missing text image: sites/all/themes/obs_2007/img/reply.gif
bill peppin (not verified) says:
Clinton has more than once made statements about attacking Iran, two of which are quoted in this piece. Voted for Lieberman-Kyle as most of you know. Now I ask: what can it profit her candidacy to use such provocative language about Iran? "Obliterate" is a very strong word, and certainly implies plenty of civilian casualties, whether by nuke or no. And this gives power to those Iranian mullahs who descended from Khomeni following the Shah's ouster (our kinda guy, a cruel and despotic dictator.) The reaction worldwide to this comment, specifically the reaction of the Iranians, demonstrates clearly that such comments do not help in the view of potential allies and adversaries outside this country. Therefore, it is a STUPID comment to make across the board. Since Clinton is clearly quite smart, I must take it that she means what she says, and, indeed, this is NOT simple political posturing, but her predisposition toward yet ANOTHER war against yet ANOTHER Muslim country in the middle east. Moreover, it certainly must be giving those mullahs pause to consider: you know, those Americans really are crazy, and we need a deterrent against a sudden and unprovoked attack coming our way from them. Therefore, we will deal with the Russians or the Pakistanis to buy up a bomb for this deterrent value. (Actually, I have never understood such calculus, but all of the nuke-bearing, and nuke-wannabear countries make this argument that they are needed for defense when, of course, were they used the perp would really and truly be obliterated.)
I an entirely confident that if Iran attacks Israel, they are quite capable of responding in an obliteratory way, what with their own stable of 200+ nukes: therefore, we should butt out.
Obama's statement was at least somewhat nuanced. I think he said simply that we would respond appropriately to an attack of an ally as situations dictate or some such thing. It is discouraging that neither of them rejected the premise of this hypothetical question as extremely unlikely given what is presently known, and then declined to respond to such a stupid question.
Clinton has more than once made statements about attacking Iran, two of which are quoted in this piece. Voted for Lieberman-Kyle as most of you know. Now I ask: what can it profit her candidacy to use such provocative language about Iran? "Obliterate" is a very strong word, and certainly implies plenty of civilian casualties, whether by nuke or no. And this gives power to those Iranian mullahs who descended from Khomeni following the Shah's ouster (our kinda guy, a cruel and despotic dictator.) The reaction worldwide to this comment, specifically the reaction of the Iranians, demonstrates clearly that such comments do not help in the view of potential allies and adversaries outside this country. Therefore, it is a STUPID comment to make across the board. Since Clinton is clearly quite smart, I must take it that she means what she says, and, indeed, this is NOT simple political posturing, but her predisposition toward yet ANOTHER war against yet ANOTHER Muslim country in the middle east. Moreover, it certainly must be giving those mullahs pause to consider: you know, those Americans really are crazy, and we need a deterrent against a sudden and unprovoked attack coming our way from them. Therefore, we will deal with the Russians or the Pakistanis to buy up a bomb for this deterrent value. (Actually, I have never understood such calculus, but all of the nuke-bearing, and nuke-wannabear countries make this argument that they are needed for defense when, of course, were they used the perp would really and truly be obliterated.)
I an entirely confident that if Iran attacks Israel, they are quite capable of responding in an obliteratory way, what with their own stable of 200+ nukes: therefore, we should butt out.
Obama's statement was at least somewhat nuanced. I think he said simply that we would respond appropriately to an attack of an ally as situations dictate or some such thing. It is discouraging that neither of them rejected the premise of this hypothetical question as extremely unlikely given what is presently known, and then declined to respond to such a stupid question.