Posted on 06/06/2007 5:02:20 AM PDT by ovrtaxt
Republican candidates for U.S. president agreed on Tuesday that Iran must not develop atomic weapons even if a tactical nuclear strike is needed to stop it and accused Democrats of being soft on the issue.
The front-runners for the Republican Party nomination in the November 2008 election also squabbled among themselves over a broad immigration overhaul being debated by the U.S. Congress.
The gentlemanly debate featured small policy differences on a host of issues, and even electrical glitches caused by lightning, but no big gaffes or disputes that could immediately change the political dynamic in the closely fought Republican battle.
In a debate in New Hampshire where the country's first primary will be held next year, they were largely in agreement on an issue that President George W. Bush considers vital - preventing Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.
Iran insists its nuclear program is for civilian use only, but the West is deeply skeptical and is trying to resolve the problem through diplomacy.
"You shouldn't take any options off the table," said the leader in the Republican pack, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, when asked whether a tactical nuclear strike might be necessary.
Democratic candidates had their own debate in New Hampshire on Sunday and largely agreed the United States should open direct diplomatic talks with Iran on the nuclear issue. Giuliani said it sounded to him like "Democrats were back in the 1990s."
A second-tier candidate, 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."
© Reuters 2007.
His ignorance of the goals of radical Islam is appalling.
This isn't 'pre-emptive' in the sense that Augustine speaks of an unjust war. It's a pre-emptive strike to head of the ESCALATION OF A WAR THAT'S ALREADY UNDERWAY.
There's absolutely nothing unjust about self defense.
Security first! I like this man very much.
There is only one presidential candidate that strikes FEAR in the terrorsts, Dumocrats and assorted media miscreants.
If we don’t...it’ll be another Iraq all over again. Same old yapping mouths in DC and nothing will be accomplished except American lives being silenced. Either do the job and get out or don’t do it at all. We all know it is not being fought the way it should. Go all out to win. That’s how it is resolved.
I love Duncan Hunter and Tom Tecredo and Fred Thompson. We have 3 solid conservative candidates here.
If you're saying that Iran is waging a proxy war against us in Iraq, then you have a good point. I tend to agree, especially since Iran is led by a lunatic.
Or, it’s a war against the West that was first engaged in 1979.
There will be a lot of world and other opinion against a pre-emptive strike on Iran by the USA. Most of this concern is based on European pocketbooks since Iran supplies 40% of their oil. Our own lefty jerks will immediately blame the conservatives for any petroleum price increases.
Duncan Hunter for President in 2008. Why? He can scare our enemies at home and abroad. The name says it all.
I disagree this war has been going on since 1786, we just generally didn’t want anything from the middle east because they had nothing we want until we needed their oil.
In 1784 jihadists began attacking and pirating merchant ships in the mediterranean, their ambassador had a simple message
“That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
Our first foreign war was against the Jihadists.
We could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble - and about 20 million deaths - with a pre-emptive strike against Hitler.
If we can get Duncan Hunter elected as President in 2008, I’d predict that Iran would be ready to stop their nuclear ambitions about as quick as they gave back our hostages after Reagan took office in 1980.
I hope Bush beats him to the punch, frankly.
If we were to pre-emptively nuke another country, the world’s reaction would be devastating to the US and its interests abroad.
“If we were to pre-emptively nuke another country, the world’s reaction would be devastating to the US and its interests abroad.”
AND it would blow over and be forgotten in less than two years. Public and world opinion have very short memories.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.