GOP candidates hammer Obama on his Iran policy during South Carolina debate

[alp227]

Source: Wash. Post

With the International Atomic Energy Agency warning in a new report that Iran may be proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon, the leading Republican candidates for president accused President Obama of not being forceful enough to prevent that from happening.

At the first GOP debate that focused on foreign policy, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former House speaker Newt Gingrich indicated that if either of them were commander in chief, they would be willing to use military force against Iran, if tightened economic sanctions and support for the Iranian opposition did not work to deter nuclear weapons development in the country.

“If all else fails, if after all of the work we’ve done, there’s nothing else we could do besides take military action. Then of course you take military action,” Romney said.

Gingrich agreed: “If in the end, despite all of those things, the dictatorship persists, you have to take whatever steps are necessary to break its capacity to have a nuclear weapon.”

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-policy-debate-brings-gop-candidates-to-south-carolina/2011/11/12/gIQALIEEGN_singlePage.html

[demosincebirth]

1. Okay then, start another fucking war. Is that what you want, Gingrich?

[Angry Dragon]

2. I take a different stance

If I was Iran I would tell the world that I have has much right to have nuclear weapons as any other nation.
I would tell the world that the US has shown no restraint in attacking peoples around the world just because they think they are terrorists and I have the right to protect my people.

[Chipper Chat]

3. I'm pretty sure Armadinijad (sp?) said all that in his UN speech.

But he is such a slimeball nobody here was listening.

[truthisfreedom]

4. Who gives a flying fuck about rethugs or what they think?

[cpwm17]

5. Iran and the sane people of the US should care what these morons think

One of these lunatics could become President, and they're threatening unprovoked war on Iran. That would be a disaster for the US and a huge tragedy for Iran.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

7. Debating someone who is not present? LOL!

[Doc_Technical]

8. I'm a little confused by this mindset.

The pro Second Amendment folks say that the issue
is not that a person owns a weapon,
the issue is whether he/she (It's almost always he but that's
another issue) actually uses said weapon irresponsibly.

I would think the same opinion would apply to countries.

For Iran to use a nuclear weapon would be a suicidal act.
If they used a missile, that missile would be easily traced back
to its launch point.
If they used other means to deliver this warhead, there are ways
to trace the origin of the materials used in this device.

It's ludicrous to consider a piss ant backwater like Iran as
a threat to the rest of the world.
Those creeps running Iran may be crazy, but they aren't stupid.

[Amonester]

9. Yeah, but the point is, they don't have a "warhead" to deliver.

And to have a "warhead" that would be functional to begin with is a very difficult task. This non-existent "warhead" would have to be maintained once they would have it, and to do this, they would need some technical infrastructure they don't have.

Plus, if they would ever produce such "warhead" they would at least need to test it (just to "see" if it's functional), and if one is ever tested, the shockwaves would be picked-up by all the sismographs actually in Iraq and Afghanistan. Otherwise, making an untested "warhead" and setting it on top of a missile doesn't mean squat. It could very well go just "Pffft" and nothing more.

This whole masquarade reminds me of all the lies about Iraq's non-existent WMDs... All those reports from "agencies" to the U.N. are the same PNAC BS.

[chelsea0011]

10. I didn't watch the debate, but did of them explain how they would stop

Iran from getting a bomb? Because the President has shown he is very willing to send troops and missiles into other nations. Do any of these republicant clowns think Obama would not support and Israeli strike in Iran isn't paying attention. I did see Mitt say that Iran would not get a bomb on his watch. Did anyone ask him how. Mitt couldn't even keep the ceiling up on the big dig tunnel when a piece came crashing down on some motorists because cutting corners and saving money was in the states' interests.

[Iliyah]

11. Iran already has

nukes thanks to the Koch Brothers.

[Harmony Blue]

12. Koch brothers are predatory Capitalists

they sell integral parts to Iran for nuclear power, that way the MIC can start up the war drums and watch the money flow in with such a confrontation.

[GoCubsGo]

13. If they don't like what the President is doing....

He must be doing the right thing. And, AFAIC, if these assholes are so hell-bent on military action, they should be in the front lines, along with their children, grandchildren, their siblings, their spouses, their nieces and nephews...

[windowpilot]

14. There it is

Romney/Gingrich ticket, PNACers couldn't be more prouder.

[DreamSmoker]

15. This is pure Bullspin

Think about it..
We are closing in Afghanistan after a war in Iraq...
I am very sure the president is up to date on what is going on with Israel and Iran..
I know Israel is on this like Flies on Garbage..

Fact is the U.S and England are with Israel if things hit the Fan in Iran...

So bottom line is the Repukes are out to lunch on this one..