Excuse Me. Alert. "Massive Retaliation" US protectorate of the ME

[sandnsea]

means CONTINUED WAR and CONTINUED BILLIONS OF SPENDING FOR THE MILITARY.

Wake Up For Fucks Sake!!!

[dailykoff]

1. That 's why she's still in this race.

And that's why she was sold as the inevitable Dem nominee in the first place.

[kid a]

2. Exactly! beat those drums! nt

[crispini]

3. .

:kick:

[Purveyor]

4. All hail on bended knee to the Great Jewish State of Israel...eom

[Justitia]

5. sorry, we are debating the much more important topic of flag pins. -eom

[merh]

6. exactly

She can't even keep her stance constant - out of iraq but we will protect them always and anyone that f**ks with our plans better look out for massive retaliations.

[BeyondGeography]

7. She sure had an itchy trigger finger on that question

whereas Obama was careful not to be drawn in. Hillary had Israel sounding like a NATO member by the end of it.

[sandnsea]

8. Sounded like she was going to stir it up more

You either come under the "umbrella" or you're a nuclear threat who we won't talk to. How the hell is that different from Bush?

[Usrename]

9. You sound a little bitter about this.

:hug:

[Catherina]

10. Mos people are awake. That's why Obama's winning despite everything

the war wing throws at him. Hillary's finished. The generation that's dying and paying for her wars isn't standing for it.

[merh]

11. kick

:kick:

[crispini]

12. kick

Yep, Clinton said it, let's highlight it.

[crispini]

13. .

"CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course, I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States.

But I would do the same with other countries in the region. We are at a very dangerous point with Iran. The Bush policy has failed. Iran has not been deterred. They continue to try to not only obtain the fissile material for nuclear weapons, but they are intent upon using their efforts to intimidate the region and to have their way when it comes to the support of terrorism in Lebanon and elsewhere. "

[sandnsea]

14. And this "security umbrella"

"You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say: Well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup and we will let the Iranians know that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under this security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions...

Therefore we have got to have this process that reaches out, beyond even who we would put under the security umbrella, to get the rest of the world on our side to try to impose the kind of sanctions and diplomatic efforts that might prevent this from occurring."

What the hell is she saying and why are Democrats buying into the bullshit that she won the debate with this beligerent saber rattling garbage. She is not going to get us out of Iraq are change anything in the ME, or with globalization, or anything. Why can Democrats not hear her? I don't understand it.

[crispini]

15. KICK!

[joefargo]

16. "Massive Retaliation" is a term of art and Senator Clinton is highly advised

on such matters. Thus, we should expect that she knows what she is saying. Erecting a U.S. guaranteed security umbrella over mostly unstable totalitarian governments to oppose any attack (note she did not say "nuclear attack" or otherwise qualify the level of attack) on, say, Saudi Arabia, by Iran is a most dangerous entanglement. The only precondition she set was that countries covered under the security umbrella, other than Israel, would need to forswear the development of nuclear weapons. This is one of the most profound foreign policy initiatives that has come from any candidate for the presidency. Yet, it does not rise to the level of political discourse as say, flag pins? I can't decide if the media believes the public to be too shallow to weigh this issue or if the media, itself, is too shallow to give the issue the consideration it requires. My guess is that the elitist media pinheads have determined the public incapable of understanding any discussion over such matters.

Here are my questions: 1) what might constitute an "attack" that triggers our massive retaliation? 2) what if one country covered under the security umbrella were to attack Iran first? 3) what if one country under the security umbrella were to attack another country covered? 4) might women in Saudi Arabia be allowed to drive on public highways before we die for that country? 5) might we be compensated for any action by the countries covered under the umbrella -- or would the prospective resulting rise in the price of oil that would result from certain disruption in supply be reason enough for one or some oil countries to ensure that we were forced to take action under such an agreement.

Wow. If this is what stellar foreign policy experience produces, I'll opt for no experience...