Hi Srdjan, please see my comments inline:

>>Let me ask you this, what would be an appropriate response for Turkey if a country used nuclear weapons against it? That was the question posed to the candidates...
>
>I don't believe Obama or Clinton would ever resort to nuclear weapons, but they are forced (or will be forced) to kind of vawe with nuclear sords for ellectional purposes.
>

I agree with this. I actually think not a single candidate in either would voluntarily use nuclear weapons. They all know full well the results of that action. However, I think any smart candidate once in office would never take the option off the table (as far as the public is concerned) as a deterrent. No one wants their enemies to know at what length they would not go to protect the country.

>I think nuclear threat to US (and in general) has been so greatly exagerrated by current US administration that it (sadly) actually became an ellection agenda and vote gainer.
>Aldough now with 2 wars in progress, this question is not all that bizzare as it should be under normal circumastances.
>

I agree

>What is very disturbing is the fact that;
>sudden attack by some mysterious nuclear boggeyman on US soil, might lead directly to martial law and/or even new war with whoever is choosen as suspect. (Hence Speedy war after 9/11)
>

I agree

>Someone should maybe ask candidates to explain how did US reach this point of being so voulnerable/prone to boggeyman attacks of all sorts, (now even nuclear!) from generally improving security situation back in 90ties and end of cold war, and do they have any plans/solutions for restoring that calm and optimistic outlook of nineties.
>Or things are already shifted to the next level & beyond repair :(

I think this has been asked numerous times

>
>As for Turkey vs Nuclear boggeyman, they already have sort of undeclared martial law in place (Army generals having almost all the power) so they are as secure as US wld became if martial law is ever do be declared.


With fewer freedoms because of it

>So I wld say they are ahead of the game on this :0)

Ahead of the game as far as internal control is concerned given the control the government and its generals exert, but behind the game in individual freedom. Not a good thing in my opinion and not something I would prefer. Countries strictly controlled internally by a dictator or the military may be safe for its citizens but I would not trade that for our quality of life and level of freedom ever.


>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>a) Occupation of Pakistan.
>>>>>>>b) Bombing to Mecca.
>>>>>>>c) Use nuclear weapon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Make your choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- Give freedom for people to choose their government
>>>>>>- Give people the freedom to study and learn what they want
>>>>>>- Give people a decent wage, a decent education and a decent way of life
>>>>>>- End slavery and indentured servitude
>>>>>>- Give people a decent national health system
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have no idea what you are talking about but you mention Mecca and Pakistan, two places that could benefit with all of these choices.
>>>>>
>>>>>Third one is Hilary Clinton's promise, others other candidates promises...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What are you talking about? Can you post some links? Your original message, as posted, makes no sense.
>>>
>>>Barack Obama threated Pakistan for bombing them,
>>>Hilary Clinton said she can use nuclear weapons and
>>>Tom Tancredo thinks bombing Mecca is a good idea...
>>>
>>>I'm sure both of you can easy find a lot of links about these news...