|
|
How should the U.S. deal with the threat of a nuclear Iran?
|
Clinton favors diplomacy with and possible sanctions against Iran.
Remarks by Clinton during a CNN Presidential Debate: "What I think is most important is that we have aggressive diplomacy with Iran... I think sanctioning them and putting some pressure on them is an important part of getting to the diplomatic table with both carrots and sticks. So oppose the rush to war, but get tough and have a diplomatic approach to Iran."
(link)
|
|
McCain will pursue diplomacy and sanctions against Iran, with military action being a possible but not preferred option.
From an article by McCain in Foreign Affairs magazine: "Protected by a nuclear arsenal, Iran would be even more willing and able to sponsor terrorist attacks against any perceived enemy, including the United States and Israel, or even to pass nuclear materials to one of its allied terrorist networks. The next president must confront this threat directly, and that effort must begin with tougher political and economic sanctions... And military action, although not the preferred option, must remain on the table: Tehran must understand that it cannot win a showdown with the world."
(link)
|
|
Obama favors diplomacy with and possible sanctions against Iran.
From Obama's website: "Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress."
(link)
|
|
Paul does not believe Iran is a threat and would take no action.
Remarks by Paul during a speech in the U.S. House of Representatives: "There is no evidence of a threat to us by Iran, and no reason to plan and initiate a confrontation with her. There are many reasons not to do so, however. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there’s no evidence that she is working on one--only conjecture. If Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India, and North Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon than these other countries? If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody-- which would guarantee her own annihilation-- are zero. And the same goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state terrorist group."
(link)
|
|
This site is not affiliated with or funded by any political party or candidate.
Copyright 2008 Crowd Technology Company, Owner Bryant Lee, Send comments here
|