Hillary "obliterating" Iran

[kuzadd]

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.

you can interpret them your way, and I can interpret them my way, that's how it works, ya know?

btw: I also don't believe the nukes were a means to end the war, but were the first volley in the next war. They were a warning to Russia, looky what we have!

We got the big big big guns!

[Wilber]

btw: I also don't believe the nukes were a means to end the war, but were the first volley in the next war. They were a warning to Russia, looky what we have!

We got the big big big guns!

If so it obviously worked, didn't it.

[kuzadd]

If so it obviously worked, didn't it.

did it?

[Wilber]

did it?

How many nukes have the US and Russia used since then? How many world wars have we had since? There were only 20 years between the last two. Small proxy wars yes. Nuclear wars, unthinkable and they both knew it.

[Guest American Woman]

you can interpret them your way, and I can interpret them my way, that's how it works, ya know?

Good grief. Hillary's words aren't art; there's no need for "interpretation," only reading comprehension.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed Monday that as president she would be willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran if it were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel." link That's IF Iran were to launch an attack on Israel. Quite clearly it would be in response to a nuclear attack by Iran.

There is no difference between us promising to stand by Israel should Iran make a nuclear attack and Britain's promise to defend Poland should Germany attack-- which Germany did, and Britain then declared war against Germany-- and Canada followed.

Now I'm asking you again-- were Britain's and Canada's actions defensive or offensive? And if Britain and Canada can go to war in support of Poland being attacked, why, in your mind, is Hillary wrong to say we would attack Iran should Israel be attacked?

Edited April 26, 2008 by American Woman

[DogOnPorch]

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????

It was either that or conduct Operation Olympic and beyond. After island battles like Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the Allies knew what they were up against in terms of an invasion of the Home Islands. Casualties on both sides were going to be huge...in the millions combined. Plus, America as a nation put a massive effort into the atomic bomb. What would be the political fallout of having a weapon that could save a million American lives...and it wasn't used?

Then there was Stalin. America needed to show him that any thoughts of further war would be suicide on the Soviet's part. The atomic bomb filled that role solely in US hands without further use right up until 1949 when the Soviets got theirs...1953 if you want to get realistic when Russia's first big jet bombers entered service (and you know who died). Could'a nuked 'em 'til they glowed...but the Americans didn't.

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

Japan also engaged in the bombing of civilian centres (every nation did, unfortunately...including Canada)...and their bomb sights were more primitive than the Americans. Japan also used to march prisoners hundreds of miles through steaming jungles while poking them with bayonets. Those they didn't behead. Life anywhere under Japanese occupation was brutal.

Hint; it wasn't Iran.

No. Iran needed to be occupied by the British and Soviets in 1941 least they join Nazi Germany. That's how 'the Shah' came to the throne. Iran under the new Shah went on to play a key role in winning the war in Russia as an overland lend-lease route. The improvements that came with this (airports, improved rail, highways) helped Iran out much like western Canada benefited from the Alaska highway and the Siberian lend-lease route.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the proposed operation likely to succeed? What might the consequences of failure? Is it in the realm of practicability in terms of material and supplies?

---Admiral Chester Nimitz

[kuzadd]

Good grief. Hillary's words aren't art; there's no need for "interpretation," only reading comprehension.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed Monday that as president she would be willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran if it were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel." link That's IF Iran were to launch an attack on Israel. Quite clearly it would be in response to a nuclear attack by Iran.

There is no difference between us promising to stand by Israel should Iran make a nuclear attack and Britain's promise to defend Poland should Germany attack-- which Germany did, and Britain then declared war against Germany-- and Canada followed.

Now I'm asking you again-- were Britain's and Canada's actions defensive or offensive? And if Britain and Canada can go to war in support of Poland being attacked, why, in your mind, is Hillary wrong to say we would attack Iran should Israel be attacked?

american woman" hilary's word are extremely subjective and wether you agree or not, they are open to interpretation and that is why the whole discussion began.

Were Britians and Canada's actions defensive? obviously not based on the most basic meaning of the word.

Hillary as I said is as full of baloney as all politicians.

And btw Israel is armed to the teeth, as a nation it is quite capable of defending itself, so the very idea of the country being in need of defending like some weak little wilting flower, is nonsensical, to say the least.

[kuzadd]

How many nukes have the US and Russia used since then? How many world wars have we had since? There were only 20 years between the last two. Small proxy wars yes. Nuclear wars, unthinkable and they both knew it.

Besides the two that only ever were used by the US?

None, but then the cold war saw a unprecedented nuclear weapons arms build up.

has it made us safer and more peaceful?

Doubtful.

I wouldn't say nuclear was unthinkable, if I am not mistaken I believe the US has thought about it, since Japan.

You ever read Helen Caldicott?

[bush_cheney2004]

Besides the two that only ever were used by the US?

None, but then the cold war saw a unprecedented nuclear weapons arms build up.

has it made us safer and more peaceful?

Doubtful.

Actually, many were used for nuclear weapons testing as below ground, surface, submerged, atmospheric, and stratospheric high yield bursts. The bombs didn't know it wasn't bacon (but sometimes it was)!

Safer and peaceful means you're already dead.

Edited April 27, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

None, but then the cold war saw a unprecedented nuclear weapons arms build up.

has it made us safer and more peaceful?

Doubtful.

I wouldn't say nuclear was unthinkable, if I am not mistaken I believe the US has thought about it, since Japan.

Between the end of WW2 and the formation of NATO there was nothing stopping the Soviets from walking into Western Europe other than the threat of nuclear attack by the US. Your revisionist logic escapes me. We haven't had a war between major powers since the advent of nuclear weapons but somehow you believe there is no connection.

Everyone has thought about nuclear war, you and I included. I think we have both come to the same conclusion along with every other person with an ounce of sanity. That is why they haven't been used.

[DogOnPorch]

Besides the two that only ever were used by the US?

Would you've sacrificed your son(s) in the invasion of Japan rather than finishing the war with the atomic bomb? Pretend you we're an American mother circa 1945. Would you really be worrying about the "Japs?"

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

By the time were through with em, the Japanese language will be spoken only in hell.

---Admiral Bill Halsey

Edited April 27, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[Guest American Woman]

american woman" hilary's word are extremely subjective and wether you agree or not, they are open to interpretation and that is why the whole discussion began.

Hmmmm. I reread the opening post in this thread, and I don't see questioning Hillary's interpretation as the purpose of the thread. Here words are quite clear.

Were Britians and Canada's actions defensive? obviously not based on the most basic meaning of the word.

So how do you feel about nations declaring war when it's not defensive? Was it good that Britain and Canada declared war against Germany, or do you see their actions as aggressive?

And btw Israel is armed to the teeth, as a nation it is quite capable of defending itself, so the very idea of the country being in need of defending like some weak little wilting flower, is nonsensical, to say the least.

So are you saying that since Britain was well armed when it declared war against Germany, it was nonsensical for Canada to join in the war, as if Britain were some weak little wilting flower, unable to defend Poland on its own?

Edited April 27, 2008 by American Woman

[HisSelf]

Iran is not gonna use nukes against anybody. Nobody is. It's suicide. Everybody knows that. You want to get rid of nukes in the Middle East? Disarm everyone else first.

[kuzadd]

Hmmmm. I reread the opening post in this thread, and I don't see questioning Hillary's interpretation as the purpose of the thread. Here words are quite clear.

So how do you feel about nations declaring war when it's not defensive? Was it good that Britain and Canada declared war against Germany, or do you see their actions as aggressive?

So are you saying that since Britain was well armed when it declared war against Germany, it was nonsensical for Canada to join in the war, as if Britain were some weak little wilting flower, unable to defend Poland on its own?

what issue exactly are you getting at here?

I've answered your questions a number of times, already.

I didn't say we or anyone was "questioning Hillary's interpretation", in fact it is interpreting Hilary's words, that has been what this entire thread was about.

Though of course it has gotten way off track.

I've already said, but I'll say it again, it is indeed IMO a veiled threat that plays well to a domestic audience.

Nonetheless the implied threat is still there.

As for Canada, I already said, and I'll say again, Canada went in as a loyal british subject.

Canada followed the empire master and the US is the empire doing as they please in the world.

It is never about good and bad it is about geopolitical strategy and resources

Or as BC says economics trumps virtue.

Israel has nukes the penultimate weapon, no one is going to attack the country, especially not Iran.

In fact the reverse in reality is far more likely.

But do you see war as moral??

It appears you do.

When is war ever moral?

With some countries( as an example the US) having some kind of 'moral'righteousness to slaughter, maim and kill, but then when another country (let's say Iraq), takes that same "privilege" for themselves then that is evil, right like some kind of insane double standard??

Hmmm, interesting but not my cup o tea.

Mark Twain's The War Prayer, comes to mind.

Edited April 27, 2008 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

Iran is not gonna use nukes against anybody. Nobody is. It's suicide. Everybody knows that. You want to get rid of nukes in the Middle East? Disarm everyone else first.

Now that's a plan!

[HisSelf]

Now that's a plan!

High five!

[Wilber]

As for Canada, I already said, and I'll say again, Canada went in as a loyal british subject.

Canada followed the empire master and the US is the empire doing as they please in the world.

Are you seriously saying that WWII wasn't about good versus bad?

[Regulus de Leo]

As for Canada, I already said, and I'll say again, Canada went in as a loyal british subject.

Canada followed the empire master and the US is the empire doing as they please in the world.

I guess you don't know your history. Canada had control of its own foreign policy in 1939 and Canada declared war on Germany before Great Britain did. But I suppose you think German racism, aggression, totalitariansim, treaty breaking and attempt to dominate Europe were nothing to be concerned about.

[DogOnPorch]

Israel has nukes the penultimate weapon, no one is going to attack the country, especially not Iran.

What's the 'ultimate' weapon, then? Penultimate = next to ultimate. Just curious...how do you really know Israel has functioning nuclear weapons? They've never tested one.

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

I'm so glad we've had this time together, just to share a laugh and sing a song...

---Carol Burnett

[bush_cheney2004]

What's the 'ultimate' weapon, then? Penultimate = next to ultimate. Just curious...how do you really know Israel has functioning nuclear weapons? They've never tested one.

Good point...the ultimate weapon is the Empire's "Death Star", or "Doomsday Machine" if you prefer old school Star Trek.

To your larger point, I think it's a great compliment to Israel to be feared for a weapon that has never been adequately tested (complete physics package, trigger, delivery, reliability, etc.). Helping South Africa doesn't count (3KT neutron device in 1979).

[DogOnPorch]

Good point...the ultimate weapon is the Empire's "Death Star", or "Doomsday Machine" if you prefer old school Star Trek.

To your larger point, I think it's a great compliment to Israel to be feared for a weapon that has never been adequately tested (complete physics package, trigger, delivery, reliability, etc.). Helping South Africa doesn't count (3KT neutron device in 1979).

The Cobalt Bomb, I suppose...never actually made...or so we hope...lol. Remember "Beneath the Planet of the Apes"? Ook...ook...

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

To reply: Yes...generally one needs to do some test blasts to match yield to predictions as well as prove the delivery system. Israel has done none of these things which makes their weapons rather suspect to them let alone the rest of the planet.

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

I admire the film's mental hygiene approach, its underlying qualities of cheerfulness and optimism.

---John C. Cocks, New York City Board of Education Civil Defense Representative, January 24, 1952 re: "Duck and Cover".

[August1991]

I guess you don't know your history. Canada had control of its own foreign policy in 1939 and Canada declared war on Germany before Great Britain did. But I suppose you think German racism, aggression, totalitariansim, treaty breaking and attempt to dominate Europe were nothing to be concerned about.

That's wrong.

Mackenzie King deliberately waited one week after Chamberlain to declare war on Germany. King wanted to show that Canada had an "independent" foreign policy. Such was King, such are the Liberals, even today. All flash, no cash.

The Americans declared war on Hitler over two years later. For us, memorials show 1939-1945. For Russians and Americans, the memorials show 1941-1945. It's unnerving.

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.

Good point Kuzadd; Truman approved two bombs.

The usual argument, noted above, is that the A-bomb on Hiroshima avoided the massacre of a land invasion. So, why a second bomb on Nagasaki? Some argue that it was a way to show that this was not a freak occurrence.

I still think that underneath it all, Truman and the Americans were showing the world that they have this weapon, and they were not shy or afraid to use it in war. They did - not once, but twice. Every president since Truman has benefitted from his decision. The US can and will drop the A-bomb.

----

With all that said, I think 'Iran, the Taliban, al Qaeda, bin Laden, Hizballah, radical Islam' is a medieval paper tiger. The threat Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union posed to individual freedom was far graver.

Hillary Clinton, of all people, is right to stand up for all of us.

IMV, Iranians, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Muslim men in general should not wonder about the power of a US president, or the reticence of a woman US president. An American president (Harry Truman) already ordered not one but two atomic attacks on foreign cities. This Iranian nutbar should think twice about what he is doing. The Americans (women or men) are not shy to use their power - Truman already did, twice. Hillary would also.

Obliterate Iran? Harry Truman already chose to obliterate Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hillary Clinton, a "lady" president, would obliterate Tehran.

Edited April 28, 2008 by August1991

[DogOnPorch]

So, why a second bomb on Nagasaki? Some argue that it was a way to show that this was not a freak occurrence.

1] The Japanese didn't surrender after Little Boy. They kept on fighting...their home air defence made up of both Navy and Army air units in particular. Japanese ace Saburo Saki and his commrades kept fighting on for a few days after Fat Man, even. Only after two bombs and a promise to be allowed to keep the emperor did the Japanese agree to surrender. Lucky for both the US and Japan, as it was mentioned in several sources that the US planned to back-up Operation Olympic and Coronet with up to seven fission weapons. Combine this with orders for the Allied troops not to enter 'affected areas' for forty-eight hours...both sides would have been toasted. Forty-eight hours isn't anywhere near enough time for things to 'cool off'. They knew so very little about fallout and radiation at the time...

2] Two different kinds of bombs both which needed to be proven in combat...and indeed as you mention...not a freak occurance. One was an enriched uranium shot plug type while the other was a compressed plutonium type weapon. The plutonium weapon...Fat Man...was more complex by several degrees.

3] Different kinds of terrain involved. Both were picked for being more or less undamaged targets but having fairly different terrain...rough compared to smooth. What would the effects be? Would terrain block all the effects, etc?

4] The US wanted the war over NOW before the Soviets took over any more ground in China and Japan's northern islands. After the first bomb failed to bring capitulation...

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

I'll see you on the dark side of the Moon...

---Pink Floyd

Edited April 28, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[August1991]

DogOnPorch, you don't get it.

Truman was showing the world: "We are serious. We can and will do this. Twice."

Every US president since Truman (excepting perhaps Carter) has benefited from this credible threat. Reagan most of all and for the benefit of most. JFK helped Reagan. JFK said:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

America's best angels defend my freedom - and I'm not even American.

Edited April 28, 2008 by August1991

[kuzadd]

Are you seriously saying that WWII wasn't about good versus bad?

morality in war is utter nonsense.

I have to ask you why on earth do you seriously believe that?

seriously?

Is it moral for one group to slaughter humans, but somehow not moral for another?

that's what you believe?

like I said utter nonsense.

People who believe , that there is morality in war, only believe that because it is what they have been told, repeatedly, like the mantra of ww2 'the good war", don't you recognize a slogan?

How about Operation Iraqi Freedom?

Are the Iraqis getting Freedom?

moral appeals are used to make people such as yourself, feel ok, and justified in slaughtering "other" humans.