Hillary Clinton: Sure, I'd NUKE Iran.

[Brill Weave]

Don't count on it.

I will agree that Olmert is not the one that I would want running the show if I lived in Israel. But because he is such a weak PM, he would buckle under public pressure if an attack was imminent and make the first move.

[Brill Weave]

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

Hence why I usually only post in spam :ashira:

[Xavier]

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.

Israel is widely believed to of had nuclear weapons as early as 1967, and as you well know, none were used in the Six Day War. I've always wondered what might of happened if Israel had been facing defeat, if they would of detonated a bomb as a last ditch effort, but its impossible to ever know, and there is doubt over whether they had any weapons ready at the time of the war anyway.

The Six Day War was not a clearly defined act of aggression by either side. Egypt moved 100,000 soldiers and a massive amount of tanks to the Israel border, and called for a united Arab movement against them. They had been clearly threatened and a military strike seemed eminent, so they struck first, destroying a nearly defenseless (but relatively new, well armed and would have been highly destructive to Israel in the air) Egyptian Air Force in a single blow.

Israel definitely isn't blameless, but they weren't the sole aggressor and their preemptive attack saved thousands of Israel lives. However, I think Israel can take care of itself, there isn't any reason for America to save them.

[Demosthenes11]

Disagree

There are way too many countries that would love to see Israel "wiped off the map," especially in that region
America would need to step in before other countries tried to follow suit

[Exoduso]

Disagree

There are way too many countries that would love to see Israel "wiped off the map," especially in that region
America would need to step in before other countries tried to follow suit

Exactly. The only reason no one's attacking Israel is because of the US' support.

[Brill Weave]

Exactly. The only reason no one's attacking Israel is because of the US' support.

I disagree on this one. While U.S. support is a huge deterrent, what country would want to be the first to attack Israel? To be perfectly blunt, Iran and Pakistan at this point are the only two countries(in my view) they would be able to attack Israel and complete destroy it's infrastructure to the point where they wouldn't be able to recover.

They full well know that the response from Israel would most likely involve nuclear weapons. So it kind of weighs out like this.

Do you want to wipe Israel off the map so badly that you risk destroying your own country's ability to function due to a nuclear response?

[Demosthenes11]

Exactly. The only reason no one's attacking Israel is because of the US' support.

I disagree on this one. While U.S. support is a huge deterrent, what country would want to be the first to attack Israel? To be perfectly blunt, Iran and Pakistan at this point are the only two countries(in my view) they would be able to attack Israel and complete destroy it's infrastructure to the point where they wouldn't be able to recover.

They full well know that the response from Israel would most likely involve nuclear weapons. So it kind of weighs out like this.

Do you want to wipe Israel off the map so badly that you risk destroying your own country's ability to function due to a nuclear response?

you are asking this to countries with fundamentalists (much like Iran's leader) blowing themselves up in the name of their religion.

[SupHammer]

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.

their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States

I see no other way of interpreting that. Seems to me she's saying she would nuke Iran.

[Artful Dodger]

Exactly. The only reason no one's attacking Israel is because of the US' support.

I disagree on this one. While U.S. support is a huge deterrent, what country would want to be the first to attack Israel? To be perfectly blunt, Iran and Pakistan at this point are the only two countries(in my view) they would be able to attack Israel and complete destroy it's infrastructure to the point where they wouldn't be able to recover.

They full well know that the response from Israel would most likely involve nuclear weapons. So it kind of weighs out like this.

Do you want to wipe Israel off the map so badly that you risk destroying your own country's ability to function due to a nuclear response?

sadly yes, they would prefer the jews to live in the sea

[Jaybar]

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.

their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States

I see no other way of interpreting that. Seems to me she's saying she would nuke Iran.

Yes, but out of retaliation. If it were Pakistan nuking Israel, then the quote could easily replace Iran with Pakistan.

The problem with the Title of this thread is that it made Hilary say she'd nuke Iran but without reason. However, in the whole article, Hilary would nuke Iran if and only if Iran had nuked Israel.

[Brill Weave]

you are asking this to countries with fundamentalists (much like Iran's leader) blowing themselves up in the name of their religion.

I understand what you are saying but I think you're missing my point. If you look at the size of the countries that we are talking about(physically, not population wise, strictly landmass) none of them are particularly large. Several nuclear weapons landing in any one particular country would come extremely close to wiping the map clean, period.

The end results would be the deaths of how many millions of people, the vast majority being civilians who are not active participants in our theoretical "war." It would completely destroy whatever country attacked.

No civilians = no workforce = no money being generated = deterioration of military = deterioration of government influence = slow but sure death of a country.

At least that's the way I see it

[SupHammer]

Yes, but out of retaliation. If it were Pakistan nuking Israel, then the quote could easily replace Iran with Pakistan.

The problem with the Title of this thread is that it made Hilary say she'd nuke Iran but without reason. However, in the whole article, Hilary would nuke Iran if and only if Iran had nuked Israel.

Oh I know that. I was gonna add a small text saying something to that effect. Then I got lazy and decided I don't care that much.

[sunb1ind]

Didn't read all the replies to the thread. You guys are wasting alot of time and missing the picture anyways debating about this retarded article. Its like one big ass distraction from the main issues. They don't want you to actually discuss how both candidate's are virtually the same when it comes to foreign relations, among numerous other topics.

Both of the primary candidates positions say the same thing in terms of Iraq and Iran, they just choose different window dressings. Ignoring this shell game you guys are debating about between Iran and Israel, both candidates have said 'everything is on the table' if Iran poses a "threat" to us(that's code for nukes).

Neither one of our candidates have an actual withdrawal plan(in detail) for Iraq and neither one of them voted against the Lieberman bill(Hilary voted for it) that was laid out to give our govt the greenlight in going to war with Iran.

Fuck diplomacy, this shit makes better movies guys

[Souj]

Didn't read all the replies to the thread. You guys are wasting alot of time and missing the picture anyways debating about this retarded article. Its like one big ass distraction from the main issues. They don't want you to actually discuss how both candidate's are virtually the same when it comes to foreign relations, among numerous other topics.

Both of the primary candidates positions say the same thing in terms of Iraq and Iran, they just choose different window dressings. Ignoring this shell game you guys are debating about between Iran and Israel, both candidates have said 'everything is on the table' if Iran poses a "threat" to us(that's code for nukes).

Neither one of our candidates have an actual withdrawal plan(in detail) for Iraq and neither one of them voted against the Lieberman bill(Hilary voted for it) that was laid out to give our govt the greenlight in going to war with Iran.

Fuck diplomacy, this shit makes better movies guys

Obama gave hillary the finger on national TV!!

[sunb1ind]

Aww, she can't be mad at him forever though....

[Ryushii]

My problem with this thread (besides the overly mentioned "OP is ignorant") is that Hillary is singled out. Yes, the article was in her name, but honestly, if Hillary would do it, so would Obama or McCain. This isn't something that is Hillary policy, it's our executive branch's policy, period. Disagree with it all you want, but don't let your hatred of Hillary allow you to ignore the fact that every other candidate believes the exact same thing.

[Brill Weave]

Who's hating on Hillary exactly?

[Correction]

My problem with this thread (besides the overly mentioned "OP is ignorant") is that Hillary is singled out. Yes, the article was in her name, but honestly, if Hillary would do it, so would Obama or McCain. This isn't something that is Hillary policy, it's our executive branch's policy, period. Disagree with it all you want, but don't let your hatred of Hillary allow you to ignore the fact that every other candidate believes the exact same thing.

Did you not read page 2?

Or are you just trying to make as many "I love hillary" posts in an hour as you can?

[Kuya]

Didn't read all the replies to the thread. You guys are wasting alot of time and missing the picture anyways debating about this retarded article. Its like one big ass distraction from the main issues. They don't want you to actually discuss how both candidate's are virtually the same when it comes to foreign relations, among numerous other topics.

Both of the primary candidates positions say the same thing in terms of Iraq and Iran, they just choose different window dressings. Ignoring this shell game you guys are debating about between Iran and Israel, both candidates have said 'everything is on the table' if Iran poses a "threat" to us(that's code for nukes).

Neither one of our candidates have an actual withdrawal plan(in detail) for Iraq and neither one of them voted against the Lieberman bill(Hilary voted for it) that was laid out to give our govt the greenlight in going to war with Iran.

Fuck diplomacy, this shit makes better movies guys

People in this thread are not discussing possible particular differences between Obama and Hillary, even though this act of hers is simple politics. People in this thread are arguing that the OP's title is misleading and that he's making a bigger issue out of it than it should be, and they're also discussing relations between Israel, the US, and the Middle East.

[Plow]

A lot of people posting in this thread seem to have missed the fact that Saddam Hussein bombed the living shit out of Israel in attempt to get them involved in the first war, knowing that if Israel took actual military action a large part of the middle east would be racing to ally with Iraq.


And that Israel essentially sat there and took it, saving us the potential world war 3 scenario that would have been highly likely had they responded.



Israel is not only a powerful ally, but a smart, and "good" one, for the time being at least. To say we would *NOT* respond to nuclear attacks on Israel would more than likely lead to it happening within a year or 2.




Also, the really sad thing about this, is that if America stopped backing Israel, there's almost no question a large portion of the middle east would team up and blow the living hell out of them...


At which point they'd all turn on each other and start a massive free-for-all over the land...