Despite her threats? How about because of them...

Isn't it ironic that foreign media focus so much more on the issues than US outlets? Probably because they don't need the horse race to prop up their ratings.

You can tell from the number of responses you've gotten, that people just don't get it. To me, her statements are on par with Bush "axis of evil" comments, or most of what comes out of Rice's mouth. Diplomacy? Does she not understand that she'll have no credibility if she's elected? She continues to disappoint me. Please keep writing about your observations.

I think her response to the question was totally over the top.

For one thing, Iran is years from a nuclear weapon. Therefore the question was a stupid one. She should've responded to a stupid question by saying "That's a stupid question," and telling the questioner why, not by giving a stupid answer.

For another thing, even if Iran had a nuclear weapon, they wouldn't launch it at Israel, since Israel has her own nukes to launch back. In other words, Israel doesn't need us to provide nuclear deterrence; she has her own.

Finally, even if we give her the benefit of the doubt and allow that attacking Iran in defense of Israel is appropriate, I think most of us can agree that a nuclear strike on Iran would NOT be the way to go. You'd be mass-murdering innocent civilians, you'd be showering even more fallout on the greater ME region, and you'd make it much more expensive to produce Iran's oil. Surgical strikes on their leadership, command, and control would be far more appropriate to the US's long term interests and to the stability of the region.

Just remind your friends outside the US:

(1) Only 54.?% of Pennsylvania Democrats voted for Clinton.

(2) Due to the dreadful Republican-controlled media, most of them hadn't even *heard* the psychopathic "obliterate" line.

In other words, *most of us aren't crazy like that*.

euro dem,

Great post. Too sad Americans still see themselves too often as the belly bottom of the world.

Empires do fall...

euro dem,

Thank you, maybe we will gain credibility overseas when the majority of Americans don't buy this. Perhaps this will be viewed as us collectively regaining our sanity?

It is shameful that the "obliterate" remarks haven't gotten wider play.

Obliterate is simply not a word that any politician should be tossing around lightly, especially not in regards to a highly volatile region that already views us an arrogant, imperialistic occupier.

Hillary Clinton is a chickenhawk at heart. She cannot take this nomination.

Wow, I went to the Guardian expecting outrage over her comments, and there someone says you have to threaten retaliation with your nukes every so often or they don't work as a deterrent.

I kind of have the impression that your idea of "what Europeans think" is greatly filtered by what you think.

I don't think Americans have any idea how serious the potential of more wars is. Perhaps McCain's the straightest talker of them all - "There's gonna be more wars." He KNOWS. The Iraqi invasion was planned, executed and sustained exactly as they have forseen. The press went along to hoodwink and scare the entire country into supporting it, and taxpayers' money continues to fund it as the warmongers and their friends make obscene profits.

There *will* be more wars if either McCain or Hillary gets into the White House. Hillary VOTED for the wars WITH George Bush. The same Military Industrial Complex, Israeli Lobbies and Big Oil money fund them, not to mention all the bankers who underwrite this $1 trillion war which will be paid by future generations of Americans to the foreigners who loaned the money. I really don't know about Obama, he could be brought into their fold when elected, but at least there is a chance that he will fight for diplomacy.

None so blind as those who refuse to see.

There's gonna be more wars.

The doomsday clock just ticked forward a few more seconds.

Are Hillary's flag-waving supporters distinguishable from Republicans anymore?

Iran gets closer by the day. It is not a coincidence that Petraeus is now CentCom in the Persian Gulf:

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42101

Expect Hillary to vote FOR it.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080423/tuk-us-vote-clinton-iran-britain-86ac183.html

I have to say this - I'm appalled at what Clinton said and I definitely disagree. It makes me sick.

However, what I found in Europe is that the people are sophisticated enough to understand that there is a difference between our government and the people. It's not as if Europeans haven't had bad government themselves and get that.

They do.

I've had conversations in Europe with Europeans -they don't blame us, I have found - they blame the right people - Bush and his administration.

That's my experience.

I live in France and am absolutely appalled by media slant of the Democratic primaries both on French television and in the press. They seem to have bought Obama hook, line and sinker. It's like one of those foreign toys that gets exported out of Japan and China and is all the rage in the states. My relatives describe the new fad which hasn't hit Europe. And than it does. And the marketing is such that the kids want that and nothing else. The same kind of marketing has been done on Obama.

As for Hillary's precipitous policies toward Iran, Obama has also said -- with the backing of Biden -- that he'd go into Pakistan militarily
if he felt that the government wasn't aggressive enough on terrorism.

A French politician from a minor party felt that Iran's development of nuclear weapons wasn't a threat because a country can't use them practically by definition.

In terms of the past history of nuclear development, President Kennedy pressured Israel to discontinue development of nuclear weapons a few months before his assassination.

It's a very complex issue.

What is sure, however, is that France is temporarily caught in the Obama Glitzkrieg and the media are not giving solid reporting on the primaries. Thank God for internet!

I don't mean to dismiss European concerns - they are real, what we do does affect Europe, certainly.

But the continent that gave us Hitler and Stalin has a bit of a problem trying to get too outraged and point too many fingers at the people here as opposed to the government.

I hate this government - it's a fascist government and it has been a nightmare for us and the world.

But it's pretty much of a stretch to say that the rest of the world hates the people here when the rest of the world is hardly in a position to judge. We aren't exceptional - don't get me wrong. We're just as bad or good as anyone else. But there have been so many bad governments in the world that ours is not unique.

Let's just get real - when Franco was running Spain - if any of you were alive then - did you hate the Spanish?

When Pol Pot was running Cambodia - did y'all hate the Cambodians?

It's silly.

But the US can and does fuck up the lives of many people around the world. That gets noticed.

did I know say that? I think I did - I acknowledged that what we do affects other countries.

But to place the kind of emphasis that Americans place on what we do and to say that the rest of the world sits there with bated breath watching to see what America will do next is another form of exceptionalism, IMO.

It's dead wrong - it's the other side of the stupid Jerusalem on the Hill thing that keeps us fucking up.

I don't know if there is anyone left on the planet who doubts our weapons capability or our willingness to exercise it.

While nobody expects Senator Clinton to whip up a nuclear device in the basement in Chappaqua this weekend, the rhetorical chest-beating of our political conversation is heard everywhere. And, given our actions over the last few years, its effects have the potential to be particularly destructive. The rest of the world has a stake in our foreign policy proposals and our voters' responses to them. And, whether we like it or not, we have a stake in theirs.

Sometimes we get caught up in the heat of our own internal conversation. I wonder if we lose track of the other parties on the line.

Unfortunately, polling of world opinion vis a vis the American people has been showing increases in negative opinions about American citizens over the past several years.

The re-election of Bush accelerated that trend. No one should be in denial of the facts because it makes them uncomfortable.

In regards to Israel, no one who follows their military/security issues closely would ignore their superiority in anti-missile defense technology. They not only have the advantages of American systems, they also have boasted of having current technical assets that exceed our own.

Israeli vulnerability to low-tech "unguided" rockets remains because there is no current system technically capable of countering them.

While Israel's offensive capabilities are indeed formidable, their equally impressive defensive assets should be taken into account when discussing the issue.

Of course, no one with a lick of sense or honesty thinks Iran would actually nuke Israel in the first place.

First of all, the reason it hasn't gotten much attention is because we're more focused on the important issues like flagpins.

Second of all, Hillary only made the comments because she was trying to win a state with a large number of "Reagan Democrats". She'll say something completely different when she campaigns in a more left leaning state like Oregon.

As far as what she would actually do if Israel were attacked ... it's impossible to tell. It depends on what the polls say at that time.

L.A. Times has a story out:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/04/iran-hillarys-t.html