What is the best way for solving nuclear problem of Iran?

Question

what is the best?bombardment of nuclear construction ,conversation with iranian authority,military attaction, or preparing of background for revolution?

Answer 1

Offer to help them run their program, with that our bureaucracy would have them over spent their budget and bankrupt in no time.

Answer 2

that's what the associates of Iran are doing: would 11, 2006 The month of would is often very, particularly heat interior the plains of India and with the aid of a mix of complicated causal components that incorporate layout and twist of fate, this could be a month it somewhat is deeply linked with the country's nuclear narrative. would 11, 1998 marks the 1st Pokhran II nuclear try that observed India affirming itself as a de facto Nuclear Weapon State for the period of the early months of the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led government. This substitute into accompanied with the aid of yet another try on would 13 and the international had a 6th Nuclear Weapon State. Pakistan accompanied with its nuclear assessments in end would 1998 and the strategic profile of South Asia substitute into definitively switched over. those international places do not traditionally get alongside. Bush went to India in March 2006 to impact the international places progression software. the U. S. has no impact in Iran.

Answer 3

Make Iran deal with our nuclear problem. We have too many nukes sitting around not being used. Lets launch a couple and take out North Korea and Venezuela while we're at it. Then when the United Nations starts whining, we shut em down and ship em out. That property can be used for the people of New York. Then we'll have peace, until we need to nuke China, Syra, Russia, Pakistan, Iraq, and a bunch of other people. I know thats a large list of countries to nuke, but after we do we'll have peace for couple more years. Until we have to nuke England, France, Germany and parts of the Neatherlands cuz the muslim populations are taking over in those countries and they don't seem too friendly to the West especially United States.

Answer 4

Nuke 'em off the map. They've been saying for 25 years at least that they want to destroy, conquer and convert the West. They hate us for our liberty, propserity, individual rights, and freedom to choose - to choose our thoughts, actions, speech, values, president, clothing, religion. Iran is one of the most unstable, power-lusting countries. In terms of its enemies, Iran has shown it is not bound by scruples, morals, "rules of engagement", fairness, honor or reason. To expect them to "keep in line" after they've got nukes is a complete self-deception on our part.

As for all the Iranians who don't support the Islamic regime, and are friendly to the west: When the **** hits the fan (as it does in any threat or use of nuclear arms), a person's choices and actions determine his status as ally or enemy. Those in Tehran who don't hate the West need to demonstrate their status as allies. Flyer the city - tell the citizens they've got 24 hours to high-tail it out of town, or else they're history. Then wipe Tehran (and Syria, while we're at it) off the face of the earth. The exact weapons don't matter, so long as American life is risked as little as possible. Destroy all the infrastructure (and as many leaders as possible) that make Islamic totalitarianism and jihad 1) potent 2) possible 3) appealing. And if they re-build a jihad-sponsoring government again, we'll do it again. Only if the people want a different way of life should we help them. Then we can talk about reconstruction (of a constitutional republic respecting individual rights).

This is the mistake in Iraq. Most people there don't want individual rights. We're giving them democracy when they're just going to use democracy to elect theocrats back into power. This isn't in the US's interest. Unless they change their tune, we should get out and let them screw themselves up till kingdom come. Unless of course they mess with us, in which case we should obliterate their leaders and infrastructre. Again and again. Till they choose to be our allies. And we've shown - probably too much - how good we can be to our friends. And rightly so. But they should earn it.

Answer 5

As much as I am against the proliferation of arms, and totalitarian regimes I almost think that a balance is better than in-balance. If you are to prevent Iran from having Nuclear weapons then you should strip other countries of them as well this means that India, Pakistan, and Israel should not be permitted Nukes. Good luck in getting them away from these countries. so I say give em the bomb and if they use it in an act of war (or terrorism) annihilate them completely.

Answer 6

Very simple....

Load a flight of Stealth fighters with huge paint bombs (Napalm containers loaded with pink or purple paint) and send them in to attack during the middle of the night.
The next morning, after the Iranians have had a chance to see the "damage" in the light of day, have President Bush call the Prime Minister of Iran and ask him if there are any questions.

Answer 7

Thank God there are no Presidents in this group, you've bombed more than half the population of the earth, ever heard of nuclear disarmament. What planet are you from.

Answer 8

Iran's "Nuclear problems" are a matter form the Government and people of Iran

Answer 9

I believe we should continue to try to keep all options open but if we run out (of options) Then we should pursue military action.

Answer 10

Destroy their nuke capability. Diplomacy has 0% chance of working.