Hillary "obliterating" Iran

[bush_cheney2004]

...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....

If this be the case, then you are still accepting dead but "innocent" family members by not dealing with the threat directly; so called "justice" is a poor substitute.

This scenario was actually played out more or less in Libya in 1986 when the US retaliated to several bombings by attacking installations in Benghazi and Tripoli, including al-Qadhafi’s residential compound.

[Guest American Woman]

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?

Hillary's "threat" was made to deter Iran from making a nuclear attack. Let me ask you this-- if someone threatened to blow away your family, and you had the capability to blow away theirs, do you think it would be out of line for you to say 'you better watch what you do because I could blow away your family too.'

Again. Hillary was letting Iran know what we could do if it were to make such a strike. I don't think you can react to a nuclear attack by simply 'going after the bad guys' because the bad guys, in this case the Iranian army, could continue to make nuclear strikes in the meantime. Furthermore, it wouldn't be done in "revenge," but in defense. I don't believe in starting wars, but I do believe in having a military for defensive purposes. If Iran weren't threatened back, or if any nation felt it could act without an equal defensive action, what would stop some of these leaders from doing whatever they want?

Let's compare it to WWII. Should we have simply 'gone after Hitler' instead of waging war against Germany?

Hillary was responding to a nuclear attack by Iran. Not "an attack," but a nuclear attack.

Here's what Hillary said about her comment:

"That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said. link

The purpose is to deter Iran from making a nuclear attack, and I see detering anyone from launching a nuclear attack as a good thing. If the U.S. were to threaten to use nukes on a nation, and that nation were to respond by saying 'we'll use them back and blow you away if you do,' I'm wondering if you'd have no trouble seeing the U.S. as bad guy in that situation.

[White Doors]

I hope everyone stops yelling and starts being nice to everybody. War is bad, the world needs food, not bombs to kill kids.

I agree!

Make love not war.

Bring the troops home and we will have campfires and sing songs.

What a glorious world it would be if we would just leave people alone.

Ahhhh....

[GostHacked]

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.

That democracy delivered by the bomb and the gun

is terror elsewhere on the world I'm from.

MC Frontalot - Special Delivery

http://frontalot.com/index.php/?page=lyrics&lyricid=30

[kuzadd]

god almighty stop with the comparisons, what nonsense.

if the US attacked Iran, for attacking Israel, it would not be retaliatory attack.

A retaliatory attack could only be done in response to an attack on the US

Since there is zero evidence that Iran has nuclear weapons, the conjecture raised by Hilary is nonsensical (if Iran attacks Israel) and likely this should be first of all be considered a direct threat towards Iran, as it was intended.

In other words, give us a reason, any reason (even a pretend one)and will blow you to smithereens.

secondly she is playing tough to the american constituents at the same time.

[M.Dancer]

if the US attacked Iran, for attacking Israel, it would not be retaliatory attack.

A retaliatory attack could only be done in response to an attack on the US

Well if you are making the rules for the US then...but wait, you aren't.

There is a memoradum of agreement between israel and the US going back to 1998.]

http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/isrl_moa.htm

In other words the US retains the option to retaliate against anyone who attacks Israel with nuclear weapons, ad rightly so.

[Wilber]

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.

They are not stupidly similar. Hillary was just making clear what the consequences would be to Ahmadinejad stupidity. He obviously thinks he has come of age because he feels he can threaten other countries with annihilation. Well if being targeted by a few dozen nuclear warheads on a Trident sub somewhere under the Indian ocean is coming of age, I guess he has.

Until recently nuclear weapons have been possessed almost solely by developed countries with stable governments. For that reason there has never been one used since WWII because those countries understand the consequences and how much they have to lose by using them. What mystifies me is your contention that we would be so much safer if everyone and his dog has them. Hell, lets us get some to.

Edited April 25, 2008 by Wilber

[kuzadd]

btw: let's make note of just what a great ally Israel is to the US.

Israel braces for fallout from U.S. spy case

Government says it's 'following ... developments' after U.S. citizen arrested

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24273143/

shades of Jonathon Pollard, so this isn't about allies.

JERUSALEM - Israel was tightlipped Wednesday over the arrest in the United States of an 84-year-old American suspected of providing it with U.S. military secrets in the 1980s, a new case that has opened old wounds.

Officials with inside knowledge in Israel of the country’s intelligence services were not denying it may have had a second spy operating in the United States in parallel with Pollard — but they were insisting such espionage ceased long ago.

[M.Dancer]

btw: let's make note of just what a great ally Israel is to the US.

Allies spy amongst themsleves all the time. It's only a big deal to those who aren't aware of it.

[HisSelf]

The difference is Iran's statement isn't conditional, Clinton's is.

Has it not been universally acknowledged that Ahmadinejad 's statement was misinterprested by the western press? Quelle surprise, n'est-ce pas?

I prefer Obama's stance, which basically says "Let's talk." H. Clinton is taking the same dumb policy stance that W took - shoot now, talk later.

Does the world really need more radical rhetoric? Where is the leadership? If Clinton is going to just shoot from the lip when somebody else does, then the leadership is with the first shooter, is it not?

[M.Dancer]

Has it not been universally acknowledged that Ahmadinejad 's statement was misinterprested by the western press? Quelle surprise, n'est-ce pas?

You are correct, it has not been universally acknowledged.

[M.Dancer]

I prefer Obama's stance, which basically says "Let's talk." H. Clinton is taking the same dumb policy stance that W took - shoot now, talk later.

So you would prefer that after a nuclear attack on Israel, the US talks?

[HisSelf]

You are correct, it has not been universally acknowledged.

Difficulty with negatives is a sign of brain injury.

[HisSelf]

So you would prefer that after a nuclear attack on Israel, the US talks?

When was the attack? Did I miss it? This is what I get for watching the BBC News! Those Anti-semites at the BBC didn't cover it.

[M.Dancer]

When was the attack? Did I miss it? This is what I get for watching the BBC News! Those Anti-semites at the BBC didn't cover it.

Perhaps you missed the opening post. You will find the context in post #1

[M.Dancer]

Difficulty with negatives is a sign of brain injury.

Difficulty with hypotheticals is a sign of abject stupidity.

[HisSelf]

Perhaps you missed the opening post. You will find the context in post #1

Try to keep up with the program, will you?

[M.Dancer]

Try to keep up with the program, will you?

I will try but this idiot keep interupting with high school sophistry.

Did you read the opening post yet or are you still watching TV?

[HisSelf]

Always refreshing to see that somebody of your station is able to use the word sophistry in a sentence.

Clinton is ramping up the rhetoric in response to the perceived rhetoric from Iran. Get the picture?

[M.Dancer]

Clinton is ramping up the rhetoric in response to the perceived rhetoric from Iran. Get the picture?

Oh good for you...you almost got it right. Perhaps then you can keep this sort of tripe for the student union lounge.

When was the attack? Did I miss it? This is what I get for watching the BBC News! Those Anti-semites at the BBC didn't cover it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Clinton is ramping up the rhetoric in response to the perceived rhetoric from Iran. Get the picture?

Yes, as she espouses to be an American president. Do you get the picture?

[eyeball]

Hillary's "threat" was made to deter Iran from making a nuclear attack.

Hillary's threat was to deter people from voting for someone other than herself. It was to make people pay attention to her, not Iran.

[HisSelf]

So are you saying that election rhetoric doesn't necessarily translate into post-election policy? Good heavens

Edited April 25, 2008 by HisSelf

[eyeball]

(FrootLoops @ Apr 24 2008, 07:11 PM)

I hope everyone stops yelling and starts being nice to everybody. War is bad, the world needs food, not bombs to kill kids.

I agree!

Make love not war.

Bring the troops home and we will have campfires and sing songs.

What a glorious world it would be if we would just leave people alone.

Ahhhh....

Works for me.

[eyeball]

What mystifies me is your contention that we would be so much safer if everyone and his dog has them. Hell, lets us get some to.

You started it when you said MAD works.