Regime change first, then maybe nukes
Reader comment on: The Van Diepen Demarche
in response to reader comment: lalalalalalala

Submitted by Jack Sheet, Dec 4, 2007 16:15

Chasli it's not a double standard, it's just a standard. World community expects nuclear powers to behave in a civilized responsible fashion. That does not describe current Iranian regime.

Israel has never called for the annihilation of the Persian Entity or constantly frothed about Persianism. It's not that the people of Iran could never be friends, it's that their government is run by murderous lunatics who are up front about their desire for Armageddon.

Very simple.

Not a huge fan of Pak nukes, but their current (Non-fundamentalist Islamic) government is not calling for the annihilation of India...yet.

India is a civilized democracy in a bad neighborhood, they deserve our support and have earned the trust of civilized nations to be responsible with their nukes.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.

Submit a comment on this article

Other reader comments on this article

Title	By	Date
Please Name the Third Author of this latest NIE [49 words]	Dick Willis	Dec 6, 2007 08:47
↔ Three authors- all State Department [34 words]	no one	Dec 26, 2007 16:00
yea, right [18 words]	m	Dec 6, 2007 08:15
The hard part is enriching uranium - a U-235 gun-type bomb design is simple [107 words]	oracle2world	Dec 5, 2007 21:29
Sorting out Jameson [75 words]	Jamie Newman	Dec 5, 2007 19:57
Demise of the West [154 words]	Steve	Dec 5, 2007 18:40
↔ The benefit of hindsight.. [676 words]	Jaffer Clarke	Dec 6, 2007 10:51
SHADOW GOVERNMENT [149 words]	Buzz	Dec 5, 2007 17:42
↔ Dittos [93 words]	Dennis Stayer	Dec 5, 2007 23:51
↔ Re: Shadow government [150 words]	Richard Stark	Dec 6, 2007 07:23
We have seen this before [39 words]	Carl Hoffman	Dec 5, 2007 17:26
Why not? [43 words]	darth	Dec 5, 2007 17:24
Politics at its best [45 words]	Lou Rodgers	Dec 5, 2007 16:38
↔ what should one believe? [32 words]	Chris	Dec 5, 2007 19:34
It's a continuation of the bureaucratic putsch [52 words]	Ardmoor Oakes	Dec 5, 2007 11:04
↔ A New Boot Hill [79 words]	David D	Dec 5, 2007 16:55
Theory and practice [49 words]	Mike Riezenman	Dec 4, 2007 23:13
lalalalalalala [132 words]	chasli	Dec 4, 2007 09:50
↔ Stop Iran [23 words]	chili	Dec 4, 2007 11:01
↔ Logical fallacy [247 words]	J G	Dec 4, 2007 11:30
↔ response to J G [121 words]	chasli	Dec 4, 2007 13:17
↔ ⇒ Regime change first, then maybe nukes [124 words]	Jack Sheet	Dec 4, 2007 16:15
↔ La-la land is chasli's native land [75 words]	John Spencer Yantiss	Dec 4, 2007 18:03
↔ how? [9 words]	chasli	Dec 4, 2007 19:15
↔ response [167 words]	chasli	Dec 4, 2007 19:35
↔ Sorting out Chasli [283 words]	Jack Jameson	Dec 5, 2007 19:20
↔ response to JJ [561 words]	chasli	Dec 6, 2007 16:25

Comment on The Van Diepen Demarche

Name:	Email Address: Email me if someone replies to my comment
Title of Comments:
Comments: Mark my comment as a response to Regime change first, then maybe nukes by reader Jack Sheet
Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable. Click here to see the top 25 recent comments.