Quote:
Quote by: bishop  |
The difference is she wants to sign the international treaty that would establish a plan, with oversite inspectors, to disarm all countries by downsizing nuclear stock piles and by disarming missles with nuclear war heads. And the Bush White House has authorized the building of more nuclear bombs, and has proposed developing hand held weapons that discharge nuclear bombs. She supports the idea of not allowing a lot of other nations from attaining nuclear warheads, which is possible if they get nuclear energy plants. America must take the leadership when it comes to downsizing our nukes and Russia was willing to do likewise, as were other nations. We must support U.N. inspectors to insure the Israel does not have a nuclear program along with inspectors for other middle-eastern countries. Such a plan must be established on an internatonal bases and not just "policed" by the USA for those countries we might not be on friendly terms with. With another Bush style frist strike war.
Of course Hillary is firm about not permitting Iran to develope nuclear bombs, who would not be? Nuclear energy plants is another matter, as not every country can use water power, etc. to provide electric power to thier cities. That is where the problem come into play because we have promoted the idea that nuclear energy is a "peaceful use" of nuclear technology. But to prevent the spread of nuclear arms we must, as HIllary pointed out in the link you provided, get involved in signing those treaties and international agreements about nuclear weapons of mass distruction. For anything short of that is just hypocritical.
Bush, and the Repubicans who want to replace him, are not willing to even concider signing those treaties being proposed or to get involved in talks to do this on a global scale.
And concerning Iraq their is a difference, the democrats want to pull out and the republicans want to stay and continue the war.