Jump to content

Hillary "obliterating" Iran


Recommended Posts

I believe I already acknowledged this point by bringing up the whole "occupiers and page of time" comment. My implication was that your ilk will be sure to say Ahmadinejad's words were explicit, while hers were taken out of context. Right? To spell it out for you - according to his side, *his* words were taken out of context.

As for the conditional vs. unconditional threats - please. We're talking about America vs. Iran. A sophisticated democracy vs. a theocracy.

Your argument of "well he started it" hardly works past elementary school. Why? Because you can always keep pushing back the timeframe of when the squabble started. The world didn't start on 9/11 2001 and as much as you hate to admit, the grievances of the region go back way before the last few decades.

My point here, therefore, is not to excuse one side or another - it's about drawing a parallel in the rationale of Hillary Clinton's approach to conflict and a person whom we consider a complete nutjob.

The richest country in the world with the biggest military in the world threatening "obliteration" of other countries is the type of rhetoric we expect of two-bit authorative theocracies.

BC Chick, you are in effect saying that the Hell's Angels and the RCMP are no different since they both threaten people with guns.

Well, I see a big difference between the Hell's Angels and the RCMP, and between Ahmedinejad and Clinton. It worries me sometimes that people like you apparently can't see the difference.

It's clear to me now that Hillary was referring to the country, not the weapons, but it's also clear that she only said the U.S. "could," not that we would "obliterate" them. I also see nothing wrong with warning a nation that they could be in for a similar attack should they initiate such an attack themselves. I have a difficult time understanding why anyone would be critical of the attack made in response without at least as much criticism/condemnation for the initial act.
I think Hillary once famously said "coulda, woulda, shoulda" in reference to Whitewater and frankly, the difference between "could" and "would" in this context is meaningless nuance.

This is a direct message to the Iranian leadership: "Make absolutely no mistake about the consequences of your actions." The US government has already shown the world that it is not shy to use nuclear weapons. It already has. Twice.

Some people here just don't get it.

US strategic forces have been configured to turn Iran into a parking lot of emerald glass for a long time. Candidate Clinton is just taking advantage of this fact to toughen up her resume.
Now, that's the true context of her statement. Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 226
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest American Woman
QUOTE=American Woman @ Apr 24 2008, 04:05 PM: It's clear to me now that Hillary was referring to the country, not the weapons, but it's also clear that she only said the U.S. "could," not that we would "obliterate" them. I also see nothing wrong with warning a nation that they could be in for a similar attack should they initiate such an attack themselves. I have a difficult time understanding why anyone would be critical of the attack made in response without at least as much criticism/condemnation for the initial act.

I think Hillary once famously said "coulda, woulda, shoulda" in reference to Whitewater and frankly, the difference between "could" and "would" in this context is meaningless nuance.

This is a direct message to the Iranian leadership: "Make absolutely no mistake about the consequences of your actions." The US government has already shown the world that it is not shy to use nuclear weapons. It already has. Twice.

I understand that it's a direct message to the Iranian leadership and if Iran were to nuke Israel I think we would strike back. I don't think, however, that we would be seeking to "obliterate" Iran even though we "could." Yes, we have used nukes twice, but not with the goal of "genocide" of the Japanese or "obliterating" Japan.

Hillary is stating a fact about our nuclear capabilities, not threatening to wipe Iran off the face of the earth as some seem to be suggesting.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a proven concept that kept the world nuclear conflict free for the entire Cold War. Having Imadinerjacket know exactly where he stands with no misunderstanding may very well keep him from making a very stupid mistake. A good thing IMO.

By the same token, once Iran is nuclear armed, no one will make the stupid mistake of attacking it. I mean look at Korea now, we've heard nary a peep of a threat from them since they've joined the club.

As for politicians making threats and very stupid mistakes...Ahmedinejad doesn't even come close to the moron Hillary wants to replace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the same token, once Iran is nuclear armed, no one will make the stupid mistake of attacking it. I mean look at Korea now, we've heard nary a peep of a threat from them since they've joined the club.

False...see Yom Kippur War (1973)....Israel was "nuclear armed".

As for politicians making threats and very stupid mistakes...Ahmedinejad doesn't even come close to the moron Hillary wants to replace.

That's because he can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the same token, once Iran is nuclear armed, no one will make the stupid mistake of attacking it. I mean look at Korea now, we've heard nary a peep of a threat from them since they've joined the club.

As for politicians making threats and very stupid mistakes...Ahmedinejad doesn't even come close to the moron Hillary wants to replace.

As for North Korea, it doesn't matter. China is the arbiter there.

As for Iran, I don't think anyone can stop them from getting the weapons if they really want them. All Hillary said was that if they use nucs first, they will wind up crispy critters. It wasn't a threat to attack, just retaliate. You should be able to understand the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aw shucks....we better rethink this nuclear war thing because even if we win, somebody is going to accuse us of...gulp...genocide! Then there would be the EnviroMentalists.....and PETA types bitchin' too. Oh no...not that!

So, do you think that anyone really wins a nuclear war?

Man, you're a maroon! (among other things)

Oh and thank you for your oh so intelligent response. As usual, your support of genocide and killing innocents is duly noted.

Or... could it be... say it ain't so... YOU support Hillary's comments???

OMG!

Yep, I guess that must be it - our own Bush Cheney is now shilling for Hillary - just cuz she says she's gonna nuke Iran!!

Whhhoooowheee! Larkin' me!

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, do you think that anyone really wins a nuclear war?

Man, you're a maroon! (among other things)

Check the body counts and "genocide" from non-nuclear war.....then come back and call us morons again even if you look foolish.

Oh and thank you for your oh so intelligent response. As usual, your support of genocide and killing innocents is duly noted.

Or... could it be... say it ain't so... YOU support Hillary's comments???

OMG!

Hillary's comments are meaningless, as she has the power to do no such thing (yet). But yes, I do support all forms of applied physics.

Yep, I guess that must be it - our own Bush Cheney is now shilling for Hillary - just cuz she says she's gonna nuke Iran!!

Whhhoooowheee! Larkin' me!

:P

There wouldn't be much left to nuke because Isreal would do it first. Boo Hoo on you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BC Chick, you are in effect saying that the Hell's Angels and the RCMP are no different since they both threaten people with guns.

Well, I see a big difference between the Hell's Angels and the RCMP, and between Ahmedinejad and Clinton. It worries me sometimes that people like you apparently can't see the difference.

I think Hillary once famously said "coulda, woulda, shoulda" in reference to Whitewater and frankly, the difference between "could" and "would" in this context is meaningless nuance.

This is a direct message to the Iranian leadership: "Make absolutely no mistake about the consequences of your actions." The US government has already shown the world that it is not shy to use nuclear weapons. It already has. Twice.

Some people here just don't get it.

Now, that's the true context of her statement.

Good example August. Hell's Angels shoot to kill and the RCMP are supposed to exhaust every option before shooting. That's what sets apart the criminals from the justice system.

What Hillary said was the equivalent of a pontential RCMP chief declaring that under his/her watch he will not only kill any criminal who has threatened his close his friend should anything happen to that friend, but he will also use the resources available to him in his position to go on and "obliterate" the criminal's entire family and all their relatives.

Really, I'm baffled so many find collective punishment so acceptable.

Like you said yourself.... the RCMP are not supposed to act like criminals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Iran attacks Israel with Nuclear weapons....gosh golly BC, what do you think? Should they warn Iran that they will have a benefit concert instead?

Gsoh Golly! He stated it.....talk about a high school grasp...or at least grasping for straws.

I'm not going to cut and paste the entire discussion... but if anyone has followed the thread they will see that you brought up the argument that Hillary's genocidal threat was "conditional" while Iran's wasn't. As a result, I rebutted that "he started it" can continue on from the other perspective as well and it can go on before the last couple of decades...

The point being they can also keep pushing the timframe back - so it's not about who started it, but rather who handles it like a civilised nation and who handles things like a religious theocracy.

In any case, I'm glad your amnesia went away and you are no longer denying that you tried the "well mommy, he started it" argument like you tried doing earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Hillary said was the equivalent of a pontential RCMP chief declaring that under his/her watch he will not only kill any criminal who has threatened his close his friend should anything happen to that friend, but he will also use the resources available to him in his position to go on and "obliterate" the criminal's entire family and all their relatives.

So what you are saying is if Amawhatshisface launches a nuclear strike on Israel then hides under his wife's bed he is untouchable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? Are dead jews not as good as dead iranians?

A+ on the rhetoric, failing grade on the conclusion.

No, dead Jews and dead Iranians are both pretty awful. I was merely implying that Iran "obliterating" Israel is not even remotely possible while the US "obliterating" Iran is, in fact, a possible reality.

As such, Iran attacking Israel and America "obliterating" Iran are not "responding in kind."

Edited by BC_chick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you are saying is if Amawhatshisface launches a nuclear strike on Israel then hides under his wife's bed he is untouchable?

He can hide under his wife's bed and Hillary's free to go after him. The rest of the country... (should be) off limits.

That's why I'm so surprised by people's reaction around here.

Edited by BC_chick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good example August. Hell's Angels shoot to kill and the RCMP are supposed to exhaust every option before shooting. That's what sets apart the criminals from the justice system.

What Hillary said was the equivalent of a pontential RCMP chief declaring that under his/her watch he will not only kill any criminal who has threatened his close his friend should anything happen to that friend, but he will also use the resources available to him in his position to go on and "obliterate" the criminal's entire family and all their relatives.

Really, I'm baffled so many find collective punishment so acceptable.

Like you said yourself.... the RCMP are not supposed to act like criminals.

If that's your understanding of the difference between the Hell's Angels and the RCMP, then I suppose that you have never really ever confronted evil in your life. Perhaps you might have a different perspective if you spent some time with a member of the Hell's Angels or spent some time in Iran.

There is a difference between good and evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's your understanding of the difference between the Hell's Angels and the RCMP, then I suppose that you have never really ever confronted evil in your life. Perhaps you might have a different perspective if you spent some time with a member of the Hell's Angels or spent some time in Iran.

There is a difference between good and evil.

Perhaps I fail to see your point, but I'm willing to try and understand it.

In the meanwhile, I don't think you are quite grasping my argument either. I don't have an issue with the police killing "evil"... I have an issue with the police trying to dissuade "evil" criminals by threatening their innocent family whose only crime was being related to that criminal.

IMO... that's just as "evil."

Edited to add: two entities in a dispute threatening not just each other, but each other's families, is a gang-fight, not the justice system punishing a criminal. You are naive if you think the RCMP should retaliate against crime by stooping to their level.

Edited by BC_chick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He can hide under his wife's bed and Hillary's free to go after him. The rest of the country... (should be) off limits.

That's why I'm so surprised by people's reaction around here.

Perhaps its because thinking people realize that it is not Amahwhotsits fear of getting nuked that will put the brakes on him but his own peoples fear of getting nuked. Right now I doubt if most Americans worry anywhere nearly about Bush's fate in such a scenario as they do their own.

If the US or Israel launched a first strike nuclear attack on some nation, would you still be arguing that nation would not be justified in retaliating or does this morality only apply to Americans and Israelis?

With regard to the Hells Angels vs RCMP scenario. Which would you think the most likely to go after someones family?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps its because thinking people realize that it is not Amahwhotsits fear of getting nuked that will put the brakes on him but his own peoples fear of getting nuked. Right now I doubt if most Americans worry anywhere nearly about Bush's fate in such a scenario as they do their own.

If the US or Israel launched a first strike nuclear attack on some nation, would you still be arguing that nation would not be justified in retaliating or does this morality only apply to Americans and Israelis?

With regard to the Hells Angels vs RCMP scenario. Which would you think the most likely to go after someones family?

Yes Wilber, I truly believe that. Call me what you want, but if I lived next door to a madman who continually threatened my family, I would prefer first and foremost to have him locked up.

If restraining him fails and he carries out his threat, I would still rather see him dead or in jail for life than I would to see his entire innocent family killed in retaliation.

Call me civilised, but I'd rather see justice than revenge.

As for the Hell's Angels vs. the RCMP... again, the RCMP should be the one NOT threatening the criminal's family.

Edited by BC_chick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I fail to see your point, but I'm willing to try and understand it.
Let me try this example.

Paul Bernardo or Clifford Olson compared to the RCMP. Do you know what the Iranian regime did Zahra Kazemi?

In the meanwhile, I don't think you are quite grasping my argument either. I don't have an issue with the police killing "evil"... I have an issue with the police trying to dissuade "evil" criminals by threatening their innocent family whose only crime was being related to that criminal.

IMO... that's just as "evil."

Edited to add: two entities in a dispute threatening not just each other, but each other's families, is a gang-fight, not the justice system punishing a criminal. You are naive if you think the RCMP should retaliate against crime by stooping to their level.

A gang fight would be Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo fighting each other.

We and the US are the good side in all of this. I find it tiresome and disturbing that too many people don't see that. In effect, they equate the violence of a policeman and the violence of a serial rapist.

----

How do we deal with a regime lead by a dictatorial psychopath? I would generally say that we should ignore it unless the regime represents some threat to us. The US is not the world's policeman. There is atrocious injustice in the world and we and Americans largely ignore it.

If the regime is a threat, then I guess dealing with it runs the gamut. In all of this, it matters tremendously if the US President is a credible threat. He/she has to be the biggest bully on the block.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Wilber, I truly believe that. Call me what you want, but if I lived next door to a madman who continually threatened my family, I would prefer first and foremost to have him locked up.

If restraining him fails and he carries out his threat, I would still rather see him dead or in jail for life than I would to see his entire innocent family killed in retaliation.

That's just wonderful but if he is willing to kill your family do you think he gives a rats ass about your sensibilities? If you make it clear to him that if he harms your family, his is toast, just maybe he is no longer a threat. You don't seem to understand. If it should come to a nuclear exchange, everyone has failed. It is the threat itself that is important. It is the realization that the reaction to such an action would be unthinkable. If anything saves us from Armageddon it will be that, because it is something everyone can understand, or at least they should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try this example.

Paul Bernardo or Clifford Olson compared to the RCMP. Do you know what the Iranian regime did Zahra Kazemi?

A gang fight would be Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo fighting each other.

I find it tiresome and disturbing that too many people don't see that. In effect, they equate the violence of a policeman and the violence of a serial rapist.

----

How do we deal with a regime lead by a dictatorial psychopath? I would generally say that we should ignore it unless the regime represents some threat to us. The US is not the world's policeman. There is atrocious injustice in the world and we and Americans largely ignore it.

If the regime is a threat, then I guess dealing with it runs the gamut. In all of this, it matters tremendously if the US President is a credible threat. He/she has to be the biggest bully on the block.

I am not denying that the Iranian regime is criminal in its nature. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that.

However, *if* Hillary carried out her threat (the purpose of my thread), it's this we don't agree on....

We and the US are the good side in all of this

Do you truly believe that the "good guys" should ever dissuade the "bad guys" from doing harm to innocent people by threatening to kill the latter's innocent relatives if they do?

No.

Rough the criminals up, even kill in self-defense... but seekilng revenge on other innocents in retaliation.... that's NOT a "good" guy.

Justice is to revenge what "Good" is to "Bad."

Isn't that what you claim sets us apart?

Edited by BC_chick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for North Korea, it doesn't matter. China is the arbiter there.

As for Iran, I don't think anyone can stop them from getting the weapons if they really want them. All Hillary said was that if they use nucs first, they will wind up crispy critters. It wasn't a threat to attack, just retaliate. You should be able to understand the difference.

Sure I understand the diifference and if MAD works as well as you say and you don't think anyone can stop Iran from having nuclear weapons anyway then why even threaten to go to any and all lengths to stop them from having nukes too? Simply because someone made a stupid threat? So what?

China can be the arbiter of Korea, Russia can be the arbiter of Iran, the US can be the arbiter of Israel and...Bob's your Uncle.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rough the criminals up, even kill in self-defense... but seekilng revenge on other innocents in retaliation.... that's NOT a "good" guy.

Justice is to revenge what "Good" is to "Bad."

Isn't that what you claim sets us apart?

It's not revenge. It's sending a signal to indicate what happens if anyone else tries the same thing.

Dealing with threatening, dictatorial regimes is always problematic. At present, the Americans are trying one method with Iran, another with North Korea and the solved the threat of Saddam Hussein differently for different reasons. It runs the gamut.

I think your point is that innocent people living in Iran shouldn't have to suffer for the actions of the Iranian regime, anymore than innocent people should have died in Nagasaki or Hiroshima. I have no simple answer to that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure I understand the diifference and if MAD works as well as you say and you don't think anyone can stop Iran from having nuclear weapons anyway then why even threaten to go to any and all lengths to stop them from having nukes too? Simply because someone made a stupid threat? So what?

China can be the arbiter of Korea, Russia can be the arbiter of Iran, the US can be the arbiter of Israel and...Bob's your Uncle.

The issue here is Hillary's stated response to a Iranian attack on Israel. I find it odd that you would call Ahmadinejad's threat to annihilate Israel just a "stupid threat" and then find Hillary's statement that the US would reply in kind if he does so offensive.

I think in many ways the US is the arbiter of Israel, as for Russia and Iran we will just have to wait and see. I hope so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue here is Hillary's stated response to a Iranian attack on Israel. I find it odd that you would call Ahmadinejad's threat to annihilate Israel just a "stupid threat" and then find Hillary's statement that the US would reply in kind if he does so offensive.

I was no more offended by what Hillary Clinton said then I was Ahmadinejad's, if anything I was struck by how stupidly similar they were, but that's about all.

The issue in our little sidebar is your contention that MAD works at avoiding nuclear conflict, probably better than politicians.

I think in many ways the US is the arbiter of Israel, as for Russia and Iran we will just have to wait and see. I hope so.

I hope so too. I think this business of making the super powers responsible for arbitrating the difficulties many of their own policies have wrought will make them see the error of their ways. Judging by Clinton the lessons will be hard learned. Hope is the operative word. Pandora's Box has been open a long time now and we're still here so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...