Originally Posted by 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!

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

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

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

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?

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

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.

Originally Posted by winthrop

If they surely know it, stating it is unnecessary.

can you read their minds?
with something like this, is it not better to be uneqivocable -and present the policy without a chance of mis-understanding?
we're talking a nuclear first strike - i can't think of anything else that needs to be clearly, and fully addresed.

I believe they know the nation which was the architect of "mutually
assured destruction" will not permit such an attack to go unanswered.

again - then why not state it up front? shouldn't the other non-belligerent states also know exactly what our position is?

There are better ways of saying the same thing, without adding both
to the existing Bush-created reputation of the U.S. as a nation of
belligerent cowboys or adding to the hysteria of her political detractors
by giving them more to distort. It was clumsy, even if it was accurate.
There is no distortion if the policy is clearlyand fully stated.

to do otherwise, allows distortion, and parseing

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

There is no wiggle room !
She was clear as a bell!
Strike first, and you will be retaliated against by US weaponry.

Another part that is overlooked is by putting the region under our umbrella,
it acts to stop further nuclear proliferation; as these states do not need their own program.

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

[/color]

Originally Posted by winthrop

There is no argument it has been clearly and fully stated now.

Oh, and do you hear an annoying buzz...oh, never mind...I know
what it is.


On another note, has my readability improved?

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

Yes -thank you for breaking down the text.
I do value your posts, and this makes it much more easier to comprehend.

I'll go with Biden - but yes the arguement has been fully covered.

Yes there is annoying buzz, it is simply a bombthrowing fly.

Ignore it, and it will look for other targets to alite on.

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

Biden on hillary's statment on Iran:

"No way you can use a nuclear weapon, without resulting in obliteration(Iran)"

"She stated a rational policy. Iran needs to know if they use nuclear weapons on another power, they run the risk of obliteration"

He further went on to compare it with MAD.
( sound familiar )

Ok folks - is Biden a "warmonger" like you all accuse Hillary of being??