President Bush says he "will not tolerate'' nuclear weapon in Iran

APNewsAlert | June 18, 2003

[HAL9000]

BC-APNewsAlert

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush says he "will not tolerate'' nuclear weapon in Iran

Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

MORE...

[ffusco]

If we would have "liberated" Cuba, China would have immediately "repatriated" Taiwan.

[ffusco]

oops... sorry about the dupes, my machine is slow tonite.

BTW how many "removed by administrator" was that?

[ladyinred]

Petey is gone? Thank goodness, I thought for the first time I might have found someone worth getting banned over. That little twirp was pushing my buttons! All of them.

[maro]

Because some Christian might try to proselytize them, they kill thousands of us and blow up our buildings? That may be the point of view of some people in the world--but it is an unreasonable point of view. After 9/11, we cannot tolerate this kind of nonsense. We will defend ourselves with all our might, and we reserve the right of first strike when necessary. If we try to understand them, it is only so we can better destroy them.

[ladyinred]

It sounds as though Bush is making noises about Iran being next. That is fine with me, however, I wonder how much trouble he will have selling it with the rats and even some conservatives screaming how he lied about Iraq. The danger of the left playing politics right now is that because of them we will have a repeat of 911! They only care about regaining power however, and feel safe themselves.

[Yaron]

The Christians in the Crusades were murderous savages, who murdered almost the entire non-christian population of Jerusalem. The Jews were particularly harsly dealt with. They had barricaded themselves into the synagogues as sanctuary, only to be burnt to death by the honourable knights. Those that for some reason weren't killed were sold into slavery.

Under Christian rule, Jews were not allowed into the Holy land. It was not until the time of Saladin some 100 years later that any degree of religious tolerance was returned.

Not only that, the Crusader nights were prone to cannibalism and infanticide:

"In Maarra our troops boiled pagan adults in cooking pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled." (Radulph of Caen)

Basically the crusaders went on an orgy of barbarism, for instance the Tomb of Abraham was destroyed by christian vandals.

The areas were not mostly Christian as you state, however they were visited by thousands of christian pilgrims. The Muslim rulers were happy to accomodate this because it meant $$$$ until Hakim the loony Caliph decided he didn't like the idea. The crusades were launched to (obstensibly)regain access to the holy land. Ultimately they failed.

[EGPWS]

It sounds as though Bush is making noises about Iran being next.

Yep, and it's one thing I can't stand is a POTUS talking direct, meaning what he say's, and following through! Oh, how I miss the Clinton years./ SARCASM off!!!

[Steel Wolf]

The Christians in the Crusades were murderous savages, who murdered almost the entire non-christian population of Jerusalem. The Jews were particularly harsly dealt with. They had barricaded themselves into the synagogues as sanctuary, only to be burnt to death by the honourable knights. Those that for some reason weren't killed were sold into slavery.

At the time, the tactics of the Christians were deplorable. They were also strikingly similar to that of the Muslims. Allah permits killing those of other religions who refuse to convert is allowed, as is outright slavery.

It was not until the time of Saladin some 100 years later that any degree of religious tolerance was returned.

Jews were very useful in the medieval Middle East, as they were often expatriates from Europe, and had skills in technology and language that they could impart. They were second class citizens, suject to special laws and taxes, but they were allowed to live in peace.

Not only that, the Crusader nights were prone to cannibalism and infanticide:

Yeaaaah. Even assuming that's true, how does it stack up against taking the first born male of all Christian families and turning them into warrior/slave Janissaries, to be used against other Christians? There was a lot of sick stuff going on in the middle ages, neither side was particularly enlightened or innocent. The only difference is that 800 years later, some things have changed, and others havent.

[rmlew]

I don't want any of these nations to have wmd. Is any nation which developes this kind of destruction really capable of being trusted.
You are 60 years too late.

We continue to research and develope more and better WMD, all the while condeming other nations.
1. Actually the Us is reducing its inventory.
2. We are looking to develop lower-yield weapons to me married to precision guided bombs and penetrating warheads. The idea is to take out installations, not cities.
3. We are not condemning all nations, only dangerous ones.
i have nothing against my neighbor getting a gun if I own one. I have a problem with a serial rapist getting one.

Even the French have them!!!
4th rate power desires second strike capability. Big deal. They were allies against the USSR.

It's hypocrisy. That is what my feelings are concerning the President stating he will not tolerate nukes in Iran.
Let me guess, you were taught never to hit back.

As far as moral equivalency, we as a nation have nothing to brag about anymore.
Bay of Pigs
AS with the Hungarian uprising, we failed to properly back up the anti-communists. Leftists Internationalists beholden to moral eqiuvalency betrayed our allies. That is no reason to accept their immoral ideology.

Iran/contra
Killing the terrorists and leveling Lebanon would have been better. However, we freed hostages, ensured a stalemate between Iran and Iraq, and helped anti-communists in Latin America. Hardly immoral.

How about letting Afgan grow and distribute its herion
How are we going to keep dirt poor peasants from growing the only highly profitable product they can? Poppy has been growing in Afghanistan at least since the time of Alexander the Great. The Us can try to control the trade, but only if we are willing to completely occupy the country.

The list of our international blunders into foreign affairs is on going. We got our nose bloody by a bunch of low tech, whimpy rag heads. Instead of an honest look at why they consider us an enemy, we go and invade a bunch of no account nations in the name of Homeland defense.
Instead of taking out those who aid and abbet the terrorism, ypou want us to give into some of their demands.
You better hope that the crocadile gets full before he gets to you.

The Saudis had the greates role in the attacks, why not kick their but and cut off the money?
The regime had little to do with it.

[rmlew]

IMHO We coudn't liberate Cuba because it would allow China to follow suit with Taiwan.
China invaded Hainan Island in the 1950's. It didn't need a precident.
Cuba is a dictatorship. Taiwan is a free nation.

[Yaron]

"Iran/contra
Killing the terrorists and leveling Lebanon would have been better. However, we freed hostages, ensured a stalemate between Iran and Iraq, and helped anti-communists in Latin America. Hardly immoral."

HARDLY IMMORAL!!!!

You really have interesting values. I would interested to understand how you find perpetuating a war in which 1 million human beings died a moral act.

[duk]

In the Iran/Contra scam, America became a drug dealer in order to finance a pet project that Congress said NO to.

[ffusco]

I didn't say the situation was the same, but China would use it as a justification.

[Lady Heron]

I guess you did not read the terrorism part that goes along with islam. Islam=death to all non-muslims. Yes, you need to defend against islam.

[Lady Heron]

I'm no expert on History, but the CRUSADES come to mind.

You are correct, you are no expert on history. You might just want to go and study why the Catholic Church felt the need for the Crusades (muslims were slaughtering whole communities of Christians). You might also want to study the state of the Chruch at that time (the common man could not even read the Bible, so they were easily led to do what the church told them to). Since the reformation where can you find a Christian Church ordering the killings of muslims????

[singsong]

The problem is that we stopped exporting Christianity - a religion that relies on preaching and respect the individial's free will. Christian wifes are treated like dogs in Saudi Arabia, Iran... in most Islamic countries. New Churches cannot be built in those places. The Christian communities have been decimated.

Islamism brings nothing but trouble and oppression. We have to deal with it. It has to be contained. Exporting Christianity though is an excelent idea. One need not apologise for it.

God Bless America.

[wasp69]

I'm no expert on History, but the CRUSADES come to mind.

You are correct, you are no expert on history. To make a statement like this, you really don't have a working knowledge of history at all. Instead, you spew a anti-Christian talking point. The crusade was started after militant islam was run out of Europe. They were taking the fight to the muslims.

[rmlew]

I wrote:
"Iran/contra
Killing the terrorists and leveling Lebanon would have been better. However, we freed hostages, ensured a stalemate between Iran and Iraq, and helped anti-communists in Latin America. Hardly immoral."

Yaron responded
You really have interesting values. I would interested to understand how you find perpetuating a war in which 1 million human beings died a moral act.

What do you think would have happened if Saddam Hussein would have won that war? How many Iranians would he have killed?
The US armed both sides and tried to negotiate ceasefires.

[rmlew]

China would use anything as a justification, once they get overwhelming superiority.

[StormEye]

"President Bush says he "will not tolerate'' nuclear weapon in Iran"

And what about Pakistan? Why are they allowed
to possess nukes? I say hit them both.