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...

[duk]

.......The second they start trying to export Islamism and host terrorist groups, they have abdicated sovereignty.....


We have exported Christianity and supported missions within these countries. Have we abdicated our sovereignty?

[rmlew]

Short of a preventive invasion, what can we do?

1. We can take out the nuclear sites. Israel did this to Iraq in the 1980's. It set them back years.
2. There is something of an uprising occuring. We can help it become a full blown revolution. How long will the regime last if it dependant on religiouslu inspired thugs and non-Persian troops to beat down opposition? A few Special force units organizing the Azeri areas, the Kurdish areas, and the Turkmeni border and the regime will collapse.
We have Iran on 3 borders:
East: Afghanistan
South and West: Iraq
North West: Azerbaijan.

[MonroeDNA]

"Am I the only one that finds this attitude arrogant? Which sovereign countries can have nukes and which can't and why is that?

Any country which is not wanting to spread communism, socialism, or religeous dictatorships can have Nukes. In other words, states which hate individual freedom will be prevented from having them. Soveriegn states which supress individual liberty, in a crushing manner, may not have weapons of mass destruction.

"I'm not sure I want to invade another country that poses no direct threat to me...

Somehow, I doubt you will be the one invading; my guess is that if you are not cowering under your bed, you certainly will not be signing up for armed services.

"Isreal is stockpiled with nukes. Noone cares. I don't. "

Isreal is a democracy, and values individual liberty. They are not control freaks, like the rest of the region.

"If a country has nukes and threatens US soil I say waste them but this is not good dictating who can and who can't unless there is a clear and present danger. Why are we doing this?"

Because us freedom-loving individuals abhore control freaks, and will do whatever it takes to prevent them from denying individual liberty.

[rmlew]

Supporting Islamism (ie radical Islam) and Islamic terrorists is not the same as having Christian missionaries.
Your moral equivalency is disgusting.

[rmlew]

It is amazing how quickly isolationist conservatives pick up the moral equivalency of the left.

[Williams]

You could say it's arrogant. But let's deal with reality. Soon after an American city and millions of people die a horrifying death as a result of a nuclear explosion, the presidents who failed to stop it will be viewed as having failed in their duty - and rightfully so. I only wish we were committed to removing North Korea as a nuclear threat before the threat worsens. I don't want to live through a nuclear attack and I damn well don't want our children to die that way.

[BlueNgold]

unless there is a clear and present danger

Perhaps we have differing opinions on the implications of the words 'clear and present danger'. In my mind, as someone who has breathed that god-awful sandy air in uniform, a clear and present danger could be argued in this case:
A country that has undertaken hostile acts against the United States and it's citizens, and that exists under the same leadership and form of government as were present when those hostile acts were committed...
A country that has institutionally financed non-government sources to plan and commit hostile acts against the United States and its allies...
A country such as that described above with the technology to inflict institutional damage to the United States and/or its allies...

A country with Iran's RECENT history, and in possession of a nuclear device represents a fundamental shift in the threat calculation. Add to that the inherent instability of their government (riots daily seeking freedom), and the institutional instability of theocracies in general, and this becomes a risk that cannot be tolerated.

In order to GUARANTEE the safety and security of the United States, it's citizens, and our allies this scenario cannot be left to the people portion of the equation. Threat assessments are based on 'capabilities' and 'intentions'. Britain, for example, has a high capabilities assessment with a minimal intentions assessment. Iran is quite the opposite: 'intentions' - a factor of the current ruling element and military authorities - are high, but 'capabilities' remain low.

IMNSHO any U.S. President willing to 'tolerate' a high-high scenario has abdicated his oath and should be shot for treason. I am glad to see our current President using such clear language.

[wimpycat]

We have exported Christianity and supported missions within these countries

When Christians start blowing themselves up and taking innocent people with them, or running planes into buildings, then we'll talk.

Otherwise, take your moral equivalency and shove it where the sun don't shine.

[ladyinred]

Now comes the hard part for the President, getting "approval" to do something about it. The nation has forgotten, thanks to the leftist smear campaign.

[ladyinred]

You don't think Iran is a threat to you? How old are you?

[duk]

I find these kind of statements very arrogant. We are to lead by example, not command. As far as I'm concerned, we as a nation have completely abandoned our foundational principles. We have given 300 mil. dollars (U.S. tax payer money) to the Palistinians. That's terrorist money plain and simple.

[duk]

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

[wimpycat]

So? I said when Christians start blowing themselves up and taking innocent people with them, then we'll talk.

Have they started doing it in the past few minutes?

No, they haven't. So do yourself a favor and stay the hell away from me.

[duk]

Look at it from their point of view, we are trying to destroy their social structure with Christianity. To them its poision. If your going to apply a rule to them, it needs to apply to us and other nations equally. No one is above the rule. If they believe the rule is being unequally applied, whats wrong with a nuke to level the playing field?

[Minutemen]

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

I hope he tolerates them less than he does nuclear weapons in North Korea!

[wimpycat]

Goodness, I think he's some sort of masochist.

[DAnconia55]

Am I the only one that finds this attitude arrogant? Which sovereign countries can have nukes and which can't and why is that? I'm not sure I want to invade another country that poses no direct threat to me.

Yes, it's arrogant. And good for Bush.

Repeat after me :

Muslims cannot be trusted with technology more advanced than rocks.
Muslims cannot be trusted with technology more advanced than rocks.
Muslims cannot be trusted with technology more advanced than rocks.

[Minutemen]

No one else was meant to have nukes, 'till our own liberals and traitors (Rosenbergs) sold out our countries'secrets to the Russians and Clinton sold out to Commie China.
Israel is not a threat to anyone but her enemies. Yes, it is an "arrogant" attitude. Better "us" than "them"

[caspera]

Look at it from their point of view...

Do you look at September 11 from their point of view?