Sunday, May 04, 2008

"Obliterate Iran"

This time she didn't "misspeak". She meant it.

8 comments:

decubitus commenter said...

It would be terribly wrong if Iran or any other country decides to use a nuclear weapon. In the event that such a tragedy does happen, what kind of disciplinary action do you think must be taken against such a country?

Surely, a war against a more powerful state than Iraq would prove much costlier for the United States and in times like today, disciplinary action cannot be handled by just the United States alone.

Rahul Siddharthan said...

anon - Your premise is terribly suspect. As I said a few days ago, Iran has not attacked another country in living memory and there is no reason to think they are about to do so now (with nukes or otherwise). Logicians know that with a false premise you can "prove" anything.

But even if we grant your premise: "obliterating" an entire nation for the actions of a few (undemocratically chosen) leaders would be the biggest war crime in history. Even suggesting such a thing marks Clinton as unfit to lead. It would not be any better if the leaders were democratically elected.

There is only one country in the world that is likely to use nuclear weapons unprovoked, it is in fact the only country ever to have used nukes and has never ruled out using them again, and it is not Iran.

decubitus commenter said...

I am sure that such a premise is not based on historical records, but rather on this .

True, there is no indication that Iran intends to obliterate Israel, but just that Ahmadinejad, amongst others, wants it to happen.

I guess such questions must be answered by a candidate running in an election in the U.S. in order to win people's support, even if the candidate does not favour war.

Rahul Siddharthan said...

I see nothing there about Iran attacking Israel (militarily), except for one speech which, according to one disputed translation, calls for Israel to be "wiped off the map". Even that disputed translation does not suggest that Iran will commit the aggression. And other translations are more innocuous.

Of course, Iran attacks Israel verbally all the time, and vice versa. I hope Ms Clinton isn't threatening to react to verbal attacks.

decubitus commenter said...

No, Mrs. Clinton is not threatening to react to verbal attacks. The question she was asked was an hypothetical one based on verbal attacks.

Historically, no country has initiated a military attack on Israel, but also politicians have not always kept election promises. That her comments mark her unfit to lead is true, but unfit people have often led (the current U.S. president for example).

Though I do not support Clinton, I wouldn't be surprised if she won. Would you?

decubitus commenter said...

Correction, no country has initiated a military attack on Israel since 1948.

Rahul Siddharthan said...

At this point, I'd be surprised if she won the primaries. Obama is so far ahead that for Hillary to catch up would require some serious strongarm tactics (eg, seating the Florida/Michigan delegates though Obama didn't campaign in Florida and wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan). That would split the party and cost her many votes in the main election, so I'd expect her to lose to McCain there too...

km said...

Hey man, liberal compassion.

But "Iran has not attacked a country in living memory"? What about the Iraq-Iran conflict of the 1980s? (I know, the origins of that conflict, unlike most wars started by USA, are not very clear, but Iran was not entirely innocent.)