Obama ruled out the use of nuclear weapons to go after al Qaeda or Taliban targets in Afghanistan or Pakistan, prompting Clinton to say presidents never take the nuclear option off the table, and extending their feud over whether Obama has enough experience to be elected president in November 2008.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070802/pl_nm/usa_politics_obama_dc
Which of the two do you agree with on this issue?
2007-08-02 11:41:02 · 9 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'd like another option, please.
But since there is not one provided, I would have to side with Obama.
If Hillary thinks she can use nuclear weaponry against terrorists, she's better give them their own country first. Unless, that's in her plans, she best forget it.
2007-08-02 11:48:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think Hillary is in the right about this one. As a ruler you should never rule out one of the most powerful weapons in your arsenal. What if the terrorists were to get their hands on nuclear weapons? If our president were adamant about not using our nuclear warheads, then the terrorists would know that they could use theirs with impunity. I know you are thinking "Well if they used it, of course we could use it back!" But the whole idea is to have them be afraid to use their weapons for fear that we have our finger on the button already, able to push at any moment. If they knew for a fact the button were locked up and hard to get to, then they would have plenty of time to take us out without immediate consequences.
2007-08-02 18:53:14 · answer #2 · answered by Sue 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Hillary
2007-08-03 06:06:13 · answer #3 · answered by skeptic griggsy 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Clinton has stated that should she be elected she would not talk personally with other
Leaders/dictators during her first year in office.
Do you really think this woman should be trusted with Nuclear weapons?
2007-08-02 19:04:24 · answer #4 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well, I disagree with Obama, but I guarantee that within a week Hillary will say that that type of weaponry is barbaric and as president she would never use it. I like truman's approach: give 'em all you got until they're dead or they surrender. I personally think Bush should be using them already.
2007-08-02 19:08:00 · answer #5 · answered by cobbjustin00 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
This is probably the first and last time I'll agree the Wicked Witch of the North, however, Clinton is right on this one...
2007-08-02 18:45:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Clinton. Why have nukes if you will SAY you will never use them? They are a deterent as is any threat to use force.
2007-08-02 18:46:02 · answer #7 · answered by Homeless in Phoenix 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
+These two are "PUSSY FOOTING AROUND" THIS VERY TOUCHY MATTER!!! They can not give a real definative answer!
Uncle Wil
2007-08-02 18:47:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Ron Paul, duh. Non-intervention.
2007-08-03 00:59:13 · answer #9 · answered by manayunker2004 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋