python416
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2005
- Messages
- 484
- Reaction score
- 2
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html
The Washington Post reports adjustment to the nuclear aspects of US military doctrine to include the use of nuclear weapons in preemptive strike scenarios.
Bunker-Buster development is also being pushed by Myers and Rumsfield.
I would like to know how anyone out there can support the following three things at the same time:
1) the rule of law and order (including the NPT)
2) lobbying for Iran to abandon it uranium enrichment (which is allowed by the NPT)
3) the expansion of nuclear weapons development and posture in the US (which is against the NPT)
Even if you don't support the NPT, how does anyone support restricting Iran and letting the USA run loose?
The Washington Post reports adjustment to the nuclear aspects of US military doctrine to include the use of nuclear weapons in preemptive strike scenarios.
Bunker-Buster development is also being pushed by Myers and Rumsfield.
I would like to know how anyone out there can support the following three things at the same time:
1) the rule of law and order (including the NPT)
2) lobbying for Iran to abandon it uranium enrichment (which is allowed by the NPT)
3) the expansion of nuclear weapons development and posture in the US (which is against the NPT)
Even if you don't support the NPT, how does anyone support restricting Iran and letting the USA run loose?