Since when has that been a rule? We've let it happen before, and will probably let it happen again.
Don't you really mean - We won't allow it to happen to Isreal? There is a difference between not taking it off the table (I agree, the less said the better), and stating that it is expicitely ON the table. Do you think this should be a policy? That we should use a nuclear weapon against Iran to prevent them further down the nuclear path? Not a refusal to take it off the table, but an acual, honest to god plan for dealing with Iran? And if you are not willing to take any options off the table, how about poisoning all milk products? Unleashing a bioweapon that makes all women infertal? Killing all women and children as a preventive measure? You obviously think all of these options are valid, and should be left on the table as a preemptive measure. Fortunately, most Americans, and in the vast majority of people on earth disagree with you. My only hope is that those in power at the moment in Washington also disagree with you. On 4/18/06, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why should our enemies feel secure? Why should the commander in Chief of > the US military ever publicly state that any action is not an option? > The only thing I want to see the President claim that is off the table > is no action at all. > > The only thing we will not do is stand still and allow a country with a > stated goal to annihilate not only another country, but an entire > religion. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:204645 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
