HAJ, it seems you never read the article that this thread is about.
Yes sir, I have. Like I said though, nukes are a small part of the big picture. I think Romney's getting a view of the big picture and knowing the power that the phrase "nuclear weapons" brings to the table, that's where his kind are making their stance.
I just wish somebody on the National Stage would stop insulting American intelligence and explain that it's a far bigger issue than some nuclear capability. Then again, maybe the average American just lacks the ability to comprehend this, and that's why politicians resort to using "catch phrases".
It's not the face of Iran that scares me, it's the heart. Is it true that a Nuclear Iran is a threat to us? YES! Is it also true that a non-nuclear Iran is a threat to us? YES!
Does that mean we need to go to war with the Nation of Iran? NO!
We just need to stop kidding ourselves and fall for the idea that this is all because of Operation Ajax. That operation was a catalyst in a movement that is far older than Western Culture....
?????
Operation Ajax = Kook definition of Interventionism.
Interventionism is to blame for all our problems.
The threat of nukes is the rallying cry of interventionist.
These are the arguments that are posited ad nauseum around here. The problem is that they simply aren't grounded in facts.
Just because people like Romney and others see Iran for the threat that they are, doesn't mean that War is the only answer.
Just because we perceive and address a threat doesn't mean that we are interventionist.
The article was basically saying that Romney is being swayed into warmongering because Israel doesn't play nice with it's neighbors.
That's just head in the sand crackpot lunacy. Israel isn't our enemy. Israel doesn't get us into fights. Threats do, period.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
