Threatening to "obliterate" a country is NOT diplomacy

[Lerkfish]

full out threatening to obliterate an entire country is not diplomacy, especially when you've publicly stated you will NEVER meet with that country's leader under any circumstance, which she has.

Don't confuse "diplomacy" with "extortion".

di·plo·ma·cy
1. the conduct by government officials of negotiations and other relations between nations.
2. the art or science of conducting such negotiations.
3. skill in managing negotiations, handling people, etc., so that there is little or no ill will; tact: Seating one's dinner guests often calls for considerable diplomacy.

extort verb
to obtain (from a person) by threats or violence
Example: They extorted a confession from him by torture.

[MethuenProgressive]

1. Good thing no one threatened to obliterate a country then.

Next.

[Zachstar]

3. Um yes she did

Can't spin this.

If Iran attacks our Israel Clinton said she would "Obliterate" Iran which means every man woman and child despite the tactical stance our modern warheads have.

[joeybee12]

4. Um, no...said massive retaliation...stop the lies, please...

...I know BO supporters are conditioned to lie, but every once in a while please let up on it.

[Catherina]

9. Explain the lie or stop your flimsy accusation n/t

[Lerkfish]

10. link: stop accusing me of lying

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080422/pl_nm/usa_politics_iran_dc


Clinton says U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran

By David Morgan 30 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.

On the day of a crucial vote in her nomination battle against fellow Democrat Barack Obama, the New York senator said she wanted to make clear to Tehran what she was prepared to do as president in hopes that this warning would deter any Iranian nuclear attack against the Jewish state.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.

"That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said.

[godai]

21. Yahoo: Clinton threatens to 'obliterate' Iran if Israel attacked

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080422/ts_alt_afp/usvoteclintoniran_080422125340

[Cronus Protagonist]

59. Out of context

I saw the entire thing. Another manufactured headline. If Iran attacked Israel they WOULD be obliterated. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naiive. Sure, that wasn't the best word to use, but the truth is there. She didn't threaten Iran, she responded to a pointed question about Iran unilaterraly starting a war with Israel.

[Shakespeare]

52. Didn't watch TV this morning, did you?

"We will obliterate them." Direct fucking quote.

[zerostar]

95. No, you are ignorant.

The quote is:

"in the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.

that does not equal "we will" no matter how you spin it.

[Shakespeare]

101. No, I'm not ignorant, and no, it doesn't make a difference in what she said.

It was inflammatory sabre-rattling. The European news outlets have already picked up on it, so have fun with that.

[Lerkfish]

102. you're not getting the point, but that's ok

obliterate = nuclear genocide.

but hey, why should that worry you? its just brown people.

[Bake]

104. The quote in print, above, is "would be able to ..."

Not "we will ..."

Perhaps you need to get your ears cleaned out.

Bake

[Lerkfish]

108. a distinction without a difference.

[Bake]

112. No, there's a huge difference.

One says you will be able to do something, but defers the decision until later. The other says the decision has already been made.

Hillary says the US WILL retaliate, but that may not include total obliteration, although we have the ability to do that.

One is a threat, the other a promise.

Surprising that an Obama supporter doesn't think words matter.

Bake

[Shakespeare]

115. No, there really isn't.

But please keep trying to make excuses for it. It's Cheney-esque sabre-rattling, and if he or anybody else from the Bush administration had said that, everybody on this site would've jumped all over it.

STOP MAKING EXCUSES WHEN YOUR CANDIDATE SAYS STUPID AND/OR OFFENSIVE THINGS.

Jesus, people. Why can't you just admit, "hey, that wasn't a great thing to say?"

[Bake]

119. That's US policy; has been for years.

I probably wouldn't have said it, but that IS the policy and I'd imagine it's pretty clear that everybody knows it.

Bake

[Shakespeare]

120. Sure, since Bush has been in office.

excuses....

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

17. We are spending right now, 150 billion to replace most of our

nuclear warheads. This is the most important issue in the world to all of us. Peace be with us all.

[Zachstar]

2. Her words will be used to aid the recruiting efforts at this rate.

What is a person in Iran supposed to think when a candidate says she will Obliterate them?

That means the deaths of EVERYONE including children.

[redqueen]

14. Yup... (nt)

[bigtree]

5. then Obama shouldn't say that ALL options are on the table regarding Iran

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/clintons-umbrel.html

[cali]

19. rhetoric is important. her's is saber rattling

and inflammatory. I can't believe that DUers are pretending there's no difference between saying all options are on the table, and using loaded language like obliterate. Disturbing.

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. Let's look at the words:

"Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said that he would work to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians but that he would "take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons, and that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region."

This phrase in particular:

"or obtaining nuclear weapons". Obama leaves all options on the table, which includes military force against Iran, to STOP them from GETTING nuclear weapons. In other words Iran remains under the threat of attack by Obama NOW, even if they do not have nuclear weapons, let alone actually use against Israel or any other nation, if it seems like they are gaining the capacity to make nuclear weapons.

That is not deterrence. That is aggression packaged as "preventive defense". Clinton has shifted to standard deterrence; the threat of retaliation if nukes are used against a U.S. allie. That was standard U.S. policy for 40 years. The threat of attacking Iran to stop them from getting nukes, let alone using them, is dangerous new saber rattling.

[godai]

26. Maybe he'll clarify for you that obliteration is off the table.

Her choice of this word is so much worse than Obama accurately saying that some people are bitter because they have been lied to so much.
Obliteration of a country? That's never been done. Russia or China would retaliate and it's WW III. This was a very reckless statement.

[Bake]

106. I believe he said NO OPTION is off the table.

That would include obliteration, presumably, since that is the clear result of a nuclear strike.

Bake

[suston96]

6. Have a quote to what she said? Did she say "If Israel is nuked by Iran, then we nuke Iran....? nt

[Lerkfish]

12. see post #9

or read the link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080422/pl_nm/usa_politics_iran_dc

[suston96]

27. Yep, I was right....Her words taken out of context and distorted by posters here ......

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel."


From that Yahoo article. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080422/pl_nm/usa_politics_iran_dc

[Lerkfish]

53. sorry, I meant post #10, where I included the complete context.

I looked on the wrong line to get the post number.


the real question here is, you supporters of Clinton will follow her all the way into nuclear apocalypse.

You put up with her racebaiting, her corporate shilling, her outright lying and fabrications the whole lot of it.

but why, on God's green earth, can ANY democrat support nuclear annihilation of an entire nation?

[PoliticalAmazon]

76. Very clear that she would use nuclear weapons...

...There is only one way to "totally obliterate" the population of a country: a nuclear attack.

Queen Hillary of Nukonia must be stopped. She is more of a security threat to our country than Bush Jr or John McCain could ever be.

[bushmeister0]

7. She believes in "robust diplomacy," as in bunker (ro) buster diplomacy.

From the Guardian Oct. 2007:

"Hillary Clinton today moved to secure her position as the most hawkish Democrat in the 2008 presidential race, saying she would consider the use of force to compel Iran to abandon its nuclear programme . . .

'If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table," Ms Clinton said.'"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/15/usa.hillaryclinton

Hmmm . . . all options on the table. Who does that sound like?

[Maddy McCall]

8. It's the strategy of deterrence.

And it's a five-decade-old strategy.

You'd be better served to pick up the book "Strategies of Containment" by John Lewis Gaddis.

But if you can't do that, maybe reading the wikipedia entry on this strategy will suffice.

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

[Zachstar]

16. MAD does NOTHING against them!

Many do not care if they die.

[Maddy McCall]

24. Do you honestly believe that???

See, I'd love to discuss this with you, but you're already starting off with a falacy. *sigh*

[Barrymores Ghost]

89. All due respect, we are not talking about Cold-War Russia or China.

First of all, this is pure grandstanding on Hillary's part. It's cheap, political sabre-rattling at a straw man -- the Iranian nuclear threat doesn't exist. The nuclear threat from Iran to Israel is even further-fetched...and she knows it. She pulled this gem out of thin air to appeal to blue-collar Dems in home-state Pennsylvania on the night before a primary. This is low-rent, tawdry and worse: unnecessarily provocative and inflammatory.

Secondly (in case you missed the last 5 years), culturally-speaking, Islamic fundamentalists -- be they Shi'ite, Sunni, Sufi or Tutti-frutti -- don't historically respond with measured diplomacy or caution when threatened. Hillary's step into this sh*t-pile is a provocation of the "bring it on" order.

If Hillary Clinton cannot recognize that Iran poses no nuclear threat to Israel (or anyone else, for that matter) -- and her default mode is to respond to an interviewer's question on the matter in a plainly thoughtless, provocative and threatening manner -- then she has no business being within a country mile of the White House.

[redqueen]

11. Is anyone else completely fucking FLOORED that this has to be EXPLAINED?

HERE?!

[Maddy McCall]

13. Absolutely. I'm amazed how many people are ignorant to deterrence....

as a strategy, especially since it's been American foreign policy through every administration since Eisenhower.

[redqueen]

18. Check the reactions in the foreign press.

You are seeing her comments through a filter. No one but her most ardent supporters could manage to not see how reckless her comments were.

[Maddy McCall]

23. I don't have to check the foreign press.

I'm well acquainted with the strategy through history and how successful it was.

[redqueen]

25. Wow.

Okay.

[MidwestTransplant]

28. Not even Darth Cheney talks in those terms. She has lost her shit.

[Barrymores Ghost]

90. Yeah...what do the Germans know about the Cold War, anyway?

:eyes:

[BadgerLaw2010]

62. Foreign press influences US deterrance policy since...when?

Ask the Russians about the US attitude on nuking in retaliation for attack on allies.

[redqueen]

67. I'm not talking about Russians... I'm talking about our allies.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5619153

[LSK]

72. deterrence FROM WHAT?????????????

[Barrymores Ghost]

96. Deterrence from being perceived as weak? Deterrence from...

...failing to appeal to arm-chair nuclear cowboys and losing her home-state primary, maybe?

Just spit-ballin'.

[Ichingcarpenter]

88. Pot meets Kettle

You are ignorant on the language of diplomacy and world affairs

[Lerkfish]

15. I am.

I was floored I had to explain it in another thread, so I made it its own thread.

I am further floored that when we pointed out Clinton was a warmonger in the past, we were ATTACKED here, and told she was the "goddess of peace"

I guess truth will eventually out.

[suston96]

32. She did explain: IF Israel is nuked by Iran, she will "obliterate" Iran...get it? See link....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080422/pl_nm/usa_politics_iran_dc

First paragraph.....

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel."

[LSK]

71. can you explain this statement?

"Well, what we were talking about was the potential for a nuclear attack by Iran, if Iran does achieve what appears to be its continuing goal of obtaining nuclear weapons. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24256056/

[Barrymores Ghost]

100. Hillary READ the NIE on Iran's "program"....

...and she knows that this "threat" doesn't exist. Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, and wouldn't be stupid enough to try to attack Israel. Only the neo-Cons are pushing either of these theories, so where does that leave Hillary?

In a nutshell (heavy on the nut), she's jumped the shark in a desperate attempt to portray herself as a Hawk to arm-chair Pennsylvanian cowboys and cling to the last vestiges of her candidacy.

[LSK]

70. YES!!! 2 years ago if the Bushies said the same thing, everyone would be up in arms

[redqueen]

75. I honestly don't recognize these people anymore.

I've gone from shocked to saddened to just plain confused.

What. The. Fuck.

[LSK]

78. we are seeing the EXACT SAME REASONING as the Neocons

right before we invaded Iraq.

This is unbelievable!!!!

Why are these people here?? Did they NOT LEARN A FUCKING THING in the past 5 years????

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[redqueen]

79. Exactly... the same "reasoning"...

that's exactly what I asked someone else... have so many really learned so little?

*SIGH*

[Barrymores Ghost]

93. Cognitive dissonance is a curious thing...

...that one can become so emotionally and intellectually invested in an idea, belief or person, he/she often will result to blind denial and irrational defense of it (or that person) -- any any cost.

[Lerkfish]

94. well put. I was trying to come up with a way of saying the same thing

but yours was much more succinct.

[Barrymores Ghost]

97. Kitchen-sink pop psychology aside, I'm still slack-jawed and stupefied by....

...the shallow rationalizations and the strident rejection of the reality-based community from these people.

If their blinders were any thicker, you could use them as potholders.

[Lerkfish]

98. if I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd point out the similarities of these arguments

with those before we preemptively attacked Iraq.

There was a "softening up" of the populace with just this sort of rhetoric.

There may indeed be something going on here we're not all privy to.

[gulfcoastliberal]

116. The Clinton/Bush families live in a sad, delusional world...

Since facts have a well-known liberal bias, I'm sure Hillary (just like her buddies * and Mcain) avoids much like those nasty "democratic activists".

[malletgirl02]

125. I'm shock too

I can't believe I'm seeing people on this board defending her comments. I thought this was Democratic Underground, not Apocalypse Underground.

[Robeson]

103. I was about to post the same thing...

...but you said it first.

[gravity]

20. If Iran nukes Israel, you have to retaliate with force

Diplomacy is used to prevent these types of events.

[JuniperLea]

38. There's the distinction, absolutely

Another piece we seem to be forgetting is that Iran is no way near having a nuke. Why are the press STILL asking our candidates hypotheticals when there are so many REAL issues to discuss? I mean, my GAWD! We have a war going on... ill-advised if not illegal... a war criminal in the White House... people are losing their homes... people are finding it hard to feed their families, let alone fill their gas tanks... and what is the media focused on? Bullshit hypothetical freaking questions!

So is DU... I guess that means DU isn't really any smarter than the media at large. That really sucks.

[Tesha]

123. Why? Israel has (probably hundreds of) their own nukes to do their own retaliating. (NT)

[Independent-Voter]

22. She's such a fucking idiot! I can't believe there are some people still ignorant enough to support

that shrew.

[godai]

30. Check the posts above that claimed that it is a lie!

It was a very reckless, shoot from the hip, bring 'em on, type mis-statement.

[Independent-Voter]

117. I can't say that I'm surprised about Veruca's apologists.

[Taxmyth]

29. Confusing Diplomacy to PREVENT an occurrence with a response should that event occur

is either ignorance or stupidity.

And Senator Clinton, while refusing to meet with that country's leader directly, was quite specific that he WOULD be approached to engage in diplomatic efforts, just not in her White House or with her directly.

Can we knock this crap off already.

[Lerkfish]

50. well, if you stop posting crap, the crap will stop.

LOL

[Taxmyth]

56. Touche

Peace.

[JuniperLea]

31. What would Obama do?

He's already made many strong statements in support of Israel. I've always felt this was paving the way for like policies.

One question I'd like to ask both candidates is: Are we going to continue borrowing money only to give it to Israel and other countries?

[SeaLyons]

33. She did not threaten obliteration...

just stop!!

[godai]

35. Yahoo: Clinton threatens to 'obliterate' Iran if Israel attacked

We won't stop telling the truth.

[JuniperLea]

39. Iran has no nukes...

She threatened a hypothetical nothing with nothing...

When do we discuss the real issues?

:shrug:

[SeaLyons]

40. Truth telling is good....

not having the ability to understand your statement is inaccurate is bad..

[godai]

42. What's 'my statement' and what's inaccurate? n/t

[Shakespeare]

54. Yes, she did. Direct quote: "we will obliterate them."

Sad.

[bowens43]

34. She has shown us that she is a rank amateur.

She knows nothing about diplomacy and even less about the middle east. The woman, contrary to popular belief, is a babbling idiot.

[Yurovsky]

36. She needs to be kept far, far, away from the nuclear football

provided she isn't allowed to steal the nomination in Denver, she and her war-mongering toadies will be kept at bay for at least 4 more years.

[Zachstar]

44. I don't want her or McCain anywhere near the button.

[Yurovsky]

64. agree 100%... looking forward to the day ...

Evil Dick and Chimpy get their damn dirty paws off of it.

I'm sure if they could get their approval numbers back up to pre-war levels they'd have nuked Iran by now.

[PoliticalAmazon]

77. Agreed, but Hillary is more of a threat now than McCain is. She is unstable. n/t

[suston96]

41. Distorted quotes by Hillary haters here....she said IF IF IF Israel is nuked by Iran....

...then Iran will be "obliterated"......

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080422/pl_nm/usa_politics_iran_dc

[Zachstar]

43. Nothing distored about it. Obiterate means everything. Every man woman and Child

[suston96]

49. There are no women and children in Israel? Oh, I didn't know that......nt

[Zachstar]

51. That is not how we work.

Because an enemy attacks civilians does NOT give us the right to do so. Innocents are Innocents REGARDLESS!

[Lerkfish]

55. actually, Bush's policy of preemptive attack allows us to do so

IN BIZARRO HILLARYLAND!

jesus, have we finally seen what's under the thin veneer of Clinton supporters, here? Have we finally had revealed to us that they're all Neocons?

I mean, what the hell?

[Zachstar]

58. I don't think they are neocons just desperate in my view.

In the last few days we have seen multiple reasons of why some desperately want Clinton. (Such as to return Bill)

Just a small disconnect. I think once Clinton exits they will realize that they were saying well silly things and they will come back down to earth in my view.

Besides there are good Clinton supporters and we don't want to group those in.

[Lerkfish]

60. valid point, I don't mean the whole group, just the ones defending this reckless threat

If they are not closet neocons, they'll do until the closet neocons come along.

[Zachstar]

61. Also remember that some republicans have joined the Clinton camp to cause Chaos

So not all Clinton supporters are Actually Clinton supporters.

[godai]

45. We, of course understand that. Do you realize the consequences of her statement?

Retaliation by China/Russia (WW III). Nuclear fallout making the region uninhabitable. Even Bush would never say anything so reckless.

[LSK]

73. "if Iran does achieve what appears to be its continuing goal of obtaining nuclear weapons"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24256056/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3192271&mesg_id=3192271

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. Oh, well. That's OK then. Murdering 71 million people is just fine.

[suston96]

81. 71 million? We should "murder" the same number Iran "murders" in Israel..... nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

86. How very humanitarian.

What purpose would that serve?

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[Bonobo]

46. Oh, we're just lying and distorting. "Obliterate" doesn't actually mean "obliterate", Silly!

[redqueen]

47. She said "IF"! What's the big deal? She didn't say we're doing it NOW!

Geez... what is everyone so worried about?

:crazy:

[godai]

48. The truth is she meant to say this, plus the fear ad, all to try for votes.

Obviously, from the posts here, it doesn't bother her supporters and the campaign hopes to gain some votes by fear mongering. How classy...

[Lerkfish]

57. people are still not getting it: This reckless threat by Clinton is NOT diplomacy

its extortion. Its not even MAD, because its in reference to a third party country, and Iran, even if they get nukes 15 years from now by the best expert estimates, would NOT be able to mutually destroy us in return.

geez, think people?

[BadgerLaw2010]

63. Google "massive retaliation." This has been done before.

[Lerkfish]

65. "obliterate" an entire nation is GENOCIDE, not "massive retaliation". words are important

words mean things. Someone who choose words THIS POORLY in such a dangerous situation is RECKLESS and untrustworthy.

[Shakespeare]

66. Thanks--that's the point precisely. One of our biggest complaints about Bush has been...

...that he shoots his freaking mouth off and makes no effort at diplomacy. That Hillary is now doing the same thing should give EVERYONE here pause.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

68. Threats and attacks are Hillary's answer to everything

thats why we never got universal health care back in the Clinton years.

[uponit7771]

69. The definition had the word manage in it, Hillary isn't a good Manager IMHO

[flpoljunkie]

80. Talkingpointsmemo's Josh Marshall's take: "Over The Top"

Over the Top

I'm not sure there's much to say about Sen. Clinton's threat to destroy the entire country of Iran with nuclear weapons if they first attack Israel with nuclear weapons other than it seems like garden-variety if unusually incendiary campaign rhetoric. But aren't we leaving out of this equation the fact that Israel has a large nuclear arsenal and one specifically designed (via the use of nuclear-armed submarines and other methods) to survive a first strike and still exact massive retaliation on an attacker? Israel has nuclear weapons. For precisely this purpose.

--Josh Marshall

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/190562.php

[islandmkl]

82. deterrence: "I will kick your ass if you screw up."

obliteration: "I will remove your ass from the face of the earth if you screw up."

only an idiot doesn't recognize the difference in the threat.

[Occam Bandage]

83. Correct. It is insanity.

[EFerrari]

84. Thank you!

[Lerkfish]

92. well, its bizarre that it has to be spelled out, HERE of all places.

I'm beginning to think DU has been infested with...something.

[EFerrari]

105. Sometimes people behave like herds. That can be a good thing

or a scary thing. :)

[LeftishBrit]

85. She said, as I understand, that America COULD nuke Iran IF Iran nukes Israel...

(1) Iran has no nukes;

(2) If Iran had nukes, it would be unlikely to nuke Israel; because

(3(a)) Israel would retaliate with nukes of its own;

(3(b)) Even if Israel were destroyed and couldn't retaliate, Iran would also be destroyed, or nearly so, by the nuclear fallout - which does not recognize geographical boundaries.

(4) So this statement is really saying that IF Iran got nukes; and IF they used them on Israel; and IF they were not instantly destroyed by either Israel or their own fallout, America COULD obliterate them.

It's an unlikely combination of events; and there was IMO little point in Hillary raising it - but it doesn't mean that she is planning a first strike on Iran.

[redqueen]

113. I don't think anyone's saying she's planning a first strike.

Geez.


What we're saying is she's reckless with her rhetoric, and leaders cannot afford to engage in that kind of loose talk. Particularly the reckless, cowboy-style, saber-rattling kind of talk.

[ksoze]

87. So, if Iran NUKES Israel, Obama will seek a meeting to negotiate?

Will he wear a radioactive suit to go near the area when he negotiates? How much time will he let pass? Will he use sanctions as punishment for Iran using a nuclear weapon to obliterate Israel?

[Lerkfish]

91. words are important: "obliterate" is nuclear genocide of 71 million people

is there some reason you can't understand the distinction?

[ksoze]

110. Where is the negotiation meeting?

after 7.5 Million are killed first by Iran? is it in a bunker? Do we threaten sanctions? Do we send an envoy in an aluminum foil suit? I would hope that if Iran nuked us, Israel would respond for us. I am not for any of this nuclear crap, but reminding Iran or others who have threatened to nuke others in the region what it means to them must be said. The negotiating must happen BEFORE the nukes takeoff, the issues here was the nukes already have destroyed Israel.

[Lerkfish]

114. I don't know if you're intentionally missing my point or not

but you can't get to a previous point of diplomacy when you issues threats of nuclear obliteration.

you dig?

[Barrymores Ghost]

107. Ever heard the term "Straw man?"

Care to define it for me -- and then perhaps you can delineate for all of us the rationale that Iran would have for initiating a nuclear exchange with an armed-to-the-teeth Israel -- before I waste a second more of my time trying to explain to you why Hillary's proclamation yesterday was a cheap and unnecessarily provocative political stunt?

[wowimthere]

99. My God, I was right. She is DUMB!

[pdxmom]

109. Well, I guess we now know how Hillary disagrees with MoveOn in regards

to foreign policy. She should have just copped to it outright.

[Barrymores Ghost]

111. Might have saved all of us here the time and anguish of even considering her as a candidate...

:puke:

[knixphan]

118. K&R

[Lerkfish]

121. another important point: Iran does not have nukes...yet, BUT

If I were Iran, and if a country like the USA, with a history of preemptive regime change invasions against countries that did nothing to them, starts spouting how they're going to "obliterate" my nation of 71 million people, you can bet your sweet ass that even if I never intended to get nuclear weapons, I sure as hell will NOW.

[windoe]

122. Just imagine being the receiving end of this threat

=just for a moment imagine you are in a country being threatened by a superpower like us who is occupying and destroying the country right next to yours. Just imagine what it must be like to see Bush & Co from the other side of the border. Just imagine being threatened by a country that has screwed you royally in the past, over and over. No one has attempted to sit in the other chair, or look into this dark mirror.
Iran is a country that hasn't attacked another country, but has been attacked by others throughout history. Iran is coveted because she has resources (not just oil), access to the Persian Gulf, and is fairly self sufficient despite sanctions. The war hawks say they are spreading democracy, but they are spreading fear and loathing of us.
By the way the Iranians LOVE us, they LOVE us, they ADORE Americans. If you saw it you would be moved to tears.

[Zero Division]

124. It was an awkward moment of politically motivated posturing.

Crass and politically tone deaf. It was most certainly not a simple affirmation of the policy of deterrence.

[WinkyDink]

126. Context is everything, Mr. Chamberlain.