Republican Presidential Candidates Back Nuclear Strike Against Iran

With the exception of Ron Paul (who I am liking more and more... if he gets the nod, he might be the first Republican I would vote for) the current batch of Republican wannabes are totally clueless... it is almost as is the 06 election didn't even register with them. McCain is reliving Vietnam with his domino theory of the middle east... Guilliani is a one trick pony who is damned and determined to milk 9/11 for all its worth (would someone please tell him bush minor has already done that) and the rest are all trying to channel Ronald Reagan. I haven't heard a damned thing from these idiots that would make me even consider voting for them (and a lot that makes me want to vote against them), their saving grace is that the Democrats aren't much better.

Run Al Gore Run!!!

Originally posted by shots
Re-read the article 9 out of ten did not support their use. Hell 5 of them were not even asked the question. Therfore the author is making an assumption and you are jumping on his bandwagon that has no wheels.

[edit on 6/7/2007 by shots]

I read the article. So lets deny a bit of ignorance.

Hunter said yes

Hunter: I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges.

Guilliani sais this (my added emphasis)

Part of the premise of talking to Iran has to be that they have to know very clearly that it is unacceptable to the United States that they have nuclear power. I think it could be done with conventional weapons, but you can’t rule out anything and you shouldn’t take any option off the table.

Gilmore said this

We’re also going to say that having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. They need to understand it. And all options are on the table by the United States in that instance.”

And Romney said

You don’t take options off the table.

Quite how you get 9 out of ten when four of them would consider it is interesting maths - did you read the article Shots?

James Gilmore makes my skin bristle. The bugger (and that is not to say anything bad about buggers) all but ruined the state of Virginia's finances during his tenure here and did his level best to hide the truth of it from his successor, Democrat Mark Warner, who managed amazingly enough to clean the mess up. I wouldn't vote for Gilmore as collector of road kill.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by grover]

No American president (or candidate) would explicitly take anything off the table, but that doesn't mean they are gung-ho about nuking Iran, which is what the article seems to imply.

Ahem,Ahem

Blitzer: If it came down to a preemptive US strike against Iran’s nuclear facility, if necessary would you authorize as president the use of tactical nuclear weapons?

Hunter: I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges.

Blitzer then turned to former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who currently leads in opinion polls of prospective Republican primary voters.

Blitzer: What do you think, Mayor? Do you think if you were president of the United States and it came down to Iran having a nuclear bomb, which you say is unacceptable, you would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons?

Giuliani: Part of the premise of talking to Iran has to be that they have to know very clearly that it is unacceptable to the United States that they have nuclear power. I think it could be done with conventional weapons, but you can’t rule out anything and you shouldn’t take any option off the tab

No where in any of those statements did any of the candidates speak about it as if it were an inevitability. Your title is pretty misleading.

I agree with the FACT that 9 of the 10 candidates are completely clueless.

I watched the debate and didn't see anything I liked from 9 of them. Ron Paul is the exception though. He did get an applause after every answer.

It seemed to me that the government and media want you to choose from 3 of the candidates. I did a tally of the debate to see how much attention was given to all of the candidates and Romney, Juliani, & Mccaine were asked a significant amount of more questions than anyone else running, and when I say significant I mean significant. It's BS

Vote Ron Paul
-Seems like he is really FOR the American people. Plus, he has 17 grandchildren. That may seem insignificant to many but it does speak volume to me.

Point taken, very sorry look at my start date! lol... Many thanks

Originally posted by djohnsto77
No American president (or candidate) would explicitly take anything off the table, but that doesn't mean they are gung-ho about nuking Iran, which is what the article seems to imply.

Yep.

The article, and the title of this thread, aren't entirely (or at all) fair in the portrayal of their positions. The implication of both is that these candidates would be just itching to push the button if elected. Reading their statements and the questions asked, its apparent that they consider it a last resort, not a first option.

Additionally, as a matter of diplomacy with an enemy such as Iran, it doesn't make much sense to publicly admit to pulling the nuclear option off the table, even if privately, it isn't being considered. An enemy state is likely to be much more cautious if it believes its actions might be met with a nuclear response.

BTW, most, if not all of the Democratic candidates will answer this question in a very similar fashion if/when asked.

It is absolute lunacy, I mean its just completely crazy, to launch a preemptive strike with tactical nuclear weapons on nuclear facilities already enriching. Its crazy, it will spell disaster for Iran and the surrounding region for years and years and years.

Remember Chernobyl? One little leak and there was devastation, imagine if it was bombed? Now imagine if it was nuked! The radiation from that would be astronomical, it is literal suicide what they are planning.

What are these candidates thinking, supporting such an idea, it is unbelievable. If these men dont have an idea about the consequences of such actions, they should not be running for president. Period. Their moral and intellectual compass are obviously malfunctioned, they should not be able to become the Commander and Chief.

Ron Paul is the only candidate, period, who has any kind of head on his shoulders. He is a "champion of the constitution" and he understands exactly what these wars are about anyways, and hes gonna stop it if he gets to power. Ron Paul has a proven track record of public service, real public service, hes delivered hundreds of babies, has been speaking out against big banks and big government and big corporations for a very long time. He is connected to Alex Jones, front line man in the information war and one of the pillars in the Truth movement, so Ron Paul has proven that he comes from our side, hes there to help.

Vote for Ron Paul, the hell with the other war mongering puppets. Always be suspicious of the people who are getting masses of money, because most of that money doesnt come from the public, it comes from special interests and private groups, who ask for things in return. Understand that, people like Clinton and Mccain, and Giuliani, and Obama im sure, are way ahead of the rest when it comes to campaign funds, and theres a reason why.



[edit on 7-6-2007 by LightWorker13]

Folks, get a grip!! The U.S isn't going to "nuke" anyone. Holy jumping Christ!!

Please forgive if I seem daft, I am from UK and dont know much about US politics.I thought this was important

Incredible

No only another Republican will start Armageddon no only in Iran but any other place that "has a rowdy government" but also they praised the lord and Saviour:Lil: and they also get dumb and stupid when faced with gay issues.

What in the heck is going on with this nation.

let's burn gays nuke the word but hey all while praising god and accepting Jesus as the Saviour.



SpeakerofTruth I saw the stupid debate and they are all to follow the same corporate agenda as bush has done, nothing more than clones in spreading imperialism in the name of America for personal agendas and nukes are a choice.

This should never be considered an option. Period. Why would we have to use nukes to get rid of any target? You fanatics out there please answer that simple question.

Nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike should be off the table. This could cause worldwide nuclear war and should only be used to deter a nuclear strike against us.

Why would this even be a valid question?

When they threaten to nuke, that means they plan on doing it okay. And then Iran comes out and says, well if you nuke us, well wipe you off the map, and then the media cry "Iran says it will destroy us! It wants to nuke Israel, thats why they are enriching! Lets nuke em!"

In case you dont know, there are neo-cons all over talk radio saying how we need to turn Iran into a "parking lot", bomb em is the rallying cry. Thats the plan, they want to, theyre looking for excuses to, these people are lunatic madmen who belong in an asylum.

So yea, its so obvious, the US establishment wants war, they get power and funding and control out of it, it benefits them in every way, so of course they are gonna want more of it, and the candering of "pulling out" by the presidential canditates, is just to appease you the people, they have no plans for pulling out at all.

When presidential candidates support the idea of dropping tactical nukes on nuclear facilities, that is not something to shrug off! That is deadly serious, we should have our eyes open, fully alert, and understand what this means.

Let's say that was the plan. What the hell do you want to do about it? You honestly think that voting some socialist in office is going to change the agenda? Be for real.

All of these dopes work hand in hand. To think that there are any differences in the two parties or their agendas is the epitome of naivety. The only difference between the two parties is the method used to get to where they want to be.