CosmicRocker

wrong.
he SPECIFICALLY said Hillary's policy was " rational, and consistent with existing US policy "

__________________

Try a little love. and it cant go wrong
Get on the right thing
My little love, you cant go wrong
Get on the right thing .

DRS112

Well gee...there are several routs and none of them STRESS the need to obliterate Iran....you could start off by saying that "of course no response nuclear or not would be ruled ou" and then follow it up by STRESSING the need for diplomacy instead of being adversarial....you could even rip into whomever is asking the question for asking it in the first place....

DRS112

REALLY? You think?

winthrop

Again, she was typically clumsy with the statement, but the statement
itself reflects a reality, albeit one more I wish did not exist.

My problem with the responses here is not the discomfort with the
comment, which is understandable, rather the continued implication by
some that she said this out of any kind of context, as a blind blustering
threat to Iran.

It was not that, whatever else it was, wise or unwise.

__________________
Countdown to The Great Bush-Out...
Meanwhile, panem et circenses!

DRS112

never said it was without context...my point(maybe expressed in a different thread) was that the statement is completely counterproductive to what the statement is trying to achieve and also counterproductive to the bigger picture of diplomacy and world (particularly ME) perception of the U.S....because even with context it will be taken without abroad.

winthrop

The site has been peppered, as it often is, by oversimplified versions
of this affair, intended to show Ms. Clinton as some kind of crazed
lunatic. That was the origin of my response.

You were not among those and I agree, the comment was counterproductive to
anything, for surely the leaders of Iran know what would happen
if they were to use a nuclear attack against anyone, never mind Israel.

I also wrote that I was not pleased with her comment.

__________________
Countdown to The Great Bush-Out...
Meanwhile, panem et circenses!

CosmicRocker

waffeling over nuclear weapons is the antipathy of what Biden said.

The "options" of ruling it in or out, just enables the Iranians to say
"hey they didn't explicitly say they werr gonna realiate."

Then US policy is muddled, the other regional states can't be sure if they are protected or not, and you start getting nuclear proliferaton.

No DRS: There is no wiggle room here.
You can't equivocate on such a momentous matter.

To do so, only sows doubts among our adversarys and our friends.

__________________

Try a little love. and it cant go wrong
Get on the right thing
My little love, you cant go wrong
Get on the right thing .

CosmicRocker

It wasn't counterproductive.
"for sure the leaders know" - then why not state it?

what about the other states that are not belligerent?
Don't they need to know we will not allow a nuclear fitst strike to happen, without an assured response?

Doesn't that help keep proliferation among the rest of the region, from happening,
if the states are assured they don't need counter strike ability; that we are putting them under our umbrella.

This is a deadly serious issue that needs a clear unequivicated policy statement.

__________________

Try a little love. and it cant go wrong
Get on the right thing
My little love, you cant go wrong
Get on the right thing .

DRS112

Give me a break....Iran has no nuclear weapons and therefore no attack is immanent...as Winthrop said they already know what they response was, but even if they DIDN'T they're not going to look back at what Hillary (didn't say) as justification of a future attack....which means her statement only pertains to the present and the relations with Iran and it's people.

RK77

I agree with you! There is no context in which the leader of a nation that is truly powerful should ever need to state they will obliterate another soverign nation.

It is sort of like a grown man standing over a child threatening to kick ass if the child sets fire to the dog.

My dad never needed to raise his voice to us! He had all the power and he knew it---a aptly placed look said all he was going to say! You want to play dumb and pretend you didn't understand what the look meant..........you would get it really clearly in about 60 seconds.

I NEVER recall my dad threatening us! He was the leader of our home and EVERYONE knew it---unquestionably. That's why he could always be the nice guy!

My mom on the other hand was forever waving her finger and threatening how long you would be grounded and what she was going to deprive you of if you did something.

Once she told me she was going to take my stereo out of my room for two weeks if I didn't get off the phone. As my stereo had been removed 4 weeks earlier and wasn't coming back for 4 more I blew her off. I got about 3 other threats before about 2 hours later my dad walked in.

He took one look at mom then without a word put out his hand for the phone --- with that look.

I didn't even say goodbye to my friend on the phone. Just handed it over and ended up missing TWO dances ---I may not have been grounded --- he never said I was. By that time, age 13, I just figured I would give myself a two dance punishment rather than have him need to codify it into family law --- 'cause he would have come up with some clever punishment "addendums". If you were already under punishment and he had to ADD on something---- you were getting a new sentence and labor! Always better to punish yourself and get in line when it came to dad.

Mom---all steam! She'd ground you for two weeks today and forget in 48 hours.

I learned what power and leadership really means watching my dad!