Hillary Clinton: Sure, I'd NUKE Iran.

[Correction]

50 years of American nuclear proliferation and threat policy IS WRONG. Get it yet?

This point is IRRELEVANT to the fact that you completely misquoted/misunderstood what she said. Jesus fucking christ you just love to dodge what you wrote in the TITLE of your own thread, don't you?

The title of the thread states exactly what she would do given the chance, based on a quote from her own mouth. I didn't misquote or misunderstand ANYTHING.

She said she's use nuclear weapons against any country that used its own nuclear weapons to attack our allies.

You make it sound like she'd nuke iran at the first opportunity.

Stop being disingenuous about your intent with your OP. It's transparent and vile. So you don't like Hillary. I get it. Neither do I. So you don't like Nukes. I get it. Neither do I. But guess what, that's no license for you to misrepresent her words like some Sunday morning Fox News 'correspondent.'

In other words, say the things you mean and know to be true.

It's not a hard thing to ask for, honestly.

[Demosthenes11]

50 years of American nuclear proliferation and threat policy IS WRONG. Get it yet?

This point is IRRELEVANT to the fact that you completely misquoted/misunderstood what she said. Jesus fucking christ you just love to dodge what you wrote in the TITLE of your own thread, don't you?

The title of the thread states exactly what she would do given the chance, based on a quote from her own mouth. I didn't misquote or misunderstand ANYTHING.

I dont' usually make arbitrary posts to call someone an idiot, but what ya gonna do.

you're an idiot.

she is not saying she's going to just jump up and nuke Iran, she is saying that if they attack one of our allies WITH nuclear weapons we will respond in kind.

that is very different from what you're trying to say.

I don't think any of you get what I'[m trying to say, or where I stand on the issue of nuclear proliferation. So I'll say it again - NO ONE should use OR threaten to use them, NO ONE should create more, and what bombs are already made SHOULD BE DISMANTLED. From where I stand, ANYTHING AND ANYONE going beyond this is making the situation WORSE.

what fucking dream land do you live in?

[Day]

Meh, Eff it, I'll take OP's side. I seriously doubt this is first topic created in BG general that had a biased title... not that big of a deal honestly, he linked the interview and quoted the whole thing. I see what you guys are saying, but really if anyone's going to make up their mind about who to vote for over a thread title on BG, they were hopeless in the first place.

On topic, I see what she's saying, fight fire with fire and all that, but still was it neccesarry to say all that? I'm not sure, seems awful provoking, almost like throwing that out there as a bluff, "Do this and just see what happens" kind of thing.

[Correction]

No DON'T take the OP's side. He completely ignores the fact that Hillary's first step would be a diplomatic agreement. However, in the face of a failure of diplomacy + an aggressive act of nuclear war by Iran, she'd take the option that every president since Truman would have taken and use our nuclear arms in retaliation.

The OP lives in a fairy world where people are nice to each other all the time and weapons don't exist and we shouldn't use them and violence is bad m'kay. He's using a misquote as his soapbox and will only ever reapeat the 'nukes are bad' line as long as we feed this dire need for attention.

[archibaldcrane]

What I completely fail to understand is this:

In addition, if Iran were to become a nuclear power, it could set off an arms race that would be incredibly dangerous and destabilizing because the countries in the region are not going to want Iran to be the only nuclear power. So I can imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons themselves.

Since fucking when is Israel not part of "the region"? They have had nukes for years, if Iran managed to develop nukes they would JOIN Israel as a nuclear-equipped country in the region, not be the sole nuclear power.

[Melchiah]

I don't think any of you get what I'[m trying to say, or where I stand on the issue of nuclear proliferation. So I'll say it again - NO ONE should use OR threaten to use them, NO ONE should create more, and what bombs are already made SHOULD BE DISMANTLED. From where I stand, ANYTHING AND ANYONE going beyond this is making the situation WORSE.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*deep breath*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I've just been horribly horribly, epicly trolled/whooshed, right? This is an awesome joke, right?

Ok at this point I'd like to direct the OP's attention to the gun control discussion. We can draw a parallel between the two discussions on the following point:

You cannot uninvent the gun. Destroy every gun in the world, and yet you cannot snuff out the knowledge of how to create a gun.

Replace "gun" with "nuclear weapon" and the point is still valid. Regardless of whatever fairytale candyland you live in where what people should do is actually an attainable goal, the rest of us live on Earth with the rest of humanity. Iran is developing nuclear weaponry(so the intel suggests) and we aren't going to talk them out of it. So what exactly are you trying to say? We should dismantle all our nukes and kindly suggest that Iran do the same thing with a real expectation of compliance? Don't be simple.

@Archibald: I think what Hillary means is they wouldn't want Iran to be "the only non-ally, non-fundamentalist nation" in the region to reach nuclear power.

[Exoduso]

[quote=Demosthenes11]

50 years of American nuclear proliferation and threat policy IS WRONG. Get it yet?

This point is IRRELEVANT to the fact that you completely misquoted/misunderstood what she said. Jesus fucking christ you just love to dodge what you wrote in the TITLE of your own thread, don't you?

The title of the thread states exactly what she would do given the chance, based on a quote from her own mouth. I didn't misquote or misunderstand ANYTHING.

I dont' usually make arbitrary posts to call someone an idiot, but what ya gonna do.

you're an idiot.

she is not saying she's going to just jump up and nuke Iran, she is saying that if they attack one of our allies WITH nuclear weapons we will respond in kind.

that is very different from what you're trying to say.

I don't think any of you get what I'[m trying to say, or where I stand on the issue of nuclear proliferation. So I'll say it again - NO ONE should use OR threaten to use them, NO ONE should create more, and what bombs are already made SHOULD BE DISMANTLED. From where I stand, ANYTHING AND ANYONE going beyond this is making the situation WORSE.

what fucking dream land do you live in?[/quote:12d6iui7]

I was gonna say lol... someone's been watching too many movies. Shit ain't happening.

[Brill Weave]

Seriously does anyone ever actually read what they are posting? Nice to see our tax dollars working so well in the education system. /facepalm

[Brill Weave]

I do love how everyone is leaping to the defense of Israel when they are more than capable of defending themselves. Go Google the Six Day War. And don't forget that every single person in Israel that is of legal age, has served in their military. It's mandatory.

[Exoduso]

I do love how everyone is leaping to the defense of Israel when they are more than capable of defending themselves. Go Google the Six Day War. And don't forget that every single person in Israel that is of legal age, has served in their military. It's mandatory.

They have a pussy for a prime minister now, and I don't recall the arab nations using nuclear weapons against Israel in the 60's. It's a different ballgame.

[Kuya]

What I completely fail to understand is this:

In addition, if Iran were to become a nuclear power, it could set off an arms race that would be incredibly dangerous and destabilizing because the countries in the region are not going to want Iran to be the only nuclear power. So I can imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons themselves.

Since fucking when is Israel not part of "the region"? They have had nukes for years, if Iran managed to develop nukes they would JOIN Israel as a nuclear-equipped country in the region, not be the sole nuclear power.

The statement wasn't very specific, but she probably means any nation that isn't on very good terms with the US. Particularly the middle east since many there are quite the fundementalists.

And the title of this thread is misleading.

[Brill Weave]

But the Six Day War is also a prime example of Israel's attitude towards an inevitable attack. Which is to strike first. If it looks imminent, I will not be surprised at all if Israel launched the first nukes.

[Osede]

I imagine the standard response to ANY non-ally nation using a nuke would be for us to nuke them back. It'll at least be an option the people in charge will be considering I'm sure.

Fixed, and this is correct. I'm pretty sure every presidential candidate would say the same thing: if our enemies are willing to use nukes, so are we.

indeed, every countries that has the nuclear weapon are aiming each other already. So,basically if any one of them start a nuclear weapon attack, it is pretty sure that there will be chain nuclear weapon attack from all of the countries thought >.>

The answer from Hilary is fine, there isn't any wrong on the nuclear weapon attack response.

[Xavier]

What I completely fail to understand is this:

In addition, if Iran were to become a nuclear power, it could set off an arms race that would be incredibly dangerous and destabilizing because the countries in the region are not going to want Iran to be the only nuclear power. So I can imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons themselves.

Since fucking when is Israel not part of "the region"? They have had nukes for years, if Iran managed to develop nukes they would JOIN Israel as a nuclear-equipped country in the region, not be the sole nuclear power.

An educated guess would be that she meant "Islamic / Middle Eastern" nuclear power, which I assume most people will agree that Israel, while in the same geographical region, does not identify with. However, I still don't think what she said was very accurate, Pakistan (India too) already has nuclear weapons. I agree with her though that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria, etc, would feel a lot of pressure to develop weapons of their own.

----------------------------------

The title of the thread states exactly what she would do given the chance, based on a quote from her own mouth. I didn't misquote or misunderstand ANYTHING.

Can you point to the place in the article where she says "Sure, I'd nuke Iran."? Because I don't see her saying that, so the subject is a summary, and a misleading summary at that. She only voiced our foreign policy with nuclear weapons of the past 60 years, mutually assured destruction. She did not say, anywhere in the article, that she would nuke Iran, she said that if Iran were to nuke Israel, America would respond with an attack on Iran.

how productive is it to threaten another government into a position where they will DELIBERATELY research and create such weapons?!

What did she say that would cause Iran to develop nuclear weapons? How does our policy of nuclear retaliation in response to a nuclear attack in any way push Iran to develop nuclear weapons? The entire policy is for the sake of prevention, as no rational actor would risk their own absolute destruction.

50 years of American nuclear proliferation and threat policy IS WRONG. Get it yet?

In those 50 years, how many nuclear attacks have their been? Since the Cold War ended, have we not been dismantling our nuclear arsenal? She didn't even threaten nuclear weapons in the face of aggression, only as a response to a nuclear attack from another country.

Go hug a tree or something.

[Exoduso]

But the Six Day War is also a prime example of Israel's attitude towards an inevitable attack. Which is to strike first. If it looks imminent, I will not be surprised at all if Israel launched the first nukes.

Don't count on it.

[Brill Weave]

Xavier is correct. Not a single word was mentioned in said interview about the usage of nuclear weapons. If you're basing your comments on something that wasn't actually said then you should probably stop now.

[Exoduso]

Xavier is correct. Not a single word was mentioned in said interview about the usage of nuclear weapons. If you're basing your comments on something that wasn't actually said then you should probably stop now.

Hence why the title is misleading and the OP living in a bubble.

[archibaldcrane]

I'd be surprised if Israel doesn't bomb an Iranian nuclear facility before it becomes fully operational.
It's happened before. (The U.S. ironically condemned the pre-emptive strike at the time by the way)

It's been lightly reported that such a pre-emptive strike has already been turned back while in progress by the US Air Force once. (I don't know whether these reports are true or not, and make no claim to their voracity).

[Demosthenes11]

But the Six Day War is also a prime example of Israel's attitude towards an inevitable attack. Which is to strike first. If it looks imminent, I will not be surprised at all if Israel launched the first nukes.

HUGE leap in logic. You can't equate aggression to nukes.

[Khamsin]

NO. Just no, Hillary. Having you in a position to hold your finger to the button is something this world cannot afford.

If Truman could do it, why not Hillary? Did anyone criticize us for nuking Japan, when they never used any nuclear weapons themselves? Why start now?

But at least this time, it'd be relatilation in kind rather than us making the initial (nuclear) strike.