Post by: 280plus on April 22, 2008, 11:14:55 AM
By David Morgan 2 hours, 28 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.
On the day of a crucial vote in her nomination battle against fellow Democrat Barack Obama, the New York senator said she wanted to make clear to Tehran what she was prepared to do as president in hopes that this warning would deter any Iranian nuclear attack against the Jewish state.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.
"That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said.
Her comments appeared harder than a week ago, when during a presidential debate she promised "massive retaliation" against any Iranian attack on Israel.
Obama rejected Clinton's rhetoric as saber rattling on a day when Pennsylvania Democrats voted in a party primary contest that could help decide which Democrat will face Republican John McCain for the White House in the November general election.
"One of the things that we've seen over the last several years is a bunch of talk using words like 'obliterate,"' Obama, an Illinois senator, said in a separate ABC interview. "It doesn't actually produce good results. And so I'm not interested in saber rattling."
CONTRADICTION ACCUSATION
The Obama campaign also issued a statement saying Clinton was contradicting her remarks at an August debate, where Obama spoke in favor of taking unilateral military action in Pakistan if the United States had actionable intelligence on the whereabouts of senior al Qaeda members.
Clinton had said she did not believe "people running for president should engage in hypotheticals" and called it a mistake "to telegraph" what U.S. strategy might be at a time of unrest inside Pakistan.
At a Tuesday news conference in the Philadelphia suburb of Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, Clinton said the question of Iran merited hypothetical discussion because a nuclear Tehran would require straightforward Cold War-style deterrence. "It's a question not of what might be on or off the table," she said.
Meanwhile, Obama said he would respond "forcefully and swiftly" to an Iranian attack against Israel or any other U.S. ally, whether conventional or nuclear.
Iran, which Washington and its allies charge is seeking nuclear arms, has voiced war-like rhetoric in recent years amid speculation its nuclear facilities could face U.S. or Israeli military action.
Tehran denies it is trying to acquire nuclear weapons and says it needs nuclear technology to generate electricity.
Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons but, as part of a policy of "strategic ambiguity," has not confirmed or denied the nature of its arsenal.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad outraged the international community in 2005 by saying "Israel should be wiped off the map." A week ago, a senior Iranian army commander said Iran would "eliminate" Israel in response to any military attack from the Jewish state.
(Additional reporting by Jeff Mason in Conshohocken; Editing by Eric Walsh and Bill Trott)
Post by: Bogie on April 22, 2008, 11:16:16 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on April 22, 2008, 11:18:03 AM
We've been able to turn any nation into glass since the early part of the 1950's. They know that.
Saying "We can do it! We will!" comes across as someone bragging that they've got a gun. The one to be feared by the bad guys is the one who you know has a concealed weapon, but will never draw it unless they need to...and if they do, they won't miss.
Post by: Brad Johnson on April 22, 2008, 11:23:11 AM
Brad
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 22, 2008, 11:24:52 AM
Post by: 280plus on April 22, 2008, 11:27:28 AM
Post by: Ezekiel on April 22, 2008, 02:00:09 PM
Post by: rocinante on April 22, 2008, 03:30:47 PM
I do believe Hillary would push a button while Obama is still fretting and singing Kumbaya.
Post by: gunsmith on April 22, 2008, 05:16:53 PM
Post by: commygun on April 22, 2008, 07:10:14 PM
Post by: seeker_two on April 23, 2008, 01:30:03 AM
Shouldn't she have been banging her shoe on the table while she was saying this?
Not if you knew what she spends on shoes.....
Post by: Sergeant Bob on April 23, 2008, 01:43:38 AM
Post by: gunsmith on April 23, 2008, 02:42:48 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on April 23, 2008, 04:16:12 AM
I am pretty certain we could totally obliterate any country TODAY. What is this in ten year business?
We've been able to since we had ICBMs in the duck-and-cover era, and even before that, with the SAC B-52's.
As of now, nobody knows where the boomers are cruising beneath the sea. They could be off the coast of Iran for all they know, and they know they don't know.
That's why bragging isn't necessary. The fact that we can nuke anyone has been a fact since the 1950's. Nobody doubts that. Hillary was doing the equivalent of a loon yelling "I have a gun! I can use it! Don't mess with me, man, I'll shoot ya!"...
Post by: AmbulanceDriver on April 23, 2008, 04:50:24 AM
Yeah, I know it's not realistic. Expensive, and someone would throw a hissy fit...
But it would definitely be eye-opening.
Post by: MicroBalrog on April 23, 2008, 04:56:28 AM
Note Israel has four submarines which are rumoured to be nuclear-capable. Even if Iran strikes first and destroys us all, they're still screwed.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 23, 2008, 05:01:39 AM
Interestingly, Fuad made the same announcements about Iran recently.
Note Israel has four submarines which are rumoured to be nuclear-capable. Even if Iran strikes first and destroys us all, they're still screwed.
Note Israel has four submarines which are rumoured to be nuclear-capable. Even if Iran strikes first and destroys us all, they're still screwed.
Oh, I don't think it'd take that long. Call it a hunch, but I think if Iran ever decided to do an all-out attack on Israel, they'd have no ground launch assets left but mobile launchers within an hour or so.
The US knows where all their satellite-observable fixed assets are, which means all the cruise missile platforms have target coordinates. If it was at night, the view from space of Iran would probably suddenly look like sparks of burning iron filings across it as site after site was hit by incoming cruise missiles.
They know that, too.
Post by: yesitsloaded on April 23, 2008, 05:41:42 AM
Post by: De Selby on April 23, 2008, 04:40:02 PM
Frankly, I think anytime some nations leadership gets as crazy as Iran's has, we oughta have a boomer sneak in nice and close, pop a cruise missile out and just leaflet wherever he happens to be with "knock it off, or the next one is for real".
Yeah, I know it's not realistic. Expensive, and someone would throw a hissy fit...
But it would definitely be eye-opening.
Yeah, I know it's not realistic. Expensive, and someone would throw a hissy fit...
But it would definitely be eye-opening.
Yep-it exponentially increases the risk that rather than wait for us to obliterate them, our nuclear armed enemies will just strike first and take their chances at wiping out the arsenal in a surprise attack, or at least crippling enough to survive the retaliation.
First strike threats involving nuclear weapons is the kind of insanity that will make humanity go extinct.
Post by: De Selby on April 23, 2008, 04:43:25 PM
Interestingly, Fuad made the same announcements about Iran recently.
Note Israel has four submarines which are rumoured to be nuclear-capable. Even if Iran strikes first and destroys us all, they're still screwed.
Note Israel has four submarines which are rumoured to be nuclear-capable. Even if Iran strikes first and destroys us all, they're still screwed.
Oh, I don't think it'd take that long. Call it a hunch, but I think if Iran ever decided to do an all-out attack on Israel, they'd have no ground launch assets left but mobile launchers within an hour or so.
The US knows where all their satellite-observable fixed assets are, which means all the cruise missile platforms have target coordinates. If it was at night, the view from space of Iran would probably suddenly look like sparks of burning iron filings across it as site after site was hit by incoming cruise missiles.
They know that, too.
Note that this was also the theory behind the war with Hizbullah-that air power was going to obliterate all their resources within hours and that they'd be humiliated into submission and incapable of retaliation.
Look how that one turned out-but hey, I guess the vastly better armed and likely far better organized and trained Iranian forces will be a different story.
An interesting question on top of this-if these guys are so easy for us to wipe out, why are they "the greatest threat to world security" and "set to wipe out the nation of Israel"? How is it that you can brag on one hand of being able to wipe out their puny forces in a matter of hours, but then to turn around and say that war has to be carried out imminently or we risk the end of civilization as we know it from their attacks?
Post by: yesitsloaded on April 23, 2008, 04:44:08 PM
In "Rocket Ship Galileo by Heinlen, the people on the moon killed themselves in an atomic war. Just threw that one in there for fun.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 23, 2008, 05:45:38 PM
Interestingly, Fuad made the same announcements about Iran recently.
Note Israel has four submarines which are rumoured to be nuclear-capable. Even if Iran strikes first and destroys us all, they're still screwed.
Note Israel has four submarines which are rumoured to be nuclear-capable. Even if Iran strikes first and destroys us all, they're still screwed.
Oh, I don't think it'd take that long. Call it a hunch, but I think if Iran ever decided to do an all-out attack on Israel, they'd have no ground launch assets left but mobile launchers within an hour or so.
The US knows where all their satellite-observable fixed assets are, which means all the cruise missile platforms have target coordinates. If it was at night, the view from space of Iran would probably suddenly look like sparks of burning iron filings across it as site after site was hit by incoming cruise missiles.
They know that, too.
Note that this was also the theory behind the war with Hizbullah-that air power was going to obliterate all their resources within hours and that they'd be humiliated into submission and incapable of retaliation.
Look how that one turned out-but hey, I guess the vastly better armed and likely far better organized and trained Iranian forces will be a different story.
An interesting question on top of this-if these guys are so easy for us to wipe out, why are they "the greatest threat to world security" and "set to wipe out the nation of Israel"? How is it that you can brag on one hand of being able to wipe out their puny forces in a matter of hours, but then to turn around and say that war has to be carried out imminently or we risk the end of civilization as we know it from their attacks?
Hezbollah, being shameless cowards, used human shields and put their emplacements atop occupied buildings, just like Hamas.
They also put them in ancient monuments built by people Hezbollah would not be worthy to clean the sewers of.
Israel exercised restraint. Would you rather they had carpet-bombed? Turned Beruit into Guernica? They could have. But they're better than that.
Post by: De Selby on April 23, 2008, 06:03:44 PM
Interestingly, Fuad made the same announcements about Iran recently.
Note Israel has four submarines which are rumoured to be nuclear-capable. Even if Iran strikes first and destroys us all, they're still screwed.
Note Israel has four submarines which are rumoured to be nuclear-capable. Even if Iran strikes first and destroys us all, they're still screwed.
Oh, I don't think it'd take that long. Call it a hunch, but I think if Iran ever decided to do an all-out attack on Israel, they'd have no ground launch assets left but mobile launchers within an hour or so.
The US knows where all their satellite-observable fixed assets are, which means all the cruise missile platforms have target coordinates. If it was at night, the view from space of Iran would probably suddenly look like sparks of burning iron filings across it as site after site was hit by incoming cruise missiles.
They know that, too.
Note that this was also the theory behind the war with Hizbullah-that air power was going to obliterate all their resources within hours and that they'd be humiliated into submission and incapable of retaliation.
Look how that one turned out-but hey, I guess the vastly better armed and likely far better organized and trained Iranian forces will be a different story.
An interesting question on top of this-if these guys are so easy for us to wipe out, why are they "the greatest threat to world security" and "set to wipe out the nation of Israel"? How is it that you can brag on one hand of being able to wipe out their puny forces in a matter of hours, but then to turn around and say that war has to be carried out imminently or we risk the end of civilization as we know it from their attacks?
Hezbollah, being shameless cowards, used human shields and put their emplacements atop occupied buildings, just like Hamas.
They also put them in ancient monuments built by people Hezbollah would not be worthy to clean the sewers of.
Israel exercised restraint. Would you rather they had carpet-bombed? Turned Beruit into Guernica? They could have. But they're better than that.
Wait, so you actually know of instances where Israel did not bomb known launching sites because of civilians??? Can you name one such place?
Weird-the last reports I saw showed most of the country having been hit, most towns in the south nearly leveled, and a few million mines distributed randomly throughout the south in the last five days of the war.
But yeah, you can believe that Israel did not bomb launchers if you want....just can't find any evidence to support the belief, that's the problem. They did indeed turn every place in Beirut that had Hizbullah supporters into dust-take a look at photos of Dahiyah or any of the other *expletive deleted*it neighborhoods in any city in Lebanon. They were all destroyed.
The American University of Beirut and the "march 14th" neighborhoods were the only ones left untouched-but of course, all of that is irrelevant to your claim, because Beirut was not in launching range...there wasn't a single rocket launched from that city during the entire war, because no rocket possessed by Hizbullah can reach from Beirut to Israel.
Facts my friend-they make our ideologies inconvenient.
Edit:
Some links to illustrate the point:
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/07/21/PH2006072101660.jpg
That's what the *expletive deleted*it neighborhood in Beirut looks like.
http://maic.jmu.edu/research/factsheets/lebanon.htm
Quote
Over 830 cluster munition strike sites with up to one million unexploded submunitions are estimated, covering over 34 million square meters (8,400 acres) as of January 8, 2006 (United Nations Mine Action Coordination Centre-South Lebanon: Source 1, Source 2).
Post by: Manedwolf on April 24, 2008, 03:53:47 AM
What next? Al-Qaeda?
Keep away from D8 bulldozers...
Post by: Werewolf on April 24, 2008, 11:31:08 AM
Are we sure that Ahmadinejad would consider our nukes a deterrent? Are we sure he wouldn't nuke Israel anyway?
No one can be sure what a madman will do.
But if I had to bet I'd bet he'd nuke Israel if he had the weapons to do it and then thumb his nose at the US and dare us to retaliate counting on world opinion to stop us based on the western notion that 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Post by: De Selby on April 24, 2008, 04:37:52 PM
SS has reached a new low. He not only defends Hamas at the drop of a kaffiyeh, but also Hezbollah now, too.
What next? Al-Qaeda?
Keep away from D8 bulldozers...
What next? Al-Qaeda?
Keep away from D8 bulldozers...
Notice the complete and total lack of facts or a response in the post there.
What I defend is making truthful claims about these matters-that's tough to do when some people are intent on pushing an agenda, and will ignore any amount of reason or fact in doing so.
Post by: doc2rn on April 24, 2008, 05:33:17 PM
Post by: K Frame on April 25, 2008, 08:16:41 PM
Post by: Aaryq on April 25, 2008, 11:59:03 PM
Post by: grampster on April 26, 2008, 03:22:41 AM
We can go back and forth on this all day...Israel did this, Hamas did that, but the fact remains that the aggressor here is not Israel. Israel has as much claim to the territory as anyone living there now. That is reality. Dead people can claim nothing. The living can choose peace. Israel has stated their willingness to be peaceful to the point of displacing their own citizens and pulling back from land. Arabs have lived, are living and are peaceful citizens in Israel. To say that something that happened 60 years ago is a valid reason to continue killing, maiming and destroying and never gaining anything except more death, maiming and destruction is insane. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. That kind of behavior is not in short supply in the region. It appears reaping as you sow is a valid statement.
Those who defend the Arab side of this should realize it's long past the time to cease defending that position and call for civilized behavior. Nothing has been accomplished so far but more death and carnage. Those who have eyes to see should use them.
Post by: Werewolf on April 26, 2008, 07:28:53 AM
Quote
To say that something that happened 60 years ago is a valid reason to continue killing, maiming and destroying and never gaining anything except more death, maiming and destruction is insane.
60 years is nothing. those folks still hold a grudge over the crusades.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 26, 2008, 07:40:51 AM
Quote
To say that something that happened 60 years ago is a valid reason to continue killing, maiming and destroying and never gaining anything except more death, maiming and destruction is insane.
60 years is nothing. those folks still hold a grudge over the crusades. The supposed reason why the Sunni and Shi'a keep slaughtering each other is even older than that.