If the dictator of a mostly-Islamic state had nukes, would you insist on invasion?

Sounds like something the gullible western populace will buy, as a pretext and justification to attack and destroy the sovereignty, break-down the societal structure, set-up a puppet pro-globalist government and steal the natural resources of a non-conforming state in the global new world order.

Otherwise, if they are pro-globalisation, give them funding...

Pakistan already has nukes, and last I checked they were a "mostly Islamic" state.

Are you proposing an invasion?

Israel is also 50% Islamic so far... they have nukes... and ?

Oh yes THEY DO have US federal funding, just as Pakistan, the other islamic nuclear power.

No, I'd try diplomatic means to work towards non-proliferation with incentives to cease nuclear weapons programs and properly secure and dispose of the 'nukes'. I'd only use federal funds to reward 'GOOD' behavior. In other words, I would NOT support ANY 'nuclear nation' (Pakistan, Israel, etc.) with ANY Federal funds. The only exception would be funds designated and used exclusively to disband, secure and properly dispose of their existing weapons-grade nuclear materials. Essentially, I'd go back to the US nuclear weapons policies that we had for almost 50 years... policies that focused on 'nuclear weapons are bad regardless of regime', with overall goals of non-proliferation and disarmament.

Current nuclear weapons policy incorporates judgmental bias by shifting focus to 'good vs bad' regimes, even though such designations are highly arbitrary and subject to change. Most importantly, it diminishes the importance of securing and disposing of existing weapons/materials that already exist and doesn't effectively discourage proliferation of new weapons-grade materials. The inherent bias and hypocrisy of such a policy sends mixed, ambiguous messages to the rest of the world.

One of the most dangerous mixed messages that comes out of these current overly-simplistic, 'good vs bad', vendetta-based policies is exemplified by the invasion of Iraq. The message is quite clear, "you'd better get your own nukes and get them fast... or face a US invasion/occupation".

No. Without any other significant issues surrounding such a situation, the answer is definitely no.

That's the case with Pakistan, but NOT true of Iran (or Saddam's Iraq, for that matter).

as president,i would get together with the director of the c.i.a. and try to come up with a plan to assasinate the dictator