Would you rather have Ronald Reagan or Hillary Clinton as President if Iran declared war against the U.S.?

Question

Consider Reagan in his prime and Clinton in hers? Who would you feel safer protecting the country and dismantling the threat?

Answer 1

Regan. Liberals are weak when it comes to war.

Answer 2

This question is quite funny. Anyone with any sense would say Reagan because he wouldn't take any crap off of the radicals who Jimmy Carter created by deposing the shah of Iran. Despite what the uneducated buffoon Reva P has stated in his/her answer, it was Carter who gave birth to modern terrorism and almost ruined the United States' economy, thus making us appear weaker in the world's eyes. Reagan would simply state that military action would happen if Iran pushed the U.S.! He would remain true to his word without question. In this scenario, Iran would be leveled. Reagan was the last U.S. President to have the clarity and the guts required to make America a force for good which was also feared by those who would threaten our great nation.

Hillary is simply an anti-American communist (perhaps socialist at best) who wants to destroy America's great history. She is a fan of fascism, as evidenced by her and her husband's pursuing big government and while not as serious, disowning their lackeys if they are caught while doing their bidding. How many Clinton officials died as a result of mysterious circumstances? This hag would try to distort facts about her underhanded methods and would continue to rule with a rapacious iron fist.

Reagan would be immeasurably better for America under any situation, but especially during wartime.

Hopefully, this will garner me a best answer, because I could use one!

Answer 3

They both have their good points and bad points. Since Reagan worked indirectly with the Iranians before to make sure the hostages weren't freed until after he had won the election (see Iran-Contra affair), he would likely have some contacts to help him work diplomatically with the people in Tehran. But knowing Reagan, he'd try a military approach first. He might try taking out the nuclear facilities, but I believe he would be concerned enough about the effect on our troops in the region to use this option as a last resort.

Hillary Clinton would, more than likely, try finding out who all the players in this particular game are, and who she could depend on to help. She may ask Israel's help in destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities, as Israel has nukes and is closer to the target than the US is-thus more of an incentive to "do it right the first time". The danger here would be to make sure that Arab states could be kept in line and not immediately go to war with Israel in retaliation. This might prove easier than it first looks, as the other Muslim countries in the region are primarily Arab; Iran is mostly Persian, and animosity between the two ethnic groups goes back millenia, long before Islam. But as I said, this would be tricky to pull off, and I just don't know that Hillary has the expertise to do it.

So, all in all, I'd rather have neither. I also doubt that Iran will declare war against the US before the US declares war against Iran.

Answer 4

Reagan,

Answer 5

It doesn't matter. That's why the Joint Chiefs exist.

And for those of you who are saying Reagan, no brainer - you're forgetting that Reagen didn't really have one, even while in office.

Besides, what history will show, and show with absolutely no hesitation and no doubt, is that Ronald Reagan is responsible for the current upturn in terrorism. After all, it was Reagen who made sure that the mujahedeen were armed and trained, and Reagan who didn't do anything after the Anbar Towers bombing, etc. In fact, he was advised about a plot that would have had a plane fly into the Eiffel Tower as part of a terrorist attack on France AND about a similar attack planned against the US embassy in Lebanon, and LAUGHED THEM OFF!

I'd suggest that instead of visceral reations, you try reading a bit of history.

Answer 6

I should slam you for even mentioning her in the same sentence as the greatest Presdient ever Ronald Reagan. I wouldn't want Hillary as President if the biggest threat to national security was a rabid sewer rat. But since I think you were well intentioned in your question lets share this with everyone else.

Three Florida surgeons were playing golf together and discussing surgeries they had performed.

One of them said, "I'm the best surgeon in Florida. In my favorite case, a concert pianist lost seven fingers in an accident, I reattached them, and 8 months later he performed a private concert for the Queen of England.

The second surgeon said. "That's nothing. A young man lost an arm and both legs in an accident, I reattached them, and 2 years later he won a gold medal in track and field events in the Olympics."

The third surgeon said, "You guys are amateurs.

Several years ago a woman was high on cocaine and marijuana and she rode a horse head-on into a train traveling 80 miles an hour. All I had left to work with was the woman's bleached blond hair and the horse's ***. I was able to put them together and now she's a senator from New York

Answer 7

in the previous you're saying it rather is definitely a case of RACE, you additionally must seem on the earnings and academic stages. once you start up looking black adult adult males with a school training filling up the prisons, the race could be the case. What you're surely seeing is detrimental, UNEDUCATED adult males and females individuals who have been given caught in criminal acts they executed for the reason that they had no training and no jobs. the clarification extra women individuals are ending up in detention center is marriage is extra no longer likely these days so the girls individuals could make ends meet after being abandoned without recourse. for this reason it rather is needed bypass after lifeless beat dads and the device is getting lots extra effective at that.

Answer 8

Reagan of course. This is not even a question. For one I saw the success of the Reagan administration and I would feel confident with The Gipper leading our nation through this war.

Answer 9

Well as much as I don't trust or like Hillary, since Reagan is not longer with us, it doesn't matter. Bottom line though, is we don't have anyone out there with Reagan's ability. So if it wre to happen, we are in trouble regardless of who is in office (besides if it isn't a Democrat, the press would undermine everything the President would try to do).

Answer 10

Reagan, that's an EZ one. Hillary already said she wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq even though she voted for it. EZ 4 her to say in hindsight, when things aren't all rosy over there. She has no credibility or integrity. She's a political phony and a very unpleasant person, to boot.

Answer 11

yes Reagan... But almost anyone not a Democrat would do... at least sense Kennedy was president... The only possible exceptions would be Liberman or Miller