Which candidate do you think has the right approach to the Iran missile crisis?
The reason I call it a crisis is because it goes directly against UN Policy, and with the situation in Iraq and other places currently in the Middle East, the condition cannot be oversighted. McCain wants increased sanctions, while Obama calls for aggressive diplomacy. Which candidate ON THIS POSITION ONLY do you support? Should we get involved or not? What action or lack or action do you think is appropriate in handling the situation?
Politics - 9 Answers - 2008-07-10 06:30:44

Best Answer
there is no reason not to talk to the Iranians, look what happened in North Korea, they just blew up there nuke plant and there was never any thought of attacking them just serious negotiations, also Iran has the right to develop whatever military tech they want, the UN security council( the ones who make the various rules and sanctions) is controlled by the west and they have a fear of a re-surging east ( and i don't mean Russia) The American/west euro domination of the world is over time to make room for the far east, the only way we will ever get along is to stop being domineering

All Answers
Answer 1
Barack HUSSEIN Obama
2008-07-10 06:34:28

Answer 2
Iran iran iran is wat u americans just always talk about...! god dont worry we wont eat u!!!!
2008-07-10 06:36:03

Answer 3
The U S should but out for a change. Iran has a right to it's missiles just as much as the Israelis .
2008-07-10 06:37:32

Answer 4
Noone has all the answers
2008-07-10 06:38:22

Answer 5
Obama essentially is AWOL on the issue. McCain wants to rely on technology with a spotty track record. (Patriot missiles actually had a poor success ratio.) This is just something that will have to be met with whatever stategy works.
2008-07-10 06:40:17

Answer 6
i think that 'agressive' diplomacy only allows Iran more time to develope their program..they went against UN policies. this organization has proven to be ineffective. you will recall that Saddam defied 17 resolutions of the UN. i think that we ARE involved regardless of what we feel about possible, practical solutions. i think that Iran and others of their ilk, exploit weaknessess and untilize them..they only understand strong responses and consequences. in other words, they must fear us even if they don't respect us. i will let the candidates speak for themselves and then leave it up to you to decide who you feel will be the strongest on defence and who can and would support a strong national defense and who would take a 'globalist' view and Soros' view that the 'war on terror' is just a fear tactic to scare real Americans who know that it is just a creation of the Bush Adminstration, who are the real terrorist around the globe. Obama Says Iranian Missile Tests Show Need For More Diplomacy, Tougher Threats Of Sanctions (AP) Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that Iran's missile tests highlight the need for direct diplomacy as well as tougher threats of economic sanctions and strong incentives to persuade Tehran to change its behavior. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/09/ap/politics/main4243728.shtml there was a lot of coverage by the liberal press on Obama's response and only a few mentioned both..you got it, FOX was one of these rare ones to mention both. "Barack Obama pointed to a new missile test Wednesday by Iran as a reason to open diplomatic relations with the country, while John McCain said the test indicates a need for a strong missile defense system based in Europe." "Both candidates pointed to sanctions as a way to put pressure on the country’s government, as they staked out their latest positions on an issue that has largely shaped each candidate’s foreign policy approach." In a statement, McCain said: “Iran’s most recent missile tests demonstrate again the dangers it poses to its neighbors and to the wider region, especially Israel. Ballistic missile testing coupled with Iran’s continued refusal to cease its nuclear activities should unite the international community in efforts to counter Iran’s dangerous ambitions.” “I would want to talk to the national security team to find out whether this indicates any new capabilities on Iran’s part. At this point, the reports aren’t clear. It’s still early,” Obama told CBS’ “Early Show.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/09/obama-says-iranian-missile-tests-prove-need-for-diplomacy/ it seems clear to me, but then i am one of those that believe in the strong defence of America and it's citizens.
2008-07-10 06:42:10

Answer 7
there is no reason not to talk to the Iranians, look what happened in North Korea, they just blew up there nuke plant and there was never any thought of attacking them just serious negotiations, also Iran has the right to develop whatever military tech they want, the UN security council( the ones who make the various rules and sanctions) is controlled by the west and they have a fear of a re-surging east ( and i don't mean Russia) The American/west euro domination of the world is over time to make room for the far east, the only way we will ever get along is to stop being domineering
2008-07-10 06:47:27

Answer 8
McCain! Mr. o thinks he can set up a tea party with crumpets and "discuss' this with a bunch of "thugs"....such unintelligent naivete!
2008-07-10 06:50:25

Answer 9
The leadership of Iran is mentally unstable. So I am not sure if anyone really knows how to address them. Talking to them will not work. That has been tried in the past and all we would end up getting is empty promises. Their economy is in the toilet and if we put more economic sanctions on them, they can basically cut the supply of oil to the market and screw the whole world by causing oil prices to skyrocket even higher than they are now. So this whole issue comes back to our dependence on the middle east for oil. We import about 70% of our oil, much of it from the middle east. If we were energy independent, Iran could easily be dealt with. So who has the better proposed energy policy right now? McCain who seeks to drill and get any and all available oil from our internal sources and develop our alternative energy strategy over the next 20 years. Obama on the other hand wants alternative energy now and refuses to drill, but these technologies are 20 years out. For example: Honda just came out with a hydrogen car and its only pollution is water. This is the technology of the future. However only 100 will be sold. Why? Because you can't go to your local hydrogen station to fuel it. No infrastructure has been developed for this yet and it will take years and billions to do so. http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/infrastructure/gm-honda-toyota-push-for-more-hydrogen-fueling-stations/ This issue in my mind comes back to our dependence on oil and a poor energy policy. Why can't our leaders see this? We are pretty much screwed by these people. God help us if they get the atomic bomb.
2008-07-10 06:58:28