Have Any Of The Democratic Candidates Suggested How They'll Stop Iran From Developing Nuclear Weapons ?

Question

It's a huge issue on the minds of most voters . Are any of you Democratic supporters concerned that it appears that none of the candidates have addressed this in a solid , clear-cut way ?

And even if one of them has. . . why not all of them ? This is certainly an issue that will haunt us all during the next presidency .

Do tell. . . what are their solid plans ?

Steve - I respect your answers, but I said 'Solid plans' . simply saying that he'll try diplomacy is not a solid plan .

Answer 1

My guess is that they actually think it is fair for Iran to have nuclear weapons.

schmorrge... that's a bunch of bull and you know it! How do you change the mind of a madman? Get real would you! Jeezzzz you libs will believe anything!

Answer 2

Billy ... Here's THEIR so-called "solid plan," not mine ...

For every casualty and misstep that occurs in Iraq, they'll ratchet-up their empty, exploitative, administration-hating rhetoric. That's the political plan for the '08 elections.

As for Iran, their "solution" will be talk, talk ... Oh, and more talk. Meanwhile, the instability and saber rattling will easily drive the price of oil to well over $100 per barrel or more.

This surely sounds like ridiculous fear mongering to the uninitiated, therefore, I invite the attention of the doubters to my link below. Note that during the Arab oil embargo of 1973, the price of crude oil QUADRUPLED! The demand for oil was not at the levels required today. Therefore, it would take a mere threat of instability in this vital oil-producing region or just a partial loss of production to drive the price up to the $100 level or beyond.

In other words, the Democratic strategy will be to try and pay-off the Iranian government through the nose, as we say. That still will not eliminate development and production of Iran's nuclear weapons, but it will give the impression that the Iranian government has been appeased ... just as Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler by offering up Poland in exchange for a halt to Germany's imperialism. Did it work? Yes, but not the way the appeasers had hoped it would. For their willingness to "negotiate" (translation: "appease or surrender") with Hitler, it served to confirm the weakness and timidity of the West and had the effect of actually encouraging Hitler to invade and steal the freedoms of even more of Hitler's neighbors, not to mention the slaughter of millions of innocent people.

Why did this happen? Because the isolationists and the pray-for-peace types of the 1930's had the same mis-guided notions and poor foresight of today's typical modern-day Libs.

Of course, the Libs don't see that; they don't WANT to see that. They cannot see past their next political ploy, whatever it may be. Their guiding principle seems to be "To hell with conservatives ... Put them down every way we can, American integrity and security be damned ... Win the next election and we'll worry about American security and all the rest later, perhaps."

Oh, and in case the readers who're short on time didn't catch all the pertinent historical facts detailed in my link, note this: Sky-rocketing oil prices translate to hyper-inflation, increased interest rates for borrowers, gas shortages (i.e., long lines waiting for gas and probable gas rationing), increased unemployment, and unaffordable/double-digit mortgage interest rates, all of which will lead to a wide-spread, world-wide recession. And even after ALLLL that, Iran will still have their nuclear weapons development program intact.

Don't tell the Libs, though ... It might spoil their fun. They'd better enjoy themselves while they can, because if/when all this comes to be, they can forget about their congressional majorities and the presidency for about another 50 years. The only people who'll vote for them will be the give-away lovers and the illegal immigrants.

Answer 3

I am not well-versed enough in the candidates' positions - it's too early, I still say! - but I believe Bush has said nothing is off the table.

I agree it's an important issue. I'm not sure what any 2008 candidate has said on this.

We face two awful choices. Either letting Iran go nuclear, or doing whatever it takes to stop them. I think both are going to be very costly courses to take. I choose alternative number two - stopping them.

If I were president, I would be quietly doing all I could to support dissidents in Iran, trying to change the regime from within. I hope we are doing this now. But again, nothing is off the table.

Answer 4

Here is Senator Obama's plan:
Address Threats Posed by North Korea’s and Iran’s Nuclear Programs. Barack Obama would use a combination of diplomacy and pressure to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. Obama will assemble an international coalition that will exert a collective will to convince these regimes that it is in their own interest to verifiably abandon their nuclear weapons efforts. He will provide the leadership essential to ensure the full implementation of the recent agreement with North Korea. With Iran, Obama will pursue intensified diplomacy and be prepared to talk directly with Iran. At the same time, he will build on recent actions by the U.N. Security Council to restrict the supply of nuclear technology and freeze the assets of Iranian leaders. Obama would also expand this effort by working with our key European trading partners and the Gulf States to increase economic pressure on Iran. Obama also would keep all other options on the table, including the use of force.

Pretty easy to find. I went on his website. Not as easy as doing no research whatsoever and then declaring that there is no plan, but easy enough.

Pretty concise plan. Next question?

Answer 5

They won't admit it, but they would probably consider GIVING Iran one or two of our nuclear weapons!
Jimmy Carter tried diplomacy with Iran and ... TaDa! Surprise! it didn't work! Reagan told the American people how he would solve the problem and almost immediately after he was elected, the Iranians had a change of heart!

Answer 6

They will address National Security if and when they win the Whitehouse. Until then, they can only focus on their hatred of Bush and how to undermind our troops--to the point of failure. But once they're able to quit playing politics with our troop's lives and the lives of the American people....they'll come up with something 'do-able'. They just gotta hope they get lucky and more conservatives than democrats get slaughtered in the next attack.

Answer 7

I suppose you missed the Democratic debates. They all, with the exception of Hillary, addressed this issue. Most of them spoke of enforcing economic sanctions. They also spoke of economic trade rewards for those countries seeking to oust terrorists cells.
So, what solid , clear-cut plans do the Republican candidates have? I admit, I did not watch all of the Republican debates. I like Rudy, but I had to turn the channel when he seemed to be stumbling on some questions.

Answer 8

Well, the short answer is this, nuclear proliferation most industrialized nations cannot ignore, and, as such, both, the democrats and republicans should lead in this effort. After six years of terrible decision making on the international stage, the Republicans really have no answers than the democrats.

Answer 9

Diplomacy first. This leads to solid plans. One must keep your allies close but keep your enemies closer. You have to be willing to negotiate before any solid plans can be made. I mean come on, isn't that what you did with your parents? This issue haunts us now because Bush is unwilling to even negotiate. That's not a plan. That's denial and avoidence. And, it's no way to run a major super power. It's immature.
BTW, as a progressive liberal, I think the planet is way too small for even one nuclear weapon. NO ONE should have nuclear weapons in this day and age. It's insane.

Answer 10

Agreeing to build them a Starbucks so they can discuss future issues over an iced frappuchino and a blueberry muffin.