PDA

View Full Version : Which Republican candidates favour an attack on Iran ?



PeterSibley
11-21-2011, 02:30 AM
We see a few short clips of the various Republican candidates but seldom see much on their various policies. The Republican attitude to Iran is something I haven't heard much about. Could someone fill in the details ?

Are they proposing war, dialogue or nothing at all ?

purri
11-21-2011, 04:59 AM
War through intermediaries no doubt.

ramillett
11-21-2011, 05:05 AM
Best if they take care of their own problems .

LeeG
11-21-2011, 07:01 AM
google away,,Ron Paul seems pretty reality based about it, don't know about Huntsman, just guessing the rest of them like talking about getting tough, saving Israel and asserting military options. google foo time.
Ok, looks like the majority have an American solution, for intractable problems threaten with military power. Can't think of a better way to quicken economic decline.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-presidential-field-split-nuclear-iran-troop-withdrawal/story?id=14959287#1


Gingrich: At the CBS/National Journal debate Newt Gingrich said the United States should assassinate Iran's nuclear scientists, "all of it covertly, all of it deniable. " He also said he supports using "every possible aspect short of war of breaking the regime and bringing it down," adding "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."

Cain: While Herman Cain said at Saturday's debate that he "would not entertain military opposition" to prevent Iran from become a nuclear-capable nation, the former Godfather's CEO said in October that he would upgrade America's missile-defense system, load those missile defenses on naval ships, strategically position the ships and then tell Iranian President Ahmadinejad to "make my day."

Perry: In an interview with ABC's Christiane Amanpour in early November, Rick Perry said Obama missed an opportunity to overthrow the Iranian regime because he did not provide enough aid to the protestors. Perry said he would use "diplomatic and economic and overt, covert or even civic opportunities to overthrow this oppressive regime." As for possible military strikes on Iran, Perry told CNN that if Israel used force, "We will support Israel in every way that we can, whether it's diplomatic, whether it's economic sanctions, whether it's overt or covert operations - up to and including military action."

Paul: Ron Paul's approach to dealing with Iran is almost a polar opposite to the other candidates. In an interview with Fox News Sunday in early November, Paul said the U.S. should not put sanctions on Iran and instead seek to exert influence over the regime by "offering friendship to them." "For them to be a threat to us or anybody in the region, I think is just blown out of proportion," Paul said. "People are just anxious to use violence against Iranians. I think it would undermine our security and would be very destructive to Israel because it would just blow that place up."

Bachmann: In an interview with ABC News exactly one year before election day, Michele Bachmann said President Obama has "taken his eye off the ball" when it comes to Iran's nuclear aspirations. She said that as president, she would use "every military option" to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities. "I also will put every military option we have on the table to deal with an Iran that seeks a nuclear weapon," she said.

Huntsman: While Jon Huntsman has been rather dove-ish when it comes to the war in Afghanistan, he has taken a hard line against Iran. "I cannot live with a nuclear-armed Iran. If you want an example of when I would use American force, it would be that," he said in his October foreign policy speech.

Santorum: This week Rick Santorum became the only candidate to release a comprehensive "plan to stop Iranian nuclear aggression," which states that America should label Iranian nuclear scientists "enemy combatant[s]," freeze Iranian officials' bank accounts and revoke their visas, sanction Iran's central bank, and open domestic energy production with the goal of "effectively devastating Iran's only economy." Santorum said he would call for a "preemptive strike" if it is proven that Iran is building nuclear weapons.

PeterSibley
11-21-2011, 07:05 AM
Google is fine but doesn't give a feel for what's going on .It will link a story but I don't know how much weight to give it .

skuthorp
11-21-2011, 07:17 AM
This is what I fear about or latest sycophantic announcement re marines in Darwin and increased 'cooperation' with the US military. Presently the Republicans are a fair bet to go to war in Iran if Obama looses. Some say when he looses and that's the rub. As a result of Julia's brownnosing in that case our military will be in the thick of it, again. I don't know which military as most of our useful offensive forces are already occupied in Afghanistan.

LeeG
11-21-2011, 07:27 AM
Peter, I don't know what kind of feel you're speaking of. My feel is that Iran as a country of 75million doesn't exist but as a talking point to some. Gingrich had a significant role elevating Ahmed Chalabi because it was a lever to use against Clinton but he also believes in remaking the middle east through military power. He's neocon friendly. He's kind of like a Dick Cheney but more of a f*ckup.

Cain is an absolute idiot if he thinks ABM is a rational tool, but Obama is deploying it around Iran anyway so the MIC wins there.

All Perry needs is a flight suit.

Paul sounds dreamy eyed but the consequences of his actions appear more beneficial to the US and region in the long run but it does't involve waving a big dick so it won't fly.

Bachmann, Huntsman are offering more boilerplate.

Santorum is , oh never mind.

RonW
11-21-2011, 08:29 AM
It would appear that the answer to the question is all but Ron Paul..

Mrleft8
11-21-2011, 08:44 AM
The tea party fringe lunatics like to hear things like "We gunna whupp they butts before they kill our buddies in Izreel!" "Kill the rag heads!" "We otter bomb 'em back into the stone age afore they come to kill us here in Lonely Mills, Mississippi!".
So that's what the lunatic fringe candidates are saying. Unfortunately, it looks like all the republican candidates (With the possible exception of Ron Paul) are lunatic fringe.

S.V. Airlie
11-21-2011, 09:00 AM
Perhaps something interesting here for you to chew on..From President Obama and the issue of Iran. in the Wall Street Journal. I'll let others comment...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203611404577044123819688612.html?m od=googlenews_wsj
*

Mrleft8
11-21-2011, 09:16 AM
Perhaps something interesting here for you to chew on..From President Obama and the issue of Iran. in the Wall Street Journal. I'll let others comment...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203611404577044123819688612.html?m od=googlenews_wsj
*
Yeah........ And?......
What does that article have to do with republican candidates' position on attacking Iran?

John Smith
11-21-2011, 09:19 AM
Yeah........ And?......
What does that article have to do with republican candidates' position on attacking Iran?

Once he takes a stand, they'll take the opposite.

Mrleft8
11-21-2011, 09:31 AM
Once he takes a stand, they'll take the opposite.
Ah.... Of course!
And the fact that the author of that article is a partner of Capitol Media Partners, an ex G, W. Bush director of communications, and ex-VP of Davita, shows great impartiality.... Which is why his article appeared in.......

S.V. Airlie
11-21-2011, 10:07 AM
Nothing except giving another opinion/position. Tired of just seeing everyone post threads about republicans day in and day out. I figured the insight and comparisons from our current admin. might be a change.Equal time..

LeeG
11-21-2011, 10:07 AM
I agree jamie, let's talk about pizza

S.V. Airlie
11-21-2011, 10:12 AM
Dem pizza or the republican variety?

BrianW
11-21-2011, 10:20 AM
Yeah........ And?......
What does that article have to do with republican candidates' position on attacking Iran?

Yes Jamie. This thread is strictly for attacking Republicans, no matter their stance.

As you can see, their stances vary widely, but they are all wrong.

S.V. Airlie
11-21-2011, 10:30 AM
If the OP had made this more generic, as in all candidates should be mentioned and what do you think of all of their stances on Iran,I'd be happier. As it is posted, it only refers to republicans. I think that is the wrong approach. Now if you don't want to say President Obama is not a candidate for a second term, then you can leave any mentions of his current policy out, but you don't. I'm not sure if it is an attack, more like half the story with one half not even being mentioned.Many here scream about the lack of a level playing field, and yet are more than happy to ovoid the admin's. position on Iran.

Gerarddm
11-21-2011, 10:45 AM
While the Admin has uttered the usual boilerplate about 'leaving no options off the table', I can't think of prominent Democrats ( plural ) who have an opinion base who advocate any kind of a war, pre-emptive or not, against Iran. What I do think is Obama have proven himself to be a fairly smart cookie and thoughtful when it comes to international affairs, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if, in fact, he does basically what Newt endorses: a covert, non military series of soft actions that add up to what Winfield Scott might term an Anaconda Plan. Stuxnet redux, redux, and redux...

Meanwhile, aside from Ron Paul, the Republican presidential candidates are full of faux Tom Clancy chest-thumping. And who can forget McCain's little ditty years ago about "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"? ( the tune of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann ).

Republicans never met a war they didn't like ( well, except for the run up to WWII).

Mrleft8
11-21-2011, 10:47 AM
Yes Jamie. This thread is strictly for attacking Republicans, no matter their stance.

As you can see, their stances vary widely, but they are all wrong.It wasn't an attack. It was a question.

S.V. Airlie
11-21-2011, 10:47 AM
Based on the article from the WSJ, he misread the Russians and the Chinese.Yup a biased one Doug...If you want everyone to play on a level playing field, no candidate should be left out of the mix on this issue.

Mrleft8
11-21-2011, 10:49 AM
If the OP had made this more generic, as in all candidates should be mentioned and what do you think of all of their stances on Iran,I'd be happier. As it is posted, it only refers to republicans. I think that is the wrong approach. Now if you don't want to say President Obama is not a candidate for a second term, then you can leave any mentions of his current policy out, but you don't. I'm not sure if it is an attack, more like half the story with one half not even being mentioned.Many here scream about the lack of a level playing field, and yet are more than happy to ovoid the admin's. position on Iran.
There's only one (currently) democratic candidate for President. His position has been stated. The question was: what are the republican candidates' positions.
If you don't like the way the OP couched the question, then by all means, post your own question.

S.V. Airlie
11-21-2011, 10:51 AM
And his policy really doesn't seem to be working. Best to ignore it. Go, go go, President Obama. Never fear, the far left loves you.

Mrleft8
11-21-2011, 10:53 AM
And his policy really doesn't seem to be working. Best to ignore it. Go, go go, President Obama. Never fear, the far left loves you.
What's his policy?

S.V. Airlie
11-21-2011, 10:56 AM
Diplomacy supposedly. Too bad he is having trouble with the Russians and the Chinese. Did not read them well

Mrleft8
11-21-2011, 10:57 AM
Diplomacy.....
Imagine that.... What is diplomacy Jamie?

S.V. Airlie
11-21-2011, 10:59 AM
It's the tactic he is attempting to use..Surprise! It is working well is it?I assume spelling my name correctly says a lot.:)

Mrleft8
11-21-2011, 11:00 AM
Is it not working well? How many atomic bombs has Iran dropped on Israel lately?

S.V. Airlie
11-21-2011, 11:01 AM
The op is about Iran....Not Israel...

Mrleft8
11-21-2011, 11:02 AM
I didn't think you knew what Obama's position on Iran was. You just parrot what the talking heads on FOX tell you.
Do you know what Rick Perry's position on Iran is? How about Romney? Cain? Santorum?

S.V. Airlie
11-21-2011, 11:04 AM
I posted it as a link. What's the matter, can't open it? More likely it's worth an ignore, Doug. Something you wouldn't want to consider or accept. Not my problem, it's yours...*

BrianW
11-21-2011, 11:12 AM
Is it not working well? How many atomic bombs has Iran dropped on Israel lately?

Hardly a good measure. Only one country has ever dropped an atomic bomb. ;)

BrianW
11-21-2011, 11:13 AM
It wasn't an attack. It was a question.

True, but as a set up, it's hard to resist for some. ;)

S.V. Airlie
11-21-2011, 11:14 AM
Well, as far as dropping a bomb on another country, I would agree with that statement. Testing usually below ground, well.

Cuyahoga Chuck
11-21-2011, 11:26 AM
We see a few short clips of the various Republican candidates but seldom see much on their various policies. The Republican attitude to Iran is something I haven't heard much about. Could someone fill in the details ?

Are they proposing war, dialogue or nothing at all ?

One thing you should know is none of the Republican hopefulls are close enough to the presidency to have gained the right to be recipients of highly secret national intelligence. What they say now and what they would say once they knew all the very secret stuff might be miles apart.

S.V. Airlie
11-21-2011, 11:31 AM
So much for admin transparency Chuck. I agree with some aspect of secracy, but he pas put his ideas and his policy out on the internet. So, I have to use what he said and wrote. Can't do any more than that. His policy is or appears to be catering to Iran. They rattle his chains, everone reacts, he gets the publicity and in the case of Russian and Chinese involvement, he has egg on his face. Read the dam'd article about how effective his approach to Iran has fared nationally and inter-nationally?

BrianW
11-21-2011, 11:55 AM
One thing you should know is none of the Republican hopefulls are close enough to the presidency to have gained the right to be recipients of highly secret national intelligence. What they say now and what they would say once they knew all the very secret stuff might be miles apart.

That might explain why Obama has left so many previous policies, policies he promised to change, to continue.

S.V. Airlie
11-21-2011, 12:15 PM
Bascally candidates shouldn't make promises they can't keep Norman to begin with. I agree with that.

Y Bar Ranch
11-21-2011, 12:17 PM
That might explain why Obama has left so many previous policies, policies he promised to change, to continue.
Or he may have just been lying to his constituencies all along.

S.V. Airlie
11-21-2011, 12:26 PM
Or he may have just been lying to his constituencies all along.I disagree about lying. I thnk it is more that he really doesn't have the nec. info. He should however realize that as most pols should not be thought of as lying..On the other hand, when two parties nominated, those to have more info than they had before being generic candidates. Bottom line, people want things to improve. They are looking for a ladder to climb and will grasp anything available. Lying is a bit extreme. Most have very good intentions of following through on promises and find out they really can't.. Yes, some pols do lie outright.

Example: I sese that Obama really did want to close say Gitmo.He found out that really he couldn't. I can understand that and I don't blame him for the promise he made. If anything, I blame him for thinking that he could close Gitmo..

.

Y Bar Ranch
11-21-2011, 12:35 PM
Example: I sese that Obama really did want to close say Gitmo.He found out that really he couldn't. I can understand that and I don't blame him for the promise he made. If anything, I blame him for thinking that he could close Gitmo...
As a US Senator he had access to more information than people give him credit for. A lot more than the current Repub. candidates.

Cuyahoga Chuck
11-21-2011, 12:43 PM
That might explain why Obama has left so many previous policies, policies he promised to change, to continue.

Could be, but the author of this thread doesn't seem worried about what Obama might do or has done. If he was Obama's name would appear on the tag line.
Rozimis'?

S.V. Airlie
11-21-2011, 12:44 PM
The entire OP should have been a generic question. Face it and accept it.

genglandoh
11-21-2011, 12:51 PM
I think Iran will do something stupid in the next 12 months and the US will attach with air power.

See the thread for my reasons.

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?138724-Do-you-think-the-US-will-attack-Iran&highlight=

Cuyahoga Chuck
11-21-2011, 12:52 PM
As a US Senator he had access to more information than people give him credit for. A lot more than the current Repub. candidates.

That's what you folks on the Right want, isn't it? A candidate who is so far from the action he doesn't know anything but what gets him applause at a debate.

Cuyahoga Chuck
11-21-2011, 12:56 PM
I think Iran will do something stupid in the next 12 months and the US will attach with air power.

See the thread for my reasons.

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?138724-Do-you-think-the-US-will-attack-Iran&highlight=

That thread was a month ago and you are still worrying about it? Must make for alot of sleepless nights.

S.V. Airlie
11-21-2011, 12:58 PM
A debate from those who suck up to him..I'd agree with that. My feeling, is that Iran will step over it's bounds in some way and diplomacy as a policy fro the Obama admin is worth shyte. It's not working now apparently. Why would it work in a year? As far as I'm concerned, Iran and ist's gov. is throwing out darts and seeing what happens and Obama and everyone else is taking the bait. I mean really, what does it cost for Iran to rattle chains?A political plus but other than that what?

Y Bar Ranch
11-21-2011, 01:17 PM
That's what you folks on the Right want, isn't it? A candidate who is so far from the action he doesn't know anything but what gets him applause at a debate.
See my other thread. I want Hillary and Newt to run against each other.

PeterSibley
11-21-2011, 03:57 PM
True, but as a set up, it's hard to resist for some. ;)

Actually it was a sincere question,we have a pretty reasonable idea of President Obama's processes .As Jamie said diplomacy is the current project.What we in Australia do not see is much about the various Rep candidates . We saw a 30 second clip of their debate but absolutely no detail .... thus the question. I would have used Google but really don't know the sympathies of the various sites and how objectively they will present the various policy proposals .

Lee, thanks for the precis. It seems Ron Paul is the most acceptable to those who don't want a general ME war .

S.V. Airlie
11-21-2011, 04:09 PM
Thanks as an OZ or a Ossie for that comment. I may not agree with Obamas approach to Iran, but I also think it should be discussed. Here on the forum, discussion doesn't work. I can't say that any republican is right. Nor can I say Obama's policy is right either. His has been in effect for a while though and I have to think diplomacy hasn't worked. Nor do I think an all out bombing will either. These two have to meld together to get any positive stance and as it stands, that won't happen.

SamSam
11-21-2011, 04:21 PM
From The New American
Except for dissent from Representative Ron Paul of Texas and (to a lesser extent) former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, the Republican presidential candidates blazed their way in a November 12 debate toward foreign policies where the United States would engage in two new Middle Eastern wars against Syria and Iran, re-institute the Bush Administration torture policy, abolish trials for terror suspects, and allow unlimited presidential assassinations.http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/9762-gop-debate-ron-paul-dissents-from-war-on-iran-and-syria-assassination-torture

S.V. Airlie
11-21-2011, 04:25 PM
Why reinstitute torture when it more than likely already happening?

PeterSibley
11-21-2011, 04:30 PM
A nice open policy ?

Mrleft8
11-21-2011, 04:31 PM
............whoosh!!!..........

SamSam
11-21-2011, 05:05 PM
From Patrick Buchanan
Thus it is startling to learn 47 House Republicans just signed on to H.R. 1553 declaring unequivocal “support for Israel’s right to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran … including the use of military force.”

These Republicans have just given Tel Aviv a blank check for a pre-emptive war that Israel, unless it uses its nuclear weapons, can start but not finish. Fighting and finishing that war would fall to the armed forces of the United States.
Who do these Republicans represent?...
Indeed, the principal purpose and result of an Israeli pre-emptive war on Iran, bringing retaliation on Israel, would be to drag America in to fight and finish a war Israel had begun.

http://buchanan.org/blog/gop-blank-check-for-war-4261


In an interview conducted shortly before he was sworn in today as prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu laid down a challenge for Barack Obama. The American president, he said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—and quickly—or an imperiled Israel may be forced to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities itself. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/03/netanyahu-to-obama-stop-iran-or-i-will/7390/

Glen Longino
11-21-2011, 05:32 PM
............whoosh!!!..........

:D:D

PeterSibley
11-21-2011, 11:00 PM
From Patrick Buchananhttp://buchanan.org/blog/gop-blank-check-for-war-4261


Fascinating .. there's a republican as confused by the current GOP stand on Iran as I am .