Hillary Clinton, Warmonger

[-Jrabbit]

Innocuously included at the end of the NY Times story on Hillary's win in Pennsylvania yesterday...

Mrs. Clinton, for instance, surprised some Democrats with a remark about Iran on ABC on Tuesday, when she broke with her practice of avoiding hypothetical questions and commented on a situation in which Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” she said. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

Full Story

So, out of Iraq and into Iran? WTF!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I believe the context was if Iran attacks Isreal, she'd attack Iran. Not just for ****s and giggles.

And I'd imagine it'd be more of a Kosovo type of affair.

[Jaguar]

Yes, the question is in the context of Iran attacking someone WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

What do you expect her to do in those circumstances? Send them a strongly-worded letter?

[DirtyMartini]

Old news,

While bringing it up was stupid sabre-rattling (as Obama said) that would actually be a legitimate reason to go to war. In fact, if any nation nuked any other nation, I'd say that's a reason to go to war.

[Riesstiu IV]

That was such a stupid comment. If Iran attacks Israel let Israel deal with it. They've got plenty of weapons to retaliate with. Christ, do we have to get involved in every conflict in the region?

[Ramo]

I don't know why there's any pressing reason to extend a nuclear shield to a country that has nukes. Why should the threat of retaliation by the US be taken more seriously than the threat by the country being nuked. It should be noted that the Cold War era nuclear umbrella situations were taken seriously precisely because we had a sizable military presence in the relevant countries - are we prepared to do that in Israel? Seems like bellicosity for its own sake ("totally obliterate them" WTF?). Regardless of what we actually do, it's a rather ridiculous thing to say.

The more interesting idea is to extend nuclear umbrellas to countries that aren't our allies and/or don't have nukes to specifically prevent them from getting nukes. But then there's the aforementioned credibility gap issue.

[MarkG]

we would be able to totally obliterate them

totally?

[Az]

well, nukes sorta do that.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Yes, the question is in the context of Iran attacking someone WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

What do you expect her to do in those circumstances? Send them a strongly-worded letter?

JIAR

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Yes, the question is in the context of Iran attacking someone WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

What do you expect her to do in those circumstances? Send them a strongly-worded letter?

READ RESPOND OR BE NUKED

[Jaguar]

What is respond, and where can I read it?

[snoopy369]

You're just sore you lost to DAL.

[SlowwHand]

Re: Hillary Clinton, Warmonger

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Innocuously included at the end of the NY Times story on Hillary's win in Pennsylvania yesterday...



Full Story

So, out of Iraq and into Iran? WTF!!

My, what a surprise that such a thing would be considered.
The possibility has been discussed at length in various threads. Naturally, the point was blown off.
Gets to a point where it's hard to not pay attention, doesn't it?
A recent thread detailing Iran's plans, in spite of being the 2nd largest oil producer comes to mind.
What was the response, in general? Smartass comments.
Some people have to get slapped upside the head before they listen.

Are you listening yet?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Az
well, nukes sorta do that.

There's a danger that if you use too many nukes people develop a resistance against them.

[Whoha]

that just makes it easier to shoot them at night time.