Well, it looks like Hillary’s willing to talk about obliterating Iran. If that doesn’t cement her reputation as the Liberal Iron Lady I don’t know what will.
Today Pennsylvania decides who they want to be the Democratic nominee, and most people seem to agree that if she doesn’t have a very strong showing today she needs to throw in the towel. Something tells me she’s going to have that strong showing, however.
{ 12 comments }
As I’ve observed today on other blogs that’ve noted Sen. Clinton’s declaration, I think that win, lose, or draw this is a positive development because it puts deterrence on the table.
Deterrence is a lousy policy but, unfortunately, it’s the tool available for preventing somebody from using a nuclear weapon against us, our friends, or our interests. Lately I’ve seen quite some number of people condemn deterrence or criticize it on the basis of practicality or for any number of other reasons. Frankly, that undermines the vital psychological component of the policy.
That psychological component needs to be refreshed every so often for the policy to remain effective, the present administration has done a lousy job of doing that, and putting it on the table has at least a chance of reinforcing the psychological component of deterrence.
Well the consensus in my family and extended family (majority Obama supporters) is that he will lose in Pennsylvania and he won’t get the nomination. Why? Their exact words:
A black candidate has to be squeaky clean in order to win anything close to the presidency.
There’s some paranoia in these parts. My family have all but given up on Obama winning. My grandfather says that there are better odds that the Detroit Lions win the Super Bowl next year than Obama being the next president. LOL!
They may be right. They may be wrong. But there’s no disputing the high level of emotion this campaign season among the various Clinton and Obama supporters.
As far as Senator Clinton’s “obliterating Iran” comments, I always cringe when I hear talk like that BUT I’m not naive. We know Islamic extremists talk that way all the time about the West. I hope it never comes to that but I have to give Senator Clinton some “dap” (black lingo) for being so blunt.
No disrespect to your grandfather intended, but I think he’s nuts.
Not that I’m a fan of Senator Obama, but I know the Lions.
Tyrone
I agree with Martin. I think the Second Coming has better odds than the Lions.
We’re talking here about killing 10 or 20 million human beings, most of whom are totally innocent.
I’d rather see military force used in a controlled and rational manner, *before* an apocalyptic retaliation becomes necessary, instead of pursuing a policy of retreat and appeasement and then, after it fails, lashing out in fury.
The Clinton concept of military operations seems to be the spasm…as with Bill and cruise missiles and, apparently, Hillary and ballistic missiles…rather than the campaign.
I looked carefully at a taping of her interview. The camera was focused directly on her eyes and in close-up. I am sure that Senator Clinton meant every word that she said.
And I don’t think what she said about obliterating a nuclear Iran is anything less than a carefully spoken statement of policy that she will in carry out if she is elected president and if the Iranians mount a nuclear attack on Israel.
The only kind of deterrence that works against the Hitlers and the Ahmedinajads of the world is the certainty of the destruction of their own societies if they mount such a war against their neighbors.
Moreover, I think that the United States would instantly re-establish its authority as the ultimate superpower by carrying out a decisive attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities. The USA is hated only when we show weakness in the face of such provocations. In a worls such as ours and in this era as in so many in the past, it is better to instill fear than to attempt fruitlessly to by love.
If the United States and the rest of Europe had attacked nazi Germany immediately upon Hitler’s first tentative steps of agression, his murderous regime would have crumbled from within. The German Army would have taken power. All the leading Nazis — Hitler, Goering, Goebbels, Himmler and the rest of their frightful gang, would have been stood up against military execution walls and shot to death by military execution squads. Stable government under law would quickly have been re-established. Some 50-55 million lives would never have been lost in the universal bloodbaths of World War II.
Yes, I certainly support armed intervention, with massive destruction reserved for those countries that threaten such destruction upon their immediate or near neighbors. Remember that it is not Israel that continually threatens Iran. It is the other way around.
And yes, the people of a country such as Iran are responsible for the viscious policies and acts of their government. Exactly as the German nation was responsible for the horrors inflicted upon the world by Adolf Hitler in Germany’s name. When the mass destruction starts, there are no innocent bystanders. There is only mass death.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Arnold….”obliterating Iran” and “carrying out a decisive attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities” are very different strategies. One goal of the latter would be to make the former unnecessary.
It’s possible that Hillary would respond to a nuclear attack on the U.S. (or maybe on Israel, though I doubt it) with a nuclear counterstrike aimed at killing millions of Iranians. It is very unlikely, though, that she would take the initiative in destroying Iran’s nuclear program in advance of such an attack.
I hope we can meld the “we’ll talk to them” mentality and the “we’ll bomb ‘em to heck” mentality into a single candidate. Any signs of a new Teddy Roosevelt anywhere around?
–|PW|–
Martin and Scott,
That’s exactly what my grandmother said to him: “The Lions will never win anything real!”. Gotta love an elderly woman that’s a football fan.
So, this guy had two season tickets to see the Detroit Lions. He couldn’t sell them to any of his friends. Then he tried giving them to his friends. Nobody wanted them. Then one day, frustrated, he left them under his car’s windshield wiper while he did his grocery shopping. When he came back, he found FOUR Detroit Lions season tickets under his windshield wiper …
Yes, I realize I’m from out of town and probably don’t have the right to razz the Lions, but it’s an old, old joke I read once, and it seems quite apropos.
–|PW|–
I think “obliterating Iran” is, frankly, the only sort of language that registers on the Iranian leadership. Whether Hillary meant destroying their government (via tactical nukes or conventional shock-and-awe), destroying their nuclear and millitary facilities, or literally destroying the entire country is vague and open to interpretation, but I don’t think that’s by accident.
bcostin’s last blog post..Iraq: Two wars, one battlefield
I think:
That there’s a biiiig difference between "could" and "would;"
that Hillary knows exactly what the difference is;
and that she’s counting on other folks missing the distinction.
Ken Hall’s last blog post..Hymn
Comments on this entry are closed.