Should the U.S. "obliterate" Iran if it launches a nuclear attack on Israel?

Quote by: Tim No she didn't. She said that there would be "massive retaliation," and she pointed out that the US "would be able to totally obliterate Iran." Let's have a little accuracy please.

Please see the this video on YouTube for Clinton threatening Iran with nuclear retaliation.

If I'm not being accurate, in your view, how would you characterize Clinton's position?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Tim One of the things I find startling is the extent to which people consider Iran a threat. It really isn't. As you say, the idea of a nuclear strike from Iran is definitely crazy. I read an interesting paper from the National Defense University which argued that a nuclear-armed Iran would actually increase stability in the Middle East. I can't remember all of the reasoning but there were a few points that stuck with me. In particular, the authors of the paper ruled out any possibility of Iran attacking Israel or furnishing a terrorist group with nuclear weapons because that would almost certainly result in Iran's destruction. I'll try to find the paper if I can.

Well, I'll say this about that, and that is the fact that a nuclear India has done little to stabilize that region, so I think that contention reaching a bit.

[Tim]

Quote by: sdbest Please see the this video on YouTube for Clinton threatening Iran with nuclear retaliation. If I'm not being accurate, in your view, how would you characterize Clinton's position?

I can't watch youtube videos where I am right now, so I had to look up a transcript of the comment. This is what it said:

CHRIS CUOMO: You said if Iran were to strike Israel, there would be 'massive retaliation." Scary words. Does 'massive retaliation" mean you'd go into Iran? You would bomb Iran? Is that what that's supposed to suggest? CLINTON: Well, the question was, if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be? And I want the Iranians to know that if I am president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that. Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society. Because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program, in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.

Nowhere in the passage quoted above does Clinton claim that she "will obliterate Iran." Nor does it mention nuclear retribution on the part of the US. I apologize if there's more to the comment that what is quoted above. I'll watch the video when I can.

[Tim]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Well, I'll say this about that, and that is the fact that a nuclear India has done little to stabilize that region, so I think that contention reaching a bit.

You're right. My memory of the argument in the report was hazy. Basically what it says is that 1. Iran is not likely to use nuclear weapons unless reacting to an imminent threat, nor is it very plausible that they will supply a terrorist group with one of the weapons. 2. Containing a nuclear Iran will be less costly or difficult than pursuing even a temporary rollback strategy.

Either way, I'm very skeptical that Iran constitutes the threat that many in Washington claim it is.

[Ibn_Sina]

Typical of some US journalists. Was he from Fox News by the way?

Quote by: Tim I can't watch youtube videos where I am right now, so I had to look up a transcript of the comment. This is what it said: Nowhere in the passage quoted above does Clinton claim that she "will obliterate Iran." Nor does it mention nuclear retribution on the part of the US. I apologize if there's more to the comment that what is quoted above. I'll watch the video when I can.

Tim, in the video on YouTube Clinton explicitly says she'd use nuclear weapons, that why I posted the link. She spoke on her position at a number of venues, not just that of the transcript you have.

[Tim]

Quote by: sdbest Tim, in the video on YouTube Clinton explicitly says she'd use nuclear weapons, that why I posted the link. She spoke on her position at a number of venues, not just that of the transcript you have.

Okay, my bad.

[Chaossaber314]

Using nuclear weapons to retaliate against another country that has used nuclear weapons in this day and age is hardly excessive. If Iran is no threat, then it's a moot point. The fact that they have not yet has no bearing on this hypothetical. In fact the implications of watching Iran or anyone else nuke another nation today and doing nothing is far more ominous.

Also, Iran is a beautiful nation. It would be an awful shame if things came down to that hypothetical.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: sdbest If Israel, which is the only country in the region with nuclear weapons and which has a significant population of extremist fundamentalists, launched a preemptive nuclear attack on Iran, should the U.S. obliterate Israel? If so, why? If not, why not? As well, given Israel does have nuclear weapons, shouldn't it be responsible for retaliation rather than the U.S? If not, why not? How should the other nuclear powers, particularly Russia, respond to a nuclear attack by the U.S. in its back yard?

Then with approval by the U.N. we should go in an remove all nuclear weapons form Israel, which should have been done a long time ago anyway.

In additition I do not think that Iran would attack Israel with nukes, as a country. If Israel attacked Iran just because they had nuclear energy programs then that would be wrong and the U.N. should organize a responce that would prevent them from making unjustified attacks such as that.

We need an international agreement that ANY country that originates a nuclear attack should be shut down, and put down by all other nations in the world, ASAP.
If they use long range or short range missles, or jets or bomber airplanes to do so.

[GHook93]

Quote by: another day The mere fact that these ridiculous fantasies are being discussed on a serious level with candidates is disgusting!! What source is there for this "hypothetical" garbage about Iran nuking Israel? What source except the mouth of George Bush and the propaganda that his administration has been spreading regarding Iran?? Even their own real reports show Iran is not a threat, it's only bush and his cronies who have been spreading this lie that Iran wishes to nuke israel.

Although I agree that Iran will not preemptive strike Israel or any country for that matter. And they Alamanutjob basically uses Israel to wag the dog to divert the public away from Iran's economic woes and gas shortages. However, there have been comments (I am paraphrasing a little):
"Israel needs to be wiped of the map."
"Israel is a cancer that needs to be done away with."
"Israel is a small country, it would only take 1 bomb."

It is absolutely irresponsible of journalists to even be asking these kind of divisive, provocative questions and by doing so they are creating further damage and tension between America and Iran and are contributing in their way to stirring up trouble.

The damages has been there since we installed the Shah and promoted Sadam.

Do they even take into account that the land of israel is muslim holy land? You think a bunch of fanatic muslims would nuke their own mecca?!?!

No Jerusalem is the holy land, they could theoritically nuke other parts of Israel and not touch Jerusalem.

They may want the jews out of there, but they don't want to destroy the entire region. That's the whole issue! They want the land for themselves! How could they get that if they turned it into an atomic wasteland?

It is pretty funny or ironic that they left will claim that Bush, the neocons, the right etc. have no idea what the Arabs and Persians are thinking, but then they will make there own claims on what they "KNOW" the Arabs and Perians are think. Is that ironic?

But its not like the Middle eastern countries don't have a long history of attacking Israel. One would be either completely blind to history or a ignorant anti-semite that will state of course "it was the Jews fault for the war."

This is just evidence that trading one of these so called "liberal democrats" for Bush is a farce! They are all the same!

Clinton stated a hypothetical scenario. Do you really think that if Iran attacks any country including Israel (no saying they will do) then President Obama (or any other Democratic President) would sit idlely still, especially if nukes are involved? You would be hopelessly naive to believe so.

[GHook93]

Quote by: sdbest If Israel, which is the only country in the region with nuclear weapons and which has a significant population of extremist fundamentalists,

Extremist fundamentalist LOL that is rich. Israel has one largest left-wings of any country in the world. They have a lot of paranoid people, but that is for good cause.

launched a preemptive nuclear attack on Iran, should the U.S. obliterate Israel? If so, why? If not, why not?

Who talked about an Israel preemptive nuclear strike. Now your just making up facts to promote the anti-semitic damnation of Israel. If Israel does indeed attack Iran it will be to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, just like in the 80s when they took out Iraq's nuclear facility.

Israel would not launch a preemptive war on Iran, nevertheless a preemptive nuclear war.

However, I will answer your 0% scenario. If they preemptively nuke Iran, then absolutely not. We shouldn't support them and withdraw any previous support we did have for them. As we should for any country that preemptively nukes another country. In fact I am not so sure with a preemptive nuclear strike that we shouldn't invade Israel ourselves! But like I said that isn't even discussed and its disingenious to even suggest that was what Clinton was talking about. She was talking about Israel being preemptively nuked by Iran.

As well, given Israel does have nuclear weapons, shouldn't it be responsible for retaliation rather than the U.S? If not, why not?

If a tiny country like Israel is nuke, which would be followed up by a genocidial ground by Hezbollah, the Palestinians, Syrians and most likely Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians etc, then she is really not in a great position to counter attack.

Besides that Israel has fought every one of her wars solely by herself (except for '52) against mulitple enemies. Contrary to popular opinion, not even 1 US soldier has fought in any of Israel's wars!

[GHook93]

Quote by: another day A war is different then nuclear obliteration. Not to mention many of those wars were in arab countries defending themselves from israeli attacks.

LOL, I knew you would come back with that. '48 the Arabs invaded, '52 closing the suez canal was an act of war, in '67 the Arabs operating terrorist attacks from Gaza and WB for years and then massed a large invading armies at the border. Those are acts of war. Of course you would prefer the Jews lining up in one long line to save bullets, but the Jews were going to do that again. The Arabs started the '67 war. What about '73 how are you going to twist that one. I know during passover the Jews ran out of blood for their matzo, so they had to start a war with Syria and Egypt to restock blood or they would have to cancel Passover? With Lebanon, those ignorant Jews they would stand for constant terrorist attacks coming from its North neighbor. Damn Jews.

It is to note that the Jews never moved to genocide any of their defeated Arab opponents. However, if the Jews lost any one of those wars (or any future war) then we will be talking about the 2nd Holocaust! Maybe that is not a bad thing for you.

A commonly used bit of propaganda so I don't blame you for lapping it up, but he never said that. He said he wants to see the nation of Israel disbanded, ie,

Yea that is not anti-semitic! Why not say what that is a mask for, he wants to see another Holocaust.

a reversal of what the british did when they created Israel, this is what the sense of "wiped off the map" meant.

LOL, you talk about propaganda and preach even worse propaganda! The left has no bounds.

This is not the same as destroying it with weaponry. It was a mistranslation. He would not want to see it literally wiped off the map because it is the muslim holy land.

That is either extremely naive or way to mask a desire to see the next mass extermination of the Jews? Which one is it?

Maybe you could have give Alamnutjob the benefit of the doubt if it was one incident, but he has made numerous ones since. So your theory of Alamnutjob as a peace loving hippie who is misunderstood is a little off!

A little off topic, but how do you know? I hate when people make off the cuff remarks like this. What do you know about the mechanics of a nuclear assault on a country and it's consequences?

The same question can be tossed your way. How do you what they think either. Why is it alright for the left to state what people think when it promotes their agenda while condemning the right for the same thing?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: sdbest Hillary Clinton has said she will "obliterate" Iran if it should launch a nuclear attack on Israel. The Boston Globe has characterized this position as Hillary Strangelove. A list of international responses is at Daily Kos. Are Clinton's remarks the words of someone who has crossed the Commander in Chief threshold and can be trusted with the power of the U.S Presidency or are they those of someone too dangerous, intemperate, and irrational for the job on Day 1 or at 3:00am? To put this question into some context, this is Iran.

We should stop interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. If Iran launches nukes at Israel then Israel should be free to obliterate Iran.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Chancellor We should stop interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. If Iran launches nukes at Israel then Israel should be free to obliterate Iran.

Total isolationism didn't work well in WW II! But I agree we should take a few steps back with our foreign policy.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: GHook93 Total isolationism didn't work well in WW II! But I agree we should take a few steps back with our foreign policy.

Who the hell said anything about isolation??????? I was referring to non-intervention.

Quote by: GHook93 Extremist fundamentalist LOL that is rich. Israel has one largest left-wings of any country in the world. They have a lot of paranoid people, but that is for good cause.

Who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin? I'm aware that often even the hint of criticizing any aspect of Israeli policy is deemed to be anti-semitic by some. And I'm aware that the history of Jewish persecution is used by some as justification for any Israeli action no matter how egregious or tyrannical it would be deemed if done by another state.

Nonetheless, there is a significant ultra-Orthodox Jewish community in Israel that can only be fairly described as extremist. Not only is not an LOL matter, but also it concerns deeply the Israeli left. Might I suggest Religious Fundamentalism and Holy War: Judaism Is Not Immune.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Chancellor Who the hell said anything about isolation??????? I was referring to non-intervention.

Fine, non-interventionism didn't work during WW II. There are sometimes were is unconciousable sit idle. Clinton was right not to remain idle during the Kosovo Genocide. We were wrong for remaining idle while Rwandians were getting massacred!

Your right the we should less our role and we should spot the nation-building wars, but spotting genocide aka Kosovo is something we shouldn't never do!

[GHook93]

Quote by: sdbest Who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin? I'm aware that often even the hint of criticizing any aspect of Israeli policy is deemed to be anti-semitic by some. And I'm aware that the history of Jewish persecution is used by some as justification for any Israeli action no matter how egregious or tyrannical it would be deemed if done by another state. Nonetheless, there is a significant ultra-Orthodox Jewish community in Israel that can only be fairly described as extremist. Not only is not an LOL matter, but also it concerns deeply the Israeli left. Might I suggest Religious Fundamentalism and Holy War: Judaism Is Not Immune.

I never stated that it wasn't present, but you make it appear that its over-welming and more than its neighbors. Jewish terrorist are prosecuted and the Israel government does everything it can to stop it. The Israeli government sure as he11 doesn't support it. Any religious extremist movement in Israel is dwarfed by its neighbors. Any denying that is a form of anti-semitism. Religious extremist in Israel is no worst than its in America!

Quote by: GHook93 ... you make it appear that its over-welming and more than its neighbors.

I did nothing of the sort. I provided you with sources that suggest that extremism in Israel is not an "LOL", to use your term, matter. I made no mention of Israel's neighbours.

Indeed, Israelis themselves are highly critical of the extremists in their midsts, and they are also aware that the extremists are a major impediment to any peace agreement.

Quote by: GHook93 Now your just making up facts to promote the anti-semitic damnation of Israel.

I would prefer that you did not accuse me of antisemitism, as I would not accuse you of such despicable attitudes.