Evita has made a few comments recently that suggests she would be tough on Iran if they engaged in aggression against Israel or other friends of ours in the greater M.E. On the ABC News show, "Good Morning America."
ABC's Chris Cuomo asked her what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons .She responded that if Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons, she would respond in kind against Tehran, with the ability to "totally obliterate them."

During the ABC debate she outlined a new policy of deterrance that would have the U.S. defend Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates with a nuclear umbrella.

Hmmm ;and they call McCain a war monger. lol

Not that I necessarily disagree with her position ,or the fact that this goes much further than any previous American regional doctrine ;But wouldn't it be saner to prevent Iran from getting nukes in the first place rather than introducing a new version of MAD ? Yeah there I go again suggesting preemption.

speechlesstx

I waas actually impressed she said this, but you still have to notice the wording:

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

Able or willing?

tomder55

yeah I know she used typical Clintonoid speak . I'm sure it would be the equivalent of her voting for the Iraq war resolution and now claiming she was giving the President additional negotiating leverage.

My bigger point was in the last 2 sentences. The rain of destruction on Iran would come from Israeli rockets not American if Iran were to become too big a threat .But why wait for them to become such a threat ?

George_1950

Remember, it's not the results but her intentions for which she is to be judged.

speechlesstx

Exactly, tom, and yet that seems to be exactly what we're doing.

BABRAM

It's one of those "what if" scenarios. But at three in the morning should that call become a horrible reality, I remind everyone that her husband "Bill" backed off his pro-Israel support soon as he got elected. He peeved off a lot of the Jewish community in Israel and the US, including myself. I don't put any stock into what the Clinton's say. In recent trustworthy and honesty polls Hillary's at the bottom.

ordinaryguy

OK, so what are you guys suggesting, exactly? What is your "saner" preemptive plan to "prevent Iran from getting nukes in the first place"? A bombing campaign? A full scale land invasion? What, exactly?

What kind of probability would you put on such a plan succeeding--meaning that, A) It actually DOES prevent them from getting nukes, and B) It DOESN'T set off an even wider and more devastating war than the two we're already engaged in, and that are straining our armed forces to the breaking point? Where would the forces required to prosecute a whole new war come from? Realistically, do you have any idea of the real-world consequences of actually doing what you advocate?

speechlesstx

Let me just address the last part. You began with asking what we advocate, filled in the blanks for us and then asked us if we had "any idea of the real-world consequences" of what "we" advocate. You may as well answer the last question, too, since you apparently know where we're going with this.

ordinaryguy

I wondered if you'd be willing to address the first part. Apparently not.

speechlesstx

Ordinaryguy, I'm just messing with you over the way you asked the question. Since the Bush administration barely blinked over Iran's recent announcement that it was tripling its number of centrifuges, the UN is toothless and the EU-3 talks went nowhere it looks as if preemption is off the table.

I don't know the answer, but it looks as if deterrence and missile defense is going to be the best of what's left. I certainly do not favor unconditional talks with the Mahdi Hatter, he's more than willing to "pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam."

Yes, I understand the consequences of all the options you listed, and I also understand the consequences of letting Iran go nuclear. Do you?