For everyone that parrots the "obliterate" meme, you do know that Obama advocated missile strikes...

[IndianaJones]

to prevent radical clerics from gaining control of nuclear weapons in Iran.

So its Hilary's reactive bombing vs Obama's pre-emptive bombing.

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. It is amazing isn't it? Obama can say the same thing and....nothin

Clinton breaths and the world spins in outrage.

[Catherina]

2. Would you kindly provide a quote? This isn't something "I'll take your word" on. n/t

[mtnsnake]

5. Oh come on. Tell me you didn't hear him say it in his TV interviews a while back. Good grief.

[Zhade]

48. Um, your allegation isn't evidence.

NT!

[Catherina]

26. Lol.... Would someone who's not one of my 7 ignored posters kindly provide a quote?

It takes aLOT to make my ignored list so I'm not even going to peak at the propaganda.

[BlueIdaho]

3. There is a difference between

Targeted surgical military strikes and Obliterating an entire nation - don't you think? Even Billy used targeted military strikes you know.

[fascisthunter]

7. Shhh... don't Ruin His Talking Points

[TheDudeAbides]

4. No, that's different!

because Obama said it

welcome to the new exciting Internet game called "Obama!"
Your mission is simple: trash everything Clinton and praise every Obama!
Do it everywhere online and then watch how it effects the real world!
Fun! Will you come and play?! Please?
Come one.
You'll be really cool and hip if you do.
It'll make you feel much better and you'll even have friends!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

18. Dude, it's not like Clinton supporters don't have double standards too. nt

[Jersey Devil]

6. Did Obama threaten to turn the entire country into glass?

And you don't see any difference there?

[MonkeyFunk]

24. But she didn't threaten to, did she?

Well, not unless they nuke Israel.

[solidguild]

33. It's the fact that she is carrying on with the Repug charade of imaginary Iranian nukes

Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, no matter how much Clinton wants us to believe that.

Also, Obama had to be questioned repeatedly about this phony scenario, spoon-fed Hillary's make-believe Iranian nuke story, before he gives a response. Hardly the same as pushing it.

[MonkeyFunk]

37. She never threatened a pre-emptive bombing

The lie being pushed by Obama fans is just dumb.

[solidguild]

40. No, she only created imaginary Iranian nukes out of thin air

:eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

41. No, you're wrong again

but I'm used to it.

[solidguild]

44. Oh, so are you saying Iran DOES have nuclear weapons?

Wow - Hillary's supporters really will follow her to any reach of logic.

[MonkeyFunk]

46. Don't be daft

I'm saying she doesn't claim Iran has nukes. What a silly assertion.

[MyNameGoesHere]

42. Well the question was imaginary so it got

an imaginary answer. You can grasp that much yes?

[Zhade]

49. You know, that doesn't excuse it. That would still be collective punishment.

Very popular with the Nazis.

No sane person should support nuking innocent civilians to punish them for their government's criminal actions. If you disagree, then you must hold that the Iraqi people have every right to kill you and I for our government's illegal invasion of their country and murder of its citizens.

If you don't, you're a hypocrite.

[RichardRay]

8. It's the difference between the possibility of targeted strike...

against a clearly defined military target in support of a strategic imperative vs. a loose cannon retaliatory strike against an entire nation in the spirit of collective punishment.

I think the two are adequately different for me to be able to allow the possibility of one while denying the virtue of the other without fear of contradiction.

[fascisthunter]

9. lol.....

somebody stop the roundup!!!!

[ProSense]

10. Missile strikes on enemy targets. Hillary said she would "obliterate" a country. n/t

[lligrd]

11. Targeted Strikes Vs. Obliterating An Entire Country

and its people. You can't see a difference? Time to pay that visit to the optometrist.

[mtnsnake]

12. When Hillary nukes countries, she kills innocent babies. When Obama nukes them, babies are spared

That's the difference. Obama's bombs will only flatten the entire country without hurting anyone because his bombs are so much smarter than Hillary's(snicker)

[lligrd]

15. I Don't Know Why You Are Snickering But You Are Partly Correct

Targeted strikes, although they will not flatten the country, will spare babies and a whole lot of other innocent people. Hillary's plan will kill them all, adversely affect the environment and possibly start WW III.

I guess you were snickering cause you think killing babies is quite humorous.

[mtnsnake]

19. Jesus H Christ those Obama bombs are even smarter than I imagined (snicker)

Targeted strikes, although they will not flatten the country, will spare babies and a whole lot of other innocent people. Hillary's plan will kill them all, adversely affect the environment and possibly start WW III.

Wow, maybe you should let Hillary know where she can buy some of the same bombs that Obama will use so she doesn't kill anyone or hurt the environment, eh, genius?

[lligrd]

21. Are You Really That Dense?

I am quite certain Hillary knows all about targeted strikes. Looks like you are the one that needs educating.

[mtnsnake]

22. And?

[lligrd]

23. Sorry, You Need A Special Ed Teacher

More help than I can give you.

[mtnsnake]

25. So that's why you're changing the subject & continuing with lame personal attacks?

:wtf:

[lligrd]

29. That Wasn't A Lame Personal Attack

That was a fact. Just trying to tell you that you need some help. Take my advice and get it.

[rodeodance]

39. Obama folks play pop psychologists a lot of time.

[cali]

35. missile strikes are NOT nuke strikes

and it's Hill's irresponsible bushy language that so problematic.

[HannibalBarca]

13. What????

Some of you that support HRC perceive this world in a very odd manner, the two are not nearly equivalent, I can only surmise that your bias is clouding your judgement or that you lack the critical thinking capability necessary not to conflate targeting specific areas with guided munitions and annihilating an entire nation from bunkers to grocery stores. It was a ridiculous, dangerous and stupid thing to say. I doubt I have even heard Bush use similar terms in public.

[MUAD_DIB]

14. Why did Hillary use the term "Obliterate?"

Is she in AIPAC's pocket?

[MonkeyFunk]

43. Don't be daft

Obama is talking about targeted strikes to PREVENT them from getting weapons - a pre-emptive strike. Clinton's comment was about using the threat of retaliation as a deterrence.

In other words, Clinton wouldn't attack Iran UNTIL AND UNLESS THEY NUKED ISRAEL! And, she'd like to add other nations to a common defense pact.

As long as they don't nuke Israel, they don't have to worry about being obliterated.

[MUAD_DIB]

47. For a country that gets its $$ from the USA Israel holds

way too much sway over our politicians.

Boot AIPAC, and get some candidates that don't pander so much.


My question was about Hillary. Did she really need to use the term "obliterate?"


Our candidates...and politicians really should learn how to talk in terms that convey more and say less.

[scheming daemons]

16. Obliterate = EVERYBODY dies..... Targeted Strikes = Military personnel die

You can't see the difference???????

[TheDudeAbides]

17. Target means "you could get away with testing me" - it's an invitation

[TheDudeAbides]

20. if you (something bad), then I'm going to punch you in the arm (not very effective)

[Zhade]

50. Are you supporting the murder of innocent civilians to punish them for their government's actions?

If so, that's utterly reprehensible.

[cbayer]

27. To my thinking, they have essentially said the same thing.

In the ABC debate, Obama said that if Iran attacked Israel, there would be a retaliation and all options would be on the table.

To me, all options is codespeak for nuclear option. To me, utilizing a nuclear option means obliteration.

Although I think they are both making statements that would be consistent with a theme of deterrence (we can and would, so you better not), neither of the two candidates is a Peace candidate.

[Vinca]

28. There's an ocean of difference between "missile strike" and

"obliteration." When I hear obliteration, I think Enola Gay. Cities flattened and everyone dead. Missile strikes can be more precise and just get the bad guys, not every living creature.

[Solon]

30. If Iran attacked any other nation with Nuclear weapons, it would be destroyed...

whether it was Obama or Clinton who "pushed the red button", as it were.

[TheDonkey]

31. obiterate is not tantamount to missle strikes?

nice try

[chitty]

32. Why isn't this talked about

24/7 by the talking heads?

Obama gets pummeled because he said he would like to have discussions with Iran, and Hillary wants to make the entire country take a dirt nap and you don't hear anything about it.

Bupkis. Nothing.

WTF is wrong with this country?

[solidguild]

34. It's one thing to be questioned about imaginary scenarios and fake Iranian nukes and pushed to have

to answer that, like Obama was, and another to push the BS story and create the fake scenario in the first place like Clinton has done.

[JoFerret]

36. Stop pointing out the truth

It sets Obama fans ashrieking.

[TragedyandHope]

38. Actually, yes, some of us are informed

and we also know the difference. Obama is for security and effective military strategy as one facet of a well-considered foreign policy.

If you did a little more reading, you would know that.

[dbmk]

45. Lol

Being quite clever huh. "Guys, huddle up. I have an idea. Listen up: We just call both things 'bombing' then we've got them!".
Nice try. Hope you do not have aspirations in foreign politics.

Its Hillarys reactive obliteration of a nation vs Obamas surgical strikes to minimise loss of life, by preventing the threat of a greater one.

He is talking foreign policy like an adult. She is pandering to ignorant and xenophobic armchair generals.

[Auntie Bush]

53. wasn't Obama is talking about a pre-emtive strike and Hillary was talking

about an after the fact strike...big difference. It's been US official foreign policy for the last 50+ years to nuke (obliterate) anyone who nukes one of our allies. Isn't that why the Russians never dared to nuke anyone...including the US? Do you actually believe Obama will try to get congress to change this position? I sure hope not. Strength and a big stick is our friend and protector. We can't be perceived as weak by our enemies. I do fear for our lives if Obama changes our foreign policy on this matter.

[anigbrowl]

51. It's reasonable to say you'd retaliate - who wouldn't? But...

saying you'd 'obliterate' someone is fighting talk. It's like the difference between saying you'd kick someone's ass and saying you'd burn his house to the ground with his wife and kids in it - needlessly provocative, especially when there's no strong indication that Iran is gearing up to launch an attack on Israel.

True, Iran is not exactly a model citizen among nations. On the other hand, neither is Israel, by a long, long way. Everyone knows they have nuclear weapons of their own but nobody wants to say so officially. The Israeli government has legitimate fears but they also work their situation for profit part of the time. Dumping the 'chosen people' bullshit might be a good start in improving relations with their neighbors.

[Lord Helmet]

52. she said nuclear umbrella of deterance - sounds war-mongery to me