I think that the new guys might still be unaware of the extents of Objectivist tolerance. Allow me to extrapolate.
when people hear there is no tolerance, they assume there is intolerance. In other words, images of Neo-Nazis and KKK members pop up in the mind. Such blind hatred is certainly not what Objectivism is about. In fact going by common definitions, Objectivists would be considered the most tolerant people on the planet, since they judge a person by their productive worth, not their religion, race, or other insignigicancies.
but toleration is not the opposite of intoleration, it is the counterfeit of it. One espouses evil, the other allows it. Toleration calls for the abandonment of Objective ethics, since it preaches that one must respect another, regardless of how evil they are. Toleration is sending Adolf Hitler a Valentine’s card, sending cookies to Osama Bin Laden, and fan mail to Charlie Manson.
so when an Objectivist says he will not be tolerant, he is not saying that he hates anyone that is not like him (this is not xenophobia) he is saying that he refuses to violate his own code of ethics for the actions of others, particularly when those actions are in violation of his own moral code.
As for India, it is a perfect example of how a democracy alone does not create prosperity. John Stossel’s “greed” tv show demonstrated this. However, in recent years the grip of socialism on India has lessened, and the slight move towards Capitalism shows.
as for Pakistan, while I have no love for Mussharaf, but he is more accepting of America than most, because Al Queida has attempted to take his life on three separate occasions, and is willing to work with America, and we oblige. I mean, a slightly amicable dicator can be stalled, we know that tommorow Mussharaf will not sell nukes to Al Queida, we can deal with him as we see fit. I shudder to think what would happen if Pakistan, a Nuklear nation, falls under Al Queida jurisdiction while our military is still spread out over Iraq and Afganistan.