Does Republican claim that ONLY they can handle nuclear threat from North Korea and Iran have any substance?

Question

Hasn't the threat just grown since Bush has been in office?

Answer 1

First part of your question. No. Senior military advisors, pentagon staff, CIA operatives, NSA operatives, FBI ground forces, all stay the same. All offer the same information and solutions to whichever party happens to be warming the chair in the white house and keeping the floor bowed in the congress.

Second part of your question, yes. Iran, North Korea, and China see King George's obsession with Iraq and the bad man Saddam as a perfect opportunity to pursue additional strategies in getting a nuclear arsenal. Bush is so single minded in Iraq that he waves off the others with his underlings and veiled non threats because Chinese banks are funding the US government through loans which quintuple the deficit in no time at all yet pay for his "war on terror".

It's kind of like this. A crip from LA flies to Paris after an ex girlfriend and in a fit of anger blows up the building she's in, killing two key French officials. Because under international law, crips are militant groups not attached to the government in the country in which they operate, this becomes a terrorist act. Europe, and her new allies Russia and China make the determination that King George can't control the militants in his own country and invade LA with the sole purpose of putting this terrorist group out of business. The bloods, see this as an opportunity to eliminate one of their biggest rivals, and beging killing as well, only they aren't quite as careful and some of their traps kill some of the invading soldiers, now the troops are told to take out the bloods as well. The hell's angels see an opportunity and start to supply guns to the crips and the bloods to defend themselves.Now, the angels are on the list of antagonists. This is what King George is pretending to do in Iraq, along with the creation of permanent US bases in the Middle East much like Guantanamo.

Open your eyes. The truth is the truth.

Answer 2

No, they don't claim that, but they do believe they have the better strategy, at least for N. Korea (who could dispute the fact that getting more countries, especially ones N. Korea relies upon, to the table is a better idea?). N. Korea has been an issue for over 50 years, so no, it hasn't gotten worse, it's just moved along the natural progression continuum. With Iran, they have been a problem for some time and no matter who was in office it wouldn't stop them from wanted to kill off all Jewish people. You can't blame one person.

Answer 3

What are you conversing approximately, clinton and carter? it particularly is no longer the place the DPRK have been given the tech. It additionally isn't very nearly as severe tech to construct a nuclear bomb as people think of. If I had a uranium mine and a few centrifuges, i ought to build one too. Plutonium bombs are tougher to construct, yet all you prefer is an explosives professional to create a fabulous stress around the plutonium because it asplodes, so as that it doesn''t rip aside the severe mass too quickly. I evaluate nuclear-armed Israel a graver risk than nuclear North Korea. The DPRK has long previous over 50 years with out beginning a conflict and it has no reason to do it now. I guess maximum of you're too youthful to bear in mind the chilly conflict. Brinkmanship is an outstanding artwork and the DPRK is purely following in different footsteps, exhibiting off its little 4 kiloton gadget, which it can't placed on an ICBM besides, so relax. Israel is greater probably to apply a nuke with the aid of fact its enemies don't have nukes to hearth returned, it particularly is why it particularly is greater risky. The North Korean nukes are additionally nowhere close to the damaging capability of something of its military, which is composed of each and all of the heavy artillery pointed at Seoul that could point the city. Over one million,000 vast weapons that ought to exceed the whole capability of all their nukes interior of an afternoon. <> you particularly wanna be scared, people, be scared... you ought to miss while the government advised you to be scared. you are able to no longer placed a crude plutonium bomb on an ICBM. you prefer tritium to do it and the DPRK does not have it. The worst that ought to take place is it ought to get dropped on South Korea, wherein case, as I reported, no longer something while in comparison with the artillery pointed at Seoul good now, and has been for some years, which I guess you weren't so scared approximately. the only reason Obama stated because it a "grave risk" is so he does no longer look comfortable to each physique who desires to be scared.

Answer 4

i agree these countries don't like and want seat down and bring some type of agreement to the table on the issue of nukes . this if your not with me you against me crap messages the bush administration use have isolate the USA from having any kind of accountability or credibility with it's allies and it's enemies a like .

Answer 5

Its a smokescreen to take the attention off the elections, Bush would'nt dare do anything without china's permission, let's get real here!

If theres no integrity from the source how can you expect any integrity anywhere else >>>>>PERIOD!

Answer 6

Clinton ( Dems ) allowed NK to go nuclear...
Should Bush (Reps ) allow Iran to go nuclear ??
Should we now elect Dems to allow Iran to go nuclear ?

Answer 7

Republicans think they can do a better job of defending our nation, but they also think they can win the war on terror. So.

Answer 8

Yes i think it holds merit, i do not think the democrats plan to do anything about this issue!

Answer 9

think the key word is CLAIM.
yet to see a plan for afgan of iraq.....

Answer 10

No, they claim they can counter the thrat better