Clinton goes Neocon (as in Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran)

Thomas wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Well, the Democrats can always reject her in favor of Obama. Thus we can substitute an invasion of Pakistan for nuclear retaliation against Iran.

1) An invasion isn't the same as total obliteration by a nuclear attack.

2) What Obama proposed was a small-scale operation, narrowly tailored to take out Osama Bin Laden. He didn't give details at the time, but it sounded much like the mission that took out Noriega in Panama.

I don't like what Obama proposed either, but I dislike it much less than what I'm hearing from Clinton today.

Since I left for the store, Thomas said this. I agree. (adding that she said it as a campaign move, which drives me nuts, but they all do the pander to some extent or other. We have argued about who does more.) But I'm very qualmy about militarily going into Pakistan in any way, never mind invasion versus obliteration. Talk about war mongering, re talk of iran obliteration.

I am now fully disgusted.

Also, who asked this question and was it a set up?

0 Replies

Did you see the gutsy broad's eyes on the word "obliterate"?

That was enough to give Rattleajambottle pause for thought.

0 Replies

I edited and was too late, so here -

Since I left for the store, Thomas said this. I agree. (adding that she said it as a campaign move, which drives me nuts, but they all do the pander to some extent or other. We have argued about who does more.) But I'm very qualmy about militarily going into Pakistan in any way, never mind invasion versus obliteration. Talk about war mongering, re talk of iran obliteration. The people and the place - the people don't all agree with their government, and the place, Iran , as Iraq, is precious in world history. Obliterate? How unleashed is that? And we have already interfered with their government. Who do we think we are?

I am now fully disgusted.

Also, who asked this question and was it a set up?

0 Replies

Some anchor at ABC's "Good Morning America". If the network has a reputation for ambushing candidates, I haven't heard of it yet.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

BPB wrote-

Quote:
how about Great Britain.... we'll be wanting the Falklands now what with that oil and all...

You could take them anytime you got your bottle up for it.

oh no not me personally... I'm a peace loving anti war hippie...

0 Replies

Evidently it started with asking her to expand on/ clarify remarks she made at the last debate. The question was, "Does massive retaliation mean you would go into Iran, you would bomb Iran? Is that what that's supposed to suggest?"

Video and partial transcript here:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/22/932411.aspx

0 Replies

There was a certain debate.. The station does have a rep of bias, but I have no clue how biased that observed rep of bias is.
I can see it could well be a legitimate question, given some recent quote I think I saw by her.

0 Replies

Well, I agree with a lot of folks who posted during my venture at Albertson's.

Apologies, if appropriate, if I questioned the question, re set up. I've been primed for that, y'know.

Interesting. I wonder if the reaction to the question/answer will send the state on her side over the top of expected? Thinking of the denouements possible.

Or not.

0 Replies

Thinking, queen of politics as expurgative.

And, remember, I've only gradually been moving towards Obama, though I was more interested in him than Clinton at the start, among the several. I have up until today been ready to vote for her versus McCain, or whomever the Republicans put up, if she should win the nomination which I wish for Obama.

Now I think both she and McCain are nuts. I still might vote one over the other, but it will be a sincere pain, if that comes to pass. I sincerely hope not.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Obama didn't propose an invasion over West Pakistan into the rest of the country. The scenario he had laid out was that the US learns about the cave bin Laden is hiding in, and that it's near the Afghan border in West Pakistan Bin. It then starts a search-and-whatever-the-opposite-of-rescue-is operation, I'm guessing maybe a few hundred men, which may or may not succeed in arresting or killing Bin Laden. That's a Panama-sized scenario, a mere extension of things the US is already seems to be doing, and Islamabad already seems to be tacitly tolerating.

It's a bit awkward for me to defend a proposal that I have already said (twice) I don't like.

Well, we are already doing things equivalent to what you have described. Nothing at all new there.

My understanding is that Obama indicated his willingness to do "strategically significant" (as opposed to Iraq) things in Pakistan with respect to al queda, that our current Iraq entanglement precludes. That clearly implies a lot more than some small covert operation. This was either a cynical distortion or an indicator of serious folly with respect to national strategy - one more or less equivalent to Hillary's foolish statement.

Both candidates were distorting facts and pandering for political advantage in a way that suggests that either they are stupid and ill-informed, or they think that we are.

I think you are working extra hard to find some daylight between Hillary's statement and Obama's - when in fact there is none to be found.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

My understanding is that Obama indicated his willingness to do "strategically significant" (as opposed to Iraq) things in Pakistan with respect to al queda, that our current Iraq entanglement precludes.

That's not my understanding, and I think you're mixing up two distinct projects.

My understanding is that Obama wants to free up soldiers and resources in Iraq (which is lost, although he doesn't say it that clearly), and use them to turn around Afghanistan, which America still has a fighting chance to do. This is project one. It's strategically important, resource-intensive, and barred by America's being stuck in Iraq.

The operations I described are project two. If I described them correctly, they are just a modest extension of what's already happening anyway -- as you say yourself. This is project two; it's a sideshow in terms of military resources, and is not the reason Obama wants to free up soldiers and resources in Iraq. If there is cynicism here, it's in Obama's insinuating, without technically saying, "getting out of Iraq" means "bringing the troups home". He doesn't intend to do that, at least not on a large scale anytime soon. In that, he's similarly dishonest as Clinton.

Do I understand Obama correctly? I think I do, but I don't have time right now to dig through his speeches and his platform. Has anybody else got material, or pointers to it? If I was wrong, I'll be happy to be corrected.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote-

Quote:

My understanding is that Obama wants to free up soldiers and resources in Iraq (which is lost, although he doesn't say it that clearly), and use them to turn around Afghanistan, which America still has a fighting chance to do. This is project one. It's strategically important, resource-intensive, and barred by America's being stuck in Iraq.

Don't move from the armchair Thomas.

0 Replies

Excerpt:

(CNN) -- The Iranian government is protesting remarks from Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton -- who said the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran if it made a nuclear attack on Israel, an Iranian news outlet reported on Thursday.
art.clinton.nc.gi.jpg

Iran has protested to the U.N. about Hillary Clinton's comments on the U.S. response should Iran attack Israel

The state-run Islamic Republic News Agency said Iran sent a letter of protest, dated Wednesday, to the United Nations and the U.N. Security Council over remarks it calls "provocative, unwarranted and irresponsible."

Clinton told ABC's "Good Morning America" that "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacked Israel)."

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," Clinton said.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/01/clinton.iran/

0 Replies

My aprehension is this.
USA had damaged its image enough.
No more war.
Iran is not alone nor a country which project illegal war.
Ask the decent adviser before launching any barbaric war.
Barbarism took place on 11th september in the early morning with all kind of photos.
Enough
Enough
Enough
Enough please

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

He is also accused of having used them against his own people (that account is disputed, but if Habibi reads this, he'll be in to swear it's the truth, and that i'm peddling conservative propaganda).

Quote:

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1148.htm

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Clinton didn't announce prompt and overwhelming use of force. She announced total obliteration.

In the context of a nuclear war, "overwhelming use of force" = "obliteration".

Thomas wrote:

That would, if executed, be a departure from traditional US foreign policy. And a big one at that.

Bearing in mind that she was talking about retaliation for a nuclear attack on an ally, there is no departure whatsoever.

The notion that anyone would find it unacceptable to retaliate against Iran this way only strengthens the argument that we need to bomb Iran now before they develop nukes.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The fact is the Israelis have their own nuclear deterrent, and the last thing we should ever do is announce or even imply that ours is at all involved.

Israel's nuclear arsenal is deficient in a number of ways.

Should Iran ever manage to develop nukes, we should ditch (or at least violate) the NPT and provide Israel with a massive upgrade of their nuclear weapons so they can properly defend themselves against Iranian aggression.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Well, the Democrats can always reject her in favor of Obama. Thus we can substitute an invasion of Pakistan for nuclear retaliation against Iran.

1) An invasion isn't the same as total obliteration by a nuclear attack.

2) What Obama proposed was a small-scale operation, narrowly tailored to take out Osama Bin Laden. He didn't give details at the time, but it sounded much like the mission that took out Noriega in Panama.

I don't like what Obama proposed either, but I dislike it much less than what I'm hearing from Clinton today.

What is wrong with what Obama proposed? After 9/11, the US has every right to attack and invade any place that Osama or Zawahiri is hiding.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

Thomas wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Well, the Democrats can always reject her in favor of Obama. Thus we can substitute an invasion of Pakistan for nuclear retaliation against Iran.

1) An invasion isn't the same as total obliteration by a nuclear attack.

2) What Obama proposed was a small-scale operation, narrowly tailored to take out Osama Bin Laden. He didn't give details at the time, but it sounded much like the mission that took out Noriega in Panama.

I don't like what Obama proposed either, but I dislike it much less than what I'm hearing from Clinton today.

What is wrong with what Obama proposed? After 9/11, the US has every right to attack and invade any place that Osama or Zawahiri is hiding.

I do not believe that what you have stated is, in fact, factual.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

What is wrong with what Obama proposed? After 9/11, the US has every right to attack and invade any place that Osama or Zawahiri is hiding.

Really? Suppose the CIA found out tonight that Osama Bin Laden is hiding in Canada. Would that give the US the right to invade Canada?

0 Replies

Clinton goes Neocon (as in Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know