[plain talk]

I wouldn't argue against "sending in the military" but I would argue against boots on the ground. We should kill people and break things -- from a distance.

I agree. However in this case the nuke facilities are buried deep underground. We will need some swat teams or some entity to go in there in some fashion to verify the facilities were destroyed. But that doesn't have to mean the conventional approach of taking over an entire country. We have to start thinking outside the box and modify Colin Powell's doctrine to "we break it THEY fix it"

[cripplecreek]

I agree. However in this case the nuke facilities are buried deep underground. We will need some swat teams or some entity to go in there in some fashion to verify the facilities were destroyed. But that doesn't have to mean the conventional approach of taking over an entire country.

Agreed, break their nuclear infrastructure and possibly stir unrest with a clear message that we will support moderates if they assume control.

[ClearCase_guy]

To be honest, I don't totally oppose boots on the ground. Some teams might have work to do.

I really oppose "nation building" by the military. If anyone thinks "nation building" is a good idea, then I would suggest sending in the Peace Corps.

And if anyone says, "Are you kidding?? The Peace Corps?? They'd be slaughtered!" Then I'd guess that "nation building" was no longer on the table.

The military should be used to kill people and break things. Preferably (but not always) from a distance.

[The_Media_never_lie]

No more nation building. These people don’t appreciate it.