So because Obama said he would not use nukes that limits his options when the US is attacked?

What a ridiculous assertion. Obama is right to rule out nuking and nuclear power to kill 1000 lunatics when millions of civilians would suffer.

How would China, pakistan and India respond with a nuke exploding in their back yard? Are these guys serious?

Edwards = spineless washington DC wannabe

Obama was exactly right.  To tell a country that has, so far, been friendly (or at least not hostile), as Pakistan has, that you might use nukes on their soil is assine!!!  We need to assure our friends that we will BE friends.  This is one of the first, most important jobs the new president will have.  We cannot keep threatening other countries and making enemies.  That is not the American way.

Do these clowns know what they are reacting to is a media generated lie? I'm thinking they know, and don't care. Never stopped them on Bush either.

Hey Obama you're getting great practice for walking in Bush's shoes, dunno about the chair yet.

Too bad, I thought Edwards was on the right side of this stuff.  Guess Obama stands alone.  

Update II:  Edwards finally speaks:   “Senator Edwards believes a candidate for president should, in general, avoid talking about the potential use of nuclear weapons.  Getting into hypotheticals about the use of force—particularly in the case of n..

Women need to stop supporting Hillarious just because she's a woman.  If we elect a woman as president there's got to be more reason than breaking the glass ceiling.  My mom asked me well, don't you want to see that glass ceiling broken for your daughter's generation and yes, I do.  But as a woman, I'd prefer to use my good judgement and that means not voting my religious beliefs, those have no place in politics (thank you the rest of you sheep evangelicals for Bush, what a joke) and not just so my daughter can feel she can be anything.  I'd rather her model herself after Obama, than the lying, money hungry, no ethics or moral tenet Hilliary.  AS for John Edwards, like him more than Hillarious as well, but he needs to start talking tough and forget the southern gentile political correctness, it's the President of the US he's running for and not the best date to the cotillion.

Speaking of bombing, I just want to officially call Tom Tancredo a moron for his suggestion that we bomb Mecca and Medina in retaliation for future bombing attacks. Such a tactic is "the only way" he "can think of" to deter such activities.

Somebody pull the plug please. Please! We can't afford another fabulous idea like this one. Let's destroy the holy cities of one of the largest religions in the world so that we can turn all Muslims against us, instead of the tiny sliver that are currently fundamentalists.

FREAKIN' BRILLIANT! How can this guy possibly not have caught on with voters??? I'm sure it's just a matter of time...

Richard Nixon had the 'Madman' dcotrine.
It would make the US more feared if other nations thought we(the President) behaved like a Madman.
I Guess Hilklary and Dodd endorse that.

Frankly, I can't see Hillary as our 'Fearless Leader'
I don't care about the Hollywood movies or her political hacks' spin.

She's corruupt and unethical.
Lie within lies, Lies upon lies.

I'd prefer Spiro Agnew to Clinton or Dodd !!

Hundreds of Pakistanis BURN U.S. flag in protest over Obama's remarks!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070803/ap_on_re_as/obama_pakistan_7

Yes - we're supporting the best candidate on foreign policy - John Edwards.

Voting for candidates based on gender or race is supporting what's on the outside.
It's what's on the inside that matters - and John Edwards clearly wins.

Right, you don't want to take anything off the table, especially when it comes to what you would do in a wartime situation. This is volunteering info to the enemy that they have no business knowing. In fact, such info should always be classified. Don't tell a potential enemy what you are going to do or not going to do. Always make him find out the hard way.

We were able to kill Zarkawi without any threat of nuclear weapons. We've been fighting in a counterinsurgency war with conventional weapons. Even Israel who has been fighting terrorists long time before us has never talked about keeping all options on the table regarding Hamas or fatah or even Hezbollah. This is just nonsense and sheer ignorance for Hillary and all the other democratic candidates. Someone has to remind them that in the fight against terrorism the rules have changed and they have to update their playbook. Are we going to fight homegrown terrorism by keeping all the options on the table also. One of the region were the traffic of nuclear weapons is effective is the old soviet empire. Europe is closed to this empire through Eastern Europe. Europe is facing a real problem with young british, french or german citizens tempted by terrorism. If one of these networks had an access to these kind of weapons are we keeping all the options on the table also. Because keeping all the options on the tables means that we could use it in our own soil. That is why anyone talking about the policy of nuclear deterrence in the fight against terrorism is just playing the ignorance of the American public. At least, I'm proud to support a candidate who is trusting my brain and is not just throwing red meat
Obama 08

JIrby, Colorado:  Normally I agree with your posts but I think you are wrong on this one.  One of the major reasons why Iran and North Korea have pursued a nuclear weapons program is to deter the United States from using nuclear weapons against them.  If we take the nukes off the table it removes a large part of their case to pursue those programs. I think the United States really needs to get over the cowboy image we've developed since Reagan and get back to actually being a partner in global politics instead of a unilateral "we'll do whatever we like and the rest of you can follow us or get steamrolled" approach.  Keeping the nuclear option on the table only gives incentive for our enemies' WMD programs and strains our relations with allies. Taking the unthinkable off the table would aleviate, a great deal I think, both of those problems.

Additionally, it's not like either of thsoe countries would be able to withstand the US military even without nuclear force.  North Korea might if China backed them with troops (see the Korean War) but I doubt that the Chinese would openly engage in hostilities with us unless we did something incredibly dumb. Like nuke North Korea.

Gerry, Anchorage, Alaska

Tancredo also wants to stop LEGAL immigration so that all immigrants get assimilated.

Ironically, his name doesn't sound American Indian or even Anglo-Saxon to me. Do you think his predecessors came here legally?

Edwards wants to be on the good side of HRC.  Remember their little conversation caught live for everyone to hear - wanting to be rid of the "lower-tier candidates.  You don't hear anything about their arrogance toward those candidates by the media.  If Senator Obama had pulled that stunt, the press would have crucified him.  

Also, to Anne Perry - I couldn't have said it better.  Your daughter is fortunate to have you as a mom.

It took him 24hrs to come up with that lame response. That's pathetic. John needs to let the real contenders discuss this and stay out of it until he has something useful to contribute to the conversation.

I support Edwards for President. I think he is the best of lot. I'm not immune to Obama's charisma and I respect Hillary's intellect, but I think Edwards is savvy, ethical and well versed in the way the world works. I think he would protect and defend America in the world because he's sharp as a tack.

How does Little Johnny Edwards do it?  Really, now...exactly how does this silk-throated, silk-haired, silk-suited silkmeister maintain such a rigorous schedule of silk performances and speaches when there are sooooo many ambulances to chase?  One of these days, Johnny, one of those ambulances is going to run over your silk dog's head while you are trying to pi** on its tires.

Once again, Hillary has shown why she is the best candidate to lead our great country at this delicate time. Just like in the debates, the rest are just following are lead. For someone like me who is father of a little girl, I truely believe that sometimes the person for the job is a woman and Hilary will be a great President. After the last debate, I finally decided to vote for Hillary all the way.

I'm thinking that a candidate can say anything about his/her foreign policy at this stage of the game. I'm pretty sure they have their fingers crossed when they say, no nukes for me.  Do you really think that limits our options?

Okay, sometimes I think I have cobwebs in my head. Musharaff is a dictator. He gained power through a military coup. He says we cannot allow any of our forces into the tribal areas where we believe al Queda has bases.He claims sovereign nation status.
    We invaded Iraq. Supposedly for WMD or linked to 9/11 or oil or revenge or cause the neocons said so. Iraq was a sovereign nation also.
    Someone explain to me the difference between those two sovereign nations and why we allow Pakistan to call the shots when it comes to finding the people behind 9/11? Nuke Pakistan, no. But good golly, why are we continuing to arm them and give a dictator government money and call them our best friends in the war on terror? Did we miss the boat on this one 6 years ago and are we now paying the price?
    I really don't get this.

John Doe - sorry, old bean, it's looking like they are not going to post my response to you. I will wait a day and try again.

John Doe - I didn't intend to imply that we would use nukes, just that we would not telegraph info on how we would engage hostilities, not only in the case of nukes, but any strategy or tactic we planned would remain secret from the enemy. I'm a long way from proposing we would use nukes for N Korea, China, Russia or others who would probably be amenable to reasonable diplomacy. I was mainly thinking about types who don't play by the rules, ie, al Qaeda, but even in this case, I can't think of a scenario in which I would think about using nukes. Just that I would not wish to give such an enemy a clue as to what my intentions are. I have mentioned before that Bush is so transparent and predictable that Osama can probably finish his sentences for him, and probably in many cases knows what Bush  will do before Bush knows. My thinking is that you do not wish to allow such a person to read a given plan of attack over your shoulder. Bush has given secrecy a bad name by abusing his power, but that does not mean you want the enemy to know what you would do or wouldn't do. That would be similar to picking up a blind date and telling her you were going to make love to her tonight. You don't tell her what you are going to do. This would be a bad strategy. I think much of the problem of the nuke question will become moot, more or less, when we get someone in the White House who is not a madman.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):