Hillary: "totally obliterate" Iran if they attack

[cosmicalstorm]

Iraq used heaploads of chemical weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war and even then, the leaders of Iran refused to reply in kind. Those people aren't going to throw nuclear weapons around left and right, and certainly not give them away to some unpredictable group of islamic extremists.

[Xisiqomelir]

bleat bleat bleat. The last dying wheeze of an eviscerated campaign.

This is all over by the 6th. Book it.

[Fire Fly]

bleat bleat bleat. The last dying wheeze of an eviscerated campaign.

This is all over by the 6th. Book it.

It won't be over on May 6; the Clinton campaign is attempting to steal delegates at the county/state conventions during the next few months. They won't surrender until they know for sure that all possible means have been exhausted. So prepare yourself for more campaign coverage.

[Xisiqomelir]

bleat bleat bleat. The last dying wheeze of an eviscerated campaign.

This is all over by the 6th. Book it.

It won't be over on May 6; the Clinton campaign is attempting to steal delegates at the county/state conventions during the next few months. They won't surrender until they know for sure that all possible means have been exhausted. So prepare yourself for more campaign coverage.

I didn't mean that the roach's legs would stop twitching, I meant that the kitchen floor would be mopped. Dean is already leaning on the supers, hard enough that Hitlery's head fundbitches cried about it to the newspapers. After the 6th, this is out of the hands of Hillary and her pet media outlets. They can (and will) carry on the "fight's not over!!!1" spin, but Obama will be the Dem nominee.

[Coyote]

Who'd've thought?

"Shep and Hil-a-ry, sittin' in a tree..."

Seriously, wasn't it Bill Clinton that put forth the doctrine of "Irrational and disproportionate nuclear retaliation" in the event of any WMD attack against the United States? That would be, of course, if Iran attacked the USA itself and not one of our proxies, but still-- if Bill is th eone I'm thinking of, then Hillary comes from that mindset.

[phongn]

Seriously, wasn't it Bill Clinton that put forth the doctrine of "Irrational and disproportionate nuclear retaliation" in the event of any WMD attack against the United States? That would be, of course, if Iran attacked the USA itself and not one of our proxies, but still-- if Bill is the one I'm thinking of, then Hillary comes from that mindset.

Assured Destruction has been US policy for decades, really.

[Darth Onasi]

Useless hyperbole from someone desperate to get as many on side as she can. Not terribly surprising and unfortunately not the stupidest thing she's ever said.

[Justforfun000]

How about Israel ? If Israel decided to nuke Iran, does anyone think America would nuke Israel ? And if not, how can you argue that our position is about threatening "warmongering nations" ?

And if we are threatening Iran with nukes, there goes any argument that they don't need them and shouldn't try to get them.

I highly doubt Israel would start any fight with nukes. In fact, I doubt they'd even end it with them. In reality, you simply cannot nuke people that close to you without suffering major backlash politically, let alone environmentally.

Hillary wasn't threatening Iran. She simply stated a fact. America has the ability to totally obliterate Iran and she insinuated that all bets would be off the table if they dared to use nuclear weapons. I would expect any presidential candidate to say the same. Indeed, I'd be highly concerned as a friendly treaty-bound country if they DIDN'T express such support.

The reality is that America already has them and they aren't going to get rid of them. Iran doesn't yet, and their possession of them isn't going to make a huge difference in actuality. They may always be perceived as an unspoken threat, but they can never be used without fatal retaliation.

[phongn]

I highly doubt Israel would start any fight with nukes. In fact, I doubt they'd even end it with them. In reality, you simply cannot nuke people that close to you without suffering major backlash politically, let alone environmentally.

Er, what? You push someone back to the wall, consider that they have nothing to lose at that point. If Israel thinks it's on the verge of total destruction, do you really think they're going to go "oh, shit, better not use nukes because everyone will be mad?" or "what about the environment?!"

The reality is that America already has them and they aren't going to get rid of them. Iran doesn't yet, and their possession of them isn't going to make a huge difference in actuality. They may always be perceived as an unspoken threat, but they can never be used without fatal retaliation.

Deterrence, unfortunately, is not ironclad, though Iran's leadership has no desire to commit national suicide.

[Rogue 9]

I even know of a couple of satanic black metal bands in Tehran.

Seriously? Wow, that's awesome.

Yeah. Rock the Casbah indeed.

[Darth Wong]

So Hillary Clinton fears that the first thing Iran would do if it acquired nuclear weapons is nuke Israel. What a moron. Does she not realize that Iran wants nuclear weapons as a deterrent, which is the same reason the US uses? Or does she not realize how much Iranians fear that the Americans will attack them, after attacking Iraq (something she voted in favour of)?

[Kanastrous]

The fact that...what, maybe 85%? 90? of her prospective supporters don't know that it's moot, probably does.

[Kanastrous]

sorry, that was meant to read:

Empty posturing. Israel has the bomb. On the off chance Iran hit them, there wouldn't be an Iran left for us to obliterate. The fact that the entire thing is moot doesn't help her case.

The fact that...what, maybe 85%? 90%? of her prospective supporters don't know that it's moot, probably does.

[MKSheppard]

Hillary wasn't threatening Iran. She simply stated a fact.

I'll repost something from the other board I wrote:

The Clintons are very great political creatures, finely attuned to the nuance of what they say. She knows what "massive retalitation" as a phrase means in the American strategic concept of things. She DID spend eight years very very close to the guy who has access to the football, so she would have at least received a basic education in strategic thinking, to know what the term means.

That she used that specific phrase instead of "will bring a response from America" makes me think....

[Darth Onasi]

So Hillary Clinton fears that the first thing Iran would do if it acquired nuclear weapons is nuke Israel. What a moron. Does she not realize that Iran wants nuclear weapons as a deterrent, which is the same reason the US uses? Or does she not realize how much Iranians fear that the Americans will attack them, after attacking Iraq (something she voted in favour of)?

Well in the ideal world according to right-wing America, nobody should be allowed to have a nuclear deterrent except for America and maybe Israel.

[Kanastrous]

Holding nukes does more for you than simply deter military attack.

It forces other nations to be a lot more circumspect when dealing with you on a whole lot of other matters, since now their calculus has to take into account how any given policy or disagreement might lead in the direction of your nukes somehow coming into play.

[Darth Onasi]

Holding nukes does more for you than simply deter military attack.

It forces other nations to be a lot more circumspect when dealing with you on a whole lot of other matters, since now their calculus has to take into account how any given policy or disagreement might lead in the direction of your nukes somehow coming into play.

Not really, as other nations also know that if you start using nukes aggressively, everybody else with nukes is likely to turn your land into a glass parking lot. You could only use them as a stick so much, and probably a lot less so than a conventional military force.

[Kanastrous]

Holding nukes does more for you than simply deter military attack.

It forces other nations to be a lot more circumspect when dealing with you on a whole lot of other matters, since now their calculus has to take into account how any given policy or disagreement might lead in the direction of your nukes somehow coming into play.

Not really, as other nations also know that if you start using nukes aggressively, everybody else with nukes is likely to turn your land into a glass parking lot. You could only use them as a stick so much, and probably a lot less so than a conventional military force.

If - for example - North Korea lobbed a nuke at Japan or the US or even South Korea, I don't see that it follows that Israel, Russia, England, France, India and Pakistan would have much interest in getting involved, much less getting involved in a nuclear war that doesn't even directly involve them.

Shuffle the specific countries however you like; with the possible exception of some horrible US-Israel tag-teamage, I don't see that involvement of two nuclear powers means that further nuclear states will jump in.

[Justforfun000]

Er, what? You push someone back to the wall, consider that they have nothing to lose at that point. If Israel thinks it's on the verge of total destruction, do you really think they're going to go "oh, shit, better not use nukes because everyone will be mad?" or "what about the environment?!"

I said they wouldn't start a fight with nukes. I wasn't discussing their likely retaliation if they were already embroiled in a war with Iran. Then probably all of the gloves would come off. They would still suffer themselves however. It'd be a phyrric victory.

[Darth Onasi]

Holding nukes does more for you than simply deter military attack.

It forces other nations to be a lot more circumspect when dealing with you on a whole lot of other matters, since now their calculus has to take into account how any given policy or disagreement might lead in the direction of your nukes somehow coming into play.

Not really, as other nations also know that if you start using nukes aggressively, everybody else with nukes is likely to turn your land into a glass parking lot. You could only use them as a stick so much, and probably a lot less so than a conventional military force.

If - for example - North Korea lobbed a nuke at Japan or the US or even South Korea, I don't see that it follows that Israel, Russia, England, France, India and Pakistan would have much interest in getting involved, much less getting involved in a nuclear war that doesn't even directly involve them.

Shuffle the specific countries however you like; with the possible exception of some horrible US-Israel tag-teamage, I don't see that involvement of two nuclear powers means that further nuclear states will jump in.

No, but in that case the US would surely respond. England might too.
The point is, you start using nukes and somebody somewhere is going to use them against you. Especially if you use it against someone with no nukes because usually they'll have friends with them, like Japan, or the nuclear powers just won't like you using nuclear blackmail on non-nuclear powers.

[Kanastrous]

I'll agree it can't be ruled out.

I guess I just don't see it as being as likely, as you do.

[phongn]

I said they wouldn't start a fight with nukes. I wasn't discussing their likely retaliation if they were already embroiled in a war with Iran. Then probably all of the gloves would come off. They would still suffer themselves however. It'd be a phyrric victory.

You did say "In fact, I doubt they'd even end it with them," did you not?

[Ryan Thunder]

Your inability to distinguish between rhetoric intended for domestic consumption and actual policy that has been implemented is nobody else's problem but yours.

So you see no problem with there being a difference between the two?

[Edi]

Your inability to distinguish between rhetoric intended for domestic consumption and actual policy that has been implemented is nobody else's problem but yours.

So you see no problem with there being a difference between the two?

What sort of a retarded question is this? No, there is no problem in the fact that Iranian rhetoric for domestic consumption is radically different from the actual policies they implement in foreign relations. Ahmadinejad huffs and puffs and talks tough about driving Israel to the sea, but Iran on the international stage is much more reserved and careful and has not shown any inclination toward being suicidal in matters of policy.

[Justforfun000]

You did say "In fact, I doubt they'd even end it with them," did you not?

Oops. So I did. I stand corrected.

I WOULD be a little surprised however. Environmentally it would be disastrous. There really isn't much distance between these countries after all....What is the status between Iran and Israel anyway? As far as conventional weapons go, are they both pretty comparable?