I'm not sure where you're going with this...I'm not saying anyone should be invaded, Muslim or otherwise. So I guess, since I'm very confused by your last point, I should just ask you: What do you suggest?
no, it's because we are the hegemon. No competition for that crown allowed.
Quote from: LaneSwerver on April 25, 2005, 02:41:39 PMI'm not sure where you're going with this...I'm not saying anyone should be invaded, Muslim or otherwise. So I guess, since I'm very confused by your last point, I should just ask you: What do you suggest?julie, at least, talking feasibility of war. julie not exactly known for beating war drums.one thing julie suggest is that we acknowledge that we already have lots of nuclear weapons and then explain just why it is that we supposedly so much more trustworthy to "use them well" than iranians. for example, is it because we love peace so much? hmmmmmmm?
I understand that point, but my question was: What do you suggest?
Discussing our nuclear arsenal with anyone is pointless and not a negotiable diplomatic approach. There is no reason to negotiate on a stance that will not change, i.e. our nuclear arms. There is basis to negotiate on a stance that can change, i.e. Iran's nuclear program.So, what do we do? You don't seem to believe diplomacy is/has worked, nor do you favor a military approach. Do we just quit and see what happens?
so you believe war inevitable. that explain why you not so interested in preventing it.please, tell julie again why you not interested in fighting war yourself.
Page created in 0.419 seconds with 18 queries.