I like Obama's stance on nuclear weapons in Iran - missle strikes before they are able to use them.

[IndianaJones]

As he stated, launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in, but having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. His instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran.

Pre-emptive rather than reactionary may be a better way to handle Iran on the issue of nuclear weapons.

[blogslut]

1. Ya know

The whole subject is ludicrous. First off, even if Iran gets nukes, who is to say they will be first-strike nukes? And does anyone know, are Israel's nukes first-strike weapons?

[IndianaJones]

2. he is saying that if he is going to err, it will be on the side of them not even having them. nt.

[Tom Rinaldo]

Err on the side of initiating a war is positive?

How does that work?

[IndianaJones]

9. he ruled out invasion. it would be missile strikes to prevent radical clerics from...

controlling nuclear weapons.

[endarkenment]

16. Oh so blowing up some nation's stuff is not a war?

[IndianaJones]

19. as he stated, it is not the optimal position, but the consequences could be far worse. nt.

[blogslut]

4. Well, I would also imagine he'll wait until it becomes reality

It was a bullshit question pulled directly from Dick Cheney's ass.

[endarkenment]

3. If that is his position it is bullshit.

I guess we have learned nothing.

[godai]

5. Because?

You prefer to 'obliterate' Iran after an attack by them (Hillary's position)?

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Yes. IF you honestly include the full quote

Hillary's position is NOT to attack Iran UNLESS Iran uses nuclear weapons against another nation first. It is the strategy of deterrence which the United States has had in effect for 60 years. Ike was urged to attack China before they got nukes, but he said no. We haven't attacked North Korea either. The alternative is the Bush doctrine of Preventive War. Attacking Iran because it is believed they are soon to develop nuclear weapons and that they would be inclined to use those nuclear weapons against American interests is the same rational used for invading Iraq.

[godai]

17. Didn't Bill Clinton follow a similar approach, with cruise missiles?

I think that any US President would likely move to destroy any nuclear weapons identified in N. Korea or Iran.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. That is subject to continuing debate

Bill Clinton used cruise missiles against Iraq in retaliation for their links to an attempt to assassinate George Bush Sr, and for thwarting U.N. resolutions. There was no expectation that those missiles were taking out a nuclear program. North Korea did gain nukes and we haven't attacked them. Ike was urged to attack China before they got nukes, we knew where their nuclear facilities were, but he refused to do so and chose a policy of nuclear deterrence instead.

[endarkenment]

15. No. I'd prefer that we did not view our role in the world

as arbiter of divine justice. Iran has demonstrated little if any aggressive behavior over the last 250 years or so. The current Iranian government, not matter how much one would like to hate it, also has demonstrated no aggressive behavior. Iran hasn't attacked anyone and has shown no incliniation to do so. Israel has a huge nuclear force. I rather doubt Iran is going to commit suicide by attacking Israel. We do not need to either obliterate Iran after a nuclear strike that simply is not going to happen, and if it did would result in Iran's obliteration before we had a chance to get in on the slaughter, nor do we need to start a war based on some half assed theory that 'insane mullahs with nukes' require a military response.

[dionysus]

6. flamebait fail....

[hobbit709]

7. Anybody that talks that way is opening a major can of worms

When you start talking about pre-emptive strikes, you leave yourself open to the same by people who figure they've got nothing to lose.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Have you a link to that?

It's ... ummm .. interesting.

For example, this says he talks about diplomacy:

Obama, on the other hand, stands out as the sole candidate articulating a broader strategy on Iran centered on diplomacy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080422/cm_huffpost/097670

[That Guy 888]

10. Can you provide a link to prove that's Obama's stance? (n/t)

[AllexxisF1]

11. He will....

Right after Hillary comes out and explains her position on what she would do if Aliens from outer space attack this country in order to take our resources and rape our women.

[leveymg]

12. I call Bullshit on this post. This isn't Obama's position IndianaJones, you're a full of crap troll

The OP is a provocative lie.

[TomClash]

13. If you use diplomacy preemptive strikes will not be necessary

The notion that Iran will "nuke Israel" is, quite frankly, ridiculous. This is Israel Lobby pandering at its worst.

[IndianaJones]

29. Obama did say let sanctions work...but doesn't think Iran will blink. nt.

[TomClash]

30. He's also spent a lot of time emphasizing negotiation nt

[IndianaJones]

31. and saying that he didn't think the Iranians would blink...

leaving missile strikes if they gain nuclear weapons.

[TomClash]

32. We'll see

Obviously, that's what anyone would tell Iran.

It's a pandering political point anyway because our intelligence services all tell us that an Iranian nuclear capability will not happen anytime soon, despite Bush and Operation Merlin. Hillary is simply pandering for jewish votes.

[Life Long Dem]

18. I have a problem with Clinton's threat to Iran when she said

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

Not only her saying she would nuke them by obliterating them, but also maybe more importantly and depending on what exactly she means, is her quote of when or why she would attack.

What exactly does she mean by saying "during which they might foolishly 'consider' launching an attack on Israel...". Specifically by her saying if Iran "considers" a attack?

That leaves the door wide open to an attack on Iran - as I see it.

[malik flavors]

20. Why don't you give us a direct quote from Obama instead of just suggesting this is his position?

And for the reocrd, regardless of whether Hillary's position is correct, I absolutely disagree with bullying, threatning, or daring other countries as a way to deter them.

I know Hillary supporters want to stand by everything she stands by (and that's fine), but saying we'll "obliterate," another conutry is something I think all progressives should be against. Just my opinion.

[WinkyDink]

21. Israel really CAN do this part---and has. The QUERY to HRC was POST-Iranian attacks on Israel.

[IndianaJones]

23. I support Hillary, but like Obama's more pre-emptive approach. nt.

[indepat]

22. Why should the world worry about a radical Muslim theocracy having nukes when

a radical extreme RW theocratic corporatist fascist cabal has gained control of the world's largest nuclear arsenal following a hostile takeover? Maybe someone will please explain. :D

Edited for context

[Marie26]

25. Pre-emptive is the Bush doctrine

Clinton was talking about a reaction after an attack by Iran. That's about deterrance, not pre-emptive attack.

[IndianaJones]

27. why wait for the attack? nt.

[Marie26]

28. Because that's the

only valid, legal reason for a war: self-defense. If you start attacking countries just because you think they might possibly have a certain weapon, or you think (or neocons manipulate you into thinking) that they might maybe attack another country, you've just stepped into the Bush Doctrine. We can't attack EVERY nation that might possibly be a threat in the future - that's a recipe for never-ending war. Deterrance is a much more rational policy.

[Marie26]

26. dupe. nt