Republicans Outraged At Obama's Decision Not To Go To War With Iran; Want To Do It Themselves
116 replies, posted
[quote=CBS News]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" for Iran to become a nuclear power.
Gingrich agreed, saying that if "maximum covert operations" and other strategies failed there would be no other choice. First, though, the United States consider "taking out their scientists," and "breaking up their systems, all of it covertly, all of it deniable," Gingrich said. "If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if you elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon," said Romney.
Ron Paul strongly disagreed with his two rivals, stressing the need to go to Congress before taking 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 ballistic missile warships in the region and assist the opposition movement.
Ben Rhodes, White House deputy national security advisor, responded to the debaters critique of President Obama's handling of the Iran situation. "This president has never hesitated with action," Rhodes told CBS News, adding that problems aren't solves through "rhetoric alone" and all options are open.
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.
Cain, who holds no foreign policy experience, has previously displayed little knowledge of foreign policy issues during the campaign. The debate marked the first test of his ability to articulate his vision on international issues - and the first debate where he would largely be unable to fall back on references to his signature 9-9-9 tax plan.
Cain, along with Michele Bachmann, said he supports the use of waterboarding, which Cain said isn't torture but an "enhanced interrogation technique." Paul disagreed, saying "waterboarding is torture" and "torture is illegal" under both U.S. and international law as well as "immoral." Jon Huntsman sided with Paul, saying waterboarding is torture and the U.S. abdicates its values by engaging in it.[/quote]
[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57323686-503544/romney-gingrich-at-gop-debate-wed-go-to-war-to-keep-iran-from-getting-nuclear-weapons/[/url]
First they're pissed that Obama's ending the Iraq war, and now they want to start another one. Pretty crazy stuff, but not surprising.
I know the best way to end all of our economic problems!
Start another war in the Middle East, this time with an even more connected and powerful enemy, with strong ideological underpinning!
Vote Contag (R) 2012
Not surprising.
There will always be a Republican party as long as there are poor people and brown people to torture.
The same people who bawked about the Libyan intervention being a bad idea? Please, what hypocrisy.
[URL="http://kazooobjectivist.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-to-solve-americas-terrorism-problem.html"]I had no idea the republicans were objectivists[/URL]
If you needed any more proof they were childish and silly.
[quote]Jon Huntsman sided with Paul, saying waterboarding is torture and the U.S. abdicates its values by engaging in it.[/quote]
Huntsman you are a despicable communist spy and will be the first to try the revamped enhanced interrogation methods when I am elected.
What the fuck is this shit.
God dammit Gingrich and Romney.
"We need to cut down our spending, and protect our troops!"
"If Iran even [I]leans[/I] towards nukes we're gonna liberate the shit out of them with everything we have."
I love it when people blatantly contradict themselves.
So since they're doing exactly the opposite of what Obama wants to-do, then why doesn't Obama intentionally try and run the economy into the ground, only to later say: [I]"HAH, I tricked you idiots into doing my plan"[/I]
I mean with all the crazy shit going on, it [B]MIGHT[/B] actually work.
Crazy I know, but in times like these we'd need to think outside the box
[QUOTE=Article:]and the first debate where he would largely be unable to fall back on references to his signature 9-9-9 tax plan.[/QUOTE]
See, that is the only reason Cain is still in the lead. He hasn't said anything, without immediately falling back on his 999 plan.
[quote]all of it covertly, all of it deniable[/quote]
Well now it's not really covert or deniable, is it?
Great job letting the cat out of the bag Gingrich.
[QUOTE=bobsmit;33265671][URL="http://kazooobjectivist.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-to-solve-americas-terrorism-problem.html"]I had no idea the republicans were objectivists[/URL][/QUOTE]
Wow that's a like reading:
Global Nuclear War: A How-To guide for the 21th Century
What the hell kind of a campaign promise is "elect me and I'll get us into another unneccisary war"?
If a NATO country starts a war the other countries aren't obliged to join right? Cause I know if a NATO country is being attacked, the others must join and help.
Just asking because if USA somehow starts being retarded again and declares war on Iran I would be pretty pissed if my country would have to help America in that war.
[QUOTE=ionuttzu;33265791]If a NATO country starts a war the other countries aren't obliged to join right? Cause I know if a NATO country is being attacked, the others must join and help.
Just asking because if USA somehow starts being retarded again and declares war on Iran I would be pretty pissed if my country would have to help America in that war.[/QUOTE]
If it's unilateral then no, they aren't bound to join.
[QUOTE=bobsmit;33265671][URL="http://kazooobjectivist.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-to-solve-americas-terrorism-problem.html"]I had no idea the republicans were objectivists[/URL]
If you needed any more proof they were childish and silly.[/QUOTE]
Holy crap I am literally wanting to punch something from reading that.
[quote]As to innocent non-Americans, such as Iranian children, who would be killed in such a campaign, they are not properly the concern of our government. Nor would their deaths be the fault of our government. [b]Such deaths are always the fault of the force-initiating regime[/b]—and of those who in any way support or enable it—whose actions necessitate such retaliatory measures.[/quote]
Do that, and terrorism will only sky-rocket.
[QUOTE=ionuttzu;33265791]If a NATO country starts a war the other countries aren't obliged to join right? Cause I know if a NATO country is being attacked, the others must join and help.
Just asking because if USA somehow starts being retarded again and declares war on Iran I would be pretty pissed if my country would have to help America in that war.[/QUOTE]
That was the point of NATO though, if someone decides to go to war, they all go to war.
[QUOTE=ionuttzu;33265791]If a NATO country starts a war the other countries aren't obliged to join right? Cause I know if a NATO country is being attacked, the others must join and help.
Just asking because if USA somehow starts being retarded again and declares war on Iran I would be pretty pissed if my country would have to help America in that war.[/QUOTE]
Everyone has the right to refuse entry/intervention, but if the conflict starts with a member being attacked under an Article 5, everyone goes.
[QUOTE=Article]Ron Paul strongly disagreed with his two rivals, stressing the need to go to Congress before taking 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.[/QUOTE]
This is why I would be ok if Ron Paul were President.
[QUOTE=Sixer;33266096]This is why I would be ok if Ron Paul were President.[/QUOTE]
That ignores all his other views about state's right to fuck over their citizens.
[QUOTE=Contag;33266127]That ignores all his other views about state's right to fuck over their citizens.[/QUOTE]
Well, given the other evils....
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;33266160]Well, given the other evils....[/QUOTE]
Jon Huntsman
Hunting our enemies abroad and fiscal issues with reasoned deliberation
[QUOTE=Contag;33266183]Jon Huntsman
Hunting our enemies abroad and fiscal issues with reasoned deliberation[/QUOTE]
He would be my Republican candidate pick. At least then when we get to the general election debates the two of them can have a reasonable discussion.
The Democrats are out of touch and the Republicans are just fucking nutty!
How exactly do they play on funding this war against Iran? They can't. We don't have the money. They're so out of touch with reality. They don't realize that America can't afford another war, the military stretched thin, and most Americans are opposed to war.
[QUOTE]First, though, the United States consider "taking out their scientists," and "breaking up their systems, all of it covertly, all of it deniable," Gingrich said. [/QUOTE]
Sounds like he just got done playing Metal Gear Solid.
[QUOTE=bobsmit;33265671][URL="http://kazooobjectivist.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-to-solve-americas-terrorism-problem.html"]I had no idea the republicans were objectivists[/URL]
If you needed any more proof they were childish and silly.[/QUOTE][release]"From now on, this is how America will respond to any and all threats to [b]her[/b] citizens or allies."[/release]At least now we have proof that America is the worlds biggest whiny bitch. Only second to mother Russia, but i guess she's ok since she's a mother.
[QUOTE=bobsmit;33265671][URL="http://kazooobjectivist.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-to-solve-americas-terrorism-problem.html"]I had no idea the republicans were objectivists[/URL]
If you needed any more proof they were childish and silly.[/QUOTE]
Gotta love the bit thrown in on the side about limited government, when on the same page they're advocating that the US should basically crank it's military complex into overdrive and seize control of THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST.
[QUOTE=cqbcat;33266439]
Sounds like he just got done playing Metal Gear Solid.[/QUOTE]All your Sokolov are belong to me! All our war heroes turned traitors turned heroes are belong to you! All our sanity belong to Europe.
[editline]14th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Echo 199;33266776]Gotta love the bit thrown in on the side about limited government, when on the same page they're advocating that the US should basically crank it's military complex into overdrive and seize control of THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST.[/QUOTE]Reminds me of the german peoples war thirst from 1933-39 yet THEY got tired of it after just 4 years. I guess enjoying all of the murder and hate from a couch 10000 Miles away does something to your perception of war.
[editline]14th November 2011[/editline]
[release]5. Notify the regime in Saudi Arabia that it got lucky and has the option of not being obliterated; that we are prepared instead to seize "its" oil fields and sell them to private industry, in part to pay for the campaign against Iran, and in part to return the fields to private industry where they belong; that it has 24 hours to turn the fields over to our agents; and that if it fails to comply or ignites the fields or does anything to thwart our program, its leaders, like those of Iran, will meet Allah sooner than later.[/release]
International piracy? How about America stops drugging everyones water over there? How the FUCK do such insane people get influence over there without mental help? Your collective sense of judgement as a whole is baffling me.
These candidates are making Ron Paul look like a genius.
[editline]13th November 2011[/editline]
Just wanted to clarify that I know Ron Paul has plenty of terrible ideas, and I would never vote for him, but in COMPARISON to the mainstream GOP candidates, he does look good.
[QUOTE=bobsmit;33265671][URL="http://kazooobjectivist.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-to-solve-americas-terrorism-problem.html"]I had no idea the republicans were objectivists[/URL]
If you needed any more proof they were childish and silly.[/QUOTE]
The writer of that isn't serious is he?
Please tell me he's joking.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33266227]He would be my Republican candidate pick. At least then when we get to the general election debates the two of them can have a reasonable discussion.[/QUOTE]
Ron Paul would only splinter the Democrat's voter base.
I think Rick Perry is so generically Republican that he'll be a great candidate for Obama to win against.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.