Romney mentions possible Iran strike

Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stated yesterday that he would consider attacking Iran.

The DeMoines Register reported that the former Massachusetts Governor said that the country's history of genocide and the threat of its potential nuclear arsenal merit a "possible military strike", after economic and diplomatic sanctions.

The former Massechusetts Governor raised $14 million in the last financial quarter which is down on the $20.5 million he raised in the first quarter, he supplimented this drop with $6.5 million of his own money.

Comments

[George]

Solving problems with use of force. Brilliance! That always works. Romney sure is a smart fellow.

[RJ]

George, the military is not the first or best option of any current presidential candidate, but before calling Romney's inteligence on the carpet, let's look at what our current candidates have said. Then, understand that each one has said they would do X, Y, Z, then a military strike.

Chicago Daily Tribune (on-line edition)

"Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran.
Obama said the United States must first address Iran's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said."
"But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said."

Newsday.com

Hillary shifts right with talk of military strike on Iran

PRINCETON, N.J. -- A tough-talking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday suggested she would back a military strike on Iran if that country's radical Islamic government attempts to build nuclear weapons

[George]

RJ,
It shouldnt be an option for anyone. Iran is scared of US - really scared. It shouldnt be the other way around. We have a military approximately 150 times larger than they do. And we are occupying two of the countries bordering them. What are you scared of? If that's not containment, I dont know what is.

While I know that all candidates are saying strikes are an option, it truly scares me when Romney says it because he, if elected, would be backed by the same base that took us into Iraq. So you can say it's the last option but I don't trust that at all.

Do you trust the Republican Party? How many wars do you want?

[RJ]

You missed my point. If we say one person is flawed for this view, then we must extend that to all who share the same (or similar) view. Also, the base that took us into Iraq was (at the time) made up of both parties, but led by a Republican President. Lastly, why would you ask me what I'm scared of? My original post did not defend either side or ask for a war, but merely pointed to the similar positions of different candidates. By knowing the positions and how they are similar or different, we can make an educated selection when voting, instead of voting on emotions.

[George]

I understand your point. I do recognize the similar rhetoric - my point however is that I have reason to believe that Obama is just talking tough while Romney is more likely to actually start another war in Iran by using unnecessary force. I believe this because of the recent history of Romney's party and the fact that his party is run by the military industrial complex - people who have a direct interest in starting wars. Also, the recent history of Obama's foresight gives me comfort in his decision making. Making an informed decision means looking at actions as well as words. If you look at actions in this case, there is nothing similar about Romney and Obama.

As for Hillary, I'm not sure what she would do.