Hillary "obliterating" Iran

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman

....you cannot say for fact that Iran DOES have nuclear weapons. Either way it is all speculation. So there are still 'what if's' .....

I didn't say that Iran does have nuclear weapons. I agree that it's an unknown.

[GostHacked]

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.

This is all part of the set up to make us think about the scenario in which they DO have nukes. It is all about setting that image in the minds of Americans (and allies). Say this enough and people will think they actually have nukes. Creating a false impression... remember Iraq? What? Forgot about it already?

[M.Dancer]

This is all part of the set up to make us think about the scenario in which they DO have nukes. It is all about setting that image in the minds of Americans (and allies). Say this enough and people will think they actually have nukes. Creating a false impression... remember Iraq? What? Forgot about it already?

Yeah, maybe...but that scenario requires almost as much faith as believing Iraq has WMD....

The far simpler occam's razor reason is she is spelling out a position that is already (see the Israel-US defense memoradum) on the table....in the event of either long range missile attacks or WMD attacks the US will respond.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is all part of the set up to make us think about the scenario in which they DO have nukes. It is all about setting that image in the minds of Americans (and allies). Say this enough and people will think they actually have nukes. Creating a false impression... remember Iraq? What? Forgot about it already?

The US/UK (and Israel) required neither in the past to attack Iraq, or support actions against Iran...nukes or no nukes.

[blueblood]

Yeah, maybe...but that scenario requires almost as much faith as believing Iraq has WMD....

The far simpler occam's razor reason is she is spelling out a position that is already (see the Israel-US defense memoradum) on the table....in the event of either long range missile attacks or WMD attacks the US will respond.

I believe a major reason why the U.S. is so proactive in its foreign policy because of the mess that happened before world war II, I think appeasement was the foreign policy of the day and a mad man took advantage of it. The free world won't make that mistake twice a recent example being the end of Sadam Hussein. Getting a mad man out of power was well worth it, who knows what he might have done had the U.S. done nothing.

[kuzadd]

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?

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.

"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.

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.

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.

I am not "upset" in the least, please don't project.

Hilary is as full of it as all politicians are.

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.

people who swallow bullshit are never intelligent, just gullible.

You do realize that so far their is zero indication that Iran has nuclear weapons , right?

Or has the propoganda gotten to you also?

Edited April 25, 2008 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

American Woman

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.

yeah where were those wmd's in Iraq,

tikrit wasn't it according to rumsfeld?

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

yeah , sure.

[HisSelf]

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

Canadians were joining up before Hitler attacked Britain.

[DogOnPorch]

kuzadd: You do realize that so far their is zero indication that Iran has nuclear weapons , right?

Or has the propoganda gotten to you also?

Actually, Iran could be quite a bother...more than you're probably willing to admit. They don't have a nuclear weapon yet...that is pretty much for sure. However, they do have the capability to make one. Plans and equipment, etc, supplied via Pakistan's Dr A.Q. Khan. They just need the materials...ie enriched uranium and/or plutonium. Plutonium, of course, comes from a rather simple source: a nuclear reactor...built for peaceful generation of power.

What's even more tell-tale and often ignored by the general public is Iran's missile program which has been steaming ahead as usual. These are medium range ballistic missiles for the most part capable of hitting Tel Aviv. However the Shahab 5 and 6 are intercontinental in range...the 6 even capable of placing a small satellite...or warhead...into orbit. That could come down darn near anywhere.

I know...I know...Israel probably has the same capability. They have since the 1980s, most likely. That's about three decades of showing that they don't have an itchy trigger finger. However...if both sides get atomic or (gulp) hydrogen bombs, the chances of their use goes up dramatically. A small dispute over something dumb could ignite into something truely big. Especially when you have religions involved...

Sad thing is that probability of us seeing the use of nuclear weapons over the next 20 years is, no doubt, extreme. If not by governments then by terrorists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

----------------------------------------------------------------

Threads - Nuclear War, 1984 classic on the effects of nuclear war. 107min

What's the difference between Pakistan and a pancake? I don't know any pancakes that got nuked by India!

(silence from crowd)

What?? Too soon?

---Krusty the Klown

[Wilber]

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

Your ignorance of history explains a lot.

[Guest FrootLoops]

War is bad and makes me sad cuz it killz babies.

[Bonam]

Seems like a perfectly reasonable statement by Hillary. I mean, it's the exact same setup that exists in any situation when two sides of a conflict have nuclear weapons. In the Cold War, if the USSR nuked the US, the US would respond by nuking the USSR. If Pakistan nukes India, India will nuke Pakistan back. Same thing here, if Iran were to nuke Israel, Israel (and its closest ally, the US), would nuke Iran back.

That's the whole point of nuclear weapons, maintaining an armed peace between hostile sides, since the risks of an escalated war are the complete annihilation of both sides. If the US has a president willing to make a statement like that, the simple fact is, Iran WONT nuke Israel, since its leaders, while pretty crazy, aren't crazy enough to get their entire country eradicated by US nukes.

Anyway, I'm sure its hardly necessary for Hillary to make that statement, since nuclear retaliation against nations which use nuclear weapons against the US or its allies is already part of US military doctrine.

[August1991]

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.

Yes, and the RCMP should have talked with Paul Bernardo or Clifford Olson.

I believe a major reason why the U.S. is so proactive in its foreign policy because of the mess that happened before world war II, I think appeasement was the foreign policy of the day and a mad man took advantage of it. The free world won't make that mistake twice a recent example being the end of Sadam Hussein. Getting a mad man out of power was well worth it, who knows what he might have done had the U.S. done nothing.

This is my thinking too.

Americans are like Quebecers or Argentinians. They prefer to stay out of other people's affairs. Americans are isolationists by nature - not imperialists.

Nevertheless, Americans have learned that if one ignores the world, the world unfortunately doesn't ignore you - in particular if you are successful.

I'm not American but I hope that Amercans remain engaged in the world - for their benefit and for mine. As complex and difficult as the world can be, America cannot and should not isolate itself from the world at large.

I fear that Barack Obama is appealing to the natural isolationist instinct of many Americans. I think that appeal is wrong.

Edited April 26, 2008 by August1991

[Guest American Woman]

Seems like a perfectly reasonable statement by Hillary. I mean, it's the exact same setup that exists in any situation when two sides of a conflict have nuclear weapons. In the Cold War, if the USSR nuked the US, the US would respond by nuking the USSR. If Pakistan nukes India, India will nuke Pakistan back. Same thing here, if Iran were to nuke Israel, Israel (and its closest ally, the US), would nuke Iran back.

That's the whole point of nuclear weapons, maintaining an armed peace between hostile sides, since the risks of an escalated war are the complete annihilation of both sides. If the US has a president willing to make a statement like that, the simple fact is, Iran WONT nuke Israel, since its leaders, while pretty crazy, aren't crazy enough to get their entire country eradicated by US nukes.

Well said. It's not about the U.S. making a strike against Iran, it's about letting Iran know that we can strike back should it make a strike against Israel. I can't understand why that seems to escape some on here since it's been made quite clear.

Anyway, I'm sure its hardly necessary for Hillary to make that statement, since nuclear retaliation against nations which use nuclear weapons against the US or its allies is already part of US military doctrine.

Since she was answering a question directed at her, it was necessary for her to make the statement or the question would have gone unanswered. What I don't get is the reaction to her answer since it goes without saying that no nation is going to sit by doing nothing if a nuclear attack were to occur.

I can't understand how Hillary's response is somehow being interpretted as the U.S. being the aggressor. Britain certainly wasn't seen as the aggressor when it promised to stand by Poland should Germany attack, and Canada wasn't seen as the aggressor when it joined Britain in the war against Germany when Britain made good on its word when Hitler did attack Poland. Some here seem to be ignoring that.

Canada doesn't have nukes, but do Canadians here think Canada would advocate merely talking with a nation's leader as it makes nuclear strikes against another nation? I have to wonder what Stephen Harper's answer would have been had the question been presented to him.

Edited April 26, 2008 by American Woman

[kuzadd]

Canadians were joining up before Hitler attacked Britain.

yes as loyal subjects of the British empire, which is what I meant.

[kuzadd]

Your ignorance of history explains a lot.

why were we not part of the British empire at that time?

is that what I am ignorant about?

lol!

the simple fact of the matter is ww2 is not relevant to this discussion at all, Iran is no superpower armed to the teeth and they are not attacking anyone. Nor do they have the nuclear capabilities to launch such an attack.

The only superpower armed to the teeth, like Germany, attacking weaker countries is the US , see Afghanistan, see Iraq, and see threats again Iran.

The other commonality is the backing of big US business firms, who supported Germany.

Iran, the US is making quite sure is having all manner of difficulty with regards to banking business.

The March 20, 2008 US Declaration of War on Iran

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16962

and before that the US had been trying to work it' s magic in the international banking community.

Turkey rejects US bank request on Iran

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:05:37

U.S. punishes Bahrain bank for its Iran ties

Wed March 12, 2008

Germany did not have that issue.

so let's at least make relevant comparisons, and not bogus ones.

ww2, there is more revisionism there then one can shake a stick at!

Edited April 26, 2008 by kuzadd

[Guest American Woman]

yes as loyal subjects of the British empire, which is what I meant.

Yet Britain wasn't attacked before it declared war against Germany, which is the point being made. Are you purposely ignoring that pertinant fact, or are you really not getting it?

[Wilber]

why were we not part of the British empire at that time?

is that what I am ignorant about?

lol!

Aside from the obvious which AM has pointed out, yes that is what you are ignorant about. Canada was a Dominion, we declared war on our own, a week after Britain.

[Leafless]

Aside from the obvious which AM has pointed out, yes that is what you are ignorant about. Canada was a Dominion, we declared war on our own, a week after Britain.

"Canada was a Dominion".

So what!

This did not separate Canada as no longer being associated with Britain. Dominion,

was used previously for centuries to refer to the lands held by a monarch and had previously been adopted as titles for the Dominion of New England and the Dominion and Colony of Virginia. It continued to apply as a generic term to all colonial possessions of the British Empire until well into the 20th century [19]. Its adoption as a title for Canada in 1867 served the purpose of upholding the monarchist principle in Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_name

Canada followed Britain's lead in declaring war, simply because 'it took the hint',

But the news of war comes as no surprise to Canadians. The previous week, a solemn King took to the airwaves with an address called "Canada at the side of Britain."

And Canada followed it through.

http://archives.cbc.ca/on_this_day/09/10/

Edited April 26, 2008 by Leafless

[kuzadd]

Aside from the obvious which AM has pointed out, yes that is what you are ignorant about. Canada was a Dominion, we declared war on our own, a week after Britain.

yes, as good loyal subjects of the British!

[DogOnPorch]

Iran is no superpower armed to the teeth and they are not attacking anyone. Nor do they have the nuclear capabilities to launch such an attack.

Yet...

-------------------------

It worked.

---J. Robert Oppenheimer

[kuzadd]

oh and all these comparisons to ww2 and nukes.

As a factual reminder, what one country ,pontificated endlessly as the "decider" and ruler of the world/ rational and democratic, has been the only country to use nuclear bombs????

That is after burning alive in their beds, many, many hundreds of thousands of civilians with massive firebombings

Hint; it wasn't Iran.

[Wilber]

So what!

This did not separate Canada as no longer being associated with Britain. Dominion,

We did go because we still had strong ties with Britain at the time but there was no way Britain could compel us.

The so what is that we did it as an independent country. We are still in the Commonwealth. Did we go to Iraq?

Did we go to the Falklands?

We were part of the Empire in WWI and had no choice, but wait a minute, Britain wasn't attacked then either. They entered the war to defend Belgium who like Poland, they had also pledged to protect against attack.

Any of this sound familiar?

[kuzadd]

We did go because we still had strong ties with Britain at the time but there was no way Britain could compel us.

The so what is that we did it as an independent country. We are still in the Commonwealth. Did we go to Iraq?

Did we go to the Falklands?

We were part of the Empire in WWI and had no choice, but wait a minute, Britain wasn't attacked then either. They entered the war to defend Belgium who like Poland, they had also pledged to protect against attack.

Any of this sound familiar?

Yeah it sounds like most all war, lots of bullshit, and never the truth.

[Wilber]

As a factual reminder, what one country ,pontificated endlessly as the "decider" and ruler of the world/ rational and democratic, has been the only country to use nuclear bombs????

To end a war they did not start which had already killed an estimated 50 million people. Isn't that the gist of Hillary's comments? We won't start it but don't bet your ass we won't finish it.