Hil Threatens to "Obliterate" 71 MILLION people:

That's what we needt. Another dick-waving president.

http://www.irantour.org/Iran/population.html

That's new. Maybe as opposed to "sabre rattling"?

if ya missed it, Youtube is your friend.

in people posting a one-liner saying she was misquoted, but offering no proof for that assertion. I wonder if these are just campaign staffers typing furiously to muddy the waters.

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

But I'm not buying it. THat's splitting hairs over obscure meaning of phrases -- something beyond the ability of the audience it was intended to reach. It was intended to show the voters she has bigger balls than Obama. That's all. It was also intended to reach out to her AIPAC supporters.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4u1nmGmtD18

"Totally. Obliterate. Them."

With a wave of her hand, she says this.
Normal political terms would be "use all means at our disposal" or "nothing would be off the table" and things of that sort.

I agree with Maddy above that "dick waving" is an unnecessary, sexist term, and that "sabre rattling" is a more traditional metaphor for such a statement.



Obliterate - destroy, wipe out, annihilate, demolish, eliminate, decimate, liquidate, wipe off the face of the earth, wipe off the map; informal zap, nuke.

in my life until I posted the op this morning. It's dick-waving, pure and simple, and if it's a "sexist" thing to say, just who does it offend? Dick-waving MEN or dick-waving WOMEN? Dick-waving is dick-waving. Period.


Oops, is "period" a sexist term, too?


LOL,
Elena

...that there are some terms for actions that don't translate to women.

For instance, I describe myself as a "balls-to-the-wall" person. I am a woman, so I don't have balls. But to say "ovaries-to-the-wall" just doesn't have the same impact.

The same with "dick-waving." You can't really say "clitoris-waving" without appearing unhinged.

So I think "dick-waving" is appropriate.

I think that came up in another thread, and I only think using "loaded" terms that can be used (periodically) to deflect the conversation help to avoid the real policy implications of the belligerent tone that Senator Clinton took.

So many of us complain that there are too few policy threads here, and I agree - but then when they do come up, many of the very same will take any opportunity to be offended and make it about something else. Frustrating.

It is a colorful metaphor, and the modern equivalent to sabre rattling, to be sure.
Who uses sabres anymore? But still plenty of dicks around, that's for sure!;)

~

We are talking about an out of the blue strike; think of Operation Barbarossa with nukes...

One - The very capable and deadly Israeli air force will quickly level the nuclear sites in Iran that the Mossad knows of.

Two - The wrath of virtually the entire free world will fall upon Iran and anyone on the Security Council that tries to block the invasion of the country. Even if the UN does nothing, you can bet your ass that the EU, US, and likely some Middle Eastern states will be more than happy to retaliate.

Three - Nuking someone back is essentially worthless. They have already hit you; the only reason to fire one back would be cold-blooded revenge. The nuclear arsenals built up by the U.S. and the USSR served as deterrants only - both sides knew that whoever started a nuclear war, the end result was the same.

Four - Ahmadinijad (sp?) is crazy, but not necessarily stupid. He knows what will happen if he actually DOES nuke anyone; should he actually be captured alive, he will be certain to be hanged after a trial at The Hague.

In short, tough talk isn't really necessary. A nuclear strike from any country is going to be met with wordlwide disapproval and a conventional military invasion, provided that Israel doesn't finish the job before everyone else can move in.

Iran will not, for all intents and purposes, exist 24 hours from that point. Israel believes, with cause, that its future existence would be thrown into severe doubt if the world ever had any reason to believe that retaliation for such aggression would not be complete.

Four - Ahmadinijad (sp?) is crazy, but not necessarily stupid. He knows what will happen if he actually DOES nuke anyone; should he actually be captured alive, he will be certain to be hanged after a trial at The Hague.

What basis do you have for your statement that he is "crazy?"

What makes you think he is the one who will make any decision to attack anyone? He is not as powerful as the media and the saber rattling politicians make him out to be. It's like saying Condi Rice would launch an attack.

And, things to remember. Only one country has launched unwarranted nuclear attacks -- the US --twice. As far as anyone knows, Iran doesn't have this capability -- and talking as if it does just plays into the hands of the warmongers from PNAC who are trying to whip up support for an Iran "adventure." And finally, Iran hasn't attacked anyone who didn't attack them first in over 1,000 years. Can the US say that?

is enough to qualify him as crazy in my book, along with the rest of the Holocaust-denial crowd.

As for the rest of my post, it was all assuming that Iran actually would launch an attack, otherwise known as a "hypothetical situation." Spare me the indignant outrage.

I would say that gives Israel a deterrant?

Such as, perhaps,

"Well, that's a very big 'if.' Iran, as you well know, was found by the American intelligence community to have suspended its production of nuclear weapons. The more relevant question to be considering now is what can be done to ensure Iran does not reconvene its nuclear program. And I believe that a stick-and-carrot diplomatic approach would do much better than the belligerent saber-rattling we've seen the past few years.

Obviously America has strong ties to Israel, and we will meet any action against Israel with a swift and appropriate response. Since we're speaking about such a grave hypothetical, I don't think it's appropriate for me to take anything on or off the table at this point."

discussed more times than anyone can count.

1. Iran does not possess nuclear weapons.
2. Iran is not currently seeking nuclear weapons.
3. Iran has never invaded or attacked a foreign nation in an unprovoked manner.
4. Iran has shown no inclination to use conventional weapons for anything but a deterrent.
5. Iran has always manifested its expansionist/aggressive tendencies through proxy militias such as the Badr Brigade and Hezbollah.

the intent is to dissuade Iran from developing nukes, by letting them know any attempt to use them will result in their annhilation.

The weapon is not nukes, but the threat of nukes.

Iran is well aware of the fact that aggressive use of nuclear weapons will result in its total annihilation. No nation today believes it can use nuclear weapons and not expect an overwhelming response.

I've had this discussion several times in the past day, of course, so I'm going to give the Cliffs Notes version. Iran is not the Soviet Union and is not America. Its primary tools for power projection are not its conventional army, nor would it be its nuclear arsenal. Such a threat would be toothless; nobody would take the threat of unprovoked nuclear attack seriously for the above reasons, and any conventional attack would be immediately defeated by the American/Israeli response.

Iran, rather, projects power through unconventional yet highly effective means. Iran's chief offensive weapons are political and paramilitary proxies. Iran currently possesses the largest political bloc in Iraq through its Badr Brigade. Iran is the dominant force in Lebanon, and a significant force in Syria and Palestine, through Hezbollah. Such proxies are not affected by conventional deterrence; the recent Israel-Lebanon war only resulted in an increase in prestige and power for Hezbollah.

However, Iran is limited by one factor--fear of conventional retaliation. Iran does not overplay its hand for fear of America or Israel launching airstrikes, organizing an embargo, or even mounting a limited invasion. Currently, its only deterrents from such retaliation are the threats of sparking further instability in Iraq and the threat of cutting off its oil exports--both powerful, but neither a sure defense.

However, an Iranian nuclear weapon would allow it to act with utter impunity. That, and not the phantom horror of Tel Aviv being vaporized without warning, is why America and Israel fear an Iranian nuclear weapon.

:wtf:

Why are we even discussing this stupid and silly issue???

Why is the so-called "experienced" candidate raising this ridiculous issue???

I think that would be the non-saber rattling, and diplomatic way of addressing the question. You know, the kind of answer we expect from our leaders - not the kind of answer we expect from Neocons and Warmongers.

To win PA. Tomorrow she will have the I'm sorry I misspoke statement.

It's all come down to whether you want a president who lies or one who doesn't.

what Hillary Clinton says is taken out of context.

Well done. :thumbsdown:

After all, the problem here is that she's saber-rattling in a way that only strengthens Iranian hardliners. As a veteran of the early War on Terror, you should know: Democrats pointing out that what you're doing will help the terrorists is not the same as Democrats taking your words/actions out of context to help the terrorists/themselves.

Clinton's Iran Threat Contradicts Previous Position on Making Such Comments

April 22, 2008 9:50 AM

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, told Chris Cuomo on GMA this morning that should Iran attack Israel with nuclear weapons, "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran...In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

The comment seems to contradict previous statements Clinton has made on the subject -- not so much about her willingness to attack Iran, but about the wisdom of discussing such a move.

more...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/clintons-iran-t.html

This is what was taken out of context:

Hil Threatens to "Obliterate" 71 MILLION people

Are Senator Obama's supporters really this clueless?

"LOL WE CAN NUKE YOU" is undoubtedly true. It is not, however, useful to declare.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

into Iraq and Afghanastan... our troops should really love that.

Look, I support Obama, but honestly -- why do you think there has never been a nuclear exchange? Mutually assured destruction!

Iran's governance are not idiots. They know full well that if they employ the use of a nuclear weapon against a target, they face the potential for a massive retaliation.

All Hillary said is that if they use a nuclear weapon on anybody in the Middle East, they can expect a nuclear response.

The United States, and pretty much every other first world country with nuclear weapons, use them not as weapons of aggression but as weapons of deterrence. Because of the raw power these weapons have, it's a foregone conclusion that a nuclear response to aggression would destroy the aggressor's country in its entirety. Whatever gains are perceived by the aggressor would be vastly outweighed by the insured annihilation of a response.

If Hillary feels she needs to spell that out for second- and third-world nations with nuclear ambitions, then so be it. Sometimes it just has to be said.

I am sure that Obama feels the same way.

But, as you just said, Iran's leadership is not a pack of dunces. They are well aware that use of nuclear weapons will result in massive retaliation. They are well aware that Israel possesses strong second-strike capability, and that America will also respond in event of any attack on Israel, be it nuclear or conventional.

So, what effect do you think "spelling it out" will have--other than the antagonistic effect it has when Bush/Cheney "spell it out?"

n/t

Allowing the fears and desires of rednecks to determine the way you conduct your foreign policy is the quickest route to international alienation.

But by the time any ICBM gets there An orbit takes 90 mins so to go halfway around on a different trajectory will take some time.

So she will not kill 71 million. She will kill whoever is left doing that.

"Obiterate" is a bad word. I hope she apologizes for it later.

only if Iran foolishly considers attacking Israel. :patriot:

"When I'm President, it'll be Okey Dokey to nuke Israel!"

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/newpop.html

I know you and your Queen can't bother your beautiful minds reading NIE reports but there you have it.

I agree.

is utterly necessary to prevent Iran from vaporizing millions of Jews with its imaginary arsenal--and that the nonexistence of the Iranian nuclear arsenal means that saber-rattling is even more justified.

Defending the indefensible OP should be beneath even an Obama follower.
Evidently it is not.

I never should have suggested that you were once a Democrat.

DU was a better place back when Obama was running for VP.

That is indeed what you're saying, since you're assuming people that think Hillary is too hawkish are supporting McCain because of it.

Thank Mod you're so quick, eh?

and I'm getting tired of having to explain myself after your invariable misunderstandings.

What a concept. She's been living in Bush's world too long.

that the CIA could arrange a small nuclear strike on Israel, blaming it on Iran and suckering the US into an all-out attack on Iran.

If you don't think this is a possibility, you haven't been paying attention.

There's also the possibility of Israel itself -- which would like to obliterate Iran -- provoking Iran into some kind of response that would trigger Hillary's blood lust. Again, that's not outside the realm of probability.

After all, WWI started because all these different countries had these treaties about who would obliterate whom if someone attacked the other guy. One shot was fired one day and millions and millions of people died, both in WWI and its sequel WWII.

They could get our friends in Pakistan to lob one over and find some way to blame it on Iran. And don't think the CIA doesn't have a couple of nukes lying around -- and a way to launch them.

There's so much crap in that post that if I went to clean it up I would pass out from the smell.

We blame Iran and later discover they nothign to do with it?

Regardless, talk of killing innocent men, women, children, and cats is utter fucking insanity.

Won't someone think of the kitties?

Of course JoMentum is touching himself at the prospect of what Hillary described.

What ever happened to "Speak softly and carry a big stick?" I have never heard a U.S. president or a credible candidate for the office threaten to obliterate an entire nation, an entire culture. McCain said his "bomb, bomb Iran" thing was a joke. This woman is dead serious and she has ramped it up from her "massive retaliation" comment of a few days ago. She takes Bush's insanity to another level. It is obvious that if we are going to find a path to peace that does not involve killing millions more innocent civilians, we have to eliminate Clinton and her Republican doppelganger McCain from the equation. Pennsylvania, the world is counting on you.

...Bush Jr has frequently made that mistake, and every time it happens he makes us weaker abroad.

n/t

The Obama camp is better at YouTube than Hillary is, that's for sure.

they are going to defend their sovereignty.

I criticized Obama when he made the same mistake, and she needs to cut this crap, too.

Madness... utter madness...

for real.

:kick: