[Irontank]

Four of the 10 candidates appearing at a debate Tuesday night in Manchester, N.H., were asked whether they would use tactical nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike. All four – Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore – said they would.

Preemptive war using nuclear weapons?...cripes...these guys sound like Dr. Strangelove

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

why can’t the next debate have the question, “how many MOAB’s would you drop?” That’d be fun?

[RightWhale]

What are pres candidates supposed to say? ‘We have nukes but we won’t use them, so we might as well get rid of the nukes and let any tinhorn dictator take over American interests anywhere.”

[Harry Pothead]

I think Fred is the man, but if Guliani could drop his anti gun stance, I would like him. He has balls.

[yobid]

With the conventional weaponry we have, why would we use nukes?

Save the nukes for when one goes off here. Then flatten the whole region. And let the mullas know up front what’s coming instead of pussyfooting around.

[Badeye]

Another ridiculous question by Wolfie....(eyes rolling)

[jude24]

I hate to say this, but Ron Paul is the guy who is most right on this. The idea that we would initiate a first-strike on Iran is ridiculous. It's a repudiation of almost 50 years of American policy - that we would never, ever be the first to take a conflict nuclear.

What the heck happened to the Republican party?

[OB1kNOb]

"....California Rep. Duncan Hunter, was more direct, saying the United States reserved the right to dissuade Iran militarily.

"I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges," he said, while noting it could probably be done with conventional weapons.

But Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a candidate drawing about 2 percent in opinion polls, opposed a nuclear strike on moral grounds and because he believed Iran was no threat to U.S. national security.

"We, in the past, have always declared war in defense of our liberties or go to aid somebody," Paul said. "But now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war. We have rejected the just war theory of Christianity."

excerpt from a different article

[The Louiswu]

pure BS

[Son House]

Republican presidential candidates would not rule out tactical nuclear strikes to stop Iran

Iran is going to work extra hard helping Democrat presidential candidates get elected.

[yuta250]

Using tactical nukes pre-emptively when we are under no direct threat is not only immoral but outright insane. It would not only alienate us completely from all of our allies, but provide the ultimate fuel for future blowback, and at best would only set the Iranian nuke program back 2 years. Stupid idea not even worth considering.

[hunter112]

"You withdraw to the borders and watch genocide take place inside Baghdad," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)

OK, ragheads killing ragheads, instead of Americans. No problem.

"You watch the destabilization of Jordan."

Again, another raghead islammunist regime getting what it should have gotten the last Crusade.

" You see further jeopardy of Israel because of the threats of Hezbollah and Iranian hegemony in the region."

OK, maybe Israel elects leadership to deal with this, and wipes all the palis out of Gaza and the West Bank.

It's not a matter of if this happens, it's just a matter of when.

[pacelvi]