View Story | 340 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
because
What should happen NOW is diplomatic engagment--not nauseatingly stupid and inhumane saber rattling that can only further polarize the situation and potentially lead to such violence.
Good leaders understand that. Demogagic morons like Clinton apparently don't.
To paraphrase John Kenneth Galbraith, Republicanism is cruelty tempered by incompetence.
by DelicateMonster on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:20:17 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
What should happen NOW is diplomatic engagement
but should that fail in the years to come, and they do strike Israel, she's absolutely right what should follow.
Hey, psssst... I heard that McCain wants to stay in perpetual war, so he'll institute a draft. Pass it on. (The republicans taught me well)
by gooderservice on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:35:51 AM PDT
African slogan favored by T. Roosevelt: Talk softly, and carry a big stick?
When you pre-emptively threaten massive retaliation for someone who is actually relatively ineffective and innocuous what you do is actually create the threat that will make them want to arm. It becomes a kind of self-fulfiling prophecy--we've seen this repeated ad nauseam with the stupidity streaming from the Bush administration.
Intelligent, nuanced diplomacy generally follows the African proverb. Clinton's following Bush's lose lose advice: Bluster loudly then don't follow through. It's a cheap, demagogic political gambit that could well convince Tehran that, should HRC get elected, they really do need to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, if they hadn't been inclined to prior to that.
In the region there are three countries with historical records for preemptive violence and/or using nuclear weapons. The United States, Israel and Iraq. All of them have at one time or another been at war with Iran. But Iran has never instituted a pre-emptive war, nor do they have nuclear weapons.
Who do you think an objective observer would say is the greater threat to disability in the region? Turn off your "Israel first" preconceptions and start acting like a rational observer and you'd be surprised at just how hideous Clinton's remarks are.
by DelicateMonster on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:47:42 AM PDT
... I haven't written enough to explain it.
Turn off your "Israel first" preconceptions and start acting like a rational observer
I don't have an "Israel first" preconception; I have a U.S. first preconception.
I would insert the name of any country in place of Israel and advocate obliterating them if they launched a nuclear strike on any country.
Now you know and won't be wrong again.
by gooderservice on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:26:19 AM PDT
I doubt anyone will be so wrong as to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume your humanity again.
Perhaps now you'll explain why murdering millions of civilians would be an appropriate response to an act of aggression by a foreign government against a foreign country. Because I don't think you got to that yet, and I don't want to end up "wrong."
by Dems Did Manzanar on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:03:16 AM PDT
So no one ever, ever wrongly will give me the benefit of the doubt and presume my humanity.
But I want you to like me. It's so important.
"Act of aggression?" I would call a nuclear strike against people just a tad bit more than an "act of aggression." So we're obviously not talking about the same thing.
by gooderservice on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:29:34 PM PDT
about this statement
So, for example, if Israel decided to preemptively attack Iran to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons ( like they did against Iraq in the 1980s) and they used tactical nuclear weapons (which they have) should we nuke Israel?
by mhsteacher1 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:13:37 AM PDT
Insert Japan, and the country launching the attack is us, as that's the ONLY such attacks ever launched. Were there a more powerful country, by that reasoning, we deserved to be obliterated.
"We the People of the United States..." -U.S.Constitution
by elwior on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:34:57 AM PDT
"Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media." -- Noam Chomsky
by ratmach on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:10:05 PM PDT
I believe WE are the only nation on earth that has launched a nuclear attack against another nation and its people.
Thank US for being so belligerant that everyone on the US hit list wants their own nukes if only to deter the proven monster.
**Yeah, I'm mad! I've been paying attention.
by greylox on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:33:20 PM PDT
by elwior on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:30:12 AM PDT
for her to say obliterate Iran, and absolutely stupid for you to agree that is what should happen.
DelicateMonster's comments are completely correct.
Yours and Hillary's response are tragically ridiculous.
Irie.
Hillary and Bill ought to exit stage right from American politics
by pwr2thepeople on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:37:57 AM PDT
by ratmach on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:08:50 PM PDT
said Israel is a stinking corpse, so tha means that everybody in Iran deserves to die for having a stupid president.
Boy, it's a good thing we don't have that problem here in the U.S.
Uh. Except we do got a stupid president. Who has ordered invasions of two of Iran's neighboring countries.
Wait. Remind me again what Iran did to us that warrants all this talk of nuking again?
Are we really such a Nation of Bed Wetters that we need to talk about nuking a country because its idiot leader said mean things about one of our allies?
America: It's a good IDEA for a country ...
by Tony Seybert on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:23:52 AM PDT
.... because of their leaders, the U.S. should easily be the most hated country on earth. As bad as Ahmadinijan is, George W. Bush puts him to shame on the "evilness" scale.
by ratmach on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:14:05 PM PDT
He's unpopular with his own people, and he'll be out with the next election.
Roughly speaking, there are three centers of power in Iran. The Presidency, the military, and the clerics. And if I had to choose the weakest of the three, it wouldn't be the military or the clerics. If you want to know what Iran is going to do, watch the military and the clerics (OK, it's not so easy, they're both pretty secretive). Neither of them have a mutual-anhililation death-wish, which is what a serious direct attack on Israel would be.
Obama > Clinton >>> McCain
by lilnev on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:29:16 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 340 comments