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.
|
I disagree in general because I see it as a case of actions speaking louder then words.
They're taking an oppurtunity to exagerate things to bash Obama because to a certain part of their base, the truth is... Obama is a better "national security" president then Bush ever was, because he's GREATLY expanded unilateral strikes against terrorists in countries like Afghanistan.
Additionally, none of the field to my knowledge actually suggested we should go to war vs Iran based off the drone.
What they DID argue was that Obama shouldn't of asked for the drone back, but instead demanded the drone back tying it to some action. Which could mean military, or could mean sanctions or whatever else.
