When have they said it was the ONLY option? They haven't. Look into psychological and information operations sometime Gel.
Way to sensationalize the issue. -- Timothy Heald Analyst, Architect, Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: 202-228-8372 C: 703-300-3911 -----Original Message----- From: Vivec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 3:55 AM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Bush reconfirms nuking Iran, sorry :) No. But if they DO get a nuclear weapon THEN you can talk about strikes. You can get them to the table to say they will not weaponise , and will not make a nuclear bomb, and you can monitor the crap out of them with the agencies designed to do so. You can use diplomacy to back them into a corner so that IF they do step out THEN you can retaliate. And then you don't need to use a nuclear option either. The US is nuts to even consider the nuclear option as the first or only alternative, even if they consider a 'preemptive' strike. Since when was it legal to perform 'preemptive' strikes? You know what? it's NOT legal, it goes against every International Law out there.The US is firmly setting itself against the rest of the world with rhetoric such as this. On 4/18/06, Jeff Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok... So will you change your position once Iran has a nuclear device > and has used it against Israel? Because that is the path you are advocating. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:204689 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=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
