Posted on 11/12/2011 6:26:53 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
SPARTANBURG, S.C. -- Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich said at the Republican presidential debate here Saturday night that they would be willing to go to war to keep Iran from attaining nuclear weapons if all other strategies failed.
Romney said that if "crippling sanctions" and other strategies fail, military action would be on the table because it is "unacceptable" to Iran to become a nuclear power. Gingrich agreed, saying that if "maximum covert operations" and other strategies failed there would be no other choice.
Ron Paul strongly disagreed, stressing the need to go to Congress before military action and saying it isn't worthwhile to use military force against Iran.
"I'm afraid what's going on right now is similar to the war propaganda that went on against Iraq," he said.
Herman Cain also opposed military action against Iran, saying the U.S. should increase sanctions, deploy ballistics missiles warships in the region and assist the opposition movement.
The "Commander-in-Chief Debate," sponsored by CBS News and National Journal, was the first of the 2012 presidential cycle to focus on foreign policy - and the first to appear on network television. For Cain, the stakes were particularly high.
Cain holds a narrow lead among GOP primary voters in the CBS News poll released Friday, with 18 percent of the vote, but he has seen his support weaken in the wake of revelations that he has been accused of sexual misconduct by four women....
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Their nukes are a deterrent against Russia, China, India. iran’s is a instant weapon against anyone they don’t like. Specifically, Israel.
You do not understand the popularity of jihadists in Pakistan. If they gain power, those nukes will be attempted on any non-islamic country.
Pakistan is not that far from Israel. A medium size turboprop can fly from Pakistan to Israel.
I think we need to listen to that part of the debate again.
I was on a conference call simultaneously with the debate (trying to listen to both), but didn’t Cain describe steps he would take to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon included:
Assisting with the opposition in Iran
Sanctions
USA energy independence
AEGIS warships in the Gulf
And when he answered about War, didn’t he mean War was simply not his first choice — not that it was never an option?
I didn’t get the impression that he was implying that War was never going to be an option. I got the impression he was outlining ever-increasing steps to take, if necessary... with the natural conclusion (based on war ships in the Gulf) that the next step, if all of that failed, would “obviously” be War.
Just not his first choice.
What did everyone else hear?
You are more knowledgeable about Pakistan than probably any one on FR. Thanks for your posts.
Haven’t seen anything yet at FR about the major explosion outside Tehran. Apparently something like 18 killed and the same wounded. The official Iranian position statement is that it was an accident while they were moving ammunition from one place to another. Any more info? Moving is a great opportunity for attack or sabotague (sp?). It was a Republican Guard installation, NutJobs guys. Such a shame. ;-(
No need to go to war... only need to take their ability to complete their mission out. Why go to war when we easily have the ability to do that?
If Newt refuses to take military action off the table, then good for him.
Any candidate who said military action is unacceptable has already told Tehran what they intend to do. Bad on them. That’s no different than telling the Taliban that the US is leaving on a date certain.
Absolutely!
How would you do it without going to war?
Not certain but think something came up yesterday on screen. Seem to remember in the past eighteen months (could be wrong) three or more explosions at munition locations in iran. The republican guard, inside iran, could be and probably are full of saboteurs. Saboteurs eat iran for breakfast, lunch and dinner. After the light of day is gone, saboteurs eat away at mullahs. Saboteurs, in iran, are like termites. They never sleep, and eat 24/7. In this case, go termites.
This shows me that you have no clear understanding of international relations.
1. So before they get the bomb, you treat them poorly,
2. so they continue to advance their plans, then AFTER they get the bomb, you back off like an overmatched bully,
3. which of course proves their point in the first place.
Sheesh! It's no wonder our current foreign policy is failing. There is somebody in the State Department who thinks exactly as you do.
We all know that. And any one with a sense of reality understands that Soviet backpack nukes are probably still here, in various states of repair - who knows if the FSB maintains them. Probably do.
And we got the same there, undoubtedly.
And Iran is no different. They want to build the Islamobomb (oops, guess Pakistan already did that)? Then what? Use it?
Right after that, Teheran becomes a radioactive desert.
Might be helpful, but...even the nutcases get that.
As for bounty on illegals as opposed to war against Mexico: it will never happen. We have seen enforcement reduced to a joke as the mere existence of such laws is pilloried as "racist". The very notion of borders is now seen as racially discriminatory. Under this idea, it now means that defending the United States against invasion is seen as racial discrimination.
The Mexican uberclass understands this weakness and is ruthlessly exploiting it.
So the time for laws and other feeble measures is over. It went too far. When you and I were kids, would you ever have imagined that a terrorist like Villaraigosa could end up Mayor of Los Angeles? That a federal judge would nullify the votes of 6 million (187)? That California - still 80% non-hispanic white in 1970 - will end up being ethnically Mexican in 2030? That Spanish would be dominant with English, where in 1970 it was nothing but a momentary memory from 1840?
No. Sorry. They had no right to invade and occupy the Hope of the World, the United States, and loot it for themselves, and exert political power over us - so that they could acquire weapons far more powerful then they could ever build themselves.
The whole world is watching - will the U.S. let itself be humiliated by a bunch of vile thugs who massacre even their own people?
No other "nation" ever let such a thing happen without violent resistance. Mexico is horror show that needs to have a wall around it. But first you gotta kill the animals there who can get over the wall. That's what U.S. military might is for - we did it in 1846 the first time (thank god for Polk), we can do it again.
As for the 5th column invaders here now? When we invade their real homeland they will show their true colors and try to stop it. That will be Treason and they should then be held to account and deported en masse.
None of this is "inhuman" or "racist" or whatever the Left will call it. It will be a gift to Humanity - a major virus in the body politic will be removed, and the health of that body will return.
There is no history of civil democracy, justice before the law, real private property, earnest inquiry or technical industry in all of their history: just disgusting indifference to any norms of behavior, corruption beyond belief (Bell, CA is just the beginning for us), grotesque thuggery in public and private behavior (a culture that worships gangs?!), and social disaster everywhere. If the U.S. didn't exist to protect them the Chinese, Japanese, French, British or Russians would have wiped them out long ago and occupied the territory.
Time to rectify that mistake. Call in the airstrikes now on the Zeta controlled areas of Chihuahua, fortify the entire border with 30 divisions of U.S. Army and Marines, shoot down any Mexican "air force" aircraft attempting to cross (they have been delivering drugs for 40 years now that way, I heard about it as a teenager in Arizona), and then....invade. Destroy the criminal enterprise that is the Mexican government. Set up an occupation government of non-hispanics, to emphasize the point: Spaniard culture and tradition is the root cause.
I look forward to videos of U.S. F-16s and A-10s doing low level runs against the "cartels" in Sinaloa and Sonora. Didn't we just do that against a thug in Libya? He was no real threat to us anymore. There is a far greater case against Mexico and its murderocracy.
So let's just do it, and Save America.
That is your statement. Why do you want to put words in my mouth? Nobody said anything about treating them poorly but you.
2. so they continue to advance their plans, then AFTER they get the bomb, you back off like an overmatched bully,
The whole ideas is to try to dissuade them from acquiring the bomb. If they get the bomb then they become much more intimidating to their non nuclear neighbors and that has to be taken into account. One nuke is not going to knock out a major power but you have to be concerned that it might set off a retaliation and a possible nuclear war. And no reasonable person wants that.
3. which of course proves their point in the first place.
It's true, everyone understands the concept of being a nuclear power. the problem is that some countries may not be stable enough to handle the responsibility that comes from being a nuclear power. A country that honors suicide bombers might be a good example.
Sheesh! It's no wonder our current foreign policy is failing. There is somebody in the State Department who thinks exactly as you do.
And how would you approach the problem of nuclear proliferation?
Probably by doing the exact opposite of what has been done for the past five or six decades.
Seems that nearly anyone who wants one already has it or can get it.
Way past time to "rethink" the whole "U.N." thing. The failed policies of the past don't necessarily have to be continued.
What I remember hearing is the moderator asking slightly different questions of the candidates. Herman Cain was asked about Iran getting nukes and not specifically about going to war. The later questions to Romney and Gingrich were more specifically about going to war. The responses to these kinds of questions can be spun by the MSM just like we are witnessing this morning.
For what it's worth, I believe, from what I have observed about these candidates during this and other debates, that none would rush into war or military action, but that they would never take if off the table.
This video clip only shows part of Cain's response to the question, but he does say, regarding military action:
“Not at this time.”
That means military action is on the table, if and when the non-military action fails. He just didn't say it explicitly, like Romney and Gingrich did. It's unfortunate that he didn't say it EXPLICITLY, but that's one of Cain's vulnerabilities: He answers the question that is asked at the time, he doesn't think like a politician and try to figure out all the ways his answer might be spun, and how he should answer questions that aren't even asked, during the rest of his 60 second time limit.
Politicians give their list of talking points during their 60 seconds, and MAYBE answer the question that was asked.
You see that huh? With those two I see 1996 Dole/Kemp all over again. A complete turn off of the Conservative base. Why? Mitt on his liberal record and Newt for his lack of a solid conservative one as in walking the walk not just talking the talk. Newt talks conservative but Newt likes too talk and loves publicity it brings him. Conservatives who were over 40 or so at the time Newt took all his marbles and went home will remember that. A Romney/Newt or a Newt/Romney ticket = an Obama re-election. I hink some in the GOP liberal side like Romney followers would be happy either way.
So will either of these guys go to war against Mexico, an enemy nation that is trying - succeeding - to invade and colonize the United States? That's a real threat, not a fake one.
No, neither of them would.
SO are you supporting Bachmann or are you sitting on the sidelines whining that no candidate supports reducing legal and illegal immigration?
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.