Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:57 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 6:48 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
The nuclear threat that Iran poses to Israel and the world is a subject we need to hear about from the Republican candidates. Do you know where they all stand on the state of war that Iran's Ahmadinejad (and the Ayatolla Khomeini) declared against the U.S. as far back as 1979? I am not sure if I do. President Obama is doing everything the opposite of what Gov. Huckabee would do. He is pro-Palestinian statehood, even under the aegis of terrorist leadership like Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Time is running out, and yet we do not hear the candidates showing concern about foreign policy.

The Republican debate is the tenth of about twenty scheduled. Tonight it is being held at the Sands Expo Convention Center in Las Vegas, Nevada. Sponsors include CNN and Western Republican Leadership Conference. Those candidates participating include: Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, Perry, Romney, and Santorum. Huntsman will not attend. Cain is expected to get center stage with Romney. Showtime: 8 PM ET


Quote:
ASK THE CANDIDATES: “HOW WOULD YOU STOP IRAN FROM OBTAINING NUCLEAR WEAPONS?”
Posted: October 10, 2011 by joelcrosenberg in Uncategorized

As tensions increase in the Middle East, each of the Republican candidates for President need to be pressed to clearly and directly answer the following questions:

1. As President of the United States, what specific actions would you take to stop Iran from obtaining and deploying nuclear weapons?

2. If you had intelligence that Iran was on the verge of building operational nuclear weapons, would your administration support an Israeli preemptive military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities?

3. Would you as President seriously consider ordering a preemptive strike by U.S. military forces to neutralize the Iran nuclear threat?


It is increasingly likely that the next American President will have to face such an ominous geopolitical scenario, and the American people need to know where each of the candidates stand.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney delivered a foreign policy address in South Carolina last week in which he raised the Iran nuclear threat. “Will Iran be a fully activated nuclear weapons state, threatening its neighbors, dominating the world’s oil supply with a stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz?” Romney asked. “In the hands of the ayatollahs, a nuclear Iran is nothing less than an existential threat to Israel. Iran’s suicidal fanatics could blackmail the world.” Romney, however, did not specifically discuss how he would stop Iran.

Former Utah Governor John Huntsman on Tuesday went further in a foreign policy address in New Hampshire, signaling support for a U.S. preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. ”I cannot live with a nuclear-armed Iran. If you want an example of when I would use American force, it would be that,” Huntsman said.

Businessman Herman Cain has spoken of his support of enhanced missile defenses to blunt an Iranian nuclear threat. “I would make it a priority to upgrade all of our Aegis surface-to-air ballistic missile defense capabilities of all of our warships, all the way around the world,” Cain told the Values Voters Summit in Virginia over the weekend. “Make that a priority, and then say to Ahmadinejad, ‘Make my Day.’” But Cain not addressed the issue with more specificity.

[Ron Paul does not want America to interfere at all.]



Iran’s leaders continue to espouse apocalyptic beliefs about the End of Days, the coming of the Twelfth Imam, and the rise of an Islamic caliphate, even as they threaten to annihilate Israel (which they call the “Little Satan”) and the United States (which they call the “Great Satan”). A United Nations report in September warned there is “credible evidence” that Iran is making progress towards building operational nuclear weapons. Iran is also developing ballistic missiles capable of delivering such nuclear weapons.

The Israelis are getting anxious, and believe time is running out. “The international community must stop Iran before it’s too late,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned in his U.N. speech last month. “If Iran is not stopped, we will all face the specter of nuclear terrorism, and the Arab Spring could soon become an Iranian winter…The world around Israel is definitely becoming more dangerous.”

A senior Israeli general in September warned that Iran is getting closer to the Bomb and that “this raises the likelihood of an all-out, total war, with the possibility of weapons of mass destruction being used.”

Yet the Obama administration consistently refuses even to consider putting a serious military option on the table.

In September 2009, then-U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made clear the Obama administration wasn’t seriously considering using force. “The reality is, there is no military option that does anything more than buy time,” Gates said.

In April 2010, the New York Times reported that Secretary Gates “has warned in a secret three-page memorandum to top White House officials that the United States does not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear capability.”

The Obama administration has also decided to apply pressure on Israel not to launch a preemptive strike against Iran, despite the growing threat of a Second Holocaust. “U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta visited Israel [in October] with a clear message from his boss in Washington: The United States opposes any Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities,” reported the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. “The United States, he said, is ‘very concerned, and we will work together to do whatever is necessary” to keep Iran from posing ‘a threat to this region.’ But doing so ‘depends on the countries working together,’ he added. He repeated the word ‘together’ several times in this context.”


The current administration policy is, however, out of synch with the American people. A new bi-partisan poll released in September by Democrat Pat Caddell and Republican John McLaughlin found that 63 percent of Americans approve military action against Iran if sanctions do not stop their nuclear program. What’s more, 77 percent of Americans think the Obama administration’s current polices towards stopping Iran’s nuclear program “will fail.”

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:06 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:46 pm
Posts: 1563
Location: Texas
Likes: 178
Liked: 374
The only one I know in the race that takes Iran seriously is Sen Santorum. I think Romney would be pretty solid on foreign policy as well.

But, you're absolutely right. They had better spend a lot of time on foreign policy tonight. It's the one area where the president has a lot of unilateral power, and so far the debates haven't given it its due.

_________________
THE TIMES are nightfall, look, their light grows less;
The times are winter, watch, a world undone:
They waste, they wither worse; they as they run
Or bring more or more blazon man’s distress.
And I not help. Nor word now of success:
All is from wreck, here, there, to rescue one—
Work which to see scarce so much as begun
Makes welcome death, does dear forgetfulness.
Or what is else? There is your world within.
There rid the dragons, root out there the sin.
Your will is law in that small commonweal…
G.M. Hopkins.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:33 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:52 pm
Posts: 4803
Location: Texas
Likes: 90
Liked: 259
Love Joel Rosenberg, his books and his questions.

But what did Bush do?

The only one I trust to do anything about Iran is Bibi. He knows what the problem is and what the solution is.

_________________
ConservTexan

http://ilikemikehuckabee2012.blogspot.com/



Post by ConservTexan Liked by: justgrace
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:05 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
Well, not surprisingly, the short answer to the main question here is "no." None of the three questions were asked.

If it had not been for Michele Bachman inserting the concerns about Iran's nuclear capabilities and terrorism, there would probably have been zero references to Iran. She also brought up Israel. Good for Michele on this.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:14 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
I can't answer the above question nearly as well or thoroughly as Joel C. Rosenberg did on his blog, so I am posting his thoughts here.

This is one of the most critical subjects right now for the world. It should have been seriously discussed at the debate. Instead of candidates bickering over each others' missteps and succumbing to moderator Anderson Cooper's encouraging the debate to become a three-ring circus.

This is fairly long, but please be patient and read. There is not a better analysis, I think, of the need to know where the Republican candidates stand. It is time to take Ahmadinejad's crazy threats seriously! He is openly preparing for World War III, or Armageddon.


Quote:
CNN’S ANDERSON COOPER FAILS TO ASK GOP CANDIDATES ABOUT RISING IRAN THREAT:
But it is time for the GOP candidates to tell us how they will neutralize Iran
Posted: October 19, 2011 by joelcrosenberg in Uncategorized
...

The Iranian threat to U.S. and Israeli national security is a paramount issue facing the American people. A new bipartisan poll by Democrat Pat Caddell and Republican John McLaughlin released last month shows 63% of Americans regard Iran as the most serious threat to our country, ahead of China and North Korea. What’s more, 78% of Americans believe President Obama’s policies ”will fail” when it comes to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet CNN’s Anderson Cooper failed to ask a single question about the Islamic Republic at the CNN Western Republican Presidential Debate in Las Vegas on Tuesday night. Why not? It is time for the GOP candidates to tell us how they would protect America and our allies from Iran.


Clearly the Iran threat — and the mullahs’ audacity — is growing. Consider the latest headlines:

Reuters: Iran could make atom bomb material despite hurdles, says new report

Reuters: Iran nuclear issue to grow more urgent: UK’s Hague

Agence France Presse: Iran ‘most significant’ threat to world: Canada PM

Time magazine: Will the Washington Bomb Plot Force Obama into War with Iran?

Fox News: Iran Says Its New Cruise Missile Can ‘Sink Giant Warships’

ABC News: Iran to Send Navy Ships Near U.S. Coast



The Obama administration, however, seems unwilling or unable to develop a comprehensive and serious approach towards stopping Iran’s mullahs in their tracks before it’s too late. This is precisely why I wrote my new political thriller, The Tehran Initiative, to encourage the American people to imagine the chilling implications of the Iran threat and to imagine a world in which the U.S. and our NATO allies don’t take decisive action to neutralize Iran’s nuclear program and terror infrastructure.


QUESTIONS WE NEED TO ASK:

What could happen if the West waits too long and Iran does, in fact, get the Bomb?

Would Iran attach nuclear warheads to ballistic missiles and fire them at the U.S. and Israel?

Would Iran give nuclear warheads to terrorists and smuggle such bombs inside the U.S. to annihilate several American cities and decapitate our government?

Or would Israel launch a preemptive military strike against Iran so as to thwart a Second Holocaust?

And if so, would Washington back up Israel, our most faithful ally in the Middle East, or cut her loose?


These are critical questions. Unfortunately, they are not fictional. They are real and pressing. Yet CNN ignored all of them last night.

The good news is that several of the GOP candidates did reference the Iran threat on their own at the CNN debate in Las Vegas:


Governor Rick Perry: “That is the way to shut that border down, to secure that border, and really make America safe from individuals, like those Iranians that are using the drug cartels to penetrate this country.

Rep. Michele Bachmann: “This was an historic week when it came to American foreign policy. We saw potentially an international assassination attempt from Iran on American soil. That says something about Iran, that they disrespect the United States so much, that they would attempt some sort of heinous act like that…This is how disrespected the United States is in the world today, and it’s because of President Obama’s failed policies. He’s taken his eyes off the number one issue in the world. That’s an Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. That makes all of us in much danger. And the president of Iran is a genocidal maniac. We need to stand up against Iran.”

Sen. Rick Santorum: “As Michele said and correctly said, the central threat right now is Iran. The disrespect, yes, but it’s more than that. They sent a message. The two countries that they went after was the leader of the Islamic world, Saudi Arabia, and the leader of the, quote, “secular world,” the United States. This was a call by Iran to say we are the ones who are going to be the supreme leader of the Islamic world, and we are going to be the supreme leader of the secular world. And that’s why they attacked here. And, by the way, they did it in coordination with Central and South Americans, which I have been talking about and writing about and talking about for 10 years.”

The bad news is that Mr. Cooper did not press each of the candidates on the Iran issue. This was a dereliction of duty on the part of Mr. Cooper.

Let me restate, therefore, what I’ve been saying in recent days during interviews on the Sean Hannity show, Fox News Channel, the Christian Broadcasting Network, and other interviews. Each of the Republican candidates for President need to be asked to clearly and directly answer the following questions:


~ As President of the United States, what specific actions would you take to stop Iran from obtaining and deploying nuclear weapons?
~ If you had intelligence that Iran was on the verge of building operational nuclear weapons, would your administration support an Israeli preemptive military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities?
~ Would you as President seriously consider ordering a preemptive strike by U.S. military forces to neutralize the Iran nuclear threat?



I am encouraged that The Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and CNN have just announced a debate focused on foreign policy issues on November 15th. This is a move in the right direction. Yet one minute answers and thirty second rebuttals in these debate formats alone will not suffice. Each of the candidates need to deliver major foreign policy address in the coming days focusing on the Iran issue.

Several of the candidates have made reference to Iran in recent speeches, but they have not laid out detailed thinking. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney recently delivered a foreign policy address in South Carolina in which he asked, “Will Iran be a fully activated nuclear weapons state, threatening its neighbors, dominating the world’s oil supply with a stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz?” Gov. Romney further stated, “In the hands of the ayatollahs, a nuclear Iran is nothing less than an existential threat to Israel. Iran’s suicidal fanatics could blackmail the world.” He noted that he would “begin discussions with Israel to increase the level of our military assistance and coordination” and would “reiterate that Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.” However, he did not specifically discuss how he would stop Iran from getting the Bomb and sponsoring terrorist attacks.

Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman
went further in a recent foreign policy address in New Hampshire. Calling Iran “the transcendent challenge of the next decade,” he signaled support for a U.S.preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, saying, “I cannot live with a nuclear-armed Iran. If you want an example of when I would use American force, it would be that.” He, too, spoke of his support of Israel, but he did not lay out any specific principles or policies to deal with Iran, even while calling for a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan,Iran’s neighbor to the East.

Businessman Herman Cain has soared into the top tier of presidential candidates with a bold pro-growth tax simplification plan, but he has spoken little of foreign policy. He has identified Iran as one of America’s most serious national security threats, and been his clear about his strong support for Israel. Drawing on his experience as a civilian contractor for the U.S. Navy working on ballistic missile projects years ago, Cain has rightly called for enhanced missile defenses to blunt an Iranian nuclear threat. “I would make it a priority to upgrade all of our Aegis surface-to-air ballistic missile defense capabilities of all of our warships, all the way around the world,” Cain told the Values Voters Summit in D.C. earlier this month. “Make that a priority, and then say to [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, ‘Make my Day.’” His instincts are right, but missile defenses alone, of course, are insufficient to neutralize the Iranian threat. Yet Cain has not addressed the issue with more specificity.

Few of the GOP candidates better understand the Iranian threat – and the dangerous End Times theology of the current Iranian leadership which is preparing for the coming of the so-called Shia messiah known as the Twelfth Imam — than former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. Thus far, however, he has not made an Iran policy a major element of his campaign. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Rep. Michele Bachmann, and Governor Rick Perry have not discussed the issue in detail, though certainly they understand the dangers.

Only Rep. Ron Paul among the Republican contenders doesn’t grasp the seriousness of the twin Iranian threats of terrorism and nuclear weapons. “Many are hysterical about the imminent threat of a nuclear Iran,” Rep. Paul has written. “One can understand why they [the mullahs] might want to become nuclear capable if only to defend themselves and to be treated more respectfully…. If Iran was attempting to violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty, they could hardly be blamed, since U.S. foreign policy gives them every incentive to do so.” The Congressman opposes economic sanctions on Iran. He opposes U.S. preemptive strikes on Iran. Indeed, Paul has indicated he does not have a problem with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons because he doesn’t think the mullahs in Tehran would actually use such weapons against their enemies. What’s more, he has stated that he would not come to Israel’s defense if Iran fired nuclear weapons at the Jewish state.

Last night’s debate in Nevada was a missed opportunity to press the GOP candidates to explain more fully their approach to Iran. But it is time for the GOP candidates to step up and tell us in more detail how they would handle this most critical of foreign policy issues.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:38 pm 
Offline
Major

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 2:50 pm
Posts: 290
Location: Plainfield, IN
Likes: 4
Liked: 90
Que Paul Shanklin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iKuMVqht4U


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY