2 Comments on “World Police, part duex.” »»

1. Comment by Livia | 05/30/08 at 11:58 am

   I understand your views, except your argument makes it seem like you didn’t actually see the rest of her comments, nor put them into context. Hillary Clinton did not say we’re going to obliterate Iran. She said if Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons, we would need to make it clear that any nuclear attack on Israel would result in retaliation by the United States that could obliterate them. (Nuclear attacks have a history of doing that.) She continued on that we perhaps need to form a NATO-like alliance in the Middle East that could further show that any attacks on neighboring countries in the region would come with severe retaliation, and furthermore perhaps serve as a deterrent to arming themselves with nuclear weapons. Threats are always made in diplomacy. She wasn’t strutting around like John McCain saying we’re going to carpet-bomb the country. Frankly, seeing as we’re the only country to have ever actually utilized a nuclear weapon to it’s full capacity I would think even the threat of a nuke from the United States would be weighed heavily into a foreign government’s considerations. Also, you don’t try to disarm a nuclear country *after* they attack someone - we still have more nukes than anyone, and we used them! We were hostile and DID back it up, but stragely nobody led a massive moment (I know there is one, however) to remove our nukes from us.

   As for your points, never has Sen. Clinton argued for obliteration as a means of disarmament. As I mentioned earlier, something she has thrown out (and in this same interview where she made the “obliterate” comments) as an idea is to form a security based coalition in the area, providing an umbrella of deterrence that would not only try to convince Iran to stop their weapons program, but also provide stability to the region, at least in the sense of starting a Middle East arms race.

   Secondly, that whole cold war thing showed that unfortunately, mutually assured destruction can indeed work. While it is obviously not a choice we wish to embrace, most governments realize it doesn’t serve much purpose to try and attack the States when they aren’t going to be around to witness it. Now getting nukes in the hands of groups that are beyond states would most definitely suck, because that would be like going into Afghanistan after al-Qaida attacks - seemingly a wise choice, but more ceremonial than anything.

   Now, my caveat is that I am most definitely more pacifist leaning in ideology, and I think our national outlook on foreign policy has changed considerably after what we’ve had to go through these past eight years. Most of my rhetoric here is to defend the person I think will (should, at least) be the next President and to try to set the record straight. When I find that interview I’ll link it, or at least quote her as to not misrepresent too much. I do agree with her at least up until the possibility of retaliating with nuclear force on Iran, but everything up until that point, I agree with her stance on the issue. So, needless to say, I support Sen. Clinton, I don’t think aggressive diplomacy is hawkish, I think she could’ve chosen her words better, and I disagree with nuclear retaliation

   Also, it’s deux. I know, I’m going to really seem anit-american by both supporting Hillary Clinton and correcting your French.

2. Comment by Livia | 05/30/08 at 12:01 pm

   ok, I take exception with a statement I made.

   Threats are always used in diplomacy should probably read - threats have indeed been used in diplomacy, and are sometimes the only way one can be taken seriously, unfortunate as that may be. Not all sides come to the table in good faith.

   It needed some nuance.

Leave a Comment »»