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.
Rick Perry - "should have done was one of two things: We either destroy it, or we retrieve it. He took a third route, which was the worst and the weakest, and that is to do nothing."
You might be right about the rest of the field though.
I wouldn't say destroying it means war, but means having a plan to destory it if it does malfucntion.
Though even if it did mean bombing it now, even that I'm not sure would be considered war. (Sadly)
Afterall, we're killing all kinds of people in Pakistan with done strikes (mostly civilian) and even have ground forces in Pakistan... yet we aren't considered at war with them. (Though we should be.)
I mean, I'D consider it war and Dennis does, but i don't think most people do consider it war.
