Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
I don't see why Iran would be a big reason.
Obama seems like he's just as willing to go to war vs Iran as any republican candidate is.
Also, attacking Iran isn't quite as unpopular as you'd think.
"However, asked if the U.S. should take military action if sanctions against Iran to prevent its nuclear weapons program proved to be unsuccessful, 50 percent voted in favor of using military force."
|
All the Republican candidates (apart from Paul) are saying that America should have attacked Iran over the drone which they lost while spying on them.
Doesn't matter if it's popular, invading Iran would be rather stupid, especially when there is a decent chance the pro-democracy movement in Iran could take over when the next election is rigged.
|
I never said it'd be smart to invade Iran. Or even go to war with Iran, which isn't the same thing as invading it.
|
I was just saying that Obama (who hasn't gone to war with Iran over the drone) is less of a warmonger than most of the Republican field who say that he should have.
|
You have to remember those Republicans who have been calling more more aggressive actions are just doing that because they are either on the campaign trail or not in power or both and the consequences of what they are saying is small. As President they would have a lot of options to weigh up before committing to any actions and must accept any potential consequences from the resulting fallout. And as Kaz has correctly pointed out Obama has sharply escalated the 'war on terror'. Bush Jr may have had suspects kidnapped and interrogated using 'enhanced' interrogation techniques (i.e torture) but Obama doesn't even bother with that. He'd just not take any chances and send it in a drone strike which has killed way more civilians than suspected millitants.
