PDA

View Full Version : Ted Cruz Says Obama Should Threaten Iran




Warlord
02-18-2014, 05:47 PM
Just for compromise and eduardo, this highlights the key difference with the likes of Cruz, Beck and Palin to Ron and Rand Paul


Expanding his attack on the administration's nuclear deal with Iran, Sen. Ted Cruz Thursday said that President Obama should end talks, demand Tehran give up its nuclear program immediately and use military force if the terrorist nation doesn't give in.

A "responsible president," the Texas Republican told a conference on Iran's grab for a nuclear weapon, "would stand up and say unequivocally, in terms that allow no confusion, 'Under no circumstances will the nation of Iran be allowed to acquire nuclear weapon capability, and they will either halt now or we will use every step necessary including direct military force to stop them.'"

But, said Cruz, mulling his own 2016 Republican presidential bid, "that leadership is desperately needed, and right now that leadership is not there."

Cruz, one of the Senate's harshest critics of the U.S. deal to trade sanctions on Iran in exchange for drawing down its nuclear weapons program, also said that the United States should arm Israel with so-called "bunker buster" bombs capable of destroying Iran's bomb plants deep below the surface of the earth.

"At a very minimum," the first-term senator said, "we should be making available bunker busters to Israel. That if Israel is going to be forced to defend itself, it should have the tools to effectively eliminate this program."

Cruz also called for swift approval of new and broader economic sanctions in Iran.

He called the deal being discussed in Geneva and pushed by Secretary of State John Kerry "a very very bad deal and an historic mistake" and a lethal threat to Israel.

Instead of "appeasement," Cruz said, "we should act against an enemy of the United States."

Critics worry that the administration's Iran deal would leave that country with the ability to use nuclear energy that could quickly be modified for bomb-making.

"The threat of a nuclear Iran is the gravest national security threat to the United States of America in the world," Cruz warned, adding that he believes the minute Iran builds a bomb, it will use it against Israel, Los Angeles or New York. "That threat, I think, is enormous."

And just as bad, he said, is the potential for Iran to share the technology (http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/technology/) with terrorist groups or Muslim foes of Israel.

R. James Woolsey, a former CIA director, said at the conference that Iran is close to making a bomb and that "it's the United States' duty to deal with this ... we have very little time."

(c) 2014 ProQuest Information and Learning Company; All Rights Reserved.


http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2014/2/7/ted_cruz_says_obama_should_threaten.htm

compromise
02-18-2014, 05:49 PM
He is right that all options must be openly kept on the table and this increases the likelihood of diplomacy on terms favorable to the United States. He isn't outright calling for a full military intervention in Iran.

Snew
02-18-2014, 05:49 PM
I don't like cursing, but seriously. F**k this guy.

Warlord
02-18-2014, 05:50 PM
He is right that all options must be openly kept on the table and this increases the likelihood of diplomacy on terms favorable to the United States. He isn't outright calling for a full military intervention in Iran.

It's none of our business what Iran does. He is openly agitating for military action against another nation. Beck and Palin are right there with him

ZENemy
02-18-2014, 05:52 PM
This comment is pathetic. Politicians are pathetic.


"The threat of a nuclear Iran is the gravest national security threat to the United States of America in the world," Cruz warned, adding that he believes the minute Iran builds a bomb, it will use it against Israel, Los Angeles or New York. "That threat, I think, is enormous."

Warlord
02-18-2014, 05:54 PM
He is right that all options must be openly kept on the table and this increases the likelihood of diplomacy on terms favorable to the United States. He isn't outright calling for a full military intervention in Iran.

Instead of "appeasement," Cruz said, "we should act against an enemy of the United States."

Warlord
02-18-2014, 05:58 PM
Sounds like he's calling for some action in a hostile manner

RM918
02-18-2014, 05:58 PM
More saber rattling, I've had enough of that a long time ago.

pcosmar
02-18-2014, 06:01 PM
Sounds like he's calling for some action in a hostile manner

Folks have been hostile toward Iran since the 50s.

If our "diplomats" were not dip shits we would be apologizing,, and making friendly trade deals.

Warlord
02-18-2014, 06:19 PM
Look who Cruz is dining with...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?444448-Michael-Savage-Sean-Hannity-is-lying-about-leaving-a-5-000-tip

cajuncocoa
02-18-2014, 06:19 PM
Just for compromise and eduardo, this highlights the key difference with the likes of Cruz, Beck and Palin to Ron and Rand Paul



http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2014/2/7/ted_cruz_says_obama_should_threaten.htmhave a +rep

NIU Students for Liberty
02-18-2014, 07:47 PM
He is right that all options must be openly kept on the table and this increases the likelihood of diplomacy on terms favorable to the United States. He isn't outright calling for a full military intervention in Iran.

Yeah, nothing like being a pussy (Cruz) and urging others (Obama) to make threats for you against a group of people who haven't done anything to you, nor have the intentions to do so. That is the very definition of diplomacy :rolleyes:

surf
02-18-2014, 08:05 PM
"Cruz" and the word "liberty" should never be uttered in the same sentence. he is a wart apparently impervious to compound w

there is nothing more unifying than a desire for peace. that's what we need to tap into.