(Untitled)

[hobomagic]

So i've been thinking a lot about Iran lately, and how its exceedingly likely that they'll develop nuclear weapons during the next for years, and how either candidate would respond. If it does happen, people will call for everything from an immediate invasion to live and let live, but I think, at the core of it, a nuclear Iran cannot be tolerated

Comments

[small_chicken]

I have a pet theory that when Bush was reading the teleprompter, outlining his case for war, he had some problem seeing the "n" and decided it had to be "q". Hence, we're in the wrong country at the wrong time...

I don't think restoring alliances necessarily means negotiating with terrorists. Alliances have their uses, too, and amongst them is doing the dirty cleaning up work. Of course, this would presuppose that the president knows what has to be done in war, which...in any case if the US is going to be bombing the shit out of any other country it'd be best if it didn't go at it alone. But with Bush as president I don't think that's a possibility.

[xforge]

Bush is a pussy with nuclear nations. Look at his North Korea policy. By ignoring them, and practically kowtowing to Pakistan, not to mention putting up with Israel's bullcrap (although he has other reasons for that), he shows the world that all you have to do to keep us out is get a nuke or two.

Maybe the Democratic Party should develop nuclear capability.

[xforge]

If we'd fricking bothered to try to handle Iran properly, we could have cultivated the love and outright adoration that their young people have for the US, and gotten rid of those damn mullahs with diplomacy instead of guns and bombs. Now of course since we have an idiot xenophobic paranoid moron for a president, we're going to be at war until all, bar none, of our eligible men are dead and we're so broke we'll be asking for handouts from Mogadishu.