Can the democratic candidates be expected to face off against Iran and North Korea over their Atomic weapons?

Question

programs, if they are too afraid to face off in a friendly debate on the Fox Network?

Answer 1

a debate on the Fox network is not going to be friendly. Anyone running for office should be fully aware and prepared for any of the number of possible threats. Iran and North Korea are obvious ones. The reason the 9/11 attacks were so shocking is we weren't expecting that. Our leaders need to be able to expect the unexpected.

Answer 2

First, no Fox debate is friendly. Especially not one between a Fox News anchor & a Democrat. Their refusal to speak about the issue on Fox doesn't really reflect what their actions in office would be. Right now, they need to protect their reputations and keep their "fan bases" - a debate on Fox could destroy both in less time than it takes for Ahmadinejad to decide the Holocaust never existed.

Answer 3

What good does it do a candidate to only address their own base? To win, you must win the support of Independents, FOX News has the corner market on that segment of the population. Not a smart move. But they'll see it and reverse their mistake in the months to come.

EDIT: I might add, the Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, Henry Ford, Jr., is a FOX News contributing editor. Hillary Clinton (as was Bill) is a member of the DLC.

Get off the FOX News game libs, you're own leaders are contributing editors for God sake!

Answer 4

purely in retaliation. on condition that they do no longer take part in nonproliferation standards then they are valid objectives. between many different components of that new plan, the U.S. makes undeniable that if a non-nuclear united states of america is in compliance with a worldwide nonproliferation treaty, u . s . a . of america won't threaten or use nuclear weapons against it. If this sort of state have been to apply chemical or organic and organic weapons against the U.S. or its allies, it may face a probably devastating generic militia strike by the U.S., yet no longer a nuclear one. North Korea and Iran weren't coated in that pledge because of the fact they do no longer cooperate with different international places on nonproliferation standards.

Answer 5

Doesn't this question belong in the "Jokes and Riddles" section?

They want to destroy the foundation of this country by killing babies, taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, etc. but I'm sure when the first confrontation occurs, they're going to all start running to hide under their mommy's beds.

I mean, c'mon.....just mention "FOX NEWS" to a looney left winger and watch and enjoy the commotion as the bedwetter starts hollering for its pacifier because "the neo-con said a bad word". WAAAAAAAAA!

Answer 6

Well, considering they voted for war against Iraq when presented with false information on a nuclear program, I think that if there were a real danger against us from either nation, they would definitely step up to the plate. Right now, however it is a moot point. They aren't in power, the election is not for another year and a half, and there are bigger fish to fry at the moment, i.e. stretched thin troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Answer 7

We expected the Bush administration to have some effect there, and they've failed miserably. He has been too busy "punishing them for being bad" to stop them from doing it. "I'm not speaking to you. You're being bad." Bad Iran! Bad North Korea! Evil! Evil countries! That should stop any country from pursuing nuclear power. Don't you think?

Answer 8

Here's why they won't debate on Fox:

Flip Flopping Liberal statements:
"Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."—Madeline Albright, 1998.

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"—National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998.

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement."—Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."—Bill Clinton in 1998.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."—Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002.

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."—Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003.

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people."—Tom Daschle in 1998.

"Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."—John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002.

Answer 9

fox network has no more business running debates than comedy central does.

fox news can get friggin bent - we all know they are a wing of the bush administration.

the dems are right to tell them to get freaking bent - and would be just as right to cut off access to that right wing pandering excuse of a news network.

Answer 10

They hate fox because Fox expects answer not spin. Sorry you left wing wackos for snapping your brassiere.