promptly and without delay wipe them from the face of the earth.\n\nBut - they have to believe we'd do it. \n\nAs Hamlet once said, "Ay, there's the rub."
873703
personally i think before next spring israel will attack iran as soon as iran starts the 3000 certrifuges (or just before)  just out of paranoia of a nuclear weapon... if they have talked to the US or not will be irrelevent.  \nonce this has happened  you will know that ww3 is at the door and wants to come in.  before this point there is always a way to turn back.\ncertainly the govts are expecting it as there are war games (military posturing) in the gulf by the US.  and Iran have responded by doing the same.  The EU have pooled resources to speed up r&d in weapons and want results in 3 years (there's an actual time line for you) the UK did not sign up for this as they say they are already doing it, so you can cut the EU timeline by half.  which means that war will be in europe in about 18mths to 2 yrs.  \nfor those who say it has started need to review history.... currently we are seeing the signs, it doesn't start until war is actually declared by more than 2 nations.
740674
Without addressing the question of whether the assassination of Ahmadinejad would be practical or strategically desirable, if he is aggressively threatening the safety and stability of the free world, then it would be moral without question. To parallel my answer to your Hitler question, assassination of Ahmadinejad would, in that circumstance, be a defensive tactic, not an aggressive one. The question is whether Ahmadinejad can yet be considered the aggressor. \n\nAhmadinejad is seeking atomic weapons.  He has called for the elimination of Israel as a state.  He has openly stated that, while it would take several atomic weapons to destroy Iran, it would take only one to destroy Israel, based on its size.  He supports Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which aggressively attack Israel and threaten regional stability.  He seeks to use his proxies, Hezbollah and Syria, to choke off democracy in Lebanon.  He foments violence in Iraq in order to destabilize the democracy there and to frustrate US interests.  Are these actions bringing us inevitably toward war?  If so, then a preemptive assassination would be moral in light of the alternative.\n\nIf the choice is to kill one man now, or to kill hundreds of thousands later, then it is moral to kill one man now. I don't think we have enough information at this point to answer that question, nor do we have enough information to examine fully the practical pros and cons (but that is a separate question). \n\nOn another note, the fact that Ahmadinejad was democratically elected is of no consequence.  Hitler was democratically elected also.
1098151
the war in Iraq is a pre-emptive strike
373677
Iran will nuke Israel if given the chance.  They are that stupid.  We have to stop them but the answer is not to nuke Iran but to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.  I say air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.  This is of course, after diplomacy fails.
724732
Give them both a chose give up the nukes or take them away.\nWe can stop N. Korea with embargos do not let anything in or out \nWith Iran let Isreal take care of them
174546
- Sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, or at least take the lead in replacing it with something more than a pro-polluter smoke screen (no pun intended). \n\n - Cease the practice of unilateral "first strike" wars. You can be defensive-minded about security and be just as safe, if not moreso. But hitting first makes you look like an a-----e, especially if the information you're using to justify the war is shoddy at best. \n\n - Remove the Evangelical Christian influence on our foreign policy, especially in regards to health services and the environment. People who don't believe in the rapture/apocalypse don't appreciate it when countries go around trying to provoke it. \n\n - Cease all development of "new classes" of nuclear weapons. It makes our country look positively idiotic when we threaten Iran while developing "battlefield nukes" which are oft touted as "nukes you can actually USE!". \n\n - Finally, as the previous answer so aptly stated kick Bush the f--k out of office.
612648
Again, there's no point in even addressing what political issues you're implying, because it's a fact that Iran can not and will not set off a nuke here.  That would be considered an act of nuclear war, and we would retaliate with an unbelievable amount of nuclear firepower, which would squash Iran like a tiny bug under a giant boot.  You don't really want to enrage 300 million patriots backed by a trillion-dollar, apocalypse-bringing nuclear arsenal do you?
460003
Nuclear power is not the issue.  Nuclear bombs are the issue. The president of Iran has said he wants to wipe out Israel, which is fine with me, but I doubt if Israel is going to just sit there and let itself be wiped out.  You can bet that Israel has plans to launch a strike on Iran and you can bet the US has a plan drawn up to invade, which is fine also. But I think that if the US launches an attack it should not necessarily be the same way as in Iraq with the goal of regime change.  The US should simply blow up all Iran's nuclear facilities and leave them totally disintegrated with absolutely nothing left but a big hole in the ground; if this means using nuclear weapons then fine.  Just blow the place up and leave it at that, and let the Iranians deal with the mess.  If they try to rebuild it, blow it up again, and so on forever.  Muslims are a very dangerous threat to mankind and should not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, because they will come up with all this Allah jihad holy bullshit as justification to use it, which is all a crock of baloney anyway.
116748
You need to overcome your fears and rise above your opressive leader. Iran's current president seems to be hell bent on starting WWIII.
485984
Take it at 95%. The US, Britain, and France all are getting tough on the UN to stop Iran from its nuclear program. But as you know IRan is not listening and probably won't listen into they have obtained nuclear weapons.
802729
The best way to retaliate in case of a nuclear confrontation is to have a second strike capability. That is, to attack the aggressor with nuclear tipped ICBM's (like Prithvi and Agni missiles)placed strategically in different parts of the country. Second option is to use deep penetrating nuclear capable fighter planes (like Mirage-2000 and Sukhoi30's that India has in its inventory). Third and the most lethal option is to strike from nuclear submarines.