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...

[MJY1288]

Hey slick, you are the one who brought up the WMD, not me!

[rmlew]

Hummmm very racist, don't you think ?

No. I would have nothing against a non-Islamist Iran, preferably a democratic one, having nuclear weapons.

I don't like North Korea having nukes. I support Japan developing nukes.

Frankly, I thought you were a paleo. Istead, you sound like a leftist.

[HatSteel]

as we stated yesterday

bump

[StupidQuestions]

Pakistan is an Islamist nation

[MJY1288]

I just got done checking out his posting history, I'm surprised this potty mouth is still around

[BlueNgold]

I'll leave the education of Pete to y'all. It's ladies night at the redneck bar. I'm out!

[MJY1288]

I'm outta here as well,

FRegards

[ladyinred]

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

Where were you when our citizens were blown to bits huh? The above statement is ludicrous, and makes me wonder just where you are coming from.

[rmlew]

Look at it from their point of view, we are trying to destroy their social structure with Christianity.

1. It is not US policy to do this. Compare that to the export of Islamism by the Iranians and Saudis.
2. Christian missionaries in teh Middle East serve teh Dhimmi communities and provide medical and charitable services to everyone. The Islamists are angry that the Christians don't convert.

To them its poision
So are the concepts of liberty and individual rights.

your going to apply a rule to them, it needs to apply to us and other nations equally.

1. Treating the guilty and innocent equally us not just. Using your logic, cops and robbers should go to jail.
2. You support a supranational government imposing justice?

If they believe the rule is being unequally applied, whats wrong with a nuke to level the playing field?

They will simply make new complates until the UN imposes Sharia.

[ladyinred]

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

Good point, and the comments from said freeper seem to indicate as such!

[rmlew]

We should have liberated them in 1961. Unfortunately, Kenedy screwed that up (on purpose?).
As the USSR no longer exists, our agreement with them following the Cuban Missle crisis is void. We should liberate Cuba.

[rmlew]

We live in the real world.
We could not directly assault the USSR. We cannot directly assault Red China.

[rmlew]

I wrote:
"1. We can take out the nuclear sites. Israel did this to Iraq in the 1980's. It set them back years. "
PapaJohnMN responded
Do we even know the location of the nuclear weapons program? Every potential proliferator went covert with their WMD after the Israeli raid.

We can find some of the reactors.

"2. There is something of an uprising occuring."

No guarantees that the new regime will stop the WMD program.

If a Democratic regime wishes to pursue a nuclear program, that is fine with me. Islamists are a threat, not all Iranians.

[what's up]

China is being checked by other countries in the region. This is a strategy that is working and keeping a rein on China's aggression.

No one is keeping Iran in check. Somebody's got to do it.

[alnick]

I'm not sure I want to invade another country that poses no direct threat to me. Isreal is stockpiled with nukes.

I assure you, Isreal poses no threat to you, unless you're, say, a member of Hamas.

[MJY1288]

petenretreat is now swimming with the fishes

A deserving ZOT

[Steel Wolf]

The article deals with why we would invade and occupy a sovereign nation spending billions and blood in doing so.

Why would destroying their nuclear weapons program cost that much? A few Tomahawks should do the trick.

I opined that we are not only selective in criteria but we are arrogant in that selection which is and must be, according to our President. predicated on the existence of "WMD".

Yes, we are selective. There is no merit or logic in treating everyone equally when talking about nuclear weapons. If you feel uncomfortable with saying 'North Korea, Iran, Hamas or (insert dangerous political entity) is unfit to possess WMD' then you are unfit to make any moral or rational judgements about anything.

Being selective isn't fair. I don't drink Dran-O, but I do drink water, and that's not balanced at all. I think you'll agree, there are some instances in life when being able to discriminate between good ideas and bad ideas is a crucial skill. Feel no guilt, my friend.