IndianaJones
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 08:38 AM
Original message |
I like Obama's stance on nuclear weapons in Iran - missle strikes before they are able to use them. |
|
Edited on Wed Apr-23-08 08:39 AM by IndianaJones
As he stated, launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in, but having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. His instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran.
Pre-emptive rather than reactionary may be a better way to handle Iran on the issue of nuclear weapons.
|
blogslut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 08:40 AM
Response to Original message |
|
The whole subject is ludicrous. First off, even if Iran gets nukes, who is to say they will be first-strike nukes? And does anyone know, are Israel's nukes first-strike weapons?
|
IndianaJones
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. he is saying that if he is going to err, it will be on the side of them not even having them. nt. |
Tom Rinaldo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 08:43 AM
Original message |
Err on the side of initiating a war is positive? |
IndianaJones
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 08:46 AM
Response to Original message |
9. he ruled out invasion. it would be missile strikes to prevent radical clerics from... |
|
controlling nuclear weapons.
|
endarkenment
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
16. Oh so blowing up some nation's stuff is not a war? |
IndianaJones
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #16 |
19. as he stated, it is not the optimal position, but the consequences could be far worse. nt. |
blogslut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. Well, I would also imagine he'll wait until it becomes reality |
|
It was a bullshit question pulled directly from Dick Cheney's ass.
|
endarkenment
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 08:43 AM
Response to Original message |
3. If that is his position it is bullshit. |
|
I guess we have learned nothing.
|
godai
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
You prefer to 'obliterate' Iran after an attack by them (Hillary's position)?
|
Tom Rinaldo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
14. Yes. IF you honestly include the full quote |
|
Hillary's position is NOT to attack Iran UNLESS Iran uses nuclear weapons against another nation first. It is the strategy of deterrence which the United States has had in effect for 60 years. Ike was urged to attack China before they got nukes, but he said no. We haven't attacked North Korea either. The alternative is the Bush doctrine of Preventive War. Attacking Iran because it is believed they are soon to develop nuclear weapons and that they would be inclined to use those nuclear weapons against American interests is the same rational used for invading Iraq.
|
godai
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #14 |
17. Didn't Bill Clinton follow a similar approach, with cruise missiles? |
|
I think that any US President would likely move to destroy any nuclear weapons identified in N. Korea or Iran.
|
Tom Rinaldo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #17 |
24. That is subject to continuing debate |
|
Bill Clinton used cruise missiles against Iraq in retaliation for their links to an attempt to assassinate George Bush Sr, and for thwarting U.N. resolutions. There was no expectation that those missiles were taking out a nuclear program. North Korea did gain nukes and we haven't attacked them. Ike was urged to attack China before they got nukes, we knew where their nuclear facilities were, but he refused to do so and chose a policy of nuclear deterrence instead.
|
endarkenment
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
15. No. I'd prefer that we did not view our role in the world |
|
as arbiter of divine justice. Iran has demonstrated little if any aggressive behavior over the last 250 years or so. The current Iranian government, not matter how much one would like to hate it, also has demonstrated no aggressive behavior. Iran hasn't attacked anyone and has shown no incliniation to do so. Israel has a huge nuclear force. I rather doubt Iran is going to commit suicide by attacking Israel. We do not need to either obliterate Iran after a nuclear strike that simply is not going to happen, and if it did would result in Iran's obliteration before we had a chance to get in on the slaughter, nor do we need to start a war based on some half assed theory that 'insane mullahs with nukes' require a military response.
|
dionysus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 08:45 AM
Response to Original message |
hobbit709
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 08:45 AM
Response to Original message |
7. Anybody that talks that way is opening a major can of worms |
|
When you start talking about pre-emptive strikes, you leave yourself open to the same by people who figure they've got nothing to lose.
|
muriel_volestrangler
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 08:46 AM
Response to Original message |
8. Have you a link to that? |
|
It's ... ummm .. interesting. For example, this says he talks about diplomacy:
|
That Guy 888
(192 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 08:46 AM
Response to Original message |
10. Can you provide a link to prove that's Obama's stance? (n/t) |
AllexxisF1
(559 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 08:49 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Wed Apr-23-08 08:49 AM by AllexxisF1
Right after Hillary comes out and explains her position on what she would do if Aliens from outer space attack this country in order to take our resources and rape our women.
|
leveymg
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 08:50 AM
Response to Original message |
12. I call Bullshit on this post. This isn't Obama's position IndianaJones, you're a full of crap troll |
|
The OP is a provocative lie.
|
TomClash
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 08:50 AM
Response to Original message |
13. If you use diplomacy preemptive strikes will not be necessary |
|
The notion that Iran will "nuke Israel" is, quite frankly, ridiculous. This is Israel Lobby pandering at its worst.
|
IndianaJones
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
29. Obama did say let sanctions work...but doesn't think Iran will blink. nt. |
TomClash
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #29 |
30. He's also spent a lot of time emphasizing negotiation nt |
IndianaJones
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #30 |
31. and saying that he didn't think the Iranians would blink... |
|
leaving missile strikes if they gain nuclear weapons.
|
TomClash
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #31 |
|
Obviously, that's what anyone would tell Iran.
It's a pandering political point anyway because our intelligence services all tell us that an Iranian nuclear capability will not happen anytime soon, despite Bush and Operation Merlin. Hillary is simply pandering for jewish votes.
|
Life Long Dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 09:05 AM
Response to Original message |
18. I have a problem with Clinton's threat to Iran when she said |
|
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
Not only her saying she would nuke them by obliterating them, but also maybe more importantly and depending on what exactly she means, is her quote of when or why she would attack.
What exactly does she mean by saying "during which they might foolishly 'consider' launching an attack on Israel...". Specifically by her saying if Iran "considers" a attack?
That leaves the door wide open to an attack on Iran - as I see it.
|
malik flavors
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 09:06 AM
Response to Original message |
20. Why don't you give us a direct quote from Obama instead of just suggesting this is his position? |
|
And for the reocrd, regardless of whether Hillary's position is correct, I absolutely disagree with bullying, threatning, or daring other countries as a way to deter them.
I know Hillary supporters want to stand by everything she stands by (and that's fine), but saying we'll "obliterate," another conutry is something I think all progressives should be against. Just my opinion.
|
WinkyDink
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 09:09 AM
Response to Original message |
21. Israel really CAN do this part---and has. The QUERY to HRC was POST-Iranian attacks on Israel. |
IndianaJones
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #21 |
23. I support Hillary, but like Obama's more pre-emptive approach. nt. |
indepat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 09:11 AM
Response to Original message |
22. Why should the world worry about a radical Muslim theocracy having nukes when |
|
Edited on Wed Apr-23-08 09:16 AM by indepat
a radical extreme RW theocratic corporatist fascist cabal has gained control of the world's largest nuclear arsenal following a hostile takeover? Maybe someone will please explain. :D
Edited for context
|
Marie26
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 09:14 AM
Response to Original message |
25. Pre-emptive is the Bush doctrine |
|
Clinton was talking about a reaction after an attack by Iran. That's about deterrance, not pre-emptive attack.
|
IndianaJones
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #25 |
27. why wait for the attack? nt. |
Marie26
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #27 |
|
only valid, legal reason for a war: self-defense. If you start attacking countries just because you think they might possibly have a certain weapon, or you think (or neocons manipulate you into thinking) that they might maybe attack another country, you've just stepped into the Bush Doctrine. We can't attack EVERY nation that might possibly be a threat in the future - that's a recipe for never-ending war. Deterrance is a much more rational policy.
|
Marie26
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-23-08 09:14 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Wed Apr-23-08 09:15 AM by Marie26
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 08th 2024, 10:10 AM
Response to Original message |