Joe Biden and "Obliterate"

[Evergreen Emerald]

On Hard Ball with Chris Mathews on Clinton's Iran comment:

JOE BIDEN: The only thing that keeps this Iranian authority in power, with a country and a population that hates them, is the fact that we never make our voice known to the Iranian people. What we do is we stand out there and rattle the saber against guys who are not good guys, and we unite the Iranian people.

CHRIS THRILLS DOWN HIS LEG MATTHEWS: Senator Clinton talked about obliterating the country of Iran. Talk about saber-rattling, didn't that discourage the secular forces in Iran from standing up to the leadership, when you say you're going to obliterate the whole country?

BIDEN: No. The context in which she said that is the way we talk about mutual assured destruction, in fairness to her. She said IF THEY ATTACKED, if they attacked Israel, we would respond.

CHRIS: No -- obliterate.

BIDEN: Well, obliterate, that's what happens when you respond. Guess what, Chris. No way of using nuclear weapons in Iran without it resulting in obliteration.

CHRIS: So you think that wasn't over the top for her?

BIDEN: No. I think a better word could have been chosen, but she stated a rational policy. I'm here to defend what I think is a rational position taken. Iran should understand that if they use nuclear weapons against any other power, they run the risk of literally being obliterated.

[DemVet]

1. So? MAD...a policy that's been in ALL US Administrations.

It won't change with an Obama, Clinton, or even a McCain presidency.

There's nothing wrong with what Biden said.

[Evergreen Emerald]

5. I agree with you. There was nothing wrong with what Biden, OR Clinton said.

DU and the media and BO attacked Clinton relentlessly on her statement. I wish Biden had come out earlier in her defense, but I noticed that the dems are allowing everyone to attack Clinton with no support.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. Biden is being a real voce of reason, defending both of our candidates

He has been great of late. I really appreciate the role he is taking.

[Orsino]

49. He's defending a nuclear first strike.

Fail.

[Lilith Velkor]

51. You fail at reading comprehension - he defended a retaliatory strike.

[Orsino]

56. Sorry. You're right.

He was defending "merely" a nuclear strike. :eyes:

I would submit that his error was larger than mine.

[Zhade]

100. And that's fine with you? Nuking innocent civilians?

NT!

[PoliticalAmazon]

53. I don't want ANY U.S. politcian spewing about a nuclear attack.....

In the first place, it's bad strategy to alert a potential rival of your game plan.

Secondly, with all of the trauma we have from Iraq in our station, they need to STFU about future involvements. We didn't want Iraq, and we don't want anymore.

Third, it is wrong to attack another country with a nuclear weapon. It is wrong.

[iconicgnom]

60. correct

[Texas Hill Country]

83. no he is not... reading is fundamental.

[Life Long Dem]

106. In actuality, he's defending Clinton.

Edwards did the samething. 50/50 Fairness.

[Tellurian]

62. I think Biden may be the first to see the writing on the wall..

Obama is not going to win against the Republicans. Biden is understanding Obama just doesn't have the demographics behind him to win the presidency away from McCain and has come to the realization, Obama is not just a roll of the dice anymore. Obama loses on paper to McCain because he doesn't have the support of the country behind him.

People (chose the president) not superdelegates.

[tekisui]

3. Biden is working for Democratic Unity.

And, good for him.

[Leopolds Ghost]

63. Democrats are unified in calling for killing all Iranians -- including babies.

That is a war crime.

Bombing civilian populations is a war crime.

"They did it first" is not an excuse.

Anyone who does this is damned, to start out with, and a war criminal, second.

It is amusing to see liberals defend the policy of MAD which their parents
found so repulsive and insane.

Let's say Iran drops a dirty bomb in a Tel Aviv market place and kills
20,000 Israelis. How many Iranian men, women and children should die?

[DemVet]

96. I give up...how many?

[Zhade]

101. By their logic, Iraqis should be allowed to kill US for what BUSH has done.

NT!

[dkf]

4. I don't like that coming from him or Hillary.

What would be the fallout in the middle east? I can't imagine it can be contained only to Iran.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Could you at least discuss the complete hypothetical scenario?

The proper framework is to ask; What would happen if Iran aggressively attacked Israel with nuclear weapons? The answer is all hell would break loose, but in this scenario Iran would not get obliterated if they did not obliterate Israel with nukes first. Israel is a tiny country. Were it to be attacked with nuclear weapons Israel would be the first nation to be obliterated.

I do not think it is plausible to believe that Iran would launch a nuclear attack on Israel, for a number of reasons, but fear of U.S. retaliation would be on that list of reasons.

[Leopolds Ghost]

74. Complete hypothetical scenario: Iran kills nation of Israel, Christians retaliate by burning babies.

That is the scenario and the rationale.

[knixphan]

84. lol!

[lojasmo]

6. "Obliterate" is not proportional response.

It is neoliberal saber rattling. It is unconscionable. Biden is very even handed, but Clinton was wrong.

[Evergreen Emerald]

7. not a proportional response to a nuclear attack?

Biden is right.

[PaulaFarrell]

10. so the US should have been obliterated for dropping bombs on Japan?

obviously, they didn't have that capability, but if they had, it would have been a proportional response?

and what is your position vis-a-vis India and Pakistan should either of them ever decide to use the bomb? then I guess we can expect to see the obliteration of both countries, and that would be 'proportional'.

what's your position on the nuclear fallout by the way - are you expecting that it will magically stay within the Iranian borders?

i have an idea, how our political leaders grow up and stop threatening countries over entirely hypothetical (and at this moment in time, entirely impossible) scenarios? is that really too much to ask?

[Evergreen Emerald]

19. You are ignoring historical context to make your point.

[PaulaFarrell]

24. in what way? n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

27. seriously? You are suggesting that Iran nuking Isreal in an unjustified attack

is the same as us ending the war?

[Leopolds Ghost]

77. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were an unjustified attack, immoral, damnable and a war crime.

AS WAS THE FIREBOMBING.

(as Robert McNamara, the architect of the firebombing campaign, clearly noted.)

Records clearly state we did it to keep Russia from entering the
war on Japan. The alternative was to blockade the island until
they surrendered. Invasion was never seriously considered.

McNamara might not consider Hiroshima a war crime, but only in comparison
to the firebombing which was not qualitatively different and whose purpose
was to kill X % of each Japanese city of 500,000 or more population.

[susanwy]

92. You are seriously wrong

Invasion of Japan was considered, planned and in fact operations were underway and my Dad was preparing in the South Pacific to go! The utter lack of historical knowledge in this country is abysmal. No wonder were going to shit.

[Zhade]

102. So you support murdering innocent civilians to punish their government.

NT!

[susanwy]

48. You are correct

If Pakistan or India used the nuclear option on one, the other would use it back. That is the point of MAD as a policy. It is called deterrence, and as a policy it has worked pretty well in the nuclear age. As for the fallout, all Middle Eastern countries know that a nuclear attack would not stay in just Israel or Iranian borders, and knowing that those countries keep up diplomatic pressure to discourage that action, again part of the strategy of MAD. Only because of GWB, these moderate mMddle Eastern countries are finding it more difficult to work with the US diplomatically.

The problem now is a radical terrorist, or perhaps a leader such as Ahmadinejad, who really doesn't care about MAD, they don't have anything to really live for, or are convinced that the glory of Heaven will await them, so the thought of MAD isn't a deterrent. It is why religious fundamentalism is so frighting. This is why we must do what ever we can to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, including continuing the diplomacy of MAD. Nuclear ambition is the really the central point of the "war on terrorism", only GWB has fucked it all up and made it worse by fostering resentments and encouraging radicals for whom MAD doesn't matter.

Biden is absolutely correct in his assertion that we must appeal to the Iranian people, who overwhelmingly don't support Ahmadinejad. If they think that his actions would result in their destruction, they have more incentive to oust him, and their overwhelmingly young population would see this as a positive step. If we can work again with moderate Middle Eastern countries, they would have more power to influence his actions, or his ouster. Actually, Iran was becoming a much more moderate country before we invaded Iraq, it was the invasion and our unnecessary saber rattling against a regime that couldn't possible muster up the where-with-all to develop nuclear capability the led to the nationalism that elected Ahmadinejad in the first place.

The point about Japan was not valid, because Japan did not have the bomb, neither did Germany, but it was closer to the development of one than Japan. Part of the justification, and historians have long argued this point, for dropping the bomb on Japan was to show Germany we had succeeded in the development of the bomb first and that we were not afraid to use it, rightly or wrongly. I'm biased on this point as my Dad was in the South Pacific preparing for the invasion of Japan when we took this action, so I'm here because history played out that way.

It would be nice if the threat didn't exist, but part of the point of leadership is to deal with the hypothetical, because if a hypothetical comes to pass, we must know how our leaders are prepared to deal with them. It isn't as simple as just talking with other world leaders, it is a strategy game, carrot and stick, and diplomacy. MAD is just another tool in that box that came about because of the development of nuclear weapons.

[gateley]

58. Thank you for your post. nt

[susanwy]

93. your welcome

Sometimes I wonder what we are teaching in History classes these days. It is appalling.

:grr:

[iconicgnom]

68. You're mistaken

You say:

"The problem now is a radical terrorist, or perhaps a leader such as Ahmadinejad, who really doesn't care about MAD, they don't have anything to really live for, or are convinced that the glory of Heaven will await them, so the thought of MAD isn't a deterrent."

That isn't a legitimate argument. There is no evidence whatever that Ahmadinejad is the madman that you claim, that he cares nothing for Iran, for the world. Iran has attacked no-one.

That argument is nothing more than the kind of hotheaded opinion that comes after a refusal to speak with a country you've already declared "enemy". A refusal to even try to be objective. And a blind willingness to follow that kind of warmongering leadership. The only end to that line of hotheaded thinking is preemptive war.

That's the old kind of politics, the politics that George W. Bush perfected, and it shall be proven obsolete.

[susanwy]

89. Yes, that was poorly worded

Ahmadinejad may not be a madman who doesn't care about his country, but these is no denying he has called for the destruction of Israel. But, there are plenty of other radical Muslims for which we have contributed to the reality that their lives are shit, and they would like nothing better than to avenge their persecution.

I never said we shouldn't talk to Iran, we should. We should reach out to the moderates in their country and try to influence them to move back toward a more moderate, secular government. A move they were making until GWB fucked it all up. I'm not a hot head, I'm a pragmatist. We should not keep labeling Iran an "enemy", but we also need to make it clear that an attack on Israel will bring real consequences. Carrot and stick, not just stick, which is the GWB foreign policy I abhor, as does Joe Biden.

[iconicgnom]

98. I see it quite differently than you

(Sorry, I was away over the weekend.)

In fact there do exist responsible arguments denying that ahmadinejad called for the destruction of Israel. Considering what's now been proven about the lies leading to the Iraq war, considering that the same basic structure of lies is currently being used against Iran, it really is our duty to question these things. We should at least know enough to acknowledge that legitimate questions exist and that different points of view exist. See:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html
for an account of this issue.

As for the plentiful "radical Muslims" whose lives the US has made miserable and who are bent on revenge, there're plenty more "radical Muslims" whose lives the US has made miserable who insist only that the US cease and desist from that activity. Of course left solely for the US to decide, the US never will (it is, after all, an imperialist state). But who knows, perhaps Obama isn't totally shitting us and the US will make the token gesture of backing off a little bit from the devastation it's dealing to Iraq. Do you imagine that a US president who calls the Iranian army "terrorists" who "kill Americans" (and votes for a resolution to that effect), and who claims that Iran "trains and arms the Iraqi terrorists" who're fighting the US occupation of Iraq, is likely to back off even a little bit? I expect that type of politician to use words like "obliterate". pffffttt... It looks to me that we're dealing with all one thing, here, one continuum of the same cluster of lies and provocations that got the US into Iraq, and now wants to get the US into Iran (again).

Either words matter, or we continue to allow our leaders to play on fear. Lying and lying and lying, until reality vanishes and there's nothing remaining but war.

Sure, why shouldn't anyone "reach out" (evangelize to?) so-called Iranian "moderates", defining "moderate" in any convenient way that one wants. But remember that the US hasn't a very good reputation in this regard, and in my opinion the ease with which you (and several politicians) use the phrase "carrot and stick, not just stick" doesn't help.

[Leopolds Ghost]

79. The glory of heaven will await the destruction of the Temple Mount?

You are fascinating in your capacity to absorb American ill-informed ideas about how other parts of the world work.

Yes, let's kill 1 billion people if Pakistan drops one bomb.

It is an idle threat. I call BS.

The point of the threat is to prevent ANYONE from being killed.

Once the killing starts, the threat to kill more LOSES its usefulness.

[PaulaFarrell]

86. MAD doesn't have as good a history as you suggest

for one thing, as a concept it's only about 60 years old. It may have worked so far, but given the nature of human beings, that's no reason to suppose that it will continue to work, especially as more and more countries have nuclear capacity. The fate of entire nations depends on the fallible judgment of ordinary people. There have already been two near misses, with the Cuban missile crisis and then more recently between India and Pakistan and none of the people considering using the weapons could have labelled a 'madman'. What's especially depressing, NATO commanders have basically advocated the use of a nuclear first strike to halt nuclear proliferation (I would guess the irony is lost on them). See this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/22/nato.nuclear

There is also a lot of misconception over Ahmadinejad's actual power in the Iranian government. The real power there is held by the mullahs, who have repeatedly stated they are against the use of nuclear weapons. I'm not naive enough to believe that any leader is going to be completely honest about their intentions, but on the other hand I have seen exactly zero indication that they have any warlike intentions against Israel. If Israel bombs the nuclear power plants they are trying to build, though, that would change very quickly.

I can understand your feelings about the bombing of Japan, but if you read the quotes at this link you might rethink a little:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/Brian_Mitchell/hiroshima_reason.htm

I just wish our leaders would grow up and stop chest-thumping, and consider the ramifications of their words for a change.

[susanwy]

90. Did you pay attention in history class???

MAD is a "concept it's only about 60 years old." Duh, so is the age of nuclear weapons, of which MAD was a consequence. And in fact it has worked very well until, possible, GWB. Many historians argue that the Cuban missile crisis did not come close to actual nuclear strikes, although we were probably close to bombing the missile sites in Cuba with conventional bombs. Neither Kennedy nor Khrushchev wanted to risk nuclear war over the issue, and both became increasingly concerned that an accident or inadvertent military action might trigger escalation. It was much posturing between the Soviets and the US trying to establish sound policies in a nuclear world. In fact it did lead to sound policies in a nuclear age, including direct communications link with the Soviets, removal of both our weapons in Turkey and the Soviet's in Cuba, a test ban treaty and aid to Cuba. I am worried that it will not work with extreme radicals. It may actually take another nuclear explosion somewhere in the world to make it work again. Sad, but true.

I don't know, I think Musharraf isn't exactly sane, as is any dictator who would rule for the sake of power and glory forever if he could have managed it, thankfully he isn't in power right now. Neither is Ahmadinejad, who, despite your comment that Iran does not harbor warlike intentions, has called for the destruction of Israel. There are radical elements inside Iran who do respond to this BS, and do harbor warlike intentions against Israel. It is true that he does not hold the real power in Iran, but we really know very little about how the ruling mullahs really feel or their intentions, as GWB as fucked up any real diplomatic relations. Again, Biden understands this complexity.

I agree that a nuclear first strike isn't the answer. But, that presupposes the risk that we are willing to be struck first. Which is why we must do everything we can to control the worlds nuclear stockpiles and access to enhanced uranium. GWB has been an idiot here as well and as not funded or made a priority this important issue. I also strenuously disagree with GWB breaking the nuclear testing ban and escalation nuclear proliferation by developing the so called "tactical" nuclear bombs. However, to sit here and pretend that the threat does not exist, and the if we just start talking to each other the threat will disappear is extremely naive. The cat is out of the bag and we live in a nuclear world. The only thing I ever admired Regan for was his stance on reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world, other than that he sucked.

Please, don't ever presume I don't understand the suffering caused by the bombing of Japan. I've researched the issue, seen the films, read many survivor stories and had long talks with my Dad about the war and our intentions. Japan would not have surrendered with out our use of force in this manner. The Soviets may have just marched on down through Europe had we not demonstrated the power we had created. I wish it had never come to pass, but thousands of US service men would have died in an invasion of Japan, including thousands of Japanese, quite possible more than were killed in the bombing. It isn't my feelings, it is historical fact. What was regrettable in history is that Truman didn't chose to blow the shit out of a couple of uninhabitable or military installations off the coast of Japan, or that he choose to order two strikes that targeted populated cities. My Dad watched them load the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, it haunts him to this day. Truman had to live with that for the rest of his life. Perhaps Truman was a war criminal, but I don't think so, he made a decision to save American lives.

[susanwy]

94. "enriched uranium"

I hate it when I do that!

[PaulaFarrell]

97. ok, thanks for letting me know you're not prepared to discuss in a civilized manner

And I stand by my assertion that anything 60 years old is a drop in the bucket in terms of human history. If we continue to embrace nuclear weapons, we will surely destroy ourselves with them. You clearly didn't read my link, as it's far from clear that Japan would not have surrendered, based on the comments made by those in charge at the time. I know some people need to comfort themselves with myths about how good and righteous America is, but I prefer to know the truth.

ps. I never remotely insulted you, so I've no idea why you decided to infer that I am young and stupid. you'd be wrong on both counts.

[susanwy]

104. Sorry, sincerely,

I don't believe I called you young and stupid. All I said is that some of your assertions were naive, and that your grasp on history was possible incorrect. Plus, I did read your link, I happen to disagree with its assertions and conclusions. Revisionist history is a fine thing.

[Leopolds Ghost]

75. If India drops one bomb on Pakistan, then naturally 1 billion people should die.

The only logical outcome. Otherwise Pakistan would not have a meaningless and barbaric rhetorical threat in their diplomatic arsenal.

In the Middle Ages, Saladin threatened to put to the sword everyone in Jerusalem if they didn't surrender. He had no intention of doing so, but his subordinates did, so he did what was expected. The Christians retaliated by threatening to destroy the Dome of the Rock if the city were taken, thus "logically" ensuring the death of every child in the city if the battle continued, while simultaneously ensuring that Saladin would yield and accept partial enslavement instead. They then dickered over gold (a product of that mass psychosis known as value economics) to symbolize how many people would NOT be enslaved. That is what was expected of gentlemen warriors.

Why not simply enslave whoever survives? If burning babies alive and bashing their heads on the walls of Tel Aviv and Tehran is acceptable, why not seven years of indentured slavery for POWs?

I thought the concept of deterrence is supposed to be logical, and so it leads to the only possible outcome according to the aforementioned thinking -- unless it is merely a cultural artifact of our poorly wired chimpanzee brains.

[Leopolds Ghost]

76. BTW, why would any fundie Muslim wish to obliterate the Holy land?

They regard Israel as holy Palestinian territory, chock full of Muslim venerated sites inherited from the Jews. Most of the fight is over the fact that the Israelis took back stewardship of these holy sites (which the Muslims copycatted anyhjow -- they were all Jewish or Canaanite to begin with) and displaced Palestinians (about 1/4 of the Palestinian population) from the arid and poorly-irrigated plain of Israel along the coastline. Meanwhile, the bulk of the Palestninian population is in areas that were not part of Israel at all, they were part of Judea and Samaria and Philaestina (only one of which was a jewish tribe, and always lived in close proximity with non-Jews). So you see, no Muslim, Christian or Jew would do such a thing.

[susanwy]

91. no sane Muslim, Christian or Jew

but, we are dealing with the insane with nothing left to lose.

[lojasmo]

22. The question was not one of nuclear attack.

Iran doesn't even have nukes, and will not within the next eight years.

The qestion was "If Iran attacks"

Thanks for ploying, er playing.

[Evergreen Emerald]

23. No. The question was if Iran uses nuclear weapons to attack.

[lojasmo]

28. Mea culpa.

I agree with Biden, then. Her language was regrettable.

[Evergreen Emerald]

54. that is not what he said.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. How Can Biden Be Right And Hillary Be Wrong When They Both Said The Same Thing?

That is a logically and intellectualy untenable position...

[Evergreen Emerald]

11. because everything Clinton says is evil--don't you know the DU rules?

[tekisui]

17. The only difference I see is that Biden admitted it could have been

said better. He avoided the word obliterate. He knows as well as anyone that one poor word can overshadow a very accurate statement. All politicians are held to such high standards that even one word can hurt them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. It Could Have Been Said More Delicately

But it wouldn't make much difference to those souls who were turned into radioactive ash...

I really think a nuclear attack out of the blue is implausible... The only scenario is which I see nukes being used is if a nation is faced with the choice of using their nukes or being annihilated...

[rucky]

36. Better yet, Hillary should've taken her own advice from early-on...

and not respond to hypotheticals regarding Foreign Policy.

[havocmom]

13. Yep and while lots of presidents have had the ability, they don't use the word in discussion

The use of that word by HRC just seems one more sign of desperation. Real power does not exhibit that facet. Real power is secure. Everybody KNOWS the US has that degree of power. We do not need to rub the world's face in it.

Other presidents have had authority to wield that power but they avoid being too blunt. THAT is power.

HRC was just pulling any trick to get votes from this faction or that faction. Desperate act. Not powerful at all. In fact, it sorta reminded me of the dumb-ass, saber rattling shit Iran's unpopular leader says. He who shall not be named is pretty much toothless. HRC looked almost that sad when she used that unfortunate language.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. So We Can Agree That Senator Biden Deserves Opprobium And Censure For His Remarks As Well

Right.

[havocmom]

34. dupe

[havocmom]

35. Biden is basically a diplomat

doin what he does, try to diffuse a bad situation. I like him some and think he would be a good Sec of State, but didn't support his bid to be our nominee for some of the same reasons I don't support HRC.

[Evergreen Emerald]

20. Please. You will use anything to attack Clinton.

[havocmom]

37. No, but I won't NOT be critical of her when I feel she is full of shit

I have never heard of her being unkind to her mother, small children and animals.

[Tellurian]

65. Bilden clarified Cinton's comment in the last sentence of the OP..

It can't be any easier to understand. The format presented in the OP holds your hand walking you through the process.

[doc03]

12. That has been the US policy for the last

60 years and to act shocked by that statement is just political BS. It's been understood that if any country attacked Israel with a nuclear weapon we would retaliate. As small as Israel is one nuclear weapon would probably kill everyone, if not in the initial blast they would die from the radiation. So in other words Israel would be in effect obliterated and we would do the same to whoever bombed them.

[rodeodance]

15. Thanks for the post. Clinton said it in the context of What happens if Israel

is attacked by Iran. but folks here have to use it as an ugly political statement to make fun of her. and here Biden is setting them straight.

Lets hope they listen or they are throwing Biden under the bus.

[rodeodance]

16. REC

[ProSense]

18. Biden has a penchant for sticking his foot in his mouth. It was a stupid comment. n/t

[gateley]

25. Biden is also known for brilliant observations and clarity on

a host of subjects, so it's beneficial to look past that "penchant" and listen to what the may has to say.

I agree with him that Hillary should have chosen a less incendiary word.

[MonkeyFunk]

30. If it's Obama's policy

NOT to respond if Iran were to nuke Israel, he should say so now.

The fact is, his policy will be exactly the same as Clinton's, which is exactly the same as every administration for 60 years. You guys had to lie about Clinton's position in order to attack her on it. IF you'd told the truth, everybody would know there was nothing objectionable in it.

[havocmom]

39. Difference being, he doesn't feel the need to state the obvious

Seems Clinton's insecurity and desperation made her feel stating the obvious WAS necessary. That is NOT how power acts.

[MonkeyFunk]

43. Deterrence

only works if the other side KNOWS your intentions.

Come on, this is one of the sillier complaints you guys have. There's absolutely nothing new in the policy, and it doesn't differ from anything Obama would do.

You''re latching onto a word you don't like and using that to imply the entire policy is wrong.

[havocmom]

45. LOL

Only candidate or serious US politician who felt it necessary to publicly state what the WHOLE WORLD KNOWS was Hillary

That was not about deterrence. That was desperation to get out the idea that she's a tough as all the other pols. That is NOT a position of power.

I never said the policy is wrong or that I don't like the word. I said it was and act of desperation to state what EVERYBODY knows. Am old enough to remember Khrushchev pounding a shoe on a table and how fucking silly/ pathetic that was, how desperate it looked to get so wrapped up in overstating the obvious. I was very young, but even I could see then what a desperate attempt to look tough by expounding on the obvious it was.

You're assuming you know what I think. Bad tactic.

[Leopolds Ghost]

82. If the whoile world knows it, what difference does it make?

Let's clear the air about the consequences of what we ourselves intend to do if one of our friends is attacked.

Funny how the state has the power to commit disproportional revenge killings, but private citizens like you do not -- Not any more.

[Leopolds Ghost]

81. Correct. Why should Clinton or Obama's intention to bash Iranian babies brains in be obvious?

I am continually amused by human capacity for hypocrisy, casuistry and squeamishness when justifying the "legal" taking of a life

(be it self-defense, late-term abortion, war, whatever) or the "legal" extraction of pain for logical deterrence purposes (be it "total war", "police procedures" or waterboarding.)

You want to bash in Iranian babies' brains if a single one of our allies dies.

Period.

That is biblical tribalistic chimpanzee logic. The logic is sound -- inbred by natural selection.

Just like eating their brains before burning them alive with your bombs would be

(bombs which, as Reagan/Gorbachev argued, we should not have).

That is what chimpanzees are expected to do, by the heartless logic of natural selection.

[Evergreen Emerald]

88. What do you suggest is an appropriate response when a country strikes a nuclear attack?

[Leopolds Ghost]

80. What an idotic argument. Why would the US need to respond?

Think before posting.

[Zhade]

103. "Respond" is different than "nuke innocent civilians to punish their government".

If you support the latter, you must admit that Iraqis have the right to murder you and your family for what b*s* has done to them. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.

[havocmom]

38. He and HRC have that in common

I like Biden, but it is that trait that made me support another candidate this season.

[yodermon]

26. "I think a better word could have been chosen," I agree with Biden.

The words she used, while not changing the official policy an inch, amount to saber rattling and were unhelpful.
Words matter in diplomacy. I know this is hard to understand after 7 years of sheer clusterfuck, but it's true.

[charlie]

29. How about "kick their hineyholes up around their necks"

Or maybe "Afghans and Iraqis will enjoy the world's largest parking lot." Let's get some WWE writers in on this, put some hairy chested BEEF into our international relations. Why not, as long as it accurately describes our policies?

There are reasons why policy pronouncements are made with measured understatement. Giving a candidate a chance to look like a two-fisted CinC isn't good enough reason to give them up.

[SIMPLYB1980]

31. Obama gives us "all options on the table" which we all know is code

for use of Nuclear weapons.

[anonymous171]

55. Or tough diplomacy, or conventional strikes.

[Renew Deal]

32. Biden is correct: "I think a better word could have been chosen"

That's the point of this whole thing. We're the US. We don't need to threaten to obliterate anyone.

[Tellurian]

70. Biden said it best in the last line of the OP

The end result..."obliteration" Hillery's term, which is correct.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[eridani]

40. Geez. Who could have known?

I mean, nobody in the rest of the world had the vaguest idea that the US accounts for more than half of the world total of military spending, has a thousand imperial bases all over the globe, and more nukes than anybody plus a first use policy. Good thing we had Clinton clue everybody in.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. Biden is a neo-lib. The softer, kinder, version of neo-con.

[Froward69]

42. Thank you Joe.

[ShortnFiery]

44. Biden was being gracious. HRC truly "stepped on it" and her statements are part of the reason

why the price of gasoline at the pumps remains high. She is *too much* and it shows. :(

[Leopolds Ghost]

64. The in-gracious thing to do would be torture them first

Before obliterating them, I guess. :shrug:

[futureliveshere]

46. Bah!! I am disappointed in Biden. This is a dumb line to take.

[anigbrowl]

71. What do you expect? Look, people need to wise up a bit...

I like Iran. I don't like the government that's in there, but I've got complex views about the country and I think that if we really worked at it they'd meet us half-way and in ten years we might have a fairly positive relationship with them much like we do with egypt.

Not only do I support Iran's right to have nuclear power, I support Iran's right to have nuclear weapons. I can see why they want a bomb - for their own security, like everyone else. It makes me nervous, but unless we can give them meaningful guarantees of their long-term security from us and our allied players in the region, they have a strong incentive to have a bomb for defensive purposes.

On the other hand, it's absolutely not cool for Iran to talk shit about Israel and open wish for their destruction or the death of all Jews. When they bait Israel in that way we should call them on it - and we should have the same standard towards Israel, and tell them that being in defensive mode all the time isn't a good way to conduct THEIR foreign policy.

Acknowledging the reality of foreign policy and saying that we're not going to stand idly by if our allies are attacked is perfectly reasonable, and Biden made that point very well.

you might want that we should renounce war and only ever talk about peace but the reality of geopolitics is that as a big country with interests around the globe, others will seek to test our resolve on a continual basis and sometimes threaten us. Refusing to face up to that or have a policy for it is just as stupid as living in the paranoid bubble that the neocons inhabit.

[SeaLyons]

47. Thanks Joe....where the hell have you been??

Hillary needed your voice.

[Clintonista2]

50. K&R I have always adored Joe.

[Forkboy]

52. He agrees with me. A better word could have been chosen, that's the whole point.

Diplomacy is a tricky business, and EVERY word carries import. She made a needlessly antagonistic choice of words, showing naivete in that area. The position itself is nothing new, and the argument about it being wrong or right is basically irrelevant to this discussion. It's about her choice of words, and they were a bad choice. Biden agrees.

[Leopolds Ghost]

66. You're right -- right and wrong are meaningless to the modern corporate state.

They exist to consume and aggrandize their own power within an
IMPOSED, deliberately amoral Machiavellian ideological framework.

Killing every last man, woman and child of the enemy is
old testament biblical justice -- which "enlignhtened"
secular liberals pretend to have gotten away from.

[kid a]

57. just what we need - ill chosen words from our "leaders" - been there, done that - no thanks

[iconicgnom]

59. the MAD argument

If the US or any nuclear armed country overtly declares that this country or that is an *enemy* (to be destroyed, of course), and refuses to talk to it, declaring that its army consists of *terrorists* ("terrorists" being the enemy in a "war on terror") and so on, then the MAD argument might be used by the target country to justify an attempt to obtain a nuclear deterrent.

That seems to be the reasoning of it: "If the countries both have nukes, neither will dare mount a preemptive attack on the other."

The MAD argument originated at a time when there was a so-called balance of nuclear power, coupled with a nuclear arms race. That was then. But now, when voiced by a nuclear aggressor state to strike terror in the hearts a non-nuclear "enemy" (read, "tactical bunker-buster nukes" etc. coupled with "axis of evil" etc.), the same argument doesn't reference a *balance* anymore. Moreover, when the nuclear aggressor state uses the argument, it uses it for the precise purpose to completely overturn any possibility of a balance of power, while maintaining a status-quo of absolute aggression, and ultimately to serve as a self-justification for a preemptive attack (to prevent the other from obtaining nukes).

I don't agree with Biden. I don't think Clinton stated a rational policy. I don't think she stated a policy at all, I think she sabre-rattled, unheeding of the possible negative effects. This kind of talk isn't fit for the 21st century.

[Leopolds Ghost]

69. Correct. Too bad many people on DU are too young/conservative/ignorant to comprehend & oppose MAD.

Reintroduction of MAD to Democratic Mainstream Foreign Policy in the
aftermath of the Cold War = criminal psychosis.

Still, it speaks to my theory that MAD is perfectly logical and leads
to one perfect and certain outcome -- inevitable planetary death or a
civilizational collapse profound enough to lose the technology.

Binary choice.

[WinkyDink]

61. I guess the Obama supporters have their own list of "bad Democrats".

[anigbrowl]

67. Biden made the same point as Clinton was trying to, but he built his context much more carefully

Two people can say the same thing, but depending on the context they build it can be inflammatory or it can be declarative. Bush is the perfect example - a lot of the time he's just stating the same policy that any US president would, that we won't tolerate this or that. But Bush seems to have a unique talent for putting it in such a way as to start a fight where none existed before.

It's the difference between being assertive and aggressive, just the way some cops embody 'serve and protect' while other cops come across as thugs in a uniform.

[Leopolds Ghost]

73. To decide whether MAD is deterrence or agression is meaningless to the dead babies.

Deterrence = revenge killing, like in Afghanistan. Pure magical thinking.

How many Iranians should die per victim of Iranian bombing attack?

All of them, as per Biden's ignorant comment?

(Ignorant about how nuclear war works, strange for a Cold War veteran)

We could do it as a percentage of the populastion for each nation.

Iran kills 10% of Israelis with an (imaginary, putative, used to
rhetorically justify preemptive agression by the US) nuclear sneak attack,

we retaliate by killing 10% of all Iranian babies... conventionally.

We invade the country and brand each baby methodically with hot irons.

Pure cause and effect, by the logic of mutual assured deterrence.

It is the same logic Biden is using, MINUS the hypocrisy of pretending
that our object is to ensure nukes never get used by saying "use them
to kill ME and I'll kill ALL your people with nukes."

The real object is to make ANY attack on the US or Israel unthinkable
by means of a standing threat to burn the enemy's babies alive.

[Hippo_Tron]

85. What would you suggest as an alternative to proportional responses?

[boppers]

72. Threatening all out nuclear war with Russia: Very dangerous.

Iran and Russia are allies.

Obliteration of Iran means global thermonuclear war, and Hillary should have known that.

Maybe she was just saber rattling, I should hope so. Even the death of a million people isn't worth sacrificing several billion people, and destroying much of the planet.

Yes, Iran has it's pundits and blowhards with little power, out there rattling sabers, but people in positions of actual power (or those vying for it) know how dangerous, and how stupid, such an escalation would be.

[hokies4ever]

78. You could tell that he didn't want to defend that statement

but felt obligated to do so to keep his 'undecided' status.

[JRicks_GA]

95. It's hard to defend a Republican attack on the Democratic Party...

when one of your own is parroting Republican hawkish language. You can't tell from the transcript, but looking at the video it looked like his hands were tied behind his back while trying to defend Democrats and dismissing the obliterate line from Clinton. The Republicans have hammered us on "mixed messages" crap in the past and we'll probably see it again.

[susankh4]

87. Yep. And besides... our VP had better be tough....

to allay fears about Obama's achille's heel.

Biden knows what he is doing.

And Hillary knew damned well what she was saying.

No apologies on this one, Hill!

[Zhade]

99. Nuking innocent civilians to punish their government is not rational, Biden.

Need I remind you that you endorsed a PNAC letter, asshole?

[Life Long Dem]

105. The media should have Joe Biden in the news more often.

He's being fair to Clinton.