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.

Quote:

---

"We should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States. But I would do the same with other countries in the region ... . You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say, well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup."

---

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.

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?

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 ?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 ?

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Realistically, do you have any idea of the real-world consequences of actually doing what you advocate?

---

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. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Let me just address the last part.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

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

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

it looks as if preemption is off the table.

---

Well, here's what Tom said,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Yeah there I go again suggesting preemption.

---

And you agreed with him, so I assumed that's what you had in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

---

So you agree with Hillary (and not Tom) after all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I certainly do not favor unconditional talks with the Mahdi Hatter,

---

OK, you're against preemptive military action, and you're against diplomacy, so what are you FOR?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Yes, I understand the consequences of all the options you listed

---

Would you care to elaborate on those consequences?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I also understand the consequences of letting Iran go nuclear. Do you?

---

I understand that the world would be a more dangerous place than it is now if they succeeded in developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. But shunning diplomacy in favor of bluster and threats that we don't have the capability to make good on is a pissed-poor strategy for preventing it, it seems to me. If you really have a better option than diplomacy in mind, let's hear it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

I understand that the world would be a more dangerous place than it is now if they succeeded in developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. But shunning diplomacy in favor of bluster and threats that we don't have the capability to make good on is a pissed-poor strategy for preventing it, it seems to me. If you really have a better option than diplomacy in mind, let's hear it.

---

Good point. I don't want America to lead the world with rogue nation tactics of jumping head first into war pig solutions. We should only get our hands dirty when all options have been exhausted. I think the original scenario was "what if" Iran used nuclear weapons on Israel. Personally I think at that point the talking is done, the button pushing begins and that's much more likely from Israel's fingers than the United States. The United States, at least with the Republicans in charge, would draw out a long war with billions and billions of dollars a month until ad nausea.

Here is the consequences of no preemption and no US deterence umbrella ;proliferation in unstable nations like we have never seen. That is happening to a degree now with the NORKS and the mullocracy in Iran ;as well as the dangerous situation in Pakistan. Have you considered the consequences of NOT preventing rogue states from developing nukes ? In fact;what exactly do you propose ? Do you think it's a done deal ? Do you think we should sit on our hands and do nothing ? Do you think we should accommodate ;perhaps do a Neville Chamberlain type diplomacy ? Or maybe as Evita suggested we should get even more involved in the collective security of the region ? Should we leave like many of the Defeatocrats suggest and let them just blow each other away ? Why should our allies around the world trust us if we were to abandon a region that is clearly in our national security interests ? (at least until we become energy independent ? )

So yeah ;no one likes the options ;none of them look good. I would just remind everyone that Israel whacked the Iraqi development plan and probably recently did the same to Syria (the facts are being covered up about the Sept attack last year ),and everyone secretly rejoiced that they took the initiative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

In fact;what exactly do you propose ?

---

That's the question I asked you, which I notice you haven't answered. You are "suggesting preemption", so what do you mean by that, exactly?

What I propose is deterrence and intensive diplomacy. If you think that "preemption" (whatever that means) has a higher probability of success and a lower cost of failure, I'd like to hear why you think so.

Deterence as in MAD ? That may have worked with a reasonably rational adversary like the Soviets . But I take it seriously when the Mahdi-hatter speaks messianic on the podium of the UN General Assembly glowingly describing the return of the 12th Imam that he is going to usher in by making Jerusalem glow ;defies all resolutions ;makes a mockery of the EU-3 attempts at "intense negotiation" ;wages proxy wars in Iraq against the United States ,and against Israel ,and Lebanon .

First I have advocated the support of anti-regime forces in Iran for many years now . I would step up efforts in that area immediately . The populace can't stand the ruling Mullahs because they hijacked the revolution .Their economy is in shambles under the leadership of the Mahdi-Hatter Ahamadjihad.

I have supported efforts to isolate the country from doing business with the world until they open up their all program to real inspection(not the phony ones the IAEA does under Mohamed ElBaradei) .I would ramp up the pressure if necessary by having a blockade to prevent refined petroleum and nuclear parts from entering the country .

I would if necessary resort to surgical strikes against their known and suspected nuclear facilities although I doubt we can completely destroy their program that way .

I am in favor right now in attacking known training camps of Iranian supported Iraqi "insurgents " ;and their IED making plants . If more pressure is needed I would disable their shore defenses ;their missile bases and Qod and IRG camps ,disabling their navy.

From the mouth of Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen.
Recent operations in Southern Iraq, recent combat operations in Southern Iraq in Basra highlighted yet again Iran's activities in ways that very specifically pointed to activities which, in fact, resulted in the deaths of coalition soldiers. And I think for the ability to create stability in that part of the world that not just this alliance, but those who are allied, will have to deal with Iran in the very near future.
The Atlantic Council of the United States - News and Events

They arm anti-American and anti-Iraqi government forces .
Multi-National Force - Iraq - Iraqi Army Soldiers Discover Large Cache with Iranian-Marked Weapons

They arm and train Hezzbollah and Hamas . A nuclear-armed Iran is likely to step up this activity. Deterrence may prevent them from using a nuclear attack for fear of retaliation, but its possession of nuclear weapons could serve to constrain how the U.S. and Israel respond to its stepped up support for these groups .As you recall ;we limited how we waged war in Korea and Vietnam due to the deterrent effect that the Communist bomb had on us. Meanwhile the many proxy wars that were waged as an alternative claimed millions of lives .

Once they have nukes I'm sure they would be more than willing to do a hand off to one of their proxies or client terrorist organizations .You think 9-11 was an ugly attack ? Wait until they can get a dirty bomb detonation in one of our or our allies citties. Like I said ;history will record this episode right there with the Munich accords.
In short I think deterrance and containment are misguided policies.

The only positive I see from this is that a nuclear Iran would be so feared in the greater ME that perhaps there would be a new appreciation to the US presence in the region. But I find the prospect of a nuclear Iran as almost intolerable .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Well, here's what Tom said... and you agreed with him, so I assumed that's what you had in mind.

---

That's why I was messing with you over how you asked your question, you put words in my mouth, just like you have now. When tom said "Yeah there I go again suggesting preemption," I gave no indication that I agreed with him whatsoever. Check again, I commented on Hillary's wording. You assumed wrong.

Quote:

---

So you agree with Hillary (and not Tom) after all?

---

Again OG, you're making assumptions. You omitted the part where I said "it looks as if preemption is off the table." If it is, then what's left? Deterrence? Missile defense? Diplomacy? Of the remaining three I choose the first two.

Quote:

---

OK, you're against preemptive military action and you're against diplomacy, so what are you FOR?

---

For the third time, of the remaining options - deterrence and missile defense. But, since you keep pressing I'll make it very clear, with the regime that's in charge now preemption is the best option. You'd think the international community would have learned their lesson by now, that it is in their best interest to make absolute certain that rogue states such as Iran do not acquire nuclear weapons. But the fact is the very people that have been running around with all their hand-wringing over nukes have been unwilling to do what is necessary to lessen the threat. They are bringing their worst fears on themselves with all their talk and appeasement.

Quote:

---

Would you care to elaborate on those consequences?

---

Not particularly, the consequences of NOT stopping Iran are far worse. Nukes in the hands of radical Islamists on a "divine mission" should scare the hell out of you.

Quote:

---

I understand that the world would be a more dangerous place than it is now if they succeeded in developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. But shunning diplomacy in favor of bluster and threats that we don't have the capability to make good on is a pissed-poor strategy for preventing it, it seems to me. If you really have a better option than diplomacy in mind, let's hear it.

---

Who said we don't have the capability? The vast majority of our military is not forward deployed contrary to what you hear. If the US were to tell Iran to give up their nukes or we'll obliterate you (or as DOD says, "they will suffer severe consequences") I'm certain we could back up the threat. That's how you negotiate with terrorists, and it ain't "bluster and threats that we don't have the capability to make good on."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

First I have advocated the support of anti-regime forces in Iran for many years now . I would step up efforts in that area immediately . The populace can't stand the ruling Mullahs because they hijacked the revolution .Their economy is in shambles under the leadership of the Mahdi-Hatter Ahamadjihad.

---

I agree, as long as we can find ways to do it that are effective rather than counterproductive.

Quote:

---

U.S. support for political opposition groups could actually sabotage the democratization process in Iran. If the United States sides with discredited groups such as the royalists or illegitimate individuals, its image in Iran will be further damaged. Iranians expect the United States to be actively engaged in promoting human rights and democracy, but most are suspicious of foreign-funded actors. Both the Iranian people and political leadership are quite sensitive about their country's independence. Hence, U.S. funding of even legitimate groups can serve to discredit them. U.S. Support for the Iranian Opposition--The Washington Institute

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I would ramp up the pressure if necessary by having a blockade to prevent refined petroleum and nuclear parts from entering the country .

I would if necessary resort to surgical strikes against their known and suspected nuclear facilities although I doubt we can completely destroy their program that way .

---

OK, a naval and air blockade and a bombing campaign. These are unambiguous acts of war, which you acknowledge would probably not accomplish the stated objective. Do you suppose that if we start down that road, we can avoid sending in ground troops? Are you willing to do that? If so, where would these troops come from?

Quote:

---

I am in favor right now in attacking known training camps of Iranian supported Iraqi "insurgents " ;and their IED making plants.
...

They arm anti-American and anti-Iraqi government forces .

---

Iranian involvement in the Iraq war is a different issue than their nuclear weapons activities, but since you bring it up, does it give you pause at all that Ahmadinejad got the red carpet treatment from al-Malaki when he visited Iraq recently? Or that in the recent fighting in Basra, the Iranians seemed to favor the Iraqi government against the Mahdi Army?

Ordinary says: "...These are unambiguous acts of war...." What do You categorize Iranian men and arms in Iraq killing American soldiers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

you put words in my mouth, just like you have now. When tom said "Yeah there I go again suggesting preemption," I gave no indication that I agreed with him whatsoever.

---

Here's the exact exchange:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

But why wait for them to become such a threat ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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

---

Sure sounds like agreement to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Again OG, you're making assumptions. You omitted the part where I said "it looks as if preemption is off the table."

---

No I didn't. That's why I asked if you agreed with Hillary instead of Tom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

If it is, then what's left? Deterrence? Missile defense? Diplomacy? Of the remaining three I choose the first two.

For the third time, of the remaining options - deterrence and missile defense. But, since you keep pressing I'll make it very clear, with the regime that's in charge now preemption is the best option.

---

Man, you change directions so fast I'm getting dizzy. First you said, "preemption is off the table", and denied that you agreed with Tom's ideas about it, and now it's "preemption is the best option". Which is it? When you speak of "the regime that's in charge now", are you talking about the Bush regime, or the Ahmadinejad regime?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You'd think the international community would have learned their lesson by now, that it is in their best interest to make absolute certain that rogue states such as Iran do not acquire nuclear weapons. But the fact is the very people that have been running around with all their hand-wringing over nukes have been unwilling to do what is necessary to lessen the threat. They are bringing their worst fears on themselves with all their talk and appeasement.

---

You talk like there is an obvious and sure-fire way to "make absolute certain" that they don't get nukes, and that "what is necessary" to prevent it is clear and unambiguous. If it were that much of a "slam dunk" the idea of preemption would be gaining a lot more traction, don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Not particularly, the consequences of NOT stopping Iran are far worse. Nukes in the hands of radical Islamists on a "divine mission" should scare the hell out of you.

---

I'll tell you what scares the hell out of me. Yet another US-initiated war in the Middle East that inflames world-wide passions against us even further, while it fails to keep nukes out of the hands of radical Islamists on a "divine mission". Pakistan already has both nuclear weapons and radical islamists. If we're serious about keeping the two apart, maybe that's where we should be focusing our attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

If the US were to tell Iran to give up their nukes or we'll obliterate you

---

Well, they don't have nukes yet. Are you suggesting that we should threaten to inflict widespread civilian casualties on them unless they stop their current uranium enrichment activities?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I'm certain we could back up the threat. That's how you negotiate with terrorists, and it ain't "bluster and threats that we don't have the capability to make good on."

---

Yeah, we've got nukes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Here's the exact exchange:

---

No, ordinaryguy, you are confusing two posts. Look it up. In this post you went by my response to his 2nd post as if it were my response to his first post. In your latest post you changed it to the correct order. I did agree with tom on "why wait for them to become such a threat ?" That can mean anything, so please don't assume on my behalf.

As to the rest of it I've been entirely consistent, I made it clear from the beginning that to me it it looks as if preemption is off the table, and of the remaining choices I have given my preference three times. I did fail to discuss regime change in Iran and that is a possibility, but I don't think time is on our side to do so from within. As for the other 'regime,' I'd rather have a guy in the White House that's willing to do what it takes and understands the mindset of maniacal, messianic Islamists like the Mahdi Hatter than a "hope" filled blow hard that would unconditionally surrender. Otherwise yeah, I agree with tom - always have :D