I think leaving it alone is unwise but I also think going in in force is extremely unwise.

To me the point you highlight about the current instability is the key here.  I think the UN and/or US should do whatever they can to support democratic revolution while positioning SpecOps operatives on the ground to provide intel when the shit hits the fan.  Then when things go crazy they can keep an eye on nuclear materials and anything else of import while letting the organic revolutionary movement that already exists take full responsibility/credit for cleaning up the mess of the revolution.

It's nowhere near that easy of course, and there is some risk for the nuclear materials to fall into the wrong hands, but every option has risks and this is no exception. 

Really the only surefire way to deal with the problem is also probably one of the least moral solutions. Namely to simply nuke the country to hell and back.  Of course this creates plenty of other problems with justifiable paranoia from other countries wondering if they're next on the chopping block of the nuke-crazy bastards. 

Comparing Bush to Hitler and saying American's are foolish enough to buy into a quasi-Hitler leader and quasi-nazi mentality...ah well, it's 2010 and kids can sit behind a keyboard and say childish things all day with no accountability, and without having to stand face to face with someone and insult them openly.

If people are smart, they will leave Iran to fix itself, people were none too happy over the last elections, who knows what will happen by the next.

Also seriously now, has no one here read Watchmen? Best way to organize a group of people no matter how different is to have an outside enemy attack them both. If anyone so much as attacks Iran from the outside, things will go down the shitter very very fast, and is probably one of the most undesireable consequences.

Edit: Dammit I really shoudl read the entire threads.

I don't see how he is foolish at all. He only compared Bush's methods of going to was with Hitler's, and they are both extremely similar whichever way you cut it. Maybe you should just accept it instead of acting angry at treu statements.

Buddy I'd not only say everything that needs to be said to your face, I'd record every last bit of it and hand it right ovedr to you so you could remember it forever.  But the question is, what would you do about it.  Easy to sit behind a keyboard and act like you give a damn, but do you actually. 

Hitler and Bush are nothing alike as people but they did use similar tactics that many politicans have used.  But that you have the nerve to Straw Man my argument like you are some tough guy is rather silly.  That was an insult to the people and the masses as they can be so blindly lead by their political leaders to do whatever they tell them to do.  Whether it be Hitler using loads of things to rally his people from a depression into a nationalist mindset or the American government being able to successfully rally a group of people after a tragic and cheap attack from an underground organization into thinking so rationally.  If you don't like what I jsut said right there, then I suggest you take it up with Mr. James Madison who first wrote about the problems of the violence of factions for those exact same scenarios that played out.  There's a reason this nation tried to be setup to remove public opinion from decision making, but we didn't do a good enough job it seems.  I don't know if you blame them or the public for not taking a stand against it.

Why thank you for the back up.  People, sometimes, get emotional about 9/11, as I do, and probably let that get in front of it.  I can understand to a certain extent his reaction but still can't let that get in the way of things. 

No, won't happen. No one can (or wants to) afford it at the moment.

WWII saved the US from the great depression much sooner.

First, you both should really cool off a bit with the rhetoric. 

Second, for Zucas (but a point that I think everyone should keep in mind), ignoring the merits of your argument, you really should consider that comparing someone to Hitler, no matter how reasoned, is likely to elicit strong replies.  This is perfectly fine (provided other forum rules are followed) in a thread where this is the topic but in threads where it isn't the topic the rule of 'the most heated debate tends to hijack the discussion' will almost always come into play.  In short, think a bit about how your comment will effect the thread before posting Hitler comparisons please! It's a touchy subject for people no matter how you approach it, so when you do, it really should be a crucial part of your point rather than an example of your point.  I can promise you that a comment with a hitler comparison is a lot more likely to get into trouble by the mods than the same comment without that comparison.  That's just plain good advice everyone should consider.

For now I can see where you're coming from but since your point can stand up without the comparison I think we should move forward with the discussion minus the hitler comparison. Which brings me to.....

Third, lets try to keep this a friendly(or at least civil) discussion/debate focused on Iran. 

I don't think the appetite is there right now for this among UN members. I expect sanctions plus possible attempts to foster a change of regime and backing of dissident factions.

Also, I have this nagging feeling that most UN countries are hoping Israel will sort it out for us allowing us to wag fingers at them and sound all annoyed while breathing a sigh of relief we didn't have to get involved.

If the main concern is their nuclear capability then, to be cold bloodied about it, killing its research team and destroying all it's facilities should put Iran's progress back for a fair while, and this doesn't require any major invasion or occupation just a series of targeted assassinations and infrastructure strikes - something Israel is perfectly capable of (perhaps with a little covert assistance regarding bunker busting munitions and the like.

Personally, I'd hope to see legitimate political change and avoidance of any conflict whatsoever, but I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out.