Clinton says U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Clinton says U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran

Tue Apr 22, 9:59 AM ET

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.

On the day of a crucial vote in her nomination battle against fellow Democrat Barack Obama, the New York senator said she wanted to make clear to Tehran what she was prepared to do as president in hopes that this warning would deter any Iranian nuclear attack against the Jewish state.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.

"That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said.

Her comments appeared harder than a week ago, when during a presidential debate she promised "massive retaliation" against any Iranian attack on Israel.

Obama, who on Tuesday faces Clinton in Pennsylvania's Democratic primary, rejected her rhetoric as saber-rattling. Tuesday's vote could help decide which Democrat will face Republican John McCain for the White House in the November general election.

"One of the things that we've seen over the last several years is a bunch of talk using words like 'obliterate,"' Obama, an Illinois senator, said in a separate ABC interview. "It doesn't actually produce good results. And so I'm not interested in saber-rattling."

Obama said he would respond "forcefully and swiftly" to an Iranian attack against Israel or any other U.S. ally.

Iran, which Washington and its allies charge is seeking nuclear arms, has voiced war-like rhetoric in recent years amid speculation its nuclear facilities could face U.S. or Israeli military action.

Tehran denies it is trying to acquire nuclear weapons and says it needs nuclear technology to generate electricity.

Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons but, as a policy of "strategic ambiguity," has not confirmed or denied the nature of its arsenal.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad outraged the international community in 2005 by saying "Israel should be wiped off the map." A week ago, a senior Iranian army commander said Iran would "eliminate" Israel in response to any military attack from the Jewish state.

Clinton's comments came days before an Iranian run-off election for parliament on Friday that could bring fresh challenges for Ahmadinejad from a broad conservative camp as the country prepares for its own presidential election next year.

(Reporting by David Morgan; Editing by Eric Walsh)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080422/ts_nm/usa_politics_iran_dc

------------------------------------------

i know it's a scare tactic but imagine something like that really happened. all the revenge attacks from individuals & organizations would cause a cascade of destruction that would span most of the planet.

iran nukes isreal, the usa nukes iran, terrorist organizations see it as an attack on their religion and nuke back...etc...

 

[Jayomatic]

It amazes me that people are still supporting this woman. How is she any better than what they already have?

 

[cacruden]

Now she is trying to get my pro-obliteration vote

 

[Admiral Beez]

Hey, I see nothing wrong here. Israel is a defacto ally of the USA. The world knows that any attack on Israel will equal an attack on the USA, resulting in a massive US counterattack. Clinton is simply making sure that the world (and the US voter) doesn't perceive her as a non-militant, non-interventionist, passive, weak-kneed female as Commander in Chief. As outsiders, we may very much prefer a USA that doesn't stick its noses in other nations' affairs, but that's not what superpowers do, or in this case the hyperpower does.

The free (i.e. democratic) world could use more of the USA's backbone (and please don't just quote this bit of my post, thx) on the world stage. Imagine if the "Great Powers" of Britain and France had said to the world press in 1936 that any attempt of Remilitarisation of the Rhineland by Hitler in 1936 would result in total obliteration of Germany. Instead we had weak kneed politicians who did nothing as Hitler took over more and more of Europe. Even after Germany invaded Poland, Britain and France did nothing offensively against Germany's weak western front (as much of Germany's army was in Poland). The world needs strong democratic states to stand up against dictatorships and tyrants, since history shows us that when those democracies do nothing, the tyrants stretch their ambition.

We might not like the USA, nor its interventionist and militaristic ways, but be careful what you wish for. If the USA abandons its friends and allies of convenience and says to the world, settle your own differences, we're staying home, I guarantee you Israel will be attacked within six months, and Israel will use its nuclear weapons. Next, China will take Taiwan (maybe we don't care about Taiwan, but what if Beijing doesn't stop there?). North Korea will quickly attack the South, likely the day after the 50,000 or so US troops leave. The Taliban will quickly retake much of Afghanistan, likely again, soon after the last US soldier leaves.

 

[Brandon716]

I don't see what is so wrong with her statements, it doesn't mean we are going to nuke Iran, it means she stands against the use of nuclear weapons. Kudos for her to stand up against a religious extremist government hellbent on obtaining nuclear weapons.

I in no way support a ground war to invade Iran, but these statements aren't hardly what this is about. If Iran attacks first, we have no choice but to respond.

Iraq didn't attack us, we shouldn't be there.

Iran hasn't attacked us, so we shouldn't start a war there either.

Hillary's statement? Totally understandable.

 

[Roy G Biv]

I'm not a Hillary fan, but yeah, that's pretty much what would happen under any President.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Iraq didn't attack us, we shouldn't be there.

And we're not.

The USA is there because they believe that USA interests were under threat. Those interests can include the safety of US citizens, the US economy, US-owned companies, the US position in the world, protection of US allies and friends of convenience, etc.

 

[Hydrogen]

Their information concerning the nature of that threat was just a bit off.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Their information concerning the nature of that threat was just a bit off.

Which IMO demonstrated a failure of their intelligence gathering information. Sometimes you get it wrong. Look at the Korean War, the US and Allied forces marched right up to the Chinese border, despite Chinese warnings, since the US didn't think that the Chinese had the means nor the will to attack the mighty USA. Well, the Chinese did come, and the US almost lost, and would have had to go nuclear if they hadn't turned the Chinese tide.

I think in today's age of high tech that we expect an unrealistic level of perfection from our military thinkers.

 

[Blovertis]

Why is it now taken as a given that an attack on Israel is an attack in the U.S.? Are the interests of Israel and the U.S. identical? I don't think so, and an increasing number of Americans don't think so.

 

[ganjavih]

Wow, any sympathy for Clinton I had is now gone. What a dumb thing to say.

 

[King of Kensington]

The free (i.e. democratic) world could use more of the USA's backbone (and please don't just quote this bit of my post, thx) on the world stage. Imagine if the "Great Powers" of Britain and France had said to the world press in 1936 that any attempt of Remilitarisation of the Rhineland by Hitler in 1936 would result in total obliteration of Germany. Instead we had weak kneed politicians who did nothing as Hitler took over more and more of Europe. Even after Germany invaded Poland, Britain and France did nothing offensively against Germany's weak western front (as much of Germany's army was in Poland). The world needs strong democratic states to stand up against dictatorships and tyrants, since history shows us that when those democracies do nothing, the tyrants stretch their ambition.

Never been a fan of this extensive use of Hitler/Chamberlain analogies.

 

[Hydrogen]

Which IMO demonstrated a failure of their intelligence gathering information. Sometimes you get it wrong. Look at the Korean War, the US and Allied forces marched right up to the Chinese border, despite Chinese warnings, since the US didn't think that the Chinese had the means nor the will to attack the mighty USA. Well, the Chinese did come, and the US almost lost, and would have had to go nuclear if they hadn't turned the Chinese tide.

I think in today's age of high tech that we expect an unrealistic level of perfection from our military thinkers.

There is a big difference between the time period of the Korean war and today. Time, interest in the region, superior surveillance technology and an active political opposition on the ground offered up a huge advantage for gathering information in Iraq. For example, Iraq would have purchased much of the basic technological infrastructure for its weapons manufacturing efforts from other countries, and those records could serve as an effective means of assessing the potential capabilities. Furthermore, satellite surveillance of Iraq offered intelligence gathering that simply did not exist during the Korean War.

Other forms of technological surveillance had already compromised the entire telecommunication system of Iraq. And considering the various opposition groups working against Hussein, there were probably many opportunities to gather human intelligence as well.

In other words, the U.S. had a huge intelligence advantage. But in the end, it was not that they were off by 10 or 20 percent in their assessments; it is that they were pretty much 100% with respect to the supposed arsenal and manufacturing capacity of WMD's in Iraq.

 

[Roy G Biv]

And we're not.

The USA is there because they believe that USA interests were under threat. Those interests can include the safety of US citizens, the US economy, US-owned companies, the US position in the world, protection of US allies and friends of convenience, etc.

Military. Industrial. Complex.

Gotta keep the war machine turning.

 

[allabootmatt]

Quite apart from the rightness or wrongness of extending an American nuclear guarantee (like that quite explicitly extended to Canada, Germany, and so on under NATO, which all things being equal Israel probably should have always been a member of anyway) to Israel, what's silly about Hillary's comment is that it is nonsensical.

Israel is a nuclear weapons state, one which almost certainly has a secure second-strike capability (ie, missiles on submarines). The Iranians aren't stupid; they are no doubt aware of this. So as far as setting up a deterrence situation goes, the work is already done.

Iran understands that a nuclear strike against Israel (were it ever to acquire the necessary weapons, which is certainly a long way off if ever) would result in a massive thermonuclear attack on Iranian territory. Doesn't really matter if the stars on the missiles have six points or five; in the end about forty million Iranians would be just as dead. Again, everybody involved knows this.

So Hillary's comments are needlessly inflammatory, and just pure pander to the American hard right. Much like many of the Iranian leadership's comments on nuclear weapons and on Israel is mostly for domestic consumption.