Let's be clear: A nuclear attack is NEVER justified. EVER. Understood?

[mudesi]

If Iran were to use nuclear weapons against Israel, a nuclear retaliation would NOT BE JUSTIFIED.

Sorry, Hillary, you warmongering piece of trash.

If I have to go beyond this statement and give reasons for this position to supposed liberals, then my faith in humanity will be all but entirely lost.

[lisa58]

1. I agree - never

[JFN1]

4. Hear, hear!!

Nukes are inhuman, and people who want to use them are being inhuman. Why kill hundreds or thousands of innocents when you don't have to?

[PoliticalAmazon]

22. Only an insane person would threaten another country with nuclear attack. n/t

[napoleon_in_rags]

137. Only an insane person would threaten PRE-EMPTIVE nuclear attack.

Our policy, Dem and Republican, is that we will nuke back if somebody nukes us. It's the policy of mutually assured destruction that was used to detain the USSR. I have no idea why anybody is complaining about this statement. Its not okay for Iran to nuke Israel, its not okay for them to set off a second holocaust eradicating jews, and there would be retaliation.

Its BUSH who talked about nuking Iran pre-emptively, nuking them when they didn't even have nukes. So why the attention on Hillary.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

141. this shows how inexperienced she is

trigger-happy Annie

[NightWatcher]

2. if our government nukes, our citizens should revolt

[taught_me_patience]

5. We won't be around to revolt

WWIII will have started.

[Pacifist Patriot]

131. I figure I might live long enough to publicly renounce my U.S. citizenship...

and then it will all be over. I cannot tell you how dumbfounded I am that this has even been raised as an option. Astounding!

[fascisthunter]

3. I Agree....

those who think it is are a bit disconnected.

[Lerkfish]

6. "supposed liberals" indeed.

[nyccitizen]

7. Nonsense

If you take the threat of nuclear retaliation off the table it invites an attack. The only thing keeping the religious fanatics in Iran from attacking Israel is the threat of massive retaliation, not because they think it's the polite thing to do.

[Lerkfish]

9. you mean the brown-skinned ragheads? (sarcasm)

you sure you're on the correct site?

LOL

[Texas Hill Country]

11. the lack of context is astounding.

[nyccitizen]

16. No, I mean the religious fanatics who run the country

The vast majority of Iranians are tolerant, warm people. But the cadre of people who rule the country (including Ahmadinajad) are Holocaust-denying religious fanatics who would sacrifice their own populace just to hurt Israel. The threat of force is the only thing keeping them in line.

Being a Democrat doesn't mean sacricing logic in the name of peace. If we're going to be insulting each other should I bring up Neville Chamberlain?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

26. So the solution is to...

nuke those tolerant, warm people for the sins of their idiot leaders?

Don't think so, buddy.

[nyccitizen]

28. No...

The solution is to use massive force to prevent them from using nuclear weapons against more innocent people. It's not a revenge thing, it's a prevention thing.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

31. So, you're a fan of preemptive war?

Kinda like ol' George used against Iraq?

So, how's that premptive war going? Hmmmm?????

[Texas Hill Country]

32. did she say pre-emptive ANYWHERE?

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nyccitizen]

40. You read it wrong.

Read more carefully. I said you must use massive retaliation to prevent them from harming *MORE* innocent people. It was regarding response to an unprovoked attack by Iran, not at all saying pre-emptive nuclear war should be a US policy.

If you said *pre-emptive* nuclear attack is never justified, I would agree. But the original poster did not say that, they said *any* nuclear attack is never justified.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

68. Choose you words more carefully.

What I think you are calling for is a debiliatating retaliatory strike -- Iran hits a neighbor and we respond with heavy force. If that is the case, there is still no reason for us to use a nuclear response. Nuclear facilities, military command, and other military targets can be neutralized with conventional weapons.

[JuniperLea]

48. Retarded? Really?

You think it's ok to call someone retarded? You think name calling is ok here? You think it's ok to say someone is retarded, as a slam? What if there are mildly retarded people reading this? Is it ok to slam someone by calling them gay?

Grow the fuck up.

[Catherina]

97. The poster should have used the term morally challenged.

Only morally challenged people think it's ok to NUKE and OBLITERATE entire countries.

[polmaven]

123. For that matter,

did she refer to nuclear retaliation anywhere? I saw that she said we could "obliterate" them, but I did not see where she said we would "nuke" them. I may be missing it, but.....!

[dbmk]

126. And there is tons of options for that, that does not include the use of a nuclear arsenal.

[Exilednight]

50. You really don't know Iranian politics. Do a little research before making such statements.........

The President of Iran is nothing more than a figure head, kind of like the Queen of England. He holds no real power and his threats are nothing more than empty saber rattling. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has no power over the military, no matter what politicians and pundits in this country tell you. Only the Supreme Leader has the power to declare war, make peace, and command of the military.

[nyccitizen]

56. Read more carefully...

Before accusing me of ignorance, read what I said:

"But the cadre of people who rule the country (including Ahmadinajad) are Holocaust-denying religious fanatics who would sacrifice their own populace just to hurt Israel."

Did I say Ahmadinajad ruled the country by himself? Ayatollah Khamenei and his cronies use Ahmadinajad as a mouthpiece for their own hateful views.

Ayatollah Khamenei in 2001: "This cancerous tumor of a state (Israel) should be removed from the region."

[Exilednight]

62. You really don't know the politics of Iran. The Ayatollah will never attack Israel. Seriously.....

do some research before making your statements. He might deny the holocaust, but the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is looking for US President to work with. He opened the door after 9/11 only to have shrub slam it shut on him.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei after the 9/11 attacks: "Mass killings of human beings are catastrophic acts which are condemned wherever they may happen and whoever the perpetrators and the victims may be".

[nyccitizen]

65. The Ayatollah HAS attacked Israel.

...by funding Hezbollah during the Second Lebanon War in 2006.

[Exilednight]

69. Dude, seriously, stop. It wasn't the Ayatollah. It was religious fanatics...............

think of it as their version of the CIA/Blackwater USA contingency. They Ayatollah is not funneling weapons into Iraq either, it's splinter organizations.

Seriously, spend some time and do some real research and not just what a bunch of pundits repeat on television.

[nyccitizen]

71. Patronizing much?

I've studied it plenty. You are naive to think that the Ayatollah isn't at least passively sanctioning these actions.

[Exilednight]

76. I wouldn't call it sanctioning, I would call it turning a blind eye..............

a bit of difference, and you haven't studied it and it's obvious that you haven't studied it. Go spend six months in Iran covering their internal politics. You might be surprised at what you learn. I was.

Believe it or not, for an Islamic run nation, Iran is very (when compared to the rest of the middle-east) Democratic and the government is not as extreme as shrub would have you believe.

It's an interesting place, and holds a lot of promise. Repeating right-wing talking points from Limpballs will do nothing to help bring them closer to our form of Democracy.

[txaslftist]

139. Thank you for an intelligent and well thought out post, sir.

I salute you.

[knixphan]

159. hear hear

[Maat]

135. Re-read the OP.

Using nuclear weapons and/OR "obliterating" people is illegal and morally reprehensible (ALWAYS).

[nyccitizen]

66. Also...

The Ayatollah may say that, but George W. Bush also swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. People lie when it behooves them politically to do so.

His actions funding Hezbollah and pursuing a nuclear weapons program have shown he believes otherwise.

[Exilednight]

70. And why did he pursue a nuclear program? Could it be because the US and Russia defaulted on........

their promise?

You're now using right-wing talking points. This is the same shit that Rush spouts off at that over sized cyst on his face he calls a mouth.

[nyccitizen]

74. The only thing I agree with Rush on...

...is that people like you are naive if you think zealots like Ayatollah Khamenei are going to be our friends if we just play nice. There are fundamental cultural differences, one of which is a deep-seated anti-Israeli sentiment, that will keep us enemies until they are resolved. Hopefully we can resolve them without force but if you take that option off the table you embolden them.

The biggest tragedy of Iraq is that Iran was moving towards democratic reforms and the invasion infuriated the people into voting for Ahmadinajad and becoming even more anti-American. Now we are doubly screwed, because we helped create this mess AND we're now in no military position to fix it thanks to the Iraq quagmire.

[Exilednight]

78. OMG, go back to Freepers. That is disguisting coming from a Democrats mouth. n/t

[nyccitizen]

87. What part would the freepers agree with again?

The part where I blame GWB for Iran moving to the right after the invasion? Or the part where I blame Bush for committing our military to an unnecessary war, leaving us ill-equipped to deal with Iran's nuclear threat? What the hell are you talking about?

[Exilednight]

88. The part where you agree with Gush Limpballs. n/t

[nyccitizen]

90. If Rush said the sky is blue....

I guess you'd disagree with him just to be contrarian.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Exilednight]

91. Technically the sky isn't blue, and Rush has never been right. n/t

[nyccitizen]

92. You let your hatred for Republicans

...blind your ability to reason logically.

[Exilednight]

98. No, I just know the facts. The sky is colorless, and if you paid attention in science .............

class you would know that. It may sometimes look blue due to the Rayliegh scattering (a type of difraction).
Other colours (browns manily) are from pollutants such as oxide of nitrogen and the red/pink colours at dawn and dusk are from enhanced scattering from dust particles.

I also know the internal politics of Iran, and they're not as evil as shrubeney and gush limpballs want you to believe. There is open criticism of their own government from their own scholars. Iranian women have more rights than any other Islamic nation.

Are there hardliners? Absolutely, but the government does make a lot of concessions, for an Islamic nation, and are not as trigger happy as the right wing xenophobes would have you believe. The rattle sabers to get our attention, but the threats are empty. We made many promises to Iran, all of which have been broken. This is a nation where after 9/11 over a million people took the streets in a sign of solidarity and to share in our grief.

Keep believing shrub and limpballs. It will do wonders for your credibility among the Democratic party.

[JuniperLea]

20. GAWD! That's not even reading between the lines...

That's complete manufacturing and shoving shitty words in another poster's mouth. Sad on you.

[Leftist Agitator]

15. Jesus Christ...

9iu11iani get to you much?

:shrug:

[nyccitizen]

19. Okay....

Let's use some logic here. Let's say for the sake of argument that Israel didn't have nuclear weapons, and Iran got nuclear weapons.

Iran nukes Tel Aviv. The US only responds diplomatically, because two wrongs don't make a right. But essentially the lack of response tells Iran that they can wipe out the rest of the country, because they know the US will not respond. So essentially the lack of response has cost lives, instead of saved them. How is that justified?

[JuniperLea]

24. I'll take it a step further...

They will have one of their buddies bomb the hell out of US.

It's not pretty, not easy to think about... I'm what you might call a tree hugging hippie and a peacenik... even I can see the writing on the wall in this regard.

The only way to get rid of all nukes is to have never had them in the first place. Same with guns. People waste a lot of energy spinning their wheels over this stuff.

[comrade snarky]

101. Let's not say that

Since it's not true.

If you believe Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons I'd respectfully suggest that is pretty naive. If we're to discuss hypotheticals lets at least start in reality. Israel is a nuclear armed nation.

For example, why have the attacks against Israel been through surrogates like Hammas lobbing small rockets and the suicide bombers with explosive belts since the 73? Have tensions really reduced that much or is there another reason no Arab states have attacked since then? I think it's because they know that if they somehow win they'll still loose major cities.

Of course if Israel were to admit it has nukes and hasn't signed the non proliferation treaty then by our own rules we'd have to end foreign aid. That aint gonna happen any time soon.

[txaslftist]

142. You wanna say for the sake of argument Israel doesn't have nukes?

That's fine, but it's an argument you've lost from jump. Israel has about 200 to 400, which is about 195-395 more than they could possibly need to wipe out Iran.

[txaslftist]

143. Aside from that, why is Israel's problem our problem?

Why is what happens to them our lookout? We aren't the emperors of the world. Crappy things happen to people all over the world all the time. It's THEIR business, not ours.

[JuniperLea]

18. Sadly, you have a point...

Welcome to DU, nyccitizen.

However, there is a difference between a threat of action and the action itself. But a threat without the goods to back it up would be found out and acted upon. It's a sick, circular world in which we live.

We have religious fanatics all over the world causing a lot of grief for a lot of people... some are right here in the good ol' USA. None of them give a rat's ass about being polite... even if their "God" has told them of the virtues in that action.

[nyccitizen]

23. Exactly

Just think of how much further George W. Bush would have taken his insanity if there were no threat of impeachment or prison... you remove the threat of punishment, you give lunatics permission to do whatever they please.

[JuniperLea]

29. That's the only thing that has kept him sneaking around

Otherwise, he's so damned full of himself, he'd just swagger out and tell us all to get screwed and do whatever he damn well pleased. He's close to doing that now... very blatant in his war crimes.

I just had an evil thought... let's just say for the sake of argument that Obama wins the election... and pardons Bush... heads would spin! Or Hillary... I really don't trust either of them at this point.

[LSK]

34. when has Iran ever attacked another country?????

Take your time....

[nyccitizen]

45. 2006

The 2006 Hezbollah attack on Israel/Haifa (The Second Lebanon War) was bankrolled and sponsored by Iran.

[LSK]

55. well by that logic, the US via the CIA has attacked most countries in the world

[nyccitizen]

58. Not disagreeing with that statement

Just because we do it doesn't make it okay. If we fund the Iran-Contras it still counts as us waging battle, and if Iran funds Hezbollah it counts as them attacking Israel.

[ecstatic]

42. what good will it do IF WE'RE ALL DEAD

from the nuclear fallout! Yeah... we showed them... :eyes:

[bmbmd]

89. Welcome to DU.

I agree with your assessment.

[Pacifist Patriot]

111. A little more political science, sociology and history for you my dear.

What a simplistic and dangerous supposition you have there.

[DemVet]

130. Agreed. You can't put the Genie back in the bottle.

[The Stranger]

140. That really does smack of bigotry.

Do you know any Iranians?

[LakeSamish706]

8. You have absolutely no argument here... Totally agree. n/t

[Texas Hill Country]

10. so we should just let them get nukes and nuke the world?

[shadowknows69]

37. Careful, your neocon is showing

Might want to tuck that back in.

[txaslftist]

145. They're actually signatories to the NPT, and are, according to the UN,

in compliance.

"so we should just let them get nukes and nuke the world????"

Don't be silly. Has Pakistan "nuked the world?" Has North Korea nuked the world? Have the Soviets or the Indians or the British or the French nuked the world? They've got nukes, all of them.

The only consequence Iran getting the bomb would have is that we'd no longer be discussing their invasion as an option. Nuclear deterrent works both ways.

I say let 'em have the bomb.

[Texas Hill Country]

156. a few things....

1. them getting nukes is inevitable, NPT or not
2. Pakistan and India currently have a MAD scenario set up, that is why that is stable
3. extending the US umbrulla to the mideast would set up nuclear deterrence, stabilize the region and stave off or slow a nuclear arms race in the region.
4. she is not talking about a pre-emptive strike... it is DETERRENCE.

[txaslftist]

157. A few responses.

1. Them getting nukes is NOT inevitable. There are lots of nuclear powers (ie- powers that have power plants) who don't have "nukes" (ie- bombs). Their "supreme leader" has said it is a crime against Allah to possess nukes. Would it be smart for Iran to have them? I certainly think so, given our crazy newly discovered penchant for pre-emptive war, but does that mean they'll get them? It's certainly not inevitable. I'll agree that it's likely.

2. Pakistan have a MAD scenario set up. True. Just like Israel and Iran will have a MAD scenario set up if Iran gets the bomb. You know how many Russians we've killed since the start of the cold war in battles? Zero. That's not such a bad deal.

3. Extending the US umbrella to the Mideast is about the stupidest thing we can do. 1) Israel already has that region under IT'S umbrella, and we'd be redundant; 2) we'd be extending a one-sided umbrella that says we defend Israel no matter what they do, but we don't defend anyone FROM Israel; 3) we'd be stirring up anti-American sentiment in a region already rife with it, which means probably more terror attacks (terrorists aren't deterred by nuclear weapons) and more stupid responses by our inept government to same. We've been a destabilizing force in the Middle East for 50 years. Your point assumes that we can all of the sudden start getting things right over there, which just ignores our history.

4. She has no business deterring or threatening one third party nation on behalf of another third party nation to start with. If we can't at least limit our nuclear use to the defense of our own soil, we ought not to even have them.

[Greenwood]

12. Wow. You believe that?

Nuclear weapons have prevented wars, my friend.

Are they terrible? Obviously. But, they do prevent war.

Question: What would happen if, suddenly, all the US weapons were eliminated? How long before the world would be plunged into chaos?

Exactly.

[CK dexter]

53. Question: how do you twist "never nuke" into "the US should have no weapons"?

[GodlessBiker]

85. Why have nukes if we will never use them and say that we will never use them?

[datopbanana]

64. my friend? lol. john mccain here thinks nukes are all good. please dont ever run for prez

[Prophet 451]

121. Does the phrase "American arrogance" mean anything?

The world would not suddenly be "plunged into chaos" if the US didn't have nukes. Contrary to the inflated self-opinions of some Americans, the rest of the world would get along fine, thank you.

[txaslftist]

146. I assume you mean "all US nuclear weapons" were eliminated.

And Russia and the rest of the world kept all theirs, right? What would happen is diddly squat. We have an alliance with NATO, which includes enough nuclear armed friends to deter anyone from nuking us, and we have (or had until the Iraqcle) a conventional force that is several pay grades better than anyone else has.

How long before the world was plunged into chaos?

Jesus. Look around. We're already there.

[rock]

13. I disagree; as I do with most absolute statements n/t

[JackintheGreen]

14. I don't know what's wrong with me today

My first reaction to your statement (which I agree with) was:

what if a nuclear attack assured a Cubs World Series victory?

I think I've lost *my* faith in humanity...or maybe just in me. Yeesh!

[Bake]

75. I'm afraid there is no power on earth that can assure the Cubbies a WS.

But you knew that already ...

:rofl:

Bake

[MojoMojoMojo]

17. *Obama wont take Nukes off the table.

And hes a huge fan of nuclear power after all the money hes taken from Exalon.

[cbayer]

21. Apparently, neither of our candidates agree with you.

"OBAMA: Well, our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians. And that has to be one of our top priorities, and I will make it one of our top priorities when I'm president of the United States.

I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons.

I believe that that includes direct talks with the Iranians, where we are laying out very clearly for them: Here are the issues that we find unacceptable, not only development of nuclear weapons, but also funding terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as their anti-Israel rhetoric and threats toward Israel.

I believe that we can offer them carrots and sticks, but we've got to directly engage and make absolutely clear to them what our posture is. Now, my belief is that they should also know that I will 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."

No options off the table means reserving the right to a nuclear retaliation. I was distress when I heard him say it and distress when she said it as well. There is not a peace candidate in our current race.

[spoony]

116. You're right, they seem to think they need to

"assure" us all they can rattle sabres with the best of them, I know that has traditionally been part of presidential elections. But they forget we're TIRED of war, for crying out loud. It just makes them sound like more of the same; the same protracted fog of martial diplomacy.

[tomp]

133. and then can iran say: here are the issues WE find unacceptable

the problem here is that the outcomes are determined by the amount of weaponry that is brought to the "negotiating" table. imperialism, and the arrogance therin, is the heart of the problem. THIS is why "terrorism" exists--because the u.s. is the world's biggest terrorist, offering no real options besides capitulation to weaponry.

kucinich 2008!

[DeadElephant_ORG]

25. If Iran's government nuked Israel, what would be the point of nuking all the innocents in Iran?

We're conflating threatening to retaliate, with ACTUAL retaliation. There's a big difference. One could reasonably argue that the threat - by itself - is not inhumane, that it might actually save lives. I'm not sure that I agree. But I would not regard anybody who argued that as insane.

However... To make gratuituous threats to "obliterate" millions of innocent people... and to make such threats for personal gain during the heat of an election battle, is just plain sick. It's dangerous. It's not something a humane person would do.

[jzodda]

84. So what do you think should happen in response to such an attack?

I am curious. I don't know if I would nuke then either. I would certainly take military action of some sort but hopefully we will never have to face such a problem. Israel of course could nuke them back, even facing complete destruction they would probably have time to launch and they probably would.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

94. "should happen"...? not the murder of millions of innocents.

shit does happen. I'm glad I'm not President.

[txaslftist]

147. What WOULD happen is Israel nukes Iran to cinders.

Which would have nothing to do with us whatsoever, and is something we couldn't prevent if we wanted to.

Sheesh. Israel's nuclear stockpile is large enough to stone-age every moslem nation in the Middle East. Why do we act like they're such hat-in-hand losers who can't look out for themselves? They have more nukes closer to the action than even WE do. Our nukes are targetted to other places in the world, theirs aren't. We're the junior partner over there, they aren't.

[theboss]

27. Yes, it would.

I win.

[unblock]

30. i disagree.

although i will say the situations in which they are justified are very limited.

if there's a PROVEN threat of nuclear attacks (i.e., they've already used some AND we KNOW they have more) AND they only way we can prevent further launches is with nukes of our own (i.e., theirs are in hardened silos)

THEN a nuclear attack to take our their nukes would be justified, PROVIDED THAT we exploded the nukes directly on target, i.e., not at elevation. the idea is to take out their nukes, not to cause widespread destruction.

[LSK]

33. LETS BE CLEAR, IRAN HAS NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM

PERIOD

END OF STORY

STOP TALKING ABOUT THIS STUPID ISSUE HILLARY AND LET THE IAEA DO ITS JOB.

[JAbuchan08]

100. Exactly all this terror mongering is predicated on the idea that Iran has a nukes program

and that if they did their first order of buisiness would be to guarantee their own destruction by attacking Israel

I reject the premise.

[txaslftist]

148. No kidding.

[shadowknows69]

35. Exactly

I'd like us to go back to the time that we weren't a first strike nation please.

[Zhade]

36. Nuking someone to teach them not to nuke is the height of murderous hypocrisy.

But just as there were idiots who thought every Japanese adult and child should pay for their authoritarian government's choices, so too are there fools who favor collective punishment against Iranians.

[nyccitizen]

61. Not revenge, prevention.

The purpose of nuclear response is not to punish Iranian citizens, it's to prevent further casualties by teaching Iran the consequences of their actions.

You would give permission for Iran to nuke 10 cities by not retaliating. If they nuked Tel Aviv, and you as the President of the US did not respond, they would nuke Jerusalem and Haifi and other Israeli cities. And the blood of *those* innocents would be on your hands.

[scarletwoman]

102. Oh for gawdsakes Iran isn't going to nuke ANYBODY! What a bunch of bullshit!

No more than France is going to nuke somebody. Geeze this crap gets old...

[txaslftist]

149. ISRAEL would nuke them. We don't have to.

Israel can take care of themselves without us bloodying our hands. In fact, that's pretty much their job, and ISN'T our job.

[BadgerLaw2010]

63. The idea is that no government witll nuke when they know what's going to happen to them.

That's why the U.S. has always been pretty clear on this point.

[Emillereid]

39. This is what I've been pointing out about Clinton for months - she made it

explicit in last year's AIPAC speech that nukes were on the table vis a vis Iran. That's when I knew I could not support her. In her need to appear tough she has lost her human/female sensibilities.

[depakid]

41. Posts like these are one reason Democrats lose elections

[tekisui]

43. Let's Drop the Big One.

[depakid]

44. Let's be naive about strategic deterrence

[tekisui]

47. Strategic deterrence?

Let's work towards eliminating Nuclear weapons in ALL countries, including ours. We don't need another Cold War.

[depakid]

59. That would be nice

ultimately, that was the goal of the Nuclear Freeze movement.

Unfortunately, that's not an ideal that will likely ever come to fruition.

[Blue-Jay]

49. Posts on DU lose elections?

[JuniperLea]

52. LOL! How self important is that?

:rofl:

[depakid]

54. No, perceptions that Democrats are weak and naive about national defense

loses elections.

People reading posts (or hearing statements, etc. simply reinforces this misperception.

[walldude]

67. So considering the actual repercussions of atomic warfare

is weak and naive? What's weak and naive is "kill em all". Not only is it weak and naive it's cowardice and foolish. I'm really sick of people relating things like intelligent thought and diplomacy with being weak and naive.
I hate to say it but the movie Idiocrasy seems to have gotten it right. We are dumbing ourselves down to oblivion. And people are cheering it because they think it makes them strong and well informed. Pathetic.

[depakid]

80. So what would you propose in place of retaliation? Economic sanctions?

[walldude]

86. Um.. Iran has no nukes.. what is there to retaliate against?

And since you asked, I'm for spending the billions we spend on defense and wars, on things like food, shelter and medication for people who need it. I'm for America being a moral leader instead of a morally bankrupt greedy nation that believes it can do no wrong, and that the entire world owes us a favor. I'm for owning up to our mistakes and trying to fix them instead of claiming that we hold some kind of high ground.

Of course things like this have been said before, problem is it's much easier and a lot more profitable to kill people.

[depakid]

96. That wasn't the hypothetical

[BadgerLaw2010]

60. No, the perception that Democrats won't use force to defend the U.S. because it's not nice.

It comes across as peacenick and naive, as it has never been U.S. policy.

If you use a NBC weapon on the United States or an ally, you will be hit with nuclear retaliation. That's been true almost as long as we've had nuclear weapons, and even was applied to conventional attacks by the USSR, as everyone knew we couldn't stop them conventionally.

[txaslftist]

150. Defend the US? When did Israel become a US State?

[Political Heretic]

46. I agree - never.

[CK dexter]

51. Absolutely right. Thanks!

I'm sickened by the degree of spinelessness some Democrats have shown in the facing of the creeping radical moral relativism of the right wing and the administration.

Nuke is to war, as torture is to interrogation. It's the line, it's all bets are off, it's the end of any reasonable claim to humanity. To save civilization with barbarity is to endorse a civilization not worth saving.

[NeedleCast]

57. I'm an Obama supporter but...

...I find it interesting that the ONLY time a nuclear weapons has been used during an active war was when only one country (United States) had them. Since the threat of mutually assured destruction became a reality, no one has detonated a nuclear weapon during a war.

I'd say the deterence factor has worked pretty well so far.

[BootinUp]

72. This is an excellent national security position in a nuclear world.

not.

[Capn Sunshine]

73. tell that to the machines

they've become aware, nothing can stop them

[Bake]

77. Now that the nuclear genie is out of the box

The only way to assure that they will not be used is, paradoxically, the threat of retaliatory use of same.

And it sucks.

Bake

[jonnyra]

119. The ONLY way??

I would think a combination of dialog, respect, understanding of culture, a desire for peace among nations and a heavy dose of good 'ol fashioned diplomacy (real diplomacy...not the ridiculous Bush/Rice kind) would do just as well and probably better.

I know thats a concept that eludes most Americans these days as we have been programmed to believe we need to kill innocent people to protect "our freedoms". Killing of innocent people is never justified...NEVER.

[On the Road]

79. I Am Very, Very Concerned

about the recent lowering of the bar on a nuclear attack. There is no excuse for it with the possible exception of a massive nuclear attack on the US. Which is bloody unlikely.

[Lisa0825]

81. Exactly.

Her flippant use of nukes as a campaign strategy is extremely disturbing to me. :scared: :mad:

[stillcool]

82. I'm failing to see why there...

is even such a question. It would be nice if there were some intelligence that said Iran actually had such a weapon. But then..."Wars R Us"...if there isn't one, you can always create one!!

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/Nuke_Nation.html
Nuke Nation
Israel's weapons of mass destruction
by John Steinbach
CovertAction Quarterly, April / June 2001

Since the Gulf War in 1991, much attention has been Lavished on an alleged threat from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction while the major culprit in the region, Israel, has been largely ignored.
With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system, Israel, population 6 million, recently supplanted Britain as the world's 5th Largest nuclear power. It may now rival France and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal.
Possessing chemical and biological weapons, an extremely sophisticated nuclear arsenal, and an aggressive strategy for their actual use, Israel provides the major regional impetus for the development of weapons of mass destruction, and represents an acute threat to peace and stability in the Middle East.

[Orsino]

83. "Justified" is such a tricky word, anyway.

In current usage, it seems to excuse anything up to 71 million eyes for an eye.

[aikoaiko]

93. I disagree - - nuclear retaliation could be justified.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

95. Love you

[Catherina]

99. Never ever. I won't be party to it. Literally. n/t

[dysfunctional press]

103. bullshit. never say never.

and tell that to the troops(and their families) who were preparing for a d-day type invasion of japan.

and in today's world- if we or our allies were attacked by nuclear weapons, a nuclear reponse WOULD be warranted and justified.

just to be clear.

[mdmc]

104. agreed,

except if we need to know out an asteroid or something.

[IndianaGreen]

105. Not unless one wants to join Hitler in the pantheon of history's butchers

Why can't a woman be as crazy as General LeMay?

[earth mom]

106. People around here need to wake up and see that ALL THREE CANDIDATES are the same.

Nukes are evil-no shit.

But don't kid yourself that Obama & McCain won't do and say the same thing if pushed.

[Zynx]

107. Depends on the circumstance.

Our policy has always been if an ally is attacked by weapons of mass destruction that retaliation will be total. I also hope that if we are ever hit first that we will retaliate in kind.

I also support our use in WWII.

[ToeBot]

108. More pandering from the DLC candidate. Israel has nukes, they can deal their own retribution. nt

[MrSlayer]

109. A nuclear retaliation by US would be unjustified,

But Israel should go ahead and nuke the fuck out of them. However, all of this is meaningless nonsense as Iran doesn't have nukes nor are they going to have them anytime soon. This whole issue is ridiculous.

[Lugnut]

110. K&R n/t

[Eurobabe]

112. Hillary sealed the deal for me yesterday.

Just.Say.No.To. WARMONGERS!

[ClayZ]

117. That is my plan!

K and R

[Pacifist Patriot]

113. Has no one ever seen War Games, Fail Safe, On the Beach?

Read Hiroshima or On the Beach? I'm shocked so many are willing to use nuclear weapons. *shudder*

[Justitia]

114. Oh believe me, pretzels have seen less twisting than Clinton supporters.

Suddenly, they are totally cool with OBLITERATING another country.

Of course, they are also now totally cool with invading and bombing the ever loving shit out of Iraq in an illegal war.

They will support their politician NO MATTER WHAT.

[Hippo_Tron]

115. I'm fine with nuclear deterrence but IRAN DOES NOT HAVE NUKES

Iran's current regime as god awful as they are has never attacked anybody. The likelihood of the United States going to war with Iran for made up reasons is far higher than the likelihood of Iran nuking Israel. That's why Hillary's comments are irresponsible.

[ruby slippers]

118. maybe she said it after she had another beer.......

http://www.jibjab.com/view/231975

[Prophet 451]

120. Respectfully disagree

I can sympathise with your position and even respect it since it's so obviously based in principle and sadly, principles seem to be a declining basis for political affiliation. However, I can think of a very few circumstances where a nuclear attack would be; perhaps "justified" is the wrong word but "necessary". For the record, the Iran/Israel scenario is not one of them (and Israel is more than capable of defending itself anyway).

I wish this were not the case, I would prefer it if no country had nuclear weapons but the world is as it is.

[Pacifist Patriot]

124. I'm no idealist, but I will stand on this principle.

The day the U.S. attacks anyone with nukes is the day I renounce my U.S. citizenship.

[Prophet 451]

125. And I applaud you for that

I miss the days when political ideaologies were based on principles, thought and morals. While we may disagree, bravo sir.

[Pacifist Patriot]

127. psstt..

ma'am. ;)

[Prophet 451]

129. Ooops, sorry! n/t

[Perry Logan]

122. So she shoulda said "If Iran nukes Israel, I will stand there with my thumb up my butt"?

I'm sure you wouldn't have jumped all over her for THAT!

[Pacifist Patriot]

128. What exactly is Iran going to nuke Israel with?

[dbmk]

132. The US have plenty of options at hand..

..that would make it a very bad idea for the people in charge to attack Israel - without resorting to nuclear attacks. They can get them without leveling cities.

But the basis of this discussion is of course bogus.
Because they already know that the US will retaliate and at LEAST go for the people responsible - and therefore will not attack Israel.

[Maat]

134. Exactly (n/t)!

[BlooInBloo]

136. Threatening nukes WEAKENS us....

http://www.americablog.com/2008/04/defense-expert-on-hillarys-nuke-iran.html

In an effort to determine just how a large a gaffe Hillary made, I decided to contact a national security expert. AJ, our former defense intelligence officer, is taking his law exams, so in the meantime, here's the take of Dr. Jeffrey Lewis. Dr. Lewis is Director of the Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative at the New America Foundation. He founded and maintains the leading blog on nuclear arms control and nonproliferation, ArmsControlWonk.com. Here is Dr. Lewis' take on Hillary's, and her staff's, comments on this issue:

It is frustrating, because she handled it exactly wrong. I like Senator Clinton and, if she is the Democratic nominee, will wholeheartedly support for candidacy for President.

That said, I think the strain of the campaign is getting to her. A couple of rules about nuclear weapons.

Rule number one is never, ever, ever threaten to use nuclear weapons against another country unless you plan to do so in the near future. Brandishing our nuclear arsenal doesn't achieve anything beyond what comes from having nuclear weapons in first place-- the Iranians are well aware of our nuclear capabilities. Talking about it always rings hollow, while encouraging the other side to call your bluff by saying or doing provocative things in response.

Rule number two is don't act freaked out by other countries current or possible nuclear weapons. The model here is LBJ, who gave a very reassuring speech saying that China's first nuclear test in 1964 wouldn't change the balance of power in Asia. The goal is to reassure allies, not talk like some deranged lunatic, which Senator Clinton is normally not.

Rule number three is to remember that the credibility of the nuclear umbrella comes from the credibility of our security commitment to other countries. So you don't talk about extending nuclear deterrence; you talk about how we regard the security of Israel (or Japan or Europe or whomever) as a vital national interest. The nuclear part is pretty obvious and best remains unsaid.

[txaslftist]

138. This discussion is absurd.

Israel sits on 200 to 400 nuclear warheads, and has the capability (stolen from us by the likes of Pollard and others) to put them anywhere in the world they want to, including the annihilation of Tehran. Israel would have no need for the US to do anything to Iran if Iran nukes them, which Iran will never, ever do.

The only reason Hillary brings up this absurdity is to show she has testicles.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

144. K&R for sanity.

[Skinner]

151. That may be the case. Certainly, resonable people can disagree. BUT...

I have no doubt that all three of the remaining presidential candidates -- McCain, Clinton, and Obama -- would *all* retaliate with nukes if Iran nuked Israel. The only issue here is that Senator Clinton didn't need to say it in such an unnecessarily inflammatory manner. She could have used the standard candidate-speak "all options are on the table" which means nukes. Senator Obama has used that phrase himself.

Of course, as I said in another thread, Iran isn't going to attack Israel. So it's moot anyway.

[txaslftist]

152. Actually, in this absurd hypothetical, Israel would nuke Iran...

... before the US had time to retarget our own weapons. ICBMs aren't reprogrammable target-wise in a few minutes. By the time we completed the process of getting the order down the chain of command to the bunkers where we have the nukes, then got them retargeted, then conferred with the remaining authorities in Israel, and then with the Russians, Tehran would already be a glowing bowl of glass.

So it's not only moot, it's irrelevant. Which makes one wonder why Ms. Clinton made a point of saying it in the first place.

[Skinner]

153. Fair point.

I guess the unspoken assumption here is, "if for some reason Israel were not able to retaliate."

[windoe]

154. Ahmanedejad said he would wipe Zion off the map

not Israel, his Farsi was misinterpreted. I keep pointing this out (am looking for a link) with no response. He is using extreme rhetoric, but it is really ignorant for the US to assume that these people are suicidal or stupid--they are highly educated and want to remain safe--they would never do anything that would endanger themselves. But they are proud, and they are facing a superpower with a monkey at the helm, must be terrifying.

[txaslftist]

155. He did not.

He said "the Zionist regime in Israel will be erased from the pages of history". He didn't even say Iran would do it. I hate this lie. It's the kind of lie that leads to pre-emptive wars of aggression against innocents.

[knixphan]

158. Kick for Sanity

You don't hear anyone threatening to nuke China in defense of Tibet.

or Pakistan in defense of India

so why the Israel stuff? They have their own nukes. They can already obliterate shit. Let them be crazy if they want, they don't need our propaganda-assist.