Should Hillary threaten to obliterate ANY country that nuked Israel?

[george_maniakes]

Her threat is so laughable because it is so disengaged from reality. Israel is the country with nukes, not iran. If iran ever launched a nuke against israel, israel by itself would turn iran into ash, thats a well known fact.

Her statement was about as grounded in reality and as useful as bush's "axis of evil". This will do nothing except give more ammunition to hardliners in iran. I cant believe she has so many years of experience and yet is so lacking in diplomatic tact. The point is to allow iran access to nuclear power without giving it access to the full enrichment cycle. That is the endstate.

[CreekDog]

1. yes and if Bush accidentally nukes Israel

she would support us obliterating ourselves. :dilemma:

[Johnny__Motown]

2. Any country that does anything that she does not like.. with us or against us.. gas tax, oil imports

whatever

[DAGDA56]

3. Sure! Why not? She's been betting all along that voters don't know

Iraq from Iran, Yemen from Oman...as long as they don't ask about Dubayy, everything's cool.

[MercutioATC]

4. I thought she sorta threatened to attack any ME country that attacked any other ME country.

I think that would cover, say, Jordan attacking Israel...........or Syria.

[george_maniakes]

9. The thing is though there will be no state-on-state war with israel...

because as soon as israels back was against the wall, out come the nukes and its game over for everyone.

[iamjoy]

5. It Doesn't Really Mean Anything

She's just trying to show how tough she is and how big a friend of Israel she is.

There's something to be said for the deterrence of Mutually Assured Destruction.

I guess we could say that Hillary Clinton is pandering, but that's no so unusual, now is it?

[OHdem10]

6. It is good politics, she did not say she would obliterate them

US would be ABLe to obliterate thme.

It is great for public consumption and Hilary knows her stuff.

She is smart enough not to let herself be called the typical
"Left Appeaser". In reality if Iran nuked Israel she would
would take strong decisive action immediaely.

The question was. IF Iran drops a nuclear bomb on Israel---.

We sure as heck are not going to have a conversation.

[george_maniakes]

10. IF iran dropped a nuclear weapon on israel....

is about as likely as russia dropping one on israel. Its not going to happen, and if it did, the united states wouldnt be doing anything other than trying to keep the whole system afloat because iran would cease to exist. Its about as justified as telling russia "we will obliterate you if you nuked israel." This is not how you speak as a leader of a state, let alone the "leader of the free world". It just further pushes iran into a box.b

[styersc]

7. Yes

[frickaline]

8. She put her own self-interest in front of the interests of the country

What upsets me here is that she made this comment so she could appear tougher without any consideration to the damage it might cause. Its not so much a laughable comment as a completely reckless and irresponsible one.

I am not completely against the use of force, provided the circumstances warrant such a reaction, however making threats on hypothetical situations is exactly as you said, lacking in diplomatic tact. It begs the follow up, "my dad can beat up your dad".

[george_maniakes]

11. her comments apply to a world which doesnt exist...

that is a world where israel does not have the means to obliterate her neighbours. It just furthers the "us versus them" mentality ,which benefits who exactly?

[wrando]

12. you defeat your own demagoguery

Yes Israel has the nukes, and has had them for many years, through much terrorism.

Did they use them?

Deterrence is nothing new, and if Obama becomes president he will have no choice but to use that idea.

It's part of the carrot and stick of diplomacy.

bill from ct

[frickaline]

18. You honestly think this was deterrence?

I'm sorry but I give the Iranians more credit than that. I'm sure they figured out long, long ago that not only do we have nukes, but we give a lot of money and support to Israel. They didn't need her to state the obvious.

The problem now is the diplomatic eruption that will ensue as a direct result of her reckless attitude and her de facto challenge.

[wrando]

20. money

we give just as much to the Palestinians

her attitude is not reckless it's just factual

the policy will be the same under Hillary or Obama

now under McCain you will have real worries

bill from ct

[george_maniakes]

22. FACT: the united states can end human civilization. FACT: stating that fact tends to piss off ...

other states. And if your suggesting the states has given just as much support to palestinians as it does to israel, thats just laughable.

[george_maniakes]

21. i dont see how what you just said applies to my post...

The united states has the ability to essentially end the human race, let alone turn iran into a heap of ash. Every country in the world knows this, and so it is infantile to repeat that fact, let alone make a threat to another country in response to a hypothetical question. If the question was "what would you do if russia nuked georgia or if china nuked taiwan", you do not reply "we will obliterate them." Same applies here. All she did was increase hostility, for what? Shes responding as if israel needed help defending itself, which it most assuredly does not.

[TBF]

13. No, the way to diplomacy is to not make crazy threats.

If anything right now we need to raise our stature in the world by gracefully exiting from Iraq and stopping the war talk. Of course nukes are always on the table - we certainly have enough of them. And everyone knows it. She does not need to go around stirring up foreign policy just for the sake of her winning a nomination. It just (again) illustrates how it's all about Hillary.

[wrando]

14. crazy threat

That threat is for real, no matter who is in the white house.

she didn't come out like Bush and make this threat, It was a response to a hypothetical question about Iran nuking Israel.

it's not being honest to characterize this as some crazy threat

but honesty is not an overwhelming commodity at DU

bill from ct

[Johnny__Motown]

16. She expanded the statement to include any nation in that region, that is why it was crazy

[kwenu]

15. I thought that is essentially what she did. She extended the nuclear arsenal of the U.S. to Israel.

[Johnny__Motown]

17. Not just Israel, all nation in the middle east

[wrando]

19. the obvious

she stated the obvious nothing more or less

same rules Obama will learn if he ever becomes president

just like when he entered the senate and voted with Hillary on everything concerning Iraq

if you noticed the big anti war speeches stopped when he entered the U.S. Senate

he didn't start up again until he knew it was safe

bill from ct

[george_maniakes]

23. Her reply was false. The unites states would not have to lift one finger to defend israel...

because israel has enough nukes to turn the middle east into dust. All the united states and the rest of the world would be doing is trying to calm everybody down after iran ceased to exist.