MERGED--> Nukes for this nut-job? + Iranian nukes

[BVS]

You know what the funny thing is? I actually AGREE that Iran is a threat. I have never ever denied that, but in conservativespeak, any words that might dare humanize "the enemy" is perceived as support for it. And, of course, if you "support the enemy," you clearly are against all that is good and pure.

I find this to be frustratingly true.

 

[A_Wanderer]

All my point was that Bush and Ahmadinejad are two peas in a pod

 

[melon]

And tell me. How is Bush advancing the cause of gay rights in the U.S. and the world?

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

He isn't, and he isn't condemning the Iranians, but there are degrees of magnitude and to place them in the same category seems disengenous.

 

[toscano]

And tell me. How is Bush advancing the cause of gay rights in the U.S. and the world?

Melon

Well, he's protecting Israeli gays from being wiped off the face of the earth by someone who has stated his intent to do so...........

 

[toscano]

He isn't, and he isn't condemning the Iranians, but there are degrees of magnitude and to place them in the same category seems disengenous.

In this forum there is no topic on which one can criticize anyone fromm any part of th eworld on anything, no matter how heinous it may be, that does not get turned into a comparison with Bush in which Bush comes out negatively, and I say that as someone who thinks Bush is a blithering idiot.

Bush would come out negatively in a Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler or Mao discussion in here

 

[melon]

He isn't, and he isn't condemning the Iranians, but there are degrees of magnitude and to place them in the same category seems disengenous.

Not when I'm talking about comparisons in terms of the kinds of voters that support Bush and Ahmadinejad.

1) Both sets of voters voted for the religious candidate.
2) Both countries have a liberal/reformist movement perceived as lofty elitists out of touch with the masses.
3) Both countries have a rural poor that resoundedly voted for them.
4) Both talk in bombastic language about good and evil.
5) Both could care less about how the world views them.
6) Both want their nation to set the pace for the rest of the world.
7) Both have wide populist appeal.

If we're going to nitpick on every little specific detail, then you've missed my point. They are not identical people, nor do they operate in identical economies, cultures or circumstances.

But if things were reversed and Iran was the global nuclear power, I do imagine that the U.S. would clamor to be a nuclear power to say to the world, "I exist. Now treat me like the world power that I am."

With that, to approach Iran diplomatically, one has to convince them that they can be a world power without nuclear weapons. In addition, since Iran is talking about nuclear power, the world community could also beat them at their own game and insist on a reactor design that is incapable of creating weapons-grade materials. As such, they get their nuclear power as they claim to want, while being incapable of creating nuclear weapons. I do believe such reactors do exist, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Melon

 

[blueyedpoet]

Bush would come out negatively in a Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler or Mao discussion in here

That's because Bush is engaged in similar activities as these men were, only he does so more discreetly.

 

[deep]

Bush would come out negatively in a Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler or Mao discussion in here

Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler or Mao never took money from the Tobacco lobby!

 

[deep]

OK, hands up everyone for letting this guy have nukes....

"I need the distraction."

 

[A_Wanderer]

Iran will get nuclear weapons, that cannot be stopped, the world has neither the knowledge nor the will to prevent this.

 

[melon]

Iran will get nuclear weapons, that cannot be stopped, the world has neither the knowledge nor the will to prevent this.

That's because we've been too busy defending the world from the WMDs that don't exist.

War-weariness is always a potential factor, which is why war is normally a last resort. Iran couldn't have picked a better time to kick up shit from their POV.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

If Saddam was in power those weapons programs would be well and truly active to countre the rising Persian menace in 2006. The fact that the Iraq WMD intelligence has been consistently wrong (underestimated in the 1980's and overestimated in the 1990's) combined with the bipartisan statements about how little is known about Irans programs makes any military strikes worse than pointless.

The threat will come from terrorists and proliferation among other Islamic states, the threat of assured destruction for any regime who thinks of passing materials to terrorist groups as well as old cold war notions would show a new phase of this strange war.

 

[toscano]

Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler or Mao never took money from the Tobacco lobby!

But they did soooooooooo much to advance the cause of gay rights.

 

[toscano]

That's because Bush is engaged in similar activities as these men were, only he does so more discreetly.

Bush is discreetly involved in Genocide ? How discreet is it if you know it ? And where is it happening ? Or is that also so discreet you can't tell us ?

 

[toscano]

5) Both could care less about how the world views them.

Oh well, at least they COULDN'T care less as that would mean they weren't nice people at all. Nice to see some wiggle room there.