Wouldn't any US President attack Iran if Iran attacked Israel?

I've been no supporter of Hillary, but I fail to see how this is the least bit controversial. I assume that President Nader would attack Iran with nuclear weapons if it struck an ally first.

We wouldn't need to, and so we likely wouldn't.

the weapon here is not nukes, but the THREAT of nukes.

If Iran attacks, then the weapon has failed, and the situation gets re-evaluated. But the important part is not that we attack, but that we announce the intention to do so if Iran were to attack.

The world knows we have the greatest nuclear capabilities and we protect Israel, no announcements to the world are necessary.

She is proposing some type of coalition headed by the USofA outside of the UN - where we provide the "umbrella of security" to our allies, our member states. She is about globalization with the US in charge. Temper it as you like, you can't disguise what she said and intends.

Neo-cons Rule!!! :grr:

I'm saying that's what the policy's been for >60 years.

She said nothing new.

Again, go read about "preemptive" measures, they are options, they are not solutions - only president that has used them is GWB and look how well that has worked. Guess it's cool for hillary to be like him, more of the same works for you.

been US policy for 60 years.

I dunno when it became US policy, or even if it is US policy.

We don't need to declare or threaten, or say anything like she stated. If anything, that type of statement is careless, and could lead to further trouble in trying to not only negotiate stand downs, but to just negotiate peace in the area.

We don't need another Bush/Cheney at the helm, and that is exactly the mindset she is presenting.

came out, they asked Pres. Clinton to attack Iraq. He didn't. If he had, he probably could have spared himself the witch hunt and impeachment. I trust Hillary to do the right thing. I also trust her to say whatever it takes to win an election. If we could win by being nice and honest then we would have a Pres. Gore or Kerry. Sadly, our elections are ugly and until that changes we need someone who is tough and not afraid to fight dirty.

I want a dem president...period. I don't think Obama has it in him to do what is necessary to win. If he were to lose, it would give me no comfort to say...well, at least he kept his integrity. The situation in our country is too serious to worry about niceties and itegrity.

she is saying she will?

:puke:

You believe that Obama has more integrity than Clinton does, and find him to be more honest.

Yet you support Clinton, simply because you believe she can win--despite the fact that she polls worse in head-to-head matchups, has lower favorables, higher unfavorables, a weaker nationwide volunteer/GOTV infrastructure, worse fundraising, and is not even winning her own party's nomination. You don't support her because she's shown any ability to win.

You support her because she's "dirty."

That's great.

(take two)

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.

"However, an Iranian nuclear weapon would allow it to act with utter impunity. "

How so? You just stated that an Iranian use of nuclear weapons would result in it's total annihilation.

Iran would not use its nuclear weapon first, no. However, the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapon means that America/Israel cannot attack Iran with conventional weapons without threat of nuclear retaliation. Which, of course, means that Iran's proxies can act with impunity.

Iran currently displays a certain degree of restraint when it comes to arming and coordinating with its proxy militias. During the Lebanon-Israeli war, Iran temporarily severed its coordination with Hezbollah, for fear of Israeli retaliation against Iranian targets. However, with a nuclear weapon, Iran would not need to fear that; Israel could not directly attack Iran any more than Iran could directly attack Israel. At the same time, Iran would find itself with a much freer hand when it comes to its proxy groups.

And do not underestimate those proxy groups. The Badr Brigade in Iraq currently controls the largest voting bloc in Parliament, and is very near to getting the southern half of the country declared an autonomous region (which would more or less allow Iran to take effective control of the richest and most populous swatch of Iraq). Hezbollah is a major power in Lebanon and holds considerable sway in Syria and Palestine. There are Iranian-supported Shi'a seperatist movements in Saudi Arabia as well. Iran is a major power throughout the Middle East; a nuclear weapon would allow it to act more brazenly than it has yet.

That is the basis for M.A.D. a policy which has prevented states from using nukes on each other since WWII.

I suspect Sen. Clinton and Sen Obama are together on this one.

for personal gain. Until the Republicans came into power, our political discourse was more measured when it came to something that serious. Or, that's how I remember it anyway.

go read what she said in the debate, she has some wacky coalition in mind, the umbrella of security with the US as the world police.

It is insane that we have struggled against such bully tactics and neo-con new world order crap for these 7 years only to have our first female candidate for the highest office in the land say she wants to be one of the tough boys, she wants to be the baddest assed tough boy in the world.

:mad:

has picked up the story.

Jimmy Carter goes through all of that to try to make some progress, and she blows the capital for 10 votes. Idiot.

to a largely fabricated issue brought to us by Bush/Cheney to inspire fear. That's what's really pissing me off about it, anyway.

Democrats had JFK who spoke of a missle gap, Johnson who was a maniacal anti-communist, Carter who is the exception that proves the rule, and Clinton who was not afraid to use military force on anyone and said so.

Hell, we had Reagan make a joke about nuking a country who actually could nuke us back.

administration would attack Iran if they attacked Israel. The reason I am excluding Nader, is because he wouldn't. Neither would Ron Paul. They are effective isolationists

I am an Obama supporter, and I agree with you, what she said about attacking Iran if they attacked Iran is not controversial at all. Obama would do the same thing

Again, I repeat it will not happen. Iran knows that not only Israel WOULD retaliate, but the U.S. would also be dropping bombs on them

The most important point is not your premise, because it won't happen, it is who would likely do a pre-emptive attack of Iran. I believe their is a better than 50 50 chance that a mccain presidency would if given the slightest opportunity. I also believe it would would happen under a DEMOCRATIC presidency

Murdering millions of innocent people is ok with you? Anyone who makes a statement like hillary made can't be allowed anywhere near the 'button'. This whole 'we have to defend Israel' thing is bullshit.

With Hillary playing the part of General Buck Turgid.

and not a set up like we had in the run up to Iraq. Plus, the Mideast is not a place where you want to casually start throwing nukes around. Really, nowhere in the world is a very good place. There are uninvolved nations that might resent nuclear fallout drifting their way. Also, nukes are not very discriminating in whom they kill which could very well include tens of thousands of innocent civilians. Is our argument that because they did it, then it is ok for us to do it?

That was the correct response because its a lot more complicated than her little obliterating line.

Or as the youngsters say--going balls out.

I'm surprised she didn't say "you know, obliterate, you know."

To just declare that we will wipe a nation out is evil. She is NO BETTER THAN A TERRORIST with rhetoric like that.

Think anout it, she is suggesting murdering millions because of the action of their government.

Isn't that what terorists do?

That rather large country known for Vodka which still has a bunch of nuclear warheads aimed at the US?

Great... we survive Chimpy and then Hillary gets us nuked by the Ruskies. :nuke:

on talk shows.

For god's sake. This issue is moronic. It's like they haven't seen US foreign policy for the past 60 years.

How about that?

What I'm saying is that deterrence is a given. Iran not only has nothing to gain from nuking Israel, it has absolutely everything to lose. Israel has an extensive nuclear arsenal, and would not exercise restraint in retaliation. America's involvement in any war in which Israel's existence is threatened is a given as well. Iran is not going to nuke Israel.

Threatening to "obliterate" Iran serves absolutely no purpose save to antagonize--especially when Iran is not even capable of nuking Israel. What do you believe is to be gained by antagonizing and threatening Iran? Do you believe that the Bush administration has been successful in its consistently aggressive, confrontational approach to middle-eastern politics?

Period.

They are fucking monstrous eveil death machines that should be wiped from the face the earth, dismatnled and never ever used.

Anyone who seriously considers using them AT ALL is fucking INSANE.

is at a point where a politician can propose that and be taken seriously. It's certainly a goal to work towards, and a goal to hold our elected officials to.

words like Obliterate that is scary. What if Israel nuked Iran WITHOUT cause? WOuld that umbrella extend to Iran?

Hillary should have evaded the question, not gone ahead to make an explosive part of the world even more anti-American.

This was just plain pandering to the gun-toting voters and is pathetic.

Yet it was a ridiculously stupid thing to campaign on.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/

...living with 8 years of Mr. "bring em on" we don't need another person with a high matenance ego.

Iran for dropping a nuclear weapon on Israel.

To do so would be the second biggest military disaster the US has ever engaged in.

If it was determined by the US a military strike was warranted and leaders in the region were notified of the coming actions, a reasonably sane response -- if Israel hadn't already used their own nukes on Iran -- would be strategic non-nuclear bombings of their nuclear facilities and military command/facilities.

Understand that I am not agreeing with that tactic, but it is the maximum action any President of the US should ever engage in under those circumstances.

...president doesn't have such power but congress does and her "saber" rattling sounds Bushish in the least.

She said something stupid...not the first time

including what you point out -- it was the worst kind of sabre rattling, the kind ol' George would be damn proud of.

And it makes me despise her all the more. :mad:

...but 3 or 4 notches above him which doesn't say a lot.

Wouldn't even think twice about it.

If Russia or China step into it and start launching some shit of their own at us -- you're an idiot of you don't think us using nukes in the ME -- even as a second strike -- wouldn't have some very serious consequences for us.

What would be the benefit to them?

I would rather it never happened, but if they do, absolutely

I am totally against war, but what Hillary said is what all tough politicians say.

Not only that but Israel would be the one to strike Iran, not the other way around.

That nutcase Hagee with his rapture bullshit is pushing for an attack on Iran.

People should be more worried about him and what he's trying to do.

Thats the point.

Look, I've blasted Hillary for a million things on this site. And I pray to God that Obama wins tonight and ends this exhausting race.

But what Hillary said is fine.

obliterate?! that's something shithead would say.

But for everyone else, the answer to your question is "Yes".