Hillary "obliterating" Iran

[HisSelf]

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

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: bush_cheney2004.

Looks like we have another candidate for the cone of silence. You two can play spin the bottle in the dark...

Edited April 25, 2008 by HisSelf

[bush_cheney2004]

Looks like we have another candidate for the cone of silence. You two can play spin the bottle in the dark...

Plugging your ears and humming "Oh Canada" will not make reality go away.

[Wilber]

You started it when you said MAD works.

It does work but the only time any deterrent works is when there is absolutely no misunderstanding the consequences of your actions. If you bomb, we will not talk, we will bomb bigger. Understood?

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.

Of course, it is an election year but the statement was made in answer to a media question of what she would do if Iran attacked Israel? One must assume she was answering in reference to a nuclear attack as there is no way there would be nuclear response by either the US or Israel to a conventional attack with the possible exception of chemical weapons. Anyone thinking otherwise hasn't been paying attention to world history over the past 60 years. In this context, her statement that a nuclear attack would be met with a corresponding or overwhelming nuclear response is valid and Iran should have no illusions to the contrary.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course, it is an election year but the statement was made in answer to a media question of what she would do if Iran attacked Israel? ..... In this context, her statement that a nuclear attack would be met with a corresponding or overwhelming nuclear response is valid and Iran should have no illusions to the contrary.

I think her response is purposeful and intended for a domestic audience, providing much needed separation from the more kumbaya leaning Obama. External interest in such direct or indirect exchanges during an American presidential campaign is secondary, and reflects no change from existing American policy vis-a-vis NBCR (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, Radiological) attacks on the US or allies. Hillary Clinton needs to convince unpledged super delegates and blue states that she can win an election with the right stuff (pun intended), not lose one like George McGovern.

[Guest American Woman]

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

I'm not talking "retaliatory." I'm talking "defensive." Hitler didn't attack Canada, yet you joined the war. Are you saying that wasn't a defensive act?-- that's Canada's action was offensive? Seems to me the U.S. was criticized for not joining the war sooner, too. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

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.

How can it be a "direct threat" when it was clearly stated that it was in response to a nuclear attack by Iran? If Iran has no nukes, then it can't nuke Israel. End of "threat."

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

It won't be a "pretend reason" if Iran has nukes and uses them. If Iran doesn't have nukes, or has them and doesn't use them, again-- they won't have to be concerned about an attack in response.

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

Nothing wrong with that; she has every right to come across any way she desires. It's what all candidates do.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not talking "retaliatory." I'm talking "defensive." Hitler didn't attack Canada, yet you joined the war. Are you saying that wasn't a defensive act?-- that's Canada's action was offensive? Seems to me the U.S. was criticized for not joining the war sooner, too. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Impeccable logic...hell, Hitler didn't even attack the Commonwealth....he attacked Poland! But some folks are hard wired to rationalize decisions based solely on the outcome, which is rather easy compared to having to do it on the front end.

[Wilber]

I think her response is purposeful and intended for a domestic audience, providing much needed separation from the more kumbaya leaning Obama.

No doubt but it was also the right answer, even if it might have been phrased a little better.

[bush_cheney2004]

No doubt but it was also the right answer, even if it might have been phrased a little better.

Hey, I have to be honest....her stock went up a little from my perspective. There is every possibility that Senator Clinton could end up as president some day, and she needs to state her conviction on such things without qualification. Contrary to popular belief, the leadership of America's allies are not all hoping we just roll over and play dead.

[Guest American Woman]

I can't imagine what the reaction would be if Canada were being threatened with a nuclear attack, or if Canada suffered a nuclear attack, and the U.S. sat by saying/doing nothing. Yet we could substitute Canada for Israel and we'd have the same situation.

I am not a proponant of war, but I believe in having a strong offensive military because we don't live in a "let's just all love one another" world, and unless we can fight back, there will always be someone who will "take" whatever they can. For that reason, I'm glad we have nukes-- because others do, and I'm betting there are quite a few Canadians who take comfort in the fact that the U.S., as their neighbor and ally, has nukes.

[GostHacked]

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

Why would you spy on your ally? If there is trust, then no need .. right?

[White Doors]

I can't imagine what the reaction would be if Canada were being threatened with a nuclear attack, or if Canada suffered a nuclear attack, and the U.S. sat by saying/doing nothing. Yet we could substitute Canada for Israel and we'd have the same situation.

I am not a proponant of war, but I believe in having a strong offensive military because we don't live in a "let's just all love one another" world, and unless we can fight back, there will always be someone who will "take" whatever they can. For that reason, I'm glad we have nukes-- because others do, and I'm betting there are quite a few Canadians who take comfort in the fact that the U.S., as their neighbor and ally, has nukes.

This Canuck takes comfort in it!

[bush_cheney2004]

I can't imagine what the reaction would be if Canada were being threatened with a nuclear attack, or if Canada suffered a nuclear attack, and the U.S. sat by saying/doing nothing. Yet we could substitute Canada for Israel and we'd have the same situation.

Agreed..I think is is implicitly understood and explicitly documented via bilateral agreements to be the case. Canada puts up with a lot of crap from the USA because the mutual defense foundation is very strong.

[GostHacked]

I can't imagine what the reaction would be if Canada were being threatened with a nuclear attack, or if Canada suffered a nuclear attack, and the U.S. sat by saying/doing nothing. Yet we could substitute Canada for Israel and we'd have the same situation.

I am not a proponant of war, but I believe in having a strong offensive military because we don't live in a "let's just all love one another" world, and unless we can fight back, there will always be someone who will "take" whatever they can. For that reason, I'm glad we have nukes-- because others do, and I'm betting there are quite a few Canadians who take comfort in the fact that the U.S., as their neighbor and ally, has nukes.

I am in the minority about nukes, I don't think we need them. Also with the US owning more nukes than every other country combined (well maybe except Russia, and these days, it is not large compared to when the USSR existed.)

There won't ever be another limited nuclear exchange(WWII was limited in the fact that Japan was able to survive and did not have the capability to respond with nuclear weapons). It will be all or nothing. So it won't matter who feels what about who has nukes.

[M.Dancer]

Why would you spy on your ally? If there is trust, then no need .. right?

Don't be naive.

We may trust what they say but it's what is unsaid that matters. At the time when this spying took place it wasn't that they didn't trust the US, it's that they needed what wouldn't be given freely.

[M.Dancer]

There won't ever be another limited nuclear exchange(WWII was limited in the fact that Japan was able to survive and did not have the capability to respond with nuclear weapons). It will be all or nothing. So it won't matter who feels what about who has nukes.

I wouldn't count on that.

Pakistan and India...comes to mind.

[HisSelf]

This Canuck takes comfort in it!

A pink ass a ding dang doo. Says it all. It is awfully hard not to associate Hillary's foreign policy stance with her (New York based) election funding... Sort of like trying to figure out why a Texan loves SUVs.

Edited April 25, 2008 by HisSelf

[GostHacked]

I wouldn't count on that.

Pakistan and India...comes to mind.

Well they have learned from history, and they both have nukes to provide that state of M.A.D. They both know this. Anyone of them fires first know it is the end for both of them. Self preservation overrides the idiocy of a 'limited nuclear exchange' India and Pakistan are small countries. So a nuclear exhange would affect large amounts of people no matter where it happens.

Also they would have let the missles fly long before this if they knew there was a good chance of winning a war with nukes. Both Pakistan and India are just not that stupid. It also prevents other bigger countries from invading you. This is very true in the case of North Korea.

[kuzadd]

I'm not talking "retaliatory." I'm talking "defensive." Hitler didn't attack Canada, yet you joined the war. Are you saying that wasn't a defensive act?-- that's Canada's action was offensive? Seems to me the U.S. was criticized for not joining the war sooner, too. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

How can it be a "direct threat" when it was clearly stated that it was in response to a nuclear attack by Iran? If Iran has no nukes, then it can't nuke Israel. End of "threat."

It won't be a "pretend reason" if Iran has nukes and uses them. If Iran doesn't have nukes, or has them and doesn't use them, again-- they won't have to be concerned about an attack in response.

Nothing wrong with that; she has every right to come across any way she desires. It's what all candidates do.

since this has nothing to do with WW2, I don't see the relevance nor is there any.

Didn't Hitler attack Britian, answer that and you'll know why Canada was there.

as for hilary, it was a threat directed to Iran that plays well for a domestic audience, and don't most americans now foolishly and may I add again, falsely believe that Iran has nukes, I saw some recent polling that indicated that is correct.

she can come across however she wants, hopefully people don't swallow that crap for anything but what it is, unfortunatly, and sadly, that's not the case.

[M.Dancer]

Didn't Hitler attack Britian, answer that and you'll know why Canada was there.

So Canada declared war in Germany because Hitler attacked Britain?

Interesting....how far sighted our clairvoyant Mackenzie King must have been....seeing Canada declared war on Germany before German attacks on Britain.

[Wilber]

Also they would have let the missles fly long before this if they knew there was a good chance of winning a war with nukes. Both Pakistan and India are just not that stupid. It also prevents other bigger countries from invading you. This is very true in the case of North Korea.

It's pretty obvious that North Koreas strategy behind nuclear weapons has been to extort aid for it's population because the regime is too inept to feed it any other way. North has nukes, South doesn't. North is starving, South is rich. Yay nukes.

[M.Dancer]

Also they would have let the missles fly long before this if they knew there was a good chance of winning a war with nukes. Both Pakistan and India are just not that stupid. It also prevents other bigger countries from invading you. This is very true in the case of North Korea.

With most states that would be true although in both states (who have gone to war numerous times before) have a sizable extremist edge that probably would care if millions were martyred for Allah or reincarnated a step closer to the godhead.

N.Korea's force de frappe has nothing to do with invasion and everything to do with black mailing her neighbours into feeding her dying economy.

[Guest American Woman]

since this has nothing to do with WW2, I don't see the relevance nor is there any.

Of course there's relevance. Britain swore to defend Poland against a German attack, and that's precisely what happened. Canada joined in, too. So was that defensive or offensive on Britain's and Canada's part; and how is that different from us swearing to defend/defending Israel against an attack by Iran?

Didn't Hitler attack Britian, answer that and you'll know why Canada was there.

Germany did not attack Britain prior to Britain declaring war against Germany. Britain declared war two days after Germany invaded Poland because, as I said, Britain had promised to defend Poland under such circumstances.

as for hilary, it was a threat directed to Iran that plays well for a domestic audience, and don't most americans now foolishly and may I add again, falsely believe that Iran has nukes, I saw some recent polling that indicated that is correct.

"Falsely," eh? So you know for a fact that Iran doesn't have nukes.

The thing is, if you are correct in your 'knowledge,' you have nothing to worry about since Hillary clearly said our response would be just that, a response to a nuclear attack by Iran. If Iran doesn't have nukes, then Iran can't make a nuclear attack against Israel, and the U.S. won't respond with a nuclear attack. Makes me wonder what you're all upset over since you 'know' Iran doesn't have nukes, and therefore none of this will come to pass.

she can come across however she wants, hopefully people don't swallow that crap for anything but what it is, unfortunatly, and sadly, that's not the case.

People of intelligence are "swallowing" it for precisely what it is; a deterrent to Iran; letting Iran know that if it acts, we can react in kind.

[GostHacked]

American Woman

"Falsely," eh? So you know for a fact that Iran doesn't have nukes.

The thing is, if you are correct in your 'knowledge,' you have nothing to worry about since Hillary clearly said our response would be just that, a response to a nuclear attack by Iran. If Iran doesn't have nukes, then Iran can't make a nuclear attack against Israel, and the U.S. won't respond with a nuclear attack. Makes me wonder what you're all upset over since you 'know' Iran doesn't have nukes, and therefore none of this will come to pass.

Well at the same time you cannot say for fact that Iran DOES have nuclear weapons. Either way it is all speculation. So there are still 'what if's' ....or as Rumsfeld said about Iraq.

"As we know,

There are known knowns.

There are things we know we know.

We also know

There are known unknowns.

That is to say

We know there are some things

We do not know.

But there are also unknown unknowns,

The ones we don't know

We don't know."

Donald Rumsfeld — Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing.

[M.Dancer]

I don't think that anyone believes that Iran has nukes.....just that Iran is working towrds getting them..

what's the expression? No use closing the barn door once the cow has gone

[Wilber]

Well at the same time you cannot say for fact that Iran DOES have nuclear weapons. Either way it is all speculation. So there are still 'what if's' ....or as Rumsfeld said about Iraq.

The difference is that Hillary was answering a question as to what she would do in response to an attack, not trying to justify a preemptive attack or invasion.