Don’t know about you, but I shy away from people when they use words such as OBLITERATION when they

[IsItJustMe]

are talking about the the destruction of my fellow human beings.

I don’t say this as a supporter of one candidate over the other, but as a concerned citizen of the world. Such rhetoric makes me start to think of such things as Armageddon, the Apocalypse, and Revelations.

Even as insane as GWB is, I have never heard him use such rhetoric, and I detest even insinuating anything good about him.

Do we really want a president, who uses such rhetoric and has so little self-control in their speech getting the 3 AM phone call?

It does not make me feel safer. In fact, it makes me feel very unsafe. How about you?

[patrice]

1. Isn't it smarter to "play your hand closer to your chest" when dealing with belligerants?

Because what you say you WILL do sets off more problem behaviors, so if you want to CONTROL what they're doing, you have to keep them wondering about what you'll do. Like chess; if you set some pieces up so that it's obvious that your going after a certain one of your opponent's valuable piece (say a bishop of the queen) to take it out, your opponent does things to prevent that AND cause you trouble elsewhere.

Do you think the use of the word "obliterate" represents an acceptance of Cheney's Preventative War Doctrine? I worry A LOT about our tactical nukes that are rising in popularity now, as a way to do war without soldiers and as a practical solution to being spread too thin across wars on two fronts. :scared:

[indepat]

2. It makes me think most Dems feel they must act as tough on crime, drugs, communism, terrorism as

Repigs because of abject fear of being labeled as soft on crime, drugs, communism, terrorism. Therefore, Dems say and do things, like using the obliterate a nation phrase, to show their balls are just as hard as the Repigs balls. As a result Repigs have largely shaped our national policy and agenda for more than 50 years resulting in the US having the largest incarceration rate in the world with insane drug laws and sentences and having killed millions on other people's own soil for fear of the spread of the godless commie menace and has overthrown countless governments that didn't lean far enough to the right: the US has sadly become an efficient killing and destructive machine inflicting untold carnage and destruction through an incredible number of terrorist acts throughout the world. These are just my opinions which hopefully wrong. :cry:

[IsItJustMe]

17. You make some excellent points.

[lligrd]

3. Speak\Walk Softly But Carry A Big Stick

I guess Hillary disagrees with T. Roosevelt.

[MonkeyFunk]

4. A policy of retaliation

is pretty useless if your opponent doesn't know about it.

The point of saying it is to PREVENT Iran from nuking Israel. Keeping it a secret defeats the whole purpose of the policy of deterrence.

[lligrd]

10. Hasn't Been A Secret For Many A Year

The point of the saying is that bad ass talk never does anyone any good.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. Never?

The point of the policy is for it NOT to be a secret, even if a poorly-kept one. The point is to let Iran know in no uncertain terms that a nuclear attack on Israel would be suicidal for them.

[habitual]

11. deterrence would imply that her remarks were meant for Iran

when most of us know damn well that her comments were meant for a domestic audience.

Deterrence sounds good, but the real word would be pandering.

saying she would or wouldn't do something in the future, when she does not have the power to do it now, is not performing an act of deterrence, it is trying to sell the idea to the voters that you *would* act in this way (use this sort of deterrence, not actually obliterate them).

And don't even get me started on the idea that deterrence can take a million different forms and the one that she is choosing is about equal as far as I can see as the claim that Ahmadinejad has said he will wipe Israel off the map. Can you explain the difference in terms of deterrence, OTHER than Ahmadinejad is actually in a position to make the threats as a form of deterrence whereas Hillary is not?

[MonkeyFunk]

16. She was asked directly

what her response would be if Iran nuked Israel.

Her answer was honest, and nothing new.

[tabasco]

5. Hillary is a rough, tough combat vet and she likes to talk tough!

[goclark]

6. And she said it even in a stronger way this morning on CNN

I could not believe my ears.

There is seriously something wrong with this her abilities.

Even GW would not have stuck by the same words.

I am still in shock.

[DangerousRhythm]

12. It must be the extra testicles Carville mentioned. N/T

[FightingIrish]

7. To obliterate is beyond genocide

It implies not only destroying a country but killing every human being in that country and removing any trace that they ever existed. If Reverend Wright had used that term, it would be good for several news cycles. This is a dangerous candidate.

[Yurovsky]

9. I say we send her over there Rambo-style ...

and see just how bad-assed she really is.

Easy to be tough when it's not your ass on the line. Just ask Chimpy & Evil Dick (2 legendary chickenhawks).

[goclark]

14. That's it ~ send her today

Bet she would shut up when faced with their power.

Why is she saying that , even McCain is not saying that stuff.

[Yurovsky]

18. While I'm no supporter of McCain...

one thing that separates him from the neocons is that he's actually had his OWN ass on the line (and in the Hanoi Hilton for 5 years or so). He has a son in the military as well.

Name one neocon who's a combat vet or has their kids in the shit over in Iraq or Afghanistan. Better yet, ask a Freeper next time one jumps your case over not being patriotic and wearing a dumbass lapel pin.

[sandnsea]

8. Only Republicans are accountable for warmongering n/t

[BlooInBloo]

13. Yup. It exhibits a certain gusto, a certain lust for killing men, women, and children....

... That is most unsavory. I refuse to vote for such a person as President.

[grantcart]

19. Generally its not a good sign to make up policy on Thermonuclear warfare on the campaign trail

In fact no serious candidate Republican or Democrat has ever done it until now.

[Symarip]

20. With language like that

You might expect the same person to vote in favor of an illegal invasion or something.