 laceym says: 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, Giuliani, Gilmore, and Romney were the only ones directly asked the question, but five others—Senator John McCain, Senator Sam Brownback, Congressman Tom Tancredo, former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee—had ample opportunity to object or to distinguish their positions from this endorsement of mass murder. Only one candidate chose to do so, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas Iran is actively helping in the killing of our soldiers. What does one have to do to before they become a threat to our national security? Nuke us? Should every threat to our national security be nuked? I don't think anyone doubts that Iran is a threat to the U.S. and Israel (and other nations as well). However, i don't think that nuking them is the answer. I suppose it could be necessary some day, but i think/hope that many other approaches are considered first. The CIA has interfered in many nations around the world. Should Russia have nuked the U.S. for interfering in their war in Afghanistan or China and Russia for doing the same in Vietnam? This is desperate bully talk, which means it is the words of cowards. Not to mention it could potentially kill millions of innocent civilians... Good option *sarcasm*. Yet if the terrorists used a dirty bomb against the US.,.. it would be evil, right? All options should remain on the table. That doesn't mean you should nuke them, but that does mean you should be willing to nuke them. It is like pulling a gun on someone. If that someone knows for a fact you won't shoot them, then you might as well be unarmed. But if they think you are willing to shoot, then they have to decide how far they are willing to go. Basically, anyone who is unwilling to leave the option to attack on the table is disarming America right from the start. n2sooners, you're a nutjob. If Iran had troops in Canada and Mexico, what do you think our response would be? Have you looked at a friggen map? Anybody who says this is about anything other than oil profits is obviously blind. Its disarming the American Right, yeah thats what we should be doing, considering all the screw ups of the last 6 years. Besides, the U.S. has enough conventional firepower to turn Tehran into ruble many times over in a single afternoon, why do false and ignorant posturing with nuclear weapons. Is the American Right so desperate to show how macho it is? The fact that this even considered legitimate or reasonable is preposterous, there was a time when anybody that suggested such a thing would be laugh at by both parties or better yet, ignored out right. Fear changes everything I guess. Its disarming the American Right, yeah thats what we should be doing, considering all the screw ups of the last 6 years.Sorry, but you aren't disarming just part of America, you are disarming the entire country. Just because you force the right into a loss doesn't mean you won. When America loses, we all lose. "...American imperialism..." Oh good grief, what a Joke. And if laceym quoted Blitzer correctly, he said "if necessary". There is no way the United States is going to use nuclear weapons on an enemy state *unless* there was a devastating attack on our sovereign soil. As for disarming the American Right...I could see where those in disagreement with our views would like to do that. And dissolve and rip to shreds large portions of the Constitution to gain their political agenda. How a portion of our Country has come to hate those with differing opinions. :~( n2sooners, you're a nutjob. If Iran had troops in Canada and Mexico, what do you think our response would be? Have you looked at a friggen map? Anybody who says this is about anything other than oil profits is obviously blind.Ya, because that is a real even comparison. Everyone knows that Canada is our arch enemy and we have been at war with them for decades. Of course, no one expects a relevant argument from one of the 'no blood for oil' fruitcakes. "...American imperialism..." Oh good grief, what a Joke.Jafla....if I dare ask...why is that a joke? And what part of teh Constitution would be destroyed here? The only Constitution crunching i see is by this goverment, from illegal wiretaping to ignoring Congressional oversight. Back to the point at hand, think about it for just a second, your arguing about the acceptability of NUKING another country. When did the GOP become dominated by Dr. Strangelove? The idea is nonsensical at best, lunatical at worse, misiformed by fear. Can anyone tell me honestly how this threat would manfiest itself in such a way that it would require a premtive nuclear strike? And I am talkin... That be ranges... Back to the point at hand, think about it for just a second, your arguing about the acceptability of NUKING another country. When did the GOP become dominated by Dr. Strangelove?Once again, just because you leave that option open doesn't mean you have to do it. What scares me is having someone in charge who is already taking options off the table. We would have never won the cold war if the option to use nukes had been taken off the table. And just to say it one more time to make it really clear (because you seem to be really confused), just because you are open to that option doesn't mean you will do it. Its empty saber rattling. The U.S. policy of use of nuclear weapons if they where attacked, either in Europe or a nuclear attack against its country or an ally, not a first strike against a country that might, but would not have nuclear weapons. Not the same. Rather have empty saber rattling than empty ass kissing. Ass kissing whom? The Iranians? If you want to pucker up, thats your choice, I'll keep my realistic options open. Seriously, jatfla, can you explain why you dismiss the notion that the U.S. has become an imperialist power? What exactly distinguishes our current foreign policy from that of the imperialist powers of the past, especially as seen from the perspective of someone outside the reach of the U.S. media? I'd really like to know why you treat that as some kind of lunatic joke. n2sooners, let me get this straight. You think that we just ought to "keep the option open" of horrific mass slaughter of civilians. Just, like, in case we need to do it. And you wonder why people around the world don't buy the line that all we want is to spread freedom, prosperity, and democracy wherever we go? Can ... n2sooners, let me get this straight. You think that we just ought to "keep the option open" of horrific mass slaughter of civilians. Just, like, in case we need to do it. And you wonder why people around the world don't buy the line that all we want is to spread freedom, prosperity, and democracy wherever we go? Can you actually call a country that espouses this foreign-policy position "civilized"?When it comes to a country that is developing nuclear weapons whose president has denied the holocaust and wants to wipe one of our allies (and possibly us) off the map, then yes, I think keeping the option to use as much force as necessary to prevent them from doing just that is p... When it comes to a country that is developing nuclear weapons whose president has denied the holocaust and wants to wipe one of our allies (and possibly us) off the map, then yes, I think keeping the option to use as much force as necessary to prevent them from doing just that is perfectly reasonable.Nuclear weapons are either: - a last resort..we are all fucked anyway .. kind of weapon, - a deterrent against an invading force or against another nation using similar weapons against them. They are NOT a first strike weapon. If you think the Islamic people are pissed at the US now, Nuke one of their member states ans see how much terror they rain down on us all. What, ... Now that we have decided that it is, or isn't, ok to slaughter children in the name of power, lets all go over to the debate on capital punishment. I can't work out why anyone would be talking about nuclear weapons with anything but fear, considering the lunatics running the country. The attitude from the top seems to be (in all areas of American life) "if he won't do it, get someone who will!" I'd be hiding my bombs from them. Also don't forget that it was Cheney (working for Haliburton) who sold all the nuclear stuff to Iran and wondered what the fuss was about. He thought the people were ok then. |
View the Top Clips from June 11, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||
