President Obama will NOT retaliate against Iran should they attack Israel

[Taxmyth]

After having read many posts both from today and after the debate, where Senator Clinton uses no uncertain terms in her unwavering support of the protection of Israel, it has become quite obvious that a President Obama will NOT retaliate against Iran should they use nuclear weapons against Israel.

I think this is very important, this distinction needs to be made - that a President Obama will seek diplomatic measures should Iran attack Israel.

Senator Obama needs to be very clear on this matter, he needs to come out and tell the American people that he will not immediately launch a massive retaliation against Iran should they attack Israel with nuclear weapons. His supporters know this, but now it's time for the rest of America to realize the fate of Israel should Barack Obama be elected President. This certainly would make for a marked change in US Foreign Policy and he is the candidate of hope and change.

Let's get this message out and watch as Americans embrace Senator Obama and his unique approach to foreign policy.

[jody]

1. BS, BO is in bed with Israel just like HC, McCain and Dubya. n/t

[GarbagemanLB]

2. You don't get close to the white house without getting in bed with AIPAC, so your OP is BS.

[ihelpu2see]

91. Does Israel have tactical nukes? I think that they do...

[rodeodance]

3. What a stupid post!!

[Taxmyth]

11. I agree

It IS a stupid post and it's just to show how stupid the criticism lain upon Senator Clinton for being specific in words as to what would happen IF Iran were to attack Israel. There's no doubt in my mind that with a President Obama the response would be the exact same.

[ruggerson]

4. That'll go over well with the Jewish vote

I don't think Obama is as stupid as you wish he would be.

[Taxmyth]

17. Then why are so many of his supporters?

They obviously don't understand US Israel foreign policy and their attacks on Senator Clinton for being specific in her approach to this unthinkable catastrophe show it.

[ruggerson]

21. Maybe it's projection on their part

but he seems to be pretty Israeli-friendly.

[krkaufman]

90. Yeah, if only it were true, as opposed to happy horses**t spun by a fanatic

The people stupid enough to believe such horses**t are already behind the war-mongers Clinton and McCain.

[patrice]

5. Pure speculation and completely transparent, at that. nt

[Taxmyth]

23. But it must be so

I've read so much criticism of Senator Clinton's specific approach to this scenario, of Iran attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, how could Senator Obama actually do the same thing as what Senator Clinton?

[Diamond Dog]

28. Through initiating conventional conflict in Iraq?

[patrice]

29. You've completely oversimplified an extremely complex set of factors many of which

are unknow, because they are in the future.

Believe it or not, most things are not "either this or that". You need to read up on logic a little. There is nothing logically necessary in saying something like: "Because s/he doesn't think _____________________ (fill in the blank), s/he thinks _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (fill in the blank)." That would be like me saying something like: "Since Taxmyth doesn't think teapots fly, s/he thinks frying pans dance."

[Taxmyth]

31. Logic

"appropriate action" and "take no options off the table" encompasses "massive retaliation" and "obliterate"

One persons usage of language is obtuse in this case, the other persons language is to the point. But there can be no mistake that they both mean the same thing with those words.

[Diamond Dog]

33. Wrong.

'Appropriate action', in this instance, would most certainly not mean nuclear retaliation in defense of a foreign nation, but rather a limited conventional war. There is nothing appropriate about nuclear war.

[Taxmyth]

39. Iran nukes Israel

and you're saying Senator Obama would not use nuclear weapons to retaliate against them. Please have him say that out loud, that he would institute a limited conventional war, like we have in Iraq, against Iran should they use nuclear weapons against Israel.

Please get him to say that out loud if that is what his Foreign Policy would be in that particular situation. The American people really need to hear him say that.

[Diamond Dog]

40. I'd love for him to say it. I'd be even happier if he cut off all military funding towards Israel.

Shall we make a first-strike retaliatory promise to Iran in the event of an unprovoked Israeli attack on that nation, Taxmyth?

[2rth2pwr]

80. why?

[eridani]

64. Right. And the Easter Bunny nukes the North Pole.

Don't forget what a close ally Santa is.

[patrice]

36. But you are saying that because you have not heard BHO espouse those

positions, he is for the opposite of all of that stuff. That is an inference and inferences are not logically necessary. There is nothing necessary in the relationships between the information that you are using and the conclusion that you infer from it. BHO COULD think all kinds of other things about how to deal with the hypothetical situation you pose. There is nothing inherent in the information that limits us to one and only one conclusion, i.e. the one that you claim is the truth.

[jaysunb]

6. Maybe he could get Israel AND Iran to " shape up."

Give peace a chance ? Settle their differences ? Be an even handed broker ?

The possibilities are unlimited. Right ?

[2rth2pwr]

81. Kind of like the primary, except it involves life and death for millions.

How's he doing on the settle the differences angle so far?

[jaysunb]

92. Nothing like a bully pulpit.....

n/t

[Kokonoe]

7. But Iran does not have nuclear weapons, Israel does.

Israel will retaliate against Iran if they use nuclear weapons.

[DerekJ]

8. stop playing the GOD of the world.

With illegal wars, and fucked up human rights, you have no fucking moral grounds to say who is right, and who is wrong.

STFU

[Diamond Dog]

9. If only this weren't a troll attempt, I'd applaud you.

I'd like to think that Obama wouldn't be so foolhardy as to risk nuclear war over a single country. Alas, he's as much in the pocket of the religious right/military industrial complex as the rest.

[frazzled]

10. Sorry, that's wrong

He of course said that an Iranian attack on Israel, an important ally in the region, would demand response. He didn't say he'd nuke 'em, however.

Anyway, what are we talking about--no country has used nuclear weapons since we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. If Iran were to use nuclear weapons on ANYONE it would be a severe world crisis.

[Taxmyth]

15. It absolutely would

and there is no doubt in my mind, and there shouldn't be in anyone else's mind either, that a nuclear attack on Israel would be met with massive retaliation by the United States and Senator Obama himself has said that no option would be taken off the table.

I'm just sick of the faux outrage being heaped upon Senator Clinton for being specific as to what would happen should Iran attack Israel. It wouldn't matter if it were a President Obama or a President McCain, the response would be the same as what a President H. Clinton would do.

[frazzled]

27. I disagree

First of all, her response should have been what Obama's was in the debate: that all efforts should be put into preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons in the first place--which, by the way, it does not have. This is a completely hypothetical situation, and to ratchet up the rhetoric in response to such hypotheticals is sheer bluster of the Bush variety.

Promises of nuclear warfare are not what I want to hear from a candidate. (I realize she has her umbrella plan, but the "I'm so tough I'd nuke 'em" stance is pure politics, through and through. A nuclear war would be global suicide.)

[Taxmyth]

37. I have no problem with direct language

Language like Senator Obama uses like "appropriate action" or "take no options off the table" leaves room for people to come up with the ridiculous premise I used in the original post. Reading some of the attacks against Senator Clinton as a result of her being specific as to what her policy would be should this unlikely event unfold made me realize that there are more than a few of Senator Obama's supporters who simply don't understand Senator Obama and his approach to Foreign Policy.

Or worse, they are right.

[Diamond Dog]

38. So you endorse nuclear war in defense of a foreign nation, Taxmyth?

Imbecilic and infantile.

[Taxmyth]

54. You support diplomacy towards Iran if they use nuclear weapons on Israel?

Clueless.

[Diamond Dog]

55. Yes. I reserve the nuclear options for those nations which are not rogue states.

And Israel, my friend, is a rogue state.

[2rth2pwr]

82. A- Ha! Now it all makes sense.

[onehandle]

12. Everyone in this race would attack in one way or another. nt

[jackson_dem]

13. That depends. Which Obama would be in the Oval Office?

Obama 1.0, the Chicago version or Obama 2.0 the national version?

[Taxmyth]

24. LOL

There is a difference between the two, isn't there.

[Diamond Dog]

14. If only I were eligible to be President.

I'd tell the Jewish and Christian Conservative lobbies to go fuck themselves, hard.

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. That's just absurd.

It's a political reality: no candidate can get elected president of the United States without standing firm in his or her commitment to our alliance with and guarantees of defence for Israel.

And Israel has nuclear weapons. Should Iran launch a nuclear strike against Tel Aviv (which is extremely unlikely), the Israeli response would be immediate and devastating. Tehran would be reduced to radioactive rubble. The code name for the Israeli retalitation plan when faced with the threat of national extinction is 'the Samson Option' (from Samson pulling the temple down on the Philistines and killing himself in the process). I also highly doubt that any American president would not launch a massive retaliatory strike against Iran in the event of a major Iranian attack on Israel.

[Taxmyth]

20. Please repeat that

in the HUNDREDS of posts and threads attacking Senator Clinton for her SPECIFIC ideas on this particular aspect of US Foreign Policy. They don't seem to understand.

[Diamond Dog]

18. No doubt any candidate present would. That doesn't make it right.

And it doesn't mean they should. It might be an inevitability if Iran gets nuclear weapons, but I'd still not support any form of engagement whatsoever in an entirely domestic squabble against it.

[Median Democrat]

19. I Think Most Americans Would Want To Nuke Iran!

Yes, nuking Iran or most any country is unthinkable on this board. However, this is a new day and age where Bush and Cheney could openly discuss the use of tactical nukes. The fact that Hillary is preemptively threatening nuking Iran is nothing, and I think most Americans will welcome that get tough image. While many liberals on this board abhor the idea, the notion of preemptive war sounds reasonable in that America attacks hostile countries before these countries attack the U.S. Likewise, the simple notion that if Iran were to nuke Israel, the U.S. would nuke Iran sounds pretty eye for an eye.

HOWEVER, pragmatically we have seen the difficulty of identifying those countries that are an imminent threat to the U.S. Is a county like Afganistan with Osama Bin Ladin, is it Iraq or is it a Libya thats about to make nice with the U.S.? Similarly, lets say the unthinkable happens, and a nuclear explosion takes place in Israel. Is it a terrorist group? Is it Hamas? Is it Syria? Is it Iran? Heck, is it a terrorist group that is based in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan?

The problem that is often ignored is that most of the hijackers were Saudi. It may very well be the case that a terrorist attack on Israel is actually from a terrorist group that is harbored by one of the U.S.'s "allies." However, it would impair the U.S.'s oil supply to target the Saudis. So, blaming Iran may be the politically expedient solution.

Unfortunately, nuance is lost in political discourse. Many Americans still believe that Iraq planned 9/11, and have forgotten that no WMDs were ever found in Iraq. So, while many folks on DU understand that it is a bit reckless to threaten to nuke a country even hypothetically, I think this will resonate with many Americans because it makes foreign policy seem very easy. Yes, it is unrealistic that Iran would nuke Israel, then stand up and take responsibility. However, it sure sounds great!

What I wonder is whether that same logic applies to Taiwan and China. If China were to nuke Taiwan, would the U.S. nuke China? Or, is the difference that China has no oil or that we buy too much stuff from them. Maybe we would just stand aside and let China commit such an atrocity while we look for an excuse to grab Iran's oil fields.

Sadly, I think that threatening to nuke Iran will likely score Hillary big points. Perhaps Hillary wanted to top Obama's "reckless" discussion about attacking Al Quaida in Pakistan by sounding even more belligerent. Hopefully, Obama does not feel inclined to try top Hillary.

[Taxmyth]

30. I remember watching WNBC from my home in NJ then

And I remember, plain as day, Sue Simmons coming on and saying that the attacks were made as a protest against US Troops in Mecca. And that's the last I heard of that. Makes far more sense when you know who the perpetrators actually were.

I didn't hear Senator Clinton assert that she would PRE-EMPTIVELY bomb anyone, that's specifically an argument to be used against the current Bush administration and I tried.

The original post is sarcastic in tone as I've read so many supporters of Senator Obama criticizing Senator Clinton for being specific in her approach to this unthinkable event.

[Median Democrat]

32. Senator Clinton Was Not Specific . . .

She was simplistic. As you note, if Israel were bombed, I am sure that a lot of folks would assume that its Iran like many people assumed that Iraq was behind 9/11. Yet, it was actually Saudi Arabia that was the source of most of the hijackers. I am concerned that as time passes from the last time the U.S. used nukes, that the idea of using nukes is becoming less and less verboten. For all of our outrage, the U.S. is the only country that has dropped a nuke.

[Taxmyth]

45. I can't disagree

Many Americans were aware of the Saudi connection to 9-11, and their funding of terrorist organizations, and argued vociferously AGAINST the war in Iraq for those very reasons. I was one of them. IF Israel is attacked by a nuclear weapon and it is proven to be from Iran, then the approach espoused by Senator Clinton, "massive retaliation", "obliterate" comes into play. She described a specific approach to a specific scenario and many of Senator Obama's supporters got their panties in a bunch and started screaming "warmonger" when in that specific situation the approach taken by a President Obama OR a President McCain would be the same.

I share those same concerns you write about and especially now, as human life (others lives) do not seem to merit the same respect it should.

[Leopolds Ghost]

70. Excellent, excellent post. n/t

[Straight Shooter]

22. Thanks for the laugh. n/t

[Diamond Dog]

25. Say, what do you think Clinton would do if Israel launched an unprovoked attack against Iran?

That's the real question, since Iran is in no position to attack anyone and won't be for a good long while.

[Taxmyth]

50. She said what she would do

Read the NIE about Iran and nuclear weapons. That "good long while" may not be as long as you think.

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

[Diamond Dog]

53. Stop shilliing for Israel and answer the fucking question.

Israel's just as backwards as Iran, and likely more xenophobic. They're as much a threat to Middle East stability as Iran.

[depakid]

26. Sorry that you don't understand (or have either forgotten or never learned)

the lessons of the cold war.

Obama's responses indicate to me that he does- and dishonest or willfully ignorant posts like this one indicate to me that that some people probably never will.

God help us all in that respect.

[Taxmyth]

52. Used to get under the desk in Kindegarten

and both Senators Clinton and Obama would favor diplomacy in the Middle East as opposed to Cold War like hostility. The question was specific and the answer given by Senator Clinton was specific to a particular scenario that, God willing, will NEVER occur. The outrage to her answer is either bogus or ignorance on display.

[backscatter712]

34. Why does Israel need our help if they're attacked?

They've got more weapons and military force than any other state in the Middle East. They've got lots of F-15s and F-16s, they've got Abrams tanks, they've got ballistic missiles, they've got nukes.

Yeah. We're bitching about Iran's nuclear program, even though they're years from building one nuclear bomb.

Israel's got over a hundred, ready to go.

I don't think Israel will be the only country bloodied if Iran's crazy enough to attack them (and even Iran's not crazy enough to attack them with nukes...)

[Diamond Dog]

35. Because Israel's America Jr., don't'ch'ya know. n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

41. You are either ignorant or a bullshitter

Or both......... it has been debunked.

[Swamp Rat]

42. Israel would flatten Iran if they even chucked an old Scud-B at them.

:dunce:

[BenDavid]

43. Nope! b hussein obama is a pink tutu wearing dem.

and in the debate last week he was not as forthcoming as HRC was in her comments about Israel.

[Diamond Dog]

44. ... Says the poster with the Star of David as his icon.

[Taxmyth]

49. I appreciated her being specific

it's just a shame that so many of Senator Obama's supporters are fooled by his rhetoric. And especially in this matter, there can be no misunderstanding the United States position.

[Diamond Dog]

51. Right. She's so specific that she extended a political promissory note to Israel.

"It's okay for YOU to have nuclear weapons and wage wars of aggression, but not THOSE assholes!"

Fuck them and fuck her.

[Leopolds Ghost]

46. What HAS been established is that Taxmyth is a radical anti-Muslim who by his own admission wants to

kill 70 million Muslims in the obsessively-sought-after event that Armageddon occurs.

Rather than mourn the death of innocent Israelis,
he will kill 70 million more in his (and his favored politicians')
xenophobia and bloodlust.

Wanting to "turn Muslims into glass after they nuke the Holy Land"

is a common form of Anti-Semitism in this country, sadly enough.

For it to actually occur would be an all-too-convenient outcome in
their eyes, much like when Curtis LeMay urged a pre-emptive strike
on the Soviet Union if they moved nukes into position

(OH, I'M SORRY DID I BREAK YOUR CONCENTRATION on Iran?)

Taxmyth is merely among the screaming millions who wants Obama to take a position --
any position -- on an Armageddon they themselves envision actually happening.

No "God forbids" in their tone of voice. No "God help us". Just "WHEN it occurs,
will the next President FINISH THE JOB?"

That is the mentality of the radical xenophobic false zionist.

People who want to destroy the nation of Israel in order to
use the Holy Land as a bulwark for their imperialist aims.

Fortunately for Israel, and as a zionist of a different sort myself (keeping in mind
that a great many radical Jews and Christians have deep religious and secular objections
to the way the zionist experiment has been led off track, into a campaign of hatred and
mutual anti-semitism between Arabs and Jews, threatening the
nation of Israel's existence)

I suspect that dependence on America and its evangelicals and Likudniks
(none of whom, I've noticed, bother to live in Israel) is the real source of
Israel's problems... remove that influence and Israel will be
able to chart a course of peace.

[Taxmyth]

65. What a wonderful rant

But you've got it all wrong. Senator Clinton was asked a question about a particular scenario - Iran using nuclear weapons against Israel. She responded forcefully and her language left no room for mistake about that particular situation. Were that particular situation to occur, God forbid, and it is a highly UNLIKELY scenario, there is no doubt that a President Obama, a President Clinton or a President McCain would respond and the words that could be used in their response are "massive retaliation" and "obliterate".

What I wrote was sarcastic in nature and I deliberately did not mark it as sarcasm to see what kind of response it generated. The genius of James Earl Carter, both during his Presidency and now, should and WILL be continued by a President Clinton or a President Obama. And even by a President McCain though it will not be as open and readily seen.

I do not wish to see any human being again harmed by nuclear weaponry. I wish more Americans understood Islam and Judaism and accepted them as willingly as they accept Christianity. The people in the Middle East, in Iran, in Israel are no different than we are here in America. Flesh and blood and easily damaged.

[Leopolds Ghost]

66. Thank you for responding to my post -- I stand corrected. Seriously

I may disagree with your position, but it is clear that both your post
and my reply were hyperbolic in nature.

[Diamond Dog]

67. Alright. They are flesh and blood and easily damaged by nuclear weapons.

Tell it to the chickenhawks who support Israel at all costs.

[Pawel K]

47. How does shit like this get on the greatest page?

[Taxmyth]

69. The same way as shit like this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5610534

and this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5610534

and this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5612246

I could keep going but you should get the point by now.

And I agree, what I wrote is total shit but that's the difference between me and a great many supporters of Senator Obama in here.

[Diamond Dog]

48. To summarize what I really want to say: fuck Israel.

They can have nuclear weapons, and not Iran? They can wage wars of aggression, but not Iran? They can receive American military funding, but not Iran?

Fuck 'em.

[MojoMojoMojo]

56. Obama has stated he would bomb Iran for attempting to develop nukes.

This is basically Bushs stance.Obama wants to escalate Afghanistan and bombing Pakistan is on the table.
He wont support banning mercenaries from Iraq as Hillary has,thus there are 100,000 mercenaries which he will most likely leave in Iraq.
And he has stated he would send combat troops back into Iraq if needed.
But he did make 1 antiwar speech 6 years ago when no one was listening.

[Leopolds Ghost]

58. Thanks Mojo. As a radical left zionist myself, I'd just like to point out...

As a radical left zionist I stand with the ultra-orthodox Jews in
believing that the nation of Israel must stop styling itself as a
single-religious state and make peace with its neighbors.

As the ultra-orthodox have quite accurately pointed out,
the Temple does not exist and nothing short of Armageddon
is likely to bring it back in the near future.

Interestingly enough, nothing short of Armageddon would eliminate
our knowledge and incentive to use nuclear weapons, either -- the
old "One Ring" paradox. Logically, inevitably, our current civilization
is probabilistically increasingly likely to nuke itself into ash
the longer we continue to exist and fail to collapse by some other means.

Which is why only fools actually plan for the event, instead of against it.

It is possible for a nation to be a haven for its people without
oppressing other ethnic groups. Israel will continue to exist.

Nobody's allowing other, far more defenseless nations to get
wiped off the map (oh no, wait, we ARE. Well, that sort of
puts the kibosh on Taxmyth, don't it?)

Otherwise, the catastrophe long sought-after by people like Taxmyth
and American politicians (so they can invade the Holy Land and
initiate Armageddon) will be an ever-present threat because of
persistent anti-Semitism amongst the supporters and opponents
of the false Zionism of Likud and its American allies.

[RichardRay]

57. Taxmyth et al - a clarifying question...

Is it your position that the only acceptable U.S. response to an nuclear attack from Iran against Israel is a massive retaliatory nuclear strike from the U.S. that obliterates Iran.

Is that a fair statement? If not, how does your position differ from that?

[Leopolds Ghost]

59. If Iran nukes Israel, Israel will nuke back so Taxmyth is inherently incorrect

in his assessment of the geostrategic situation.

[Diamond Dog]

60. Obviously we just have to hold their hands through it.

They're too incompetent to press a button themselves. :eyes:

[Taxmyth]

71. Clarification

My position is that taking umbrage at political rhetoric towards a highly unlikely scenario is ridiculous. Were this situation to occur, God forbid, I would be in no position to dictate policy. There is no doubt in my mind that there would be a "massive retaliation" that would "obliterate" large portions and peoples of another nation, no matter who was President. The use of nuclear weapons has not been espoused by any candidate, conventional weaponry would accomplish a "massive retaliation" and "obliterate" just as well. I cannot rule out ANY of the 3 candidates using nuclear weapons were that particular scenario to occur. My prayer is that it never does.

[RichardRay]

83. Good, that makes sense in some ways...

but it highlights why I prefer Senator Obama's reply to Senator Clinton's. Senator Obama's statement recognizes the reality of what would be going on and tries to encompass the range of options a president would have to consider. Senator Clinton's is a political response intended to gather votes. I prefer the former. Note that I don't see the position you've clarified as an ineffective one, just one that comes from a world view that I don't think we have to maintain any longer than we choose to.

I'm pretty sure that Senator Obama would be much less likely to push the button than would John McCain. I also believe that Senator Clinton would be less likely than would McCain to take that step. With Senator Obama I believe that based on what he says about a whole range of things and how his statement on the issue at hand fits into that gestalt. With Senator Clinton it's based on the hope that she can't really be as nuts enough to something really crazy. I believe that John McCain could do it in a fit of anger.

Choosing any kind of 'massive retaliation' in that scenario runs that risk, and the choice would need to be made without the baggage of campaign statements. At the bottom line, I guess I really don't care about the expediencies of political rhetoric in the face of the specter of a huge, glassy plain encompassing most the the Middle East.

[barb162]

61. Oh he's got a unique approach to foreign policy alright. Ignorance.

"Americans embrace Senator Obama" ? You gotta be kidding. He knows nothing of foreign policy. And when is that guy ever going to chair that foreign policy committee he heads.

The US should be helping its allies just as we want our allies to help us.

[Diamond Dog]

63. Because Israel's so totally capable of helping us in any way other than getting us involved in wars.

Right.

[whosinpower]

62. Good grief

Fell into the abyss of warmongerers wetdream once again.
What if Iran used nukes on Israel?

It is a false scenario.

I'll repeat that.

It is a false scenario. And worse, it fails to address what americans should be thinking about when choosing a president. You should be asking - what would Obama, or Hillary do with a New Orleans style tragedy? What would Obama or Hillary do if Pakistan falls? Pakistan is on far more shaky ground than Iran. Pakistan ALREADY has nukes folks! Pakistan already has Al quaeda right in its backyard - and those guys would not hesitate to use a nuclear device, should they get their hands on one.

But asking these leaders these wetdream questions - are far too simplistic and easy to answer. It is an insult to your intelligence, quite frankly. Iran and its leadership are not stupid. They are not about to launch something that would annihilate them. Do you honestly think they are not aware that Israel has nuclear weapons? Of course not. So, ask yourself something - why all the fuss about Iran? Could it be that a nuclear armed Iran would level the playing field and force Israel to make concessions regarding the palestinians? And would that necessarily be a bad thing?

Sorry for ranting - but these sorts of things infuriate me, because they deflect real issues that are facing all of us today. Almost as bad as fingergate. I mean really - when India and Pakistan were at each others throats - and one got nuclear weapons - was the other destroyed? No. And when Pakistan gained its nuclear arsonal - did India see mushroom clouds? No.

Many countries have nuclear weapons, and there are quite a few with leaders that are more than a bit loony. North Korea anyone?

[RichardRay]

68. KIck while I wait for Taxmyth to clarify... n/t

[Taxmyth]

72. See above. eom

[LooseWilly]

73. This is not an issue

Even if what you say were "true", it would still fall under the heading of "Fiction".

Iran does not have nuclear weapons to attack Israel with...

Israel already has nuclear weapons to retaliate with... should the Iranians magically make some nuclear weapons appear in their fictional arsenal.

Iran is not projected, according to the NIE, to be likely to have nuclear weapons capability until 2015... or more likely not until later than that... assuming they even come to a point where they decide to re-start their weapons program... if it's not until 2016 then Obama will no longer be president... assuming that he not only wins in 2008, but that he wins a second term as well...

If even the slightest gestures to negotiate with Iran are initiated, they would have much less incentive to get to work on nuclear weapons than if they're being isolated and threatened with invasion...

And, perhaps most significantly... the only way that it would really be in Iran's interest to launch a pre-emptive strike on Israel, with it's fictional nuclear arsenal, would be as an attempt to inflict damage on a Western Alliance that's imminently threatening them... and that scenario under an Obama presidency is ludicrous.

If this is a serious issue for you, you might as well take up shooting heroin. From what I understand, you're liable to at least have some more interesting hallucinations...

[Taxmyth]

74. I agree

and that was the purpose of this post. But you may be wrong about the ability of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons - here is the NIE

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

Diplomacy, which both candidates have offered up, as well as the intention to dissuade militarily, which both candidates have offered up, is what we have to go by. But saying one candidate favors an exceptionally different approach than the other is disingenuous and supporters of either candidate need to realize that.

Joking about heroin use is not very funny to me. My Brother and 2 very close friends of mine have died as a result of heroin use. I know you probably did not mean to inflict any harm by using that remark. Their deaths were directly related to the "War on Drugs" and that's an issue I take very seriously.

[question everything]

75. Just like British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain did not attack Germany

when it took over Czechoslovakia.

DU in the past two days has become a really vile and hostile place against Israel, with no moderation in site.

First, Jimmy Carter is praised for meeting with an organization whose sole purpose is to destroy the State of Israel. Yes, it was democratically elected, as were Hitler and Ahmedinejead, all, coincidentally, with a "promise" to destroy the Jews (there was no Israel when Hitler came to power) or the State of Israel.

Then carter has the audacity to speak against the Israeli government while a visitor in Israel. Would he had been able to do the same in any other country in the Middle East? Or in any other country except our own "fascist" and Western Europe? In Venezuela, for example?

And, of course, DUers were celebrating Carter's mission during Passover, when the few remaining Jews on DU were not around to debate any of the issues, and when such threads were not banished to the I/P forum.

That the most of Europe and the left cannot wait to see the annihilation of Israel is not new. For Europe, it is the final release from guilt feelings of many years of Anti-Semitism that culminated in the Holocaust. Having many Arabs in their countries who, in contrast to Israel, are second class residents, helps. The far left in this country - it never liked the Jews, either.

Most whites in Obama's network of mentors and donors, by the way, are Jewish.

As for Iran attacking Israel - don't worry. Even if this will be the last action that the state will take, the whole Middle East will be under nuclear mushroom. Bye bye Middle Eastern Oil. And this will be the main reason why President Obama, or McCain, or even Kucinich - if he is not a complete idiot - would make sure that such attacks never take place.

[mmonk]

76. Amazing. What garbage and tripe. I don't care if I get deleted on this one.

Where am I? Free Republic?

[Taxmyth]

77. Exactly what I thought

about the hundreds of posts and threads damning Senator Clinton for using the words "massive retaliation" and "obliterate". They are more direct than the words "appropriate action" and "take no options off the table" but they mean essentially the same thing.

I didn't think I was at Free Republic though. They're hitting pretty hard at Senator Obama there.

[JohnnyCougar]

78. Not gonna happen anyways.

Iran getting nukes will simply prevent the US from invading. They're not stupid enough to use them. Their threats against Israel are all demagoguery.

[dkf]

79. Israel has its own nukes...why must we use ours to obliterate

Iran?

I say we let them sort it out.

[Bucky]

84. See, these Iranians are smart. They'll attack Israel at 3am, when Obama can't answer the phone

Sneaky bastards, taking advantage of our Muslim president. How dare they!

[MethuenProgressive]

85. In other words, Obama to Iran: Go right ahead and nuke the Jews if I'm elected.

Iran to BO: GOBAMA!!

[npincus]

86. Very simplistic- Iran HAS attacked Israel and will continue to do so

by proxy- using Hamas and Hezbollah to do the dirty work. THAT'S what'w really going on, and positing simplistic questions to complex issues does not inform or educate the public as to what is really going on or US options to respond.

[barack the house]

87. Let's be clear Iran don't want nuclear war they want a dterrant to war so folk don't stealtheir oil.

If Hillary attacked it would be to control oil periiod.

[workinclasszero]

88. So if Hillary is so sure Iran is ready to nuke Israel

Why not do a pre-strike attack on Iran?:shrug:

Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran? No wonder Hillary is such good friends with McCain.

Tell me the difference between Hillary's foreign policy and McCain's, the RNC's, and Rush Limbaugh's????

Lets see, 3 trillion for the wars we got going now, another 3 trillion or so for McCain's/Hillary's war on Iran.

Yeah that will pretty much destroy the american economy forever. Fuck Social Security, medicare, national health insurance, we gotta fight to make the world safe for Exxon/Mobil!

I mean God forbid talking to other people before unleashing Armageddon, eh?:eyes:

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[billyoc]

93. Good. If Israel wants allies, they can draw some fucking borders.

We have trouble enough with countries that *are* our allies.