Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 01:50 PM Jan 2012

Rick Santorum: I Would Bomb Iran Nuclear Sites

WASHINGTON -- Republican Rick Santorum says that if he's elected president, he would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities unless they were opened for international arms inspectors.

Santorum says President Barack Obama hasn't done enough to prevent the Iranian government from building a nuclear weapon and has risked turning the U.S. into a "paper tiger."

Santorum tells NBC's "Meet the Press" that he would tell Iranian leaders that either they open up those facilities, begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors – or the U.S. would attack them.

The Obama administration, like the Bush administration, has focused primarily on international diplomacy and economic penalties to try to pressure Iran into abandoning its nuclear program. Iran contends its efforts are for peaceful purposes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/rick-santorum-iran-iowa-caucuses-2012-_n_1178483.html

79 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Rick Santorum: I Would Bomb Iran Nuclear Sites (Original Post) onehandle Jan 2012 OP
War Mongerer! n/t TexasTowelie Jan 2012 #1
Sounds like he wants one of those Nobel Peace Prize thingies also.... pocoloco Jan 2012 #7
bomb nuclear sites? barbtries Jan 2012 #2
What does Mr. Frothy care? He's getting Murdock money. nt valerief Jan 2012 #32
Don't worry, it's okay, all the radioactive stuff would just go up in the air and blow away. tclambert Jan 2012 #45
Very dangerous... China would not be happy either, being downwind. Fearless Jan 2012 #50
And Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia, and Sudan, etc. Follow the trade winds. AtheistCrusader Jan 2012 #58
Yes. But unlike them China could hurt us. Fearless Jan 2012 #68
That's a good point. AtheistCrusader Jan 2012 #75
If you bomb a numclear bomb you set off that nuclear Maraya1969 Jan 2012 #66
Wouldn't a nuclear weapon typically have to be armed to allow for that? octothorpe Jan 2012 #69
He doesn't care that he could conaminate the whole Middle East for thousands of years. GoCubsGo Jan 2012 #79
Yeah, what could go wrong? It's not like blowing up a reactor could brewens Jan 2012 #3
And what happens when the retaliation comes from Pakistan? Joe Bacon Jan 2012 #46
The containments for the reactors at Fukushima Dai-Ichi are leaking, but more or less intact. AtheistCrusader Jan 2012 #59
pure thug, and the sad thing is that well over 100 million US citizens agree with him stockholmer Jan 2012 #4
Who agrees with him? Is there a poll? LiberalAndProud Jan 2012 #61
The idiocy of all this. earthside Jan 2012 #5
Why is it against the law for Iran to have nuclear weapons?? Angry Dragon Jan 2012 #6
couple of things sabbat hunter Jan 2012 #18
Do you know when it was signed by Iran Angry Dragon Jan 2012 #20
that "insane mullah" line is tired conservative propaganda. provis99 Jan 2012 #21
++++ KG Jan 2012 #26
+1 Jeroen Jan 2012 #37
They're ayatollahs, not mullahs. And only some of them are insane. Bucky Jan 2012 #62
There are just too many Americans who literally frothe at the mouth at any mention of Iran ... BlueMTexpat Jan 2012 #70
The little winky face sneaked in inadvertently ... sorry about that. nt BlueMTexpat Jan 2012 #71
I think the most dreaded result of an Iranian nuclear arsenal would be... MilesColtrane Jan 2012 #30
Just one question (for now)... Amonester Jan 2012 #55
Do you mean maintain or "maintain"? MilesColtrane Jan 2012 #65
No nation-state is going to give a nuke to one of its client insurgency groups. Bucky Jan 2012 #63
He's a "good christian" and e-van-gel-icans LOVE him. givemebackmycountry Jan 2012 #8
Pro Life Octafish Jan 2012 #19
Idiot wind. marmar Jan 2012 #9
Dear People of Iran BadGimp Jan 2012 #10
Santorum is inviting a preemptive attack on the U.S. with his reckless threats. kiranon Jan 2012 #11
He probably thinks that this will bring on the Apocalypse, Tomay Jan 2012 #12
+1 sarcasmo Jan 2012 #77
Of all the idiots running for prez as GOPers this year, Santorum and LibDemAlways Jan 2012 #13
Nothing like spreading the Santorum around! RoccoR5955 Jan 2012 #14
The problem is Iran has lots of other kinds of modern weapons lunatica Jan 2012 #15
Yes, the missile flew customerserviceguy Jan 2012 #17
Doesn't have to be Confusious Jan 2012 #34
Those would be called 'obstacles'. Blacksheep214 Jan 2012 #56
Let's not forget something customerserviceguy Jan 2012 #16
The "message" they sent was to Obama, not about Israel. Behind the Aegis Jan 2012 #22
And Obama's Israel policies had nothing to do with that? n/t customerserviceguy Jan 2012 #28
That's not what you implied. Behind the Aegis Jan 2012 #67
If important Iranian political leaders ronnie624 Jan 2012 #23
This is why he will never be President. Ever. Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #24
STUPID !! GreenStormCloud Jan 2012 #25
Well that would be an interesting approach... jimlup Jan 2012 #27
Are the Republicans aware that they keep wanting to cut the budget lovuian Jan 2012 #29
That's why they stand at the receiving end of the bribing line$. Amonester Jan 2012 #60
Hey Ron Paul, don't hold back! no_hypocrisy Jan 2012 #31
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran... RobertBlue Jan 2012 #33
He just gave the best reason to never vote for him, never. WHEN CRABS ROAR Jan 2012 #35
Nothing like throwing gas on a fire only problem one puke says he wants to do it others join on. gordianot Jan 2012 #36
Typical chickenshit chickenhawk repuke. tabasco Jan 2012 #38
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Jan 2012 #39
I'm sure Iran's just shaking in fear. HopeHoops Jan 2012 #40
What a phony Mosaic Jan 2012 #41
It's so embarrassing to realize the rest of the world is watching this kind of thing. Gregorian Jan 2012 #42
Same ole bullshit different mouth piece. sarcasmo Jan 2012 #43
Is America too Paranoid to survive? Blacksheep214 Jan 2012 #44
do I need to even ask if he served in the military? Skittles Jan 2012 #47
and spread radiation throughout that region because you are a psychopath fascisthunter Jan 2012 #48
"...or the U.S. would attack them." unkachuck Jan 2012 #49
Under What Legal Authority Would Santorum Operate DallasNE Jan 2012 #51
IOKIARDI Blacksheep214 Jan 2012 #54
Do they not watch the news? Let them do it theirselves Dragonbreathp9d Jan 2012 #52
Thanks for flagging this. I've added it to Santorum's Wikipedia bio. Jim Lane Jan 2012 #53
"paper tiger." as if it needs more build up!! lunasun Jan 2012 #57
This message was self-deleted by its author freshwest Jan 2012 #64
Naaa, you would just bomb. nt Javaman Jan 2012 #72
SantoRumsfeld Blue Owl Jan 2012 #73
Posts #8 and #19 express my thoughts too IcyPeas Jan 2012 #74
Jesus, how f'ing irresponsible can a candidate get? indepat Jan 2012 #76
Would Rick bomb carla Jan 2012 #78

barbtries

(28,805 posts)
2. bomb nuclear sites?
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 01:54 PM
Jan 2012

wouldn't that be dangerous?! what am i not getting?
i mean, i'm horrified that he would suggest such a thing...should i be?

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
75. That's a good point.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 07:53 PM
Jan 2012

I sort of discounted China as being 'in range', but Fukushima sort of proved that not to be the case.

Maraya1969

(22,486 posts)
66. If you bomb a numclear bomb you set off that nuclear
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 04:51 AM
Jan 2012

bomb. So yeah, it is horrifying from where I am sitting.

octothorpe

(962 posts)
69. Wouldn't a nuclear weapon typically have to be armed to allow for that?
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:02 PM
Jan 2012

Also, this toolbag isn't talking about bombing a nuclear weapon, but bombing nuclear facilities where they enrich uranium and probably the power plants they are building. Bombing those wouldn't mean a nuclear explosion either (the Israelis bombed the Iraqi nuclear plant in the 80's)

To be clear, I'm not in support of bombing Iran's nuclear plants. I'm just not sure that it would result in the nuclear detonation as you claim. I'm pretty sure we'd have some fallout issues though. I'm betting more intelligent people than I could give more information on that.

Bombing Iran would be incredibly counter-productive and hypocritical in my oh-so-humble-and-largely-irrelevant opinion.

GoCubsGo

(32,086 posts)
79. He doesn't care that he could conaminate the whole Middle East for thousands of years.
Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:40 AM
Jan 2012

Someone should tell him that it could render Israel uninhabitable, too.

brewens

(13,599 posts)
3. Yeah, what could go wrong? It's not like blowing up a reactor could
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 01:54 PM
Jan 2012

cause anything like happened in Japan recently, could it?

Joe Bacon

(5,165 posts)
46. And what happens when the retaliation comes from Pakistan?
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:05 PM
Jan 2012

Methinks Little Ricky isn't thinking this all the way thru, but then he NEVER does...

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
59. The containments for the reactors at Fukushima Dai-Ichi are leaking, but more or less intact.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:34 AM
Jan 2012

Dropping a bomb on one would result in something close to Chernobyl, where the core was thrown, burning, into the sky by the force of the explosion.

Uranium is pyrophoric. Add heat and atmosphere, and it burns.

LiberalAndProud

(12,799 posts)
61. Who agrees with him? Is there a poll?
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:55 AM
Jan 2012

I would think that the American people are sick to death of getting into wars that we can't win. I don't think this is a good thing for Santorum. I'd be willing to bet it sends his caucus numbers down in Iowa. So much for stealth win, I think.

Of course, I could definitely be wrong.

earthside

(6,960 posts)
5. The idiocy of all this.
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 02:02 PM
Jan 2012

Frankly, if I were Iran this kind of talk would only reinforce the notion that I better get some nukes fast in order to forestall an attack.

But not just to highlight the insanity of Santorum ... I heard Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman last week on MSNBC saber-rattling with the oil-banking sanctions against Iran, that sends the same message to the Iranian leadership, too, in my opinion.

Of course, as far as I know, there has not been any credible reports or investigations that show that Iran is developing nuclear weapons -- just nuclear power plants.

sabbat hunter

(6,829 posts)
18. couple of things
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:05 PM
Jan 2012

1) Iran is a signatory to the NPT so they are NOT allowed to have nuclear weapons under that treaty
2) Do you want the insane mullahs that run Iran to have nuclear weapons?

Angry Dragon

(36,693 posts)
20. Do you know when it was signed by Iran
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:13 PM
Jan 2012

and I think all countries should get rid of them


However the US uses depleted uranium in Iraq
and is causing all kinds of problems for the citizens

 

provis99

(13,062 posts)
21. that "insane mullah" line is tired conservative propaganda.
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:16 PM
Jan 2012

unlike America, the Iranian government hasn't started a war with another country. Maybe it's "insane Yankees" who are the problem, not "insane mullahs".

Bucky

(54,029 posts)
62. They're ayatollahs, not mullahs. And only some of them are insane.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:59 AM
Jan 2012

And only in the modern sense that anyone who vehemently disagrees with me is insane.

That said, preventing Iran from getting a working bomb is a worthy foreign policy goal. If nothing else, it will compel Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and possibly Egypt to set up secret nuke programs.

BlueMTexpat

(15,370 posts)
70. There are just too many Americans who literally frothe at the mouth at any mention of Iran ...
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:08 PM
Jan 2012

to pay any attention to those facts. And yes, I agree with you - if anyone acts in an insane manner, it is a country that attacks another country thousands of miles away that never posed any realistic threat to it.

But Iran itself is not helping its own cause with the provocative acts and statements of its rulers - and, by doing so, is providing lots of fodder for those who love to hype the "insane mullah" (or "ayatollah&quot line and who appear to have learned nothing from our experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course, so long as the pockets of the warmongers keep being lined by the fruits of war, they will keep advocating for war to the tragedy of all others concerned.

Santorum, like all of the clown car GOP candidates with the possible exception of Ron Paul in this matter would be a willing, even eager, tool. Paul's stance on not promoting war with Iran and his advocacy for a policy other than a "war" on drugs are his only redeeming factors, IMO.

MilesColtrane

(18,678 posts)
30. I think the most dreaded result of an Iranian nuclear arsenal would be...
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 05:04 PM
Jan 2012

the government giving a bomb to Hezbollah or another terrorist group that it sponsors.

Religious fanatics have a tendency to not care if they get blown up, or are on the receiving end of retribution, as long as they take out their target.

A terrorist organization using an Iranian bomb to hit Jerusalem or New York is the most-feared scenario driving our policy with that country.

Amonester

(11,541 posts)
55. Just one question (for now)...
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:26 AM
Jan 2012

How would any such organization manage to "maintain" (with the appropriate technology... they do not have...) ANY nuclear device, mmm?

I also have a "next" question.

MilesColtrane

(18,678 posts)
65. Do you mean maintain or "maintain"?
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:02 AM
Jan 2012

Kind of a confusing question.

As for maintaining a nuclear weapon, I imagine one could be built that doesn't have a shelf life that would make it
inoperable in 30 days.

If a terrorist org. gets a bomb, it's not like they are going to sit on it and use it to negotiate.

Bucky

(54,029 posts)
63. No nation-state is going to give a nuke to one of its client insurgency groups.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:04 AM
Jan 2012

And for the very reason you state. Iran is plenty dangerous--for their regional aggression, their support of Palestinian terrorism, and the threat they present to Persian Gulf traffic. But they aren't insane. Like most idealogues, they think history is on their side. The idea that all MidEastern religious fanatics are fatalistic suiciders is hysterical Republican marketing of political disinformation.

givemebackmycountry

(6,259 posts)
8. He's a "good christian" and e-van-gel-icans LOVE him.
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 02:13 PM
Jan 2012

So what if we kill innocent people in the process of Mr. Frothy Mixes war hard on?
He's a "good christian".

Fuck him.

BadGimp

(4,015 posts)
10. Dear People of Iran
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 02:22 PM
Jan 2012

The guy is Nuckin Futz, please ignore him.

Don't take my word for it, Google him.

Peace out...

kiranon

(1,727 posts)
11. Santorum is inviting a preemptive attack on the U.S. with his reckless threats.
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 02:24 PM
Jan 2012

Hope to see his numbers tank immediately. Tired of these "easy to go to war mongers" who have no concept of the danger to Americans --not to mention the death and destruction from the bombs -- that his comments entail. Diplomacy is not a bad word.

Tomay

(58 posts)
12. He probably thinks that this will bring on the Apocalypse,
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 02:24 PM
Jan 2012

which is a good thing, from Santorum's perspective. It will bring Jesus back, after all, and that's what matters. If you're a good Christian (by Santorum's definition) you'll be Raptured away anyway and miss all the destruction. Only the unbelievers will perish. The only good thing about Santorum's candidacy is that he will probably never be nominated for president. Vice president is another matter; I could see Romney picking him to firm up his own support among God-fearing fundie types who think Romney is some kind of non-Christian cultist.

LibDemAlways

(15,139 posts)
13. Of all the idiots running for prez as GOPers this year, Santorum and
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 02:36 PM
Jan 2012

Bachmann have to be tied for most over-the-top stupendously stupid. Says a lot about the GOP electorate that anyone would vote for these clowns - any of them.

lunatica

(53,410 posts)
15. The problem is Iran has lots of other kinds of modern weapons
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 02:49 PM
Jan 2012

They're armed and quite ready to go to war if the need arises. They just tested a mid range missile in the Persian Gulf.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101414805

edited for spelling

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
17. Yes, the missile flew
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 02:54 PM
Jan 2012

But was it truly undetectable by radar? I sure don't expect our military to disclose the answer to that, one way or another.

I doubt the Iranian navy is any match for our Navy, if a real shooting war in the Straits of Hormuz did break out.

Confusious

(8,317 posts)
34. Doesn't have to be
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 05:59 PM
Jan 2012

They have sunburner ground-to-sea missiles all along the straight.

They skim along the ocean at supersonic speeds. Nothing we have will take them out.

Goodbye any navy in the area.

 

Blacksheep214

(877 posts)
56. Those would be called 'obstacles'.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:27 AM
Jan 2012

Maybe we need a few garbage scows to hide behind while the 18s go hunting

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
16. Let's not forget something
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 02:51 PM
Jan 2012

This kind of saber rattling really does seem comforting to many Jewish voters who are on the GOP side, and there are loads of them down in Florida. He really could score his third win out of the four January contests with what they would perceive to be a strong pro-Israeli stand on this issue.

Please recall, a lot of Jewish voters in NYC used the special election in the Wiener district to play "send a message". I don't see why they wouldn't do that with the Florida primary, too.

ronnie624

(5,764 posts)
23. If important Iranian political leaders
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:24 PM
Jan 2012

were running around threatening to bomb the United States, I wonder what the U.S. reaction would be.

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
25. STUPID !!
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:43 PM
Jan 2012

The Iranian nuclear sites are well known to be underground and dispersed. Very difficult to impossible to hit. Likely that we don't even know the exact location underground of the sites.

jimlup

(7,968 posts)
27. Well that would be an interesting approach...
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 04:09 PM
Jan 2012

As I suspect it would accelerate Iran's nuclear program substantially. I can't think of a more destabilizing move than that.

lovuian

(19,362 posts)
29. Are the Republicans aware that they keep wanting to cut the budget
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 04:19 PM
Jan 2012

for healthcare education and social security

and yet
feel its ok to spend billions on a War with Iran

gordianot

(15,242 posts)
36. Nothing like throwing gas on a fire only problem one puke says he wants to do it others join on.
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 06:03 PM
Jan 2012

Republican fascist stupidity tough talk

Response to onehandle (Original post)

Gregorian

(23,867 posts)
42. It's so embarrassing to realize the rest of the world is watching this kind of thing.
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 07:24 PM
Jan 2012

We're first in terms of military might, and probably last in terms of our lowest denominator. And by that, I mean the fools who think no one is watching as they demonstrate their ignorance. Little do they know. The whole world is cringing.

 

Blacksheep214

(877 posts)
44. Is America too Paranoid to survive?
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:50 PM
Jan 2012

Damn, we are chicken shit afraid of everything! The proof is bringing out air raids against groups of 20. Anyone think we over-react.

Santorum is an idiot who due to his religious convictions is dangerous. These types will ensure their twisted prophecy comes to pass. No Thanks!

Kerry said it and I said it. You don't send armies to handle terror cells. These are intel and special ops. How many lives and money could we have saved. Did our Army get Bin Ladin? NO!

Santorum has not learned from history making him unqualified to lead.

That's besides his inability to see all Americans as equal. I guess what his God said doesn't matter when it comes to politics. Hypocrite!

 

fascisthunter

(29,381 posts)
48. and spread radiation throughout that region because you are a psychopath
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:22 PM
Jan 2012

who hides behind a god for a disguise.

 

unkachuck

(6,295 posts)
49. "...or the U.S. would attack them."
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:37 PM
Jan 2012

....well that clears that up....now that we're down one war it's nice to know sanatorium is ready to get America back up to speed by starting a new war of aggression....on the cheap of course; he's a 'fiscal conservative'....

....hear that Wal-Mart?....you may pray to Christ, Buddha or the eleven dimensions of M-theory for profit, but four new years of war will bring no fiscal responsibility or put any new money in the pockets of consumers if sanatorium becomes president....

DallasNE

(7,403 posts)
51. Under What Legal Authority Would Santorum Operate
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:13 PM
Jan 2012

He certainly couldn't get United Nations approval because of a veto, if nothing else. Iran does not represent the immanent threat for executive action. Could he get a Congressional resolution for war against Iran? That is not very likely either so where would he get the legal authority?

Response to onehandle (Original post)

IcyPeas

(21,894 posts)
74. Posts #8 and #19 express my thoughts too
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:09 PM
Jan 2012

pro life
pro bombing Muslims

they must pray to Ares, the Greek god of war.

carla

(553 posts)
78. Would Rick bomb
Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:18 AM
Jan 2012

them with dead babies? Or just to make more dead babies? Rick Santorum, the dead baby candidate?

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Rick Santorum: I Would Bo...