Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiClinton Threatens to 'Obliterate' Iran
How proud the Clintonistas must be. They have learned how to rival what Hillary once termed the "vast right-wing conspiracy" in the effort to destroy a viable Democratic leader who dares to stand in the way of their ambitions. The tactics used to kneecap Barack Obama are the same as had been turned on Bill Clinton in earlier times, from radical-baiting associates to challenging his resolve in protecting the nation from foreign enemies. Sen. Clinton's eminently sensible and centrist-to a fault-opponent is now viewed as weak and even vaguely unpatriotic because he is thoughtful. Neither Karl Rove nor Dick Morris could have done a better job.
On primary election day in Pennsylvania, even with polls showing her well ahead in that state, Hillary went lower in her grab for votes. Seizing upon a question as to how she would respond to a nuclear attack by Iran, which doesn't have nuclear weapons, on Israel, which does, Hillary mocked reasoned discourse by promising to "totally obliterate them," in an apparent reference to the population of Iran. That is not a word gaffe; it is an assertion of the right of our nation to commit genocide on an unprecedented scale.
Shouldn't the potential leader of a nation that used nuclear bombs to obliterate hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese employ extreme caution before making such a threat? Neither the Japanese then nor the Iranian people now were in a position to hold their leaders accountable, and to approve such collective punishment of innocents is to endorse terrorism. This from a candidate who attacked her opponent for suggesting targeted strikes against militants in Pakistan and derided his openness to negotiations with other national leaders as an irresponsible commitment on the part of a contender for the presidency.
Clearly the heat of a campaign is not the proper setting for consideration of a response to a threat from a nation that is a long way from developing nuclear weapons. Obviously the danger of Iran's developing such weapons can be met with a range of alternatives, from the diplomatic to the military, that do not involve genocide and at any rate must be considered in moral and not solely political terms. Or is it base political ambition that would guide Clinton if she received that middle-of-the-night phone call?
If so, it cannot be assumed that Hillary Clinton as president would be less irrationally hawkish and more restrained in the unleashing of military force than John McCain. The latter, at least, has personal experience with the true, on-the-ground costs of militarism gone wild. Yes, I know that McCain still holds out the hope of winning the Iraq war that both he and Hillary originally endorsed, but for Clinton to raise the rhetoric against Iran in the midst of a campaign is hardly the path to Mideast peace, whether it concerns Israel or Iraq. It is bizarre that a politician who bought into the phony threat about Iraq's nonexistent WMD arsenal now plays political games with the alleged threat posed by Iran.
The war has accomplished only one major change in the configuration of Mideast power: Iran now holds uncontested supremacy as the region's key player. Whatever chance there is for stability in Iraq now depends on the blessings of the ayatollahs of Iran, whose surrogates were put in power in Baghdad as a consequence of the American invasion. It is totally hypocritical for Clinton or McCain to now talk about getting tough with Iran over the nuclear weapons issue, when both contributed so mightily to squandering U.S. leverage over Tehran.
To meet that potential nuclear weapons threat from Iran requires a serious, non-rhetorical, multinational response that makes clear that no nation has the right to obliterate the population of another, and that nations, even our own, that claim that right should be challenged as unacceptably barbaric. Instead, Clinton played into the thoughts of fanatics throughout the world who believe that might makes right and who take the United States -- which spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined (including many billions on new sophisticated and "usable" nuclear weapons) -- as both their enemy and an example to emulate.
What better argument do the ayatollahs need to justify their obtaining a nuclear "deterrent" than that the possible leader of the first nation to develop nuclear weapons, and the only one to ever use them to kill people, now threatens the people of Iran with obliteration?
Robert Scheer is editor of Truthdig.com and a regular columnist for The San Francisco Chronicle.
© 2008 TruthDig.com
155 Comments so far
Show AllHitlery Clinton will inevitably take the nomination away from Obama in the Convention. She is GOD's chosen one and GOD HERSELF will see to it that she becomes president. She will deliver the fatal kick to the balls of Obama and McCain and rule the US and the world with an IRON FIST. She will make all the dicks and balls of the US shrink into PUSSIES while Hitlery herself flaunts an even bigger dick and balls. Hitlery is an hermaprodite.
Hitlery will kick Hu Jingtao in the balls causing his dick and balls to shrink into his body creating a PUSSY. She will not only obliterate Iran, she will also obliterate China as well. She will start the 2nd Holocaust on Chinese Americans and will commit mass genocide to Chinese in ways that will make Hitler himself look like a PUSSY. She will create a wave of Anti-Sinticism around the whole world and urge other countries in Europe and abroad to purge their Chinese populations too.
This link explains a lot, but if you don't take a look at this video now you may never be able to do so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo&eurl=http://apps.facebook.com/superwall/view.php?id=8050476...
It is easy for the Republicans to win if all the candidates - on either side - are Republicans.
Right. And Hilary is NOT a fanatic? Nor the terrorist state of Israel pulling her puppet strings? Wake up lad.
No one is taking any glee in anything. If we were murderous enough to willingly kill millions of people, we would have done it long ago. This is serious business. Iran's leaders are the loonies that took our people hostage back in the 70s. Never forget that they are a fanatical group of hate mongers. You might say that a lot of Bush's ire is trumped up and you would probably be right. But don't let that fool distract you. Iran is run by a bunch of sick people and the sooner we get them to become decent world citizens, the better.
I know that sounds like a lot of hot air, but it is not. It is the only way I have of expressing the sum of what I have seen over the years. Maybe others forget where people came from, but I do not. That explains a lot of our policy towards Cuba over the decades as well. The old phrase is a leopard does not change his spots. Fidel does not and neither do the people running Iran right now.
Oh Bullshit DODGER, read what she actually said. Compare her votes to Obamas since he's been a U.S. Senator.
The next thing we'll be hearing is, she's related to Kurschev. I tnever stops. Bull, bull, bull.
SENATOR clinton's remark sounds like the threats nikita kruschev hurled at the usa back in the mid-fifties."we will bury you," etc.to hear a presidential candidate threaten an entire nation of people who have never harmed the usa,is sickening-especially when you contextualize the real purpose and audience.she simply didn't consider who was listening,and recruiting-bring 'em on baby,'cause i wanna be president.we didn't think long term back in the 1950's when the cia torched a democreacy of sorts and replaced it with a torturing despot of a shah.i'm too flummoxed to connect the dots-any better than y'all could."we" invented this "enemy",huh?
I look forward to 2009. Barring martial law, the Bush administration will be over (will the damage done ever end remains to be seen), and the commenter wars re Obama/Clinton will hopefully die.
I used to read comments on CommonDreams for added substance to the rich content of the articles on this site. I scan them now, quickly. On Clinton it has all been said. The next 10 days will bring more disgrace to all of us. I want it over.
AndyUK,
You might think it would have been "wiser" not to answer the question, but you must consider that this is a political contest and U.S. corporate media wants a Republican in the White House. They asked Hillary a "gotcha" question, just hoping she would give any answer (or non-answer) that Republicans could use against her. Surely the retired generals would have been picking apart her non-answer for a week on cable TV and pundits would have spun it as evidence she is "too weak and timid" to be president. The clip of her non-answer would have appeared in John McCain's TV ads next September and October, with McCain assuring voters that only he is tough enough to deal with such serious issues as nuclear attacks. It's unfortunate, but U.S. presidential politics has long required candidates to either adopt a "strong on defense" posture or be thrashed to death by their opponent.
unionave,
There are a couple of problems with your argument. First, it's the same old "out of the frying pan, into the fire." You describe the frying pan, and imply this is why we should jump. But, you fail to describe the fire. The real issue is, which is better: frying pan or fire, Hillary or Obama? You must compare the two, rather than describing just one.
The second problem with your argument is that you talk about Bill's record from 15 years ago, rather than Hillary's record in recent years. Bill and Hillary are two different people, with two different records, agendas and points of view.
It's odd that so many here have applauded John Edwards for moving to the left in recent years -- as well he should be applauded. But when Hillary's record shows she too has moved to the left in recent years, that record is ignored and critics try to define her by mistakes her husband made more than a decade ago.
In mr Greg Plast's book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" on page 62 "Bad TRIPS at the WTO" , Argentina has the ability to make the AIDS drugs dirt cheap . With 25.3 million people going to die in Southern Africa , Argentina proposed to ship the drugs to Southern Africa for $2.00 per day per patient . The gaint pharmaceutical companies howled about the proposed shipments and complained to the U.S. President Mr W.J.C. ( whose wife is presently a presidental candidate ) who then put his V.P. Mr A.G. in charge of the U.S. trade cops . The shipments to the dying people were HALTED and poor Argentina who was already having economic problems was threatened with sanctions . Later in 2000 the N.Y. Times reported that Mr W.J.C. had saved Africa . He proposed a billion dollar a year loan to the African nations . The pharmaceutical companies had just agreed to sell the drugs at reduced rates . $2.00 per day per patient .
This took Argentina , India , and Brazil who all have the ability to produce and ship the drugs completely out of the picture . Mr W.J.C. ( lobbyist ) had put millions of people's health in jeopardy while he worked a deal . It also meant that the U.S. and or the World Bank coughed up a large sum of money to some nations that may not be able to make payments on the loan . But the big pharmaceutical companies and the dealer ( lobbyist Mr W.J.C. ) are collecting .
I know this information will not change the minds of us that are facinated by Mr W.J.C. and wife . We have seen the line the media has drawn in the sand and have chosen which side to stand on and will defend our side with every vowel at our disposal . With the media fanning the flames we have brought out our heaviest artillery and have begun firing at those on the other side . And now that the media has us mired deeply in this war VICTORY is our only objective . We must destroy the candidate and all the candidate's followers who are on the other side of THAT line and WE will not allow ourselves to think any other way . But if we win , what will we have ?
"That is another red herring.
Everybody knows there are many ways of starting a nuclear war that would end civilization.
The oldest civilization, Iran seems to be one of the few nations to understand this…that is why they don't want nukes and would get nuked first if it begins… Iran is not suicidal but there sure"
Far be it from me to keep you from misreading my post, but I was obviously disputing the article's author's contention that a missle shield might have a place in this discussion.
Kem - whilst the response was to a hypothetical question, would it not have been wiser, for Hilary Clinton to have declined an answer, rather than indulge in macho posturing about the potential outcome of an unlikely situation?
The whole question of Iran's nuclear programme, and the possible link to nuclear weapons production, has been driven by the US, particularly since Ahmadinejad became President of Iran. In the early days of the Afghanistan/Iraq conflict, the US and Iran (Khatami was president), were jointly fighting the Taliban and Al Quaeda.
Why did the situation change, and why has Iran been labelled part of the "axis of evil".
Was it because of the oft misquoted comments by the Iranian leader? It would seem that the majority of people in the US and UK, believe that Ahmadinejad wants to see the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. We have our media to thank for this. They either do not have the courage to stand up to the politicians, or they actively want the US to attack Iran, possibly because of the influence of AIPAC and other powerful lobby groups.
Comments have been made by Hilary Clinton, which would have been best not said, but there is more to this than just "sabre rattling". She may feel it necessary to reassure her backers, to let them know in no uncertain terms, that Israel can depend on her as leader.
This is the major problem, which explains many of the flaws in US foreign policy.
There will be no peace in the Middle East, or for that matter the World, until the US can distance itself from Israel, and start being fair to everyone. They should start, by officially talking to Iran, and openly discussing Iran's quite legal nuclear programme.
"Clinton Threatens To Obliiterate Iran"
"Oh my god, really. I knew she was like that, I'll pass the word."
"Hillary is going to invade Iran if she gets elected, pass the word."
"Did you hear what Hillary Clinton said? Unbelieveable, she said, ___ if she's the next president, ___ the first thing she's gonna do is nuke Iran and obliterate them." She actually used the word obliterate"!!! She's crazier than Bush and Cheney put together. I'm gonna tell all of the bloggers on Common Dreams about this."
And the beat goes on.__ Beat, beat, bleat, bleat, bleat.
Obama screwed up petty bad on his speech in Indiana Tuesday evening. He was giving one of his gut wrenchng, terrific speeches, which he can do better than anyone I have ever seen and he slipped up.
When mentioning "clean energy", instead of saying "clean re-mewable energy", he said, NUCLEAR power. As soon as the word "nuclear" popped out of his mouth, he very briefly hesitated and had the look of "Oops". Then he continued. He's being strongly supported by GE, who wants the new nuclear power plants started.
Scheer writes: " Neither the Japanese then nor the Iranian people now were in a position to hold their leaders accountable . . . "
and Americans are?
what a hoot.
If we'd really show that we're honestly progressives and not stupid, we'd burn our energy here on an IMPORTANT subject. Like the Arctic warming issue which posted HERE today in the headline section.
Paul M. Smith, you nailed it. Which liar is the most progresive is the choice.
Hill, Bama, or Cain are all the same...members of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) ie corporate Zionists, and people adhering to the philosophy of global domination (New World Order). Argument regarding who is better is a moot issue...they are just leaves from the same tree.
She might say, "Does Isreal have nuclear weapons?" LOL.
Judi, she wouldn't do a thing but say "Israel has the right to defend itself." (but no one else has that same right, it seems)
Ask the "Golden Girl" what she would do if Israel bombed Iran? Or Palestine, or Syria, or?
HI HUCK. I don't use the word "stupid" when anyone has a different opinion than mine, unless their opinion is stupid. ___ Sometimes they are. For example, you say I'm stupid,___ I won't argue with you. That's the same thing my kids have said about me ever since they were ten years old and it's what my wife says every time I click on Common Dreams.
You're probably lots smarter than I am, but I'm lots smarter than Jim Glover.
~jim Glover~ How on Earth do you or anyone else with a lick of common sense, take that response to a 'hypothetical' question, as to an article headlined. ___ "CLINTON THREATENS TO OBLITERATE IRAN". ___ That is not what she said, she never threatened Iran or anyone else. She was answering a hypothetical question with a fair reply. The word __"IF"__ is a big word is it not? You miss it?
I'm certain IF Iran or any other country threatened to nuke Isreal, they would be threatened with the same in return by whomever was the president. First of all, Iran is not going yo nuke anyone. As to who is closest to Joe Liberman, that's perfectly clear, Obama is and has been ever since he was a U.S. Senator.
Hillary does not support 3% of Lieberman's views on Iraq and Iran, Obama does 98%. This twisted truth article is not proof of anything in that repect and you know it. Thank you for posting exactly what she did say posting all all of it. It's exactly waht she said when we watched the TV program.
Jim Glover,
You omitted the part where she said: "Well, the question was, if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be?"
Of course the U.S. response to a nuclear attack would be retaliation. What response would you advise?
You also omitted the part about Obama being committed to exactly the same policy. Not to mention every U.S. president going back sixty years.
Once again, it's called deterrence. Read about it. Educate yourself. Nuclear weapons are an ugly fact of life and while we should do everything we can to eliminate them entirely, we must also do everything we can to insure that, so long as they exist, they are never used.
You can pretend, in the face of all logic and reason, that deterrence is warmongering. But why? If not to harm the Democrats' chances of defeating the Republicans in November.
And, one more time, Hillary is far more progressive than Obama. He regularly votes for corporate profits over public interest. She does not. When it comes to war and peace, Hillary voted last year to require all combat troops be withdrawn from Iraq by June 30, 2008. Obama chose not to cast a vote on that legislation. And, Hillary is cosponsoring Senator Bernie Sanders's bill to end the use of mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama opposes that bill. Wake up people! If you're progressive and anti-war, you should be pulling for Hillary to win the Democratic nomination.
That is another red herring.
Everybody knows there are many ways of starting a nuclear war that would end civilization.
The oldest civilization, Iran seems to be one of the few nations to understand this...that is why they don't want nukes and would get nuked first if it begins... Iran is not suicidal but there sure are lots of fear mongers throwin red herrings around here.
"Attempts at missle shields using advanced technology are maybe possible but are also escalting again tensions that we don't need with Russia and China."
Missile shields are red herrings. Rather than develop an ICBM Iran has many easier ways of delivering a nuclear weapon.
It's not difficult to figure Shillary out. As a woman she is out to prove she's as tough -- if not tougher -- than warmonger Bush and his ilk. Besides, she's a member of the War Party, the Republicans, and a dyed-in-the-wool conservative.
Thanks Kem, you Just answered my question:
"What would Hillary so if Bush or McCain nuked Iran?" _____ She'd probably very sadly get ready for world war three to start shortly, that's what I'd do."
Kem, that is the whole point isn't it....Nuking Iran no matter who starts it will End it all.
Iran does not want Nukes, is not suicidal, yet Hillary wants to act tough.
That is why she is a saber rattler and very dangerous.
Bob K,
You omitted the part where she says that "We would attack Iran"
I just posted the entire transcript.
All of us "presumed "progressives", know the truth and there is nothing crude or hateful in knowing the truth about Hillary... Obama is right on, she is a saber rattler
Calling us "Dirty trickster Republicans" shows how far from reality You live.
2, 4, 6,8Who are we going to OBLITERATE ?
( Look into the mirror, oh wise one )
ardee has it exactly right. I provided Hillary's exact words in my first post in this thread, but damn few of the presumed "progressives" writing here care to consider her actual statement. They prefer to attack her on the basis of some fictional version of her words, in the Bill O'Reilly/Rush Limbaugh style of provocateur infotainment.
I truly hope that most of these posters are dirty-trickster Republicans who are only posing as progressives. I'd like to think that genuine progressives are far less dense, crude and hateful.
Kem,
I am looking it up. What entire transcript do you have?
I Just found this which contrasts her approach to Obama's:
"CONSHOHOCKEN, Pennsylvania (AFP) — Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran if the Islamic Republic was ever "reckless" enough to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.
She later said her remark was an attempt to lay out a rationale for a Cold War-style system of deterrence with Iran, but her rival Barack Obama accused her of saber-rattling, as Pennsylvania held its crucial presidential primary.
Clinton took her hawkish line in an interview with ABC television, when she was asked what she would do as president if the Islamic Republic were to launch a nuclear strike on Israel.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton 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."
Later, Clinton told reporters at a polling station in Conshohocken, outside Philadelphia, that Iran must be made aware of the "high price" it would have to pay for any nuclear strike.
If Iran were so "reckless to use them against the United States or an ally in a way that would destablize the world, they would have to take the consequences," she said.
The New York senator said as president, she would first do whatever she could to prevent Iran manufacturing nuclear weapons in the first place.
Clinton's tough talk came as she was trying to portray Obama, a first-term senator, as too inexperienced to shoulder the heavy responsibilities of the US president and commander in chief of the armed forces.
But he said Tehran needed to know he would also respond forcefully to any such attack, but took issue with Clinton's approach.
"I think that one of the things that we've seen over the last several years is a bunch of, you know, talk. Using words like obliterate doesn't actually produce good results. And so I'm not interested in saber rattling."
This I quoted from http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gWgSBd8knYlaq-D0zQjSHKiT2nAQ
Also just found the total transcript and video from LA times...:
"Below a transcript of the entire exchange:
CHRIS CUOMO: You said if Iran were to strike Israel, there would be 'massive retaliation." Scary words. Does 'massive retaliation" mean you'd go into Iran? You would bomb Iran? Is that what that's supposed to suggest?
CLINTON: Well, the question was, if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be? And I want the Iranians to know that if I am president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that. Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society. Because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program, in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that. Because that, perhaps, will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic."
Check it out Kem at http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/04/iran-hillarys-t.html
Now who do you think is closer to Lieberman?
and what do you think She would say if Israel attaked Iran with nukes?
That is even more important and a real possibility.
I recall a time when the world was shocked over reports of President Ahmadinejads plan to wipe israel off the map....
Those reports were false, but now we have a real threat to the region and world peace, and an act of genocide by a democratic(!) presidential candidate...and what has happened? Will she be charged with plans of genocide? Will her presidential plans capsize? Or will the media ignore it all?
Will we hear world leaders denounce this monster? Will they launch premptive strikes against her?
Here is where we learn a little more about world leaders atitude to human rights, genocidical leaders etc.
Kem Patrick likes to use the "stupid" on this forum every time someone offers a point of view different from his own. Hilarious given the galactic stupidity from which he lives his narrow little life.
No she didn't say that ~Jim Glover~, the transcript is entire available on th web for anyone to read.
You asked, "What would Hillary so if Bush or McCain nuked Iran?" _____ She'd probably very sadly get ready for world war three to start shortly, that's what I'd do.
That's bullshit ~WTF~, Clinton is not eager to push any war buttons and you know it. So would any sensibe person know that's bull, or even the idiots who often blog stupid comments here know it also. Unless they wish to sit and write bullshit, twist the truth, take comments out of context and tell lies about someone like this author has done so well.
ardee,
We saw the question and answer transcription on ABC's web site and just before she gave the "Obliterate" word she said "I would attack Iran", Now does that leave any doubt about who's being led by the noses?
She threatens to wipe out millions in a country that does not want Nukes if for no other reason that they would get nuked before they had them ready and if a terrorist group got a hold of one which they could not control, they would get nuked because they would get blamed for giving it to the terrorist group.
What do you think She would do if Bush, Israel or McCain attacked Iran with nukes?
That is the question I want to know.
What the fuck is wrong with foul language Thomas More? This forum ain't a pre-school class.
Given the following historical events:
- Clinton voted to invade Iraq (and never withdrew that support);
- Clinton's present saber rattling such as the "3 am call" and now "obliteration";
I contend that Ms Clinton is only too eager to push the BIG BUTTON. I do not believe that this is a campaign strategy to quieten her conservative critics. This make her extremely dangerous, and I believe far more dangerous than McCain.
Kernal, you say:
"Obama had it wrong, it is not the working people in Pennsylvania that are bitter, it is his own supporters that have totally lost it."
Are you bitter like most who are paying attention, or just bitter about Obama supporters?
Some Nader supporters are admitting now that they want to help McCain to teach us a lesson. I appreciate their honesty.
Obama is walkin a tightrope of Reality and twisters like Hitlery and McSame can say whatever makes them look "strong"… but they are not strong at all, just dangerous.
If Obama was as radical as we would like, he would be sharing a room with Dennis.
If Obama starts to drown in his own timidity, I hope he will go down with the truth and I will try to pull him out and encourage him take the offense before it is too late.
For now I realize the reality of why he is still ahead.
But if you got any bright ideas that will work before it is too late, I am listening.
namaste: Wicked picture. So very suitable.
Mark Marshall:: Money! It's all about money. The rich get more money by pissing off the Russians. The pissed-off Russians respond to the SDI stations in Poland and the Czech Republic by arming themselves more and adopting a more belligerent policy towards the West.
Perhaps you are right... perhaps. Something to think about anyways.
An excerpt from the following article, "Hillary Clinton threatens to 'obliterate' Iran," by Joe Kay –
"Clinton's comments (about obliterating Iran) are revealing not only in what they say about her own campaign, but what they say about the Democratic Party as a whole, including Obama. No one in the Democratic Party establishment challenges the basic premise underlying the threats by Clinton against Iran: that US policy in the Middle East is aimed at countering Iranian aggression. Neither of the candidates will point out that the policy of unprovoked aggression has been practiced not by Iran, but by the United States, which has killed over 1 million Iraqis, and turned 4 million into refugees, in its determination to gain control of the country and the region.
"The danger of war against Iran—or against China, Russia, or some other country—does not come just from the Republican Party. While the Democrats seek to posture as critics of the Iraq war, they are just as committed as the Republicans to the aims the war was meant to secure, and they will just as surely use military force in the future to achieve these aims."
Click here for the entire article — http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/iran-a24.shtml
whatfools April 24th, 2008 2:29 am
Isn't the Egyptian side open?
As for some of you others, do you think you might be able to make a point without using foul language please.
I am certain that most of those commenting didnt hear the question or the response from Senator Clinton. So most of you do not understand that Robert Scheer is distorting the statement, taking it way out of context and doing so intentionally to spark exactly the knee jerk and dumb reactions he got.
Some day you might consider making it harder to be led by the nose.
Don the engineer - you are responsible for letting your government attack Iraq, and thus responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands of people.
Iran has never threatened or attacked any country in recent history (and don't misquote the Ahmadinejad speech, because he just wants to see the end of Zionism, like many of us).
Why do we never see news about Israel's illegal nuclear arsenal, or the fact that they are able to defy UN resolutions?
Why does the US hate Iran so much?
Why does the US hate Cuba so much?
Why does the US hate Venezuela so much?
Why are US citizens so ready to vote for Hilary Clinton because:
She is a woman?
Her husband was president?
She is tough?
I personally think that she looks demented in some interviews, and that she will stop at nothing to gain the popular vote.
Bob K. wrote: The fear is that nuclear weapons will be acquired by some country or group that is so maniacal as to be suicidal. In that case deterrence would not work. Iran is dominated by religious fundamentalist extremists, and other countries in the region fear they might be capable of an irrational and suicidal act.
Thank you for reporting exactly what the right-wing media have told you to think.
Are you friggin' nuts?
The US is a theocracy. It is helmed by religious fundamentalist extremists who believe in, and strive for Rapture. It has a national policy of pre-emptive nuclear strike. Now our leaders are openly discussing widespread genocide as some kind of "final solution". The US is the problem, not Iran.
Unknown_Unknowable: There once was a word for the things you said. It is ZOG, Zionist Occupied Government. It was used in the 60s in a derogatory sense, always associated with weirdos and kooks, right wing gun nuts etc. Now one doesn't hear it. Is this an Orwellian silence?
Clinton/Lieberman '08 (a third party?)
Would you prefer she had said, "bomb them into the stone age", or "utterly destroy them", or "wipe them out", or "nuke em" ~TROLLWITHTHEPUNCHES~?
The point is, these articles concerning what she actually said are misleading and many don't wish to know the truth or the facts and just spout off in agreement with a lie.
Sorry DD: This off the cuff statement makes it pretty clear. It's in these moments of unprepared comments that a candidate shows his/her true colors. Hillary is, has been and will always be a true believer in war - a racist, and ruling class wannabe.
Obama, based on his more nuanced comments about Iran, would most likely do the same thing.
Taking human life in so cavalier a manner is not a Republican ideal - it is also a Democrat ideal.
Your party DD, SUCKS!
To vote for any of the mainstream candidates is simply providing more food to end up as shit on the heads of anyone who is not a member of the wealthy syndicate of "ruling class" thugs.
I'll quote once again a sage comment by whatfools yesterday, "If this government will not be brought to its senses, it must be brought to its knees.
Vote Cynthia McKinney and let the chips fall where they may. If she is able to command 5% of the vote,it will earn the Green Party public funding and ballot status and begin to build a "second party" to rival the "single" party system. Supporting either of the major party candidates in this election is just throwing away your vote on more of the same.
As the immortal Jesse Ventura would say, "Think it ain't"
The Clintons will say or do anything to win elections. They are the purest example I can think of of Nietsche's will-to-power character structure. Who knows what Hillary will do if elected? Probably much of the same as Bill did, although a lot has changed in the last eight years, because of the rottenest administration ever. Her avid use of incendiary rhetoric makes me hesitant to believe that she will steer the ship of state away from hazardous seas. I am hoping that Obama is more prudent, and can beat the right-wing's gaming of the electoral system.
It's out of weakness, not strength, that Hillary threatens to obliterate Iran. She would kill seventy-one million small brown people because their leader shits on Israel. BIG DEAL. If she had balls she would threaten Russia. Just watch when she has to face off against John McCain in the coming debates. McCain will threaten to obliterate goddamn China - 1.3 BILLION dead Chinese.
Obliterate means Kill Them All. Yet at a time when the whole world hates us, Hillary promises to kill a piddling seventy-one million. For a commander in control of the world's largest nuclear arsenal, this is weakness of a traitorous proportion.
Consider, people, that the number of people that Hillary has murdered can be counted on the fingers of a single hand. Mass murder takes a man - and I would rely on a white man, not a woman or a half-breed Obama, to fight like a man. A president of color might hesitate at 3:00 AM when the phone rings and it's time to kill billions of brown people. McCain has been tortured, he has killed thousands of communists in Vietnam from his airplane. McCain knows the meaning of obliterate, and he is not afraid of goddamn China.
People, Hillary, try as she might, just doesn't have what it takes - a dick. And balls. Democrats are going to lose WH again. They will be facing a proven killer in the coming election, a man who has been tortured and who wants to dish out some pay-back.
Having shit on Iraq, it is time now to wipe our ass on goddamn China - and it's going to take a proven warrior to get the job done. I believe that John McCain will be our next president and our greatest president ever.
I must be "out of the loop" but when did we sign a mutual defence pact with Israel?
War and genocide are US government policy. They have been for at least 60 years.
This policy will continue until the American Empire collapses. It will, in the next 20 years or sooner.
Bob K
Hillary could have given a perfectly "firm" and "tough" response to the question without using the word "obliterate" and you know it.
I think it's sad that some Hillary supporters are actually trying to defend their candidate's comment. Scheer is right. Hillary is talking about an act of state terrorism that cannot be defended. One lame commenter tried to suggest that her comments are part of a long-standing tradition of deterrence. The point is that words matter. The word "obliterate" is dangerous, warmongerish and utterly indefensible in the context of any discussion about Iran. There is an established cliche one can fall back on. One can say, "all options will remain on the table" and sound the dogwhistle loud and clear to all AIPAC supporting warmongers that you are willing to commit genocide in the name of Israel.
If this were one troubling comment, one "gaffe" taken out of context that would be one thing but this is something that has been a constant throughout Hillary's career: her overcompensating desire to present herself as a tough-talking macho hawk. It was why she voted to authorize the war in Iraq and it is exactly why she cannot be trusted as President of the US.
If McCain or Obama had made this comment I do not doubt that these Hillary-at-all-costers would have denounced it but their entire politics are devoted to feeling the hate of the Clinton campaign where any and every perceived attack against their exalted leader is seen in the context of misogyny.
This is not to say--to those of you binary minded Clintonistas--that I am in any way endorsing Obama. As commenters have pointed out upstream, all the major candidates are on exactly the same page as Clinton when it comes to unwavering support for Israel and all seem to be towing the consensus view towards inevitable war with Iran.
This is why I am seriously thinking about voting for Cynthia McKinney.
For anyone interested in the TURTH about Hillary and her fundamentalists leaning, read the following.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/20/7798/
Of course, you can follow the lead of the blowhard above instead and find ourselves mired in war for the rest of our lifetimes.
Grant,
Deterrence (or "mutual assured destruction") refers to deterring a NUCLEAR attack. Every country (including the U.S.) is "deterred" from using nuclear weapons, because they understand they would suffer a nuclear retaliation which would destroy their own country. It's like owning a gun that you can't fire without killing yourself.
This is what has kept the U.S., Russia and other nuclear powers from using nuclear weapons for the past sixty years.
The fear is that nuclear weapons will be acquired by some country or group that is so maniacal as to be suicidal. In that case deterrence would not work. Iran is dominated by religious fundamentalist extremists, and other countries in the region fear they might be capable of an irrational and suicidal act.
Hence, Hillary's restatement of U.S. deterrence policy. It's not her policy, it's longstanding U.S. policy. It's the policy of every U.S. president for the past sixty years.
Unfortunately, some media jackals (like the one at the top of this thread) are deliberately misreporting her statement and trying to mislead voters.
You should also understand Hillary's statement in the context of the presidential campaign. U.S corporate media want a Republican president, and Hillary is very aware of that. When they ask her what she would do in the event of an Iranian nuclear attack, it's a trap. Any "soft" answer she might give (such as "Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and the threat is minimal") would be thrown back in her face during the general election as "evidence" that only John McCain understands the dire consequences of nuclear war and that's why he should be president. Hillary didn't fall for their trick. She gave the "worst case scenario" answer which can't be attacked by the Republican corporate media.
Anyone who takes glee in asserting wiping out hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children via nuclear weapons is insane. And anyone who votes for her is culpable of same praxis and Bush and Cheney. I can think of no better reason to abandon the Democratic Party and Clinton without looking back. If Clinton gets the nomination via the super delegates you people are getting more of the same and directly from her own mouth.
She is lock step with the WH. Also the Israeli run media has been slamming her a bit so she has got back into line.
I wonder when Americans and going to take back America?
Hillary represents the status quo in a pant suit. Might as well just let bush stay in office as elect Hillary
The Final Solution?
"The United Nations says that it is being forced to suspend its humanitarian work in Gaza because of the Israeli fuel blockade.
A UN official says food aid to 650,000 refugees and the collection of sewage will have to stop on Thursday if Israel does not allow in more vehicle fuel.
The UN Security Council met to discuss the crisis, but Western representatives walked out over comments from Libya.
They objected to the Libyan delegate likening Gaza to a Nazi death camp."
Is Libya besmerching the good name of the Nazis? Working people to death or starving a whole people to death, one by one, first the sick and elderly then the children and then the women and finally the strongest men still firing their rage at their ZioNazi tormenters. The eternal assassinations and bombing of civilians just for sport. The Zionist know better, the Nazis didn't. Go figure.
And for your nightly desert:
http://www.whodidit.org/cocon.html
She's a MAN baby, yeah!
Robert: Yes, but...
If Iran has nuclear weapons ambitions that it's people fully support, and if leaders know that and also know that, barring American insanity, Iran will eventually have nuclear weapons, then How is it productive to pretend with those leaders that reality is not reality.
I don't like nuclear anything.
In the meantime, and as far as I can tell, it's hypocritical for others to tell Iran that it can't have it's nationalistic nuclear weapons program when so many others, all around them, can have it. We (understand me here) don't brand Israel a renegade and worthy of a miltary pre-emptive attack just for having nuclear weapons. As for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his expressed desire to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, Is that Iran's official policy stance? Or is there any doubt about the actual statement by Ahmadinejad and it's meaning?, such as suggested by one writer whose article on the subject can be found at Global Research's website? And if Ahmadinejad meant what most say he meant, Is it enough justification for that other lunatic, George W. Bush, to attack Iran?
You clearly don't think that Clinton has any business carelessly threatening Iran with destruction in the middle of her campaign to become president of the U.S.A.. And your stated reasons, I think, are good. And I'm sure you don't agree with the kind of pre-emptive attack she refers to, period. Still...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NOR20070120&articleId=4527
If The Straits of Hormuz were blocked, tankers sunk, who would benefit with $300.00 a barrel oil?
Exxon. Halliburton. And Cheney/Israel. The US response to an Iranian Sinking of a tanker would be to invade and declare all Iranian land inward/east for fifty miles a New US Security Zone.
The Tanker Gets "Attacked" in August by Iran (Mossad/Cia).
And with $10.00 a gallon gas blamed on Iran, Joe America will WANT To BURN ALIVE Seventy Million People.
Because Joe Rascist American's "Standard of Living is not negotiable"
But your life is.
Apparently the statute of liberty has run out.
americans life span was 13th best in the world in 1960...in 2000 down to 26th best and now 42nd best...its time to flee.. americas govt is killing its people !!
best for 90% of americans to flee to canada...especially families and go to a conservative province... the voters who voted for hillary proves too many people in america has been dumded down so much that there will be always the corp robber barons making slaves out of we the people
..
seeing that hillary got that many votes speaks volumns.. there is no HOPE in this corporate controlled system of brainwashing to make slaves out of americans...and america is a magnet to draw the worlds most corrupt and greedy to come here and make the slaves in more misery so they can also get rich... america is fast becoming a third world country..
the clinton yrs in power was about SETTING us UP for all this.. with their nafta and gatt bringing to america ... THAT set this up for all of 90% of americans to be harmed...... and then hillary did it again with voting for this war for the robber barons again to hurt the 90% of americans...
the clintons work for the robber barons to make sure americans are in slavery!! and their voters are the types that would elect hitler even after knowing what hitler has done.. they are brainwashed so strongly by the corp evil.. that there is no hope here ... destruction will be the ONLY way that solves this problem.. so best to get away and maybe come back AFTER the destruction..
the clinton yrs in power was about SETTING us UP for all this.. with their nafta and gatt bringing to america ... THAT set this up for all of 90% of americans to be harmed...... and then hillary did it again with voting for this war for the robber barons again to hurt the 90% of americans...
the clintons work for the robber barons to make sure americans are in slavery!!
I am glad that she made that statement. Iran needs to know in no uncertain terms that if they continue on their path and step over the line, we will hammer them.
"Where, Ephraim, oh wise one, is YOUR solution to maintaining peace while convincing voters not to give the Supreme Court, the agencies, law enforcement, fiscal policy, health care and even your future civil liberties to Republicans? WHERE IS YOUR SOLUTION? (You don't have one.)"--The inimitable Daniel David, who else?
Why does it require a "solution" to say that a vote for Hillary is not qualitatively different from a vote for McCain? Just how high is your horse, DD, that you think you can berate others for pointing out the OBVIOUS over and over--that the Dims don't show an iota of difference from the Repugs, especially if Hillary is the Dimocrat in question.
So, only if I have the magical solution to maintaining peace and simultaneously pulling off all the other miracles you list, do I or anyone else have an ounce of credibility where criticism of these pathetic Democrats is concerned? Yes, you've been beating everyone over the head with that endlessly. Hillary isn't going to get you out of the messes BushCo. has created, oh wise one, but I guess all you have to do is keep repeating your inane mantras: Vote Democrat vote Democrat vote Democrat, no matter who it is and no matter who they say they'll obliterate. If it's a Democrat hurling nuclear weapons at defenseless countries, it must be a GOOD thing! A World War 3 started by a Democrat should turn out simply marvelous!
The Lorax wants to remodel the statue of liberty. My favorite is putting a black hood on it.
Iran is 3 to 10 years away from having a nuclear weapon. Guess what? So is everybody else. It takes 3-10 years to get a nuclear weapon from scratch. That is where that figure comes from. Of course, you need money and a desire to get one.
Hillary should pack up and go home.
What in the hell did she do when Bill destroyed Kosovo, other than cheered him on? She is one who signed off on Bush's attacking Afghanistan. The Afghan people didn't knock down the twin towers and hit the pentagon. She is one who signed off on Bush's attacking Iraq. Neither the Iraqi gov't, nor the people had attacked the USA. Now, she wants to obliterate Iran if it attacks the second worse terrorist state (the USA being the worst).
nice freefood,
now were getting somewhere,
yap.chongyee
you really believe we would not bomb Iran based on the price of oil?
thats crazy! a barrel of oil was $30 five years ago, its $120 now. So who is to say it won't eventually be $300 a barrel one day anyways, I mean it is finite. And F%^K rambo by the way, F%^K war in general, and warmongers especially. But this is not average everyday people saying Bomb Bomb Bomb, this is our leadership saying this, and we don't freely elect them by the way, they are hand picked by monied interests, if not they will always lose..
suspicious vote counting........
last nite on cnn.com their county results showed all countys at 100% reporting except 2... one philadelphia which showed 97% counted which was going for obama by 30 points and the very next one also showing 97% counted and which was going for obama by 10%...
the philly county had about 450,000 voting so 3 percent left would make around 13 or 14 thousand votes left to count...
now at this time all the sites was showing that 99% of the total vote has been counted and this with all the other counties showing 100% counted.. this should mean more votes than obama over clinton coming....
now i have checked the vote totals and they show 100% counted and not the 99% as last nite... now one would think obama would gain a few thousand votes since the 2 counties that had only 97% of their votes counted the biggest went 30 points for obama... so low and behold when i checked tonight it shows hillay gaining 2 thousand votes and get this Obams LOSING 1000 votes... how could he lose votes when 13 or 14 thousand votes were still uncounted and they are from where he was winning by 30 points...
very suspicious stuff... the clintons and their people all have been PROVEN already as corrupt as any politician ever.. so one would logic look in that direction ..
now the big deal ..thing is did hillary win by double digits or single digits....
its extremely important for hillary to look like she won by double digits not single digits...so this would be suspicious stuff on them or their supporters..
now even tho the totals now show 100% counted still the philadelphia county shows 99% counted which could mean still 4 or 5 thousand votes not counted yet this county is where obama won by 30%..all other countys show 100% counted.
now even with obama LOSING 1000 votes from when the totals said 99% counted and today 100% counted even with this.. the margin for hillary over obama is 9.2 or 9.3 % and with this one has to say hillary won by 9% and not 10% a single digit win not a double digit win...
some people are really corrupt and the history of the clintons and their supporters are really scary for america.... hitlers can be easily elected with how their voters seem to care nothing for truth and real value...their voters really are voting for their very worst enemy in the clintons.. but they have been so brainwashed that they don't care.... This is what elects hitlers and brings destruction for the whole country...
those debates are nonsense and just trying to help the corporate candidate to help keep slavery on americans.... saying there was no significant differences in the candidates.... really....
how bout one voting yes to this war and the other saying NO.. the biggest difference in the world for 90% of americans cause this war for the robber barons for oil has hurt 90% of americans.. and then the other that has hurt 90% of americans nafta and gatt.. which the clintons brought to this country to help the robber barons rob from the people....
the moderators had 2 big big issues to ask about it was THESE 2 issues.. and they did not...
in fact rhe vote for the war was also a vote to tell the world we are a fraud on democracy when we went against world democracy the UN when they voted NO.... so this issue was very very important to talk about in the debate.. cause world hate on america harms these 90% in a million different ways..
america is in very very serious trouble.... just watching the response to hillary shows this... shows how a hitler could be elected very easily and destruction coming for the whole country.
Hillary Clinton is the classic example of why the Democrats as a party have outlived their usefulness. "Repulican Lite", and then some.
Hillary Clinton is also a previous Bilderberg Conference attendee, was invited a decade ago, and also, it is rumored, she attended the 2006 conference (at least Bill admits he was there, '91).
The fact that it isn't common knowledge that the Bilderberg Convention even exists is just bizarre (except that the media owners are also attendees).
THEY RUN THE WORLD.
Finding out if she really attended in 2006 or not should be big news, as should the existence of this group.
When one first learns about this Bilderberg Group, and just how influential the attendees are, and that it has been around for a while, but somehow misses the limelight every year when its time for the conference... well, it's one of those "Twilight Zone" moments to realize just how sheltered from the truth are the masses. Some might argue that they don't hide the fact they exist- but they sure don't get the coverage such an influential group would normally have, and must be for the fact that the media is so involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group
Just the sort of American President that will get elected. BOMB IRAN ! I don't think so. Spare me, I am not saying the USA will not bomb Iran if they could but they can't because circumstances are such that you just can't.
Let us forget about Iran's nuclear bomb, they do not exist ! Let us just say that Iran has sufficient resources to block off the Straits of Hormuz; too easy for them to do and for that purpose they can do it. That alone will push the price of oil to US$300 per barrel. Can you then do it USA ? I don't think you can. All this bullshit about bomb ! bomb! Bomb! Iran is all American bullshit; but you americans are rambo and you will believe clinton ! Go Bomb Iran !
As OldBadgertoo and someone else said, can we please not act as if Obama would not say, and in fact has not said, basically the same thing as Hillary pertaining to Iran potentially threatening Israel. This is Imperial America, left, right, middle...I'm voting Obama but I'm also pretty damn skeptical of that guy. I know we all kinda hate Hillary, but I'm kinda thinking its a bit more personal than political. Nothing is changing ok! Unless we all want to see our dining habits, our material hoarding, and our super speed internet porn disappear than we really cant change foreign policy course. Lets be honest about that at least, we live way beyond our (collective productive) means, at the expense of foreign populations. All this BS about Hillary said she would nuke Iran... F%^$ing DUH! Power corrupts absolutely huh, well lets do some math: U.S. is most powerful nation ever + U.S. president is most powerful single person in the world = An uncorrupted good guy (Obama) in office, somethings not adding up.
"Give us your gas, your oil, your pooled resources as we force you to be free." Nice Lorax,
*note for legal purposes: the statue of Liberty is now enshirned with the new government approved definition of Liberty (see Webster's).
When the first Nation starts "Nuking", a second, or even a third "Nukes"..........the world, as we know it is destroyed.
There will be NO TV EVENING NEWS ANALYSIS !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Israel cant use nukes. If it did, it would have radioactive fall out isking its citizens. it would guarantee that one day, it would be obliterated by a revenge attack. It would erase the holocaust sympathy they have milked for 60 years(and I am sure in another 60 years they will be claiming the grandchildren of nazis are responsible).
Iran wont nuke Israel--the country is in their backyard. The "wiped off the map" quote was mistranslated. He said " the Zionist regime will vanish from the pages of time."
Best long term scenario is Israel will die by small attacks over time as arabs get more sophisticated weapons. Or it will have to end zionist policies.
The media just likes nuke talk-unless its meant to prepare people for a limited nuclear attack on Iran.
___CAUSE___and___EFFECT______
_ [ annual budget_____ USD$ ] _
Peace Corps ______________250,000,000
NY Yankees'_______________270,000,000
CIA____________________50,000,000,000
Pentagon______________700,000,000,000
world military______1,400,000,000,000
Hillary Clinton disqualified herself to be our president with her "obliterative"
remark-- maybe she had a secret death wish. It amazes me that she then won
Pennsylvania except for Philadelphia. Why
didn't her supporters immediately abandon her? I didn't think Pennsylvania was THAT stupid. Doesn't it know that we can't have another loose cannon for president?
As many people have pointed out at Common Dreams in the past two days, Iran has not
attacked or occupied another country in modern history. Why hasn't Hillary or Barack or anyone talked to Bruce Laingen
(head of the seized American embassy during the Carter administration) for his views on Iran? Why haven't they ADOPTED his views on Iran? Barack at least wants to negotiate.
All the piddly stuff Clintonistas have tried to pin on Obama and then this: Something really big. The lady is simply not qualified to be president. She thinks she's tough, but she's incendiary, that's all, just like Bush.
Okay-- now the personal part of my statement. A friend of mine is in Iran
right now sharing children's drawings she gathered in Winston-Salem-- sharing them
with Iranian children and no doubt hoping to bring some Iranian children's drawings back with her.
Remember when Hillary was known for her kindness to children? Her pugnacity toward
Iran, guaranteed to do one thing and one
thing only-- get Iranian backs up-- is kind neither to Iranian or American children. If we have another war, this one with Iran, all indications are that it will be far worse than the Iraq war-- bad enough-- and once again everyone will suffer from all kinds of unforeseen occurrence.
I would fear a bit for my friend and any other American in Iran right now, too, thanks to such an irresponsible assertion, if I hadn't known some Iranians. The people I know would never harm somebody like my friend even if all American politicians turned warmonger.
Once, perhaps, Hillary was a promising person, working with children, and before that giving a good speech at Wellesley College. You would think she would appreciate good speech-making ability.
But why hasn't she made a good one herself recently?
Probably no one knows, but we can surmise.
She has in the meantime become nouveau-riche. She, Bush, and McCain, along with easily identifiable others can and should be classified as "the moronic rich."
Isn't it amazing that people try to call
Barack Obama rich, too, to try and smudge
another clear distinction? His one million income hardly compares with McCain's wife's fortune, with the Bush
fortune, or with Billary's intake last year which was 109 times as much.
Also, he's not a moron.
andrew.herman -- You just need to learn how to do TEXT TYPE ( tt= font )
If you enter this w/o the extra blank spaces (and 2nd < , > s)
< < tt > > and then < < / tt > >
___CAUSE___and___EFFECT______
_ [ annual budget_____ USD$ ] _
Peace Corps ____________250,000,000
NY Yankees'_____________270,000,000
CIA____________________50,000,000,000
Pentagon____________700,000,000,000
world military__1,400,000,000,000
So long as war is championed, anyone who runs for high office has to pass the "Mars rules" test by showing their capacity for brute force.
EL MYSTERIOSO has it right: The true leader recognizes the benefits of diplomacy and what is saved in NOT going to war to spend blood and treasure so that a very small elite can sip martinis and watch the stock numbers go up.
damn! It didn't come out right!
CAUSE--------and--------EFFECT
annual budget-----------USD$
Peace Corps'---------250,000,000
NY Yankees'----------270,000,000
CIA---------------50,000,000,000
Pentagon---------700,000,000,000
world military-1,400,000,000,000
I've been ABH (Anybody But Hillary) since before 2006, but consider what she has done. She has explicitly taken Israel under the U.S. nuclear umbrella while implicitly conceding the possibility that Iran might ACQUIRE nuclear weapons without being obliterated. So as menacing as her remark sounds, it might actually be an opening to better relations.
From one crazy person to another (translated):
If that crazy dude over there with no weapons ever gets weapons (dirty bombs most likely) and uses them, then I will obliterate his entire nation of 70 million.
I can imagine the Middle Eastern media quoting the Bible with Hillary and mushroom clouds in the background on Al Jazeera?
CAUSE: EFFECT:
Peace Corps Budget 250,000,000
NY Yankees Budget 270,000,000
Pentagon's Budget 700,000,000,000
CIA 50,000,000,000
Bob K,
If you want to honest about your logic and apply it to every country (which is a necessity, American exceptionalism doesn't work logically or anywhere outside the US) would Iran not be justified in bombing the US, and possibly Israel? The US HAS invaded two neighboring countries (which everyone knows is for oil), Iran sits on huge oil reserves, the US did include Iran in the "axis of evil" and its current oil industry government has been open on wanting to attack Iran. Would Iran not be justified, because of DETERENCE, in bombing the US and Israel as a result? Obviously it would be suicidal, but using your logic, justified. I mean, Israelis support war with Iran more than any other country. According to polls, US Jews favor war with Iran far more than the general public, the Israeli lobby has been open about wanting war with Iran (obviously the fact that it would be immoral, economically destroy the US, kill millions of innocent people and probably break the US army) and is hugely powerful. If the US was in a similar situation, and had a vital resource that the country threatening it wanted, would it not be a good idea to seek nuclear weapons to protect themselves? I'm not saying this as a defense of the Iranian government (although the previous relatively moderate government offered the US a pretty good deal, Cheney responded by verbally attacking the person who delivered the message), just trying to follow your logic.
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/963061.html
"Only three countries showed an increase in support for military strikes or sanctions -- Israel (where support for tough action rose to 71 percent from 62), South Korea (53 percent compared with 47) and Turkey (33 percent compared with 21)."
This country's foreign policy, its military base empire, its spending over a TRILLION dollars directly and indirectly, on its military is not sustainable, especially if you want things like universal healthcare or an actually well funded educational system. It's also horribly immoral, murderous and leads the rest of the world to despise this country. Clinton, and Obama, is no different than McCain in this regard in that she, & the other two, aren't willing to challenge what isn't sustainable. It takes guts, and someone who actually believes in something enough that they're willing to challenge dominant opinion in DC, for someone to take this issue on. Clinton hasn't shown that on a single issue, if you disagree let me know which one. This means they're for, at best, a lesser than worse case scenario, violent, immoral & non-sustainable foreign policy. At least Obama gives a passing mention of the plight of the Palestinians. Clinton, when she talks about the Israeli/US & Palestinian conflict sounds no different than Bush Jr. Bush's father seemed to be more moderate on the issue than Clinton is for Christ sake.
I also think the "deterrence theory" is horribly wrongheaded, and only works if you are the country with the nukes. Are you, and the people who believe in the idea, claiming that the US and the former USSR made the world safer by this type of policy while they built up thousands of nuclear warheads and caused countries like Korea to develop them out of deterrence? When they attempted, and are attempting, to militarize space? Since when is creating policies that lead to the world, multiple times, to the brink of nuclear war a deterrent against nuclear war? At least two times, I'll find and link them if you'd like, the only thing that stopped nuclear attacks against the US was Russian soldiers either defying orders to attack or ignoring protocol. This idea also justified the US arming and supporting the most anti-democratic killers the world over. Reagan said that Nicaragua was a few days march from the US (no lie, he claimed that tiny Nicaragua could attack the freaking US) and used it as part of a justification to arm a group, the Contras, that were not only one of the worse human rights offenders in the hemisphere at the time but also lacked any popular support. What if China had done the same here? Would it be justified because of some elite chess game the "leaders" here play with lesser (in their eyes) people's lives? Is this what allows the US to support the current Colombian government (whom the Clintons appear to be very fond of), despite the fact that they have, by a mile, the worse human rights record in the entire hemisphere and despite the fact that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others claim are responsible for the majority of violence in Colombia? The same groups Clinton is aligned with are the ones doing the majority of the killing, is this a deterrence against something as well? Maybe it's a deterrence from a moral and logical foreign policy, or a foreign policy that isn't in the interest of the war industry here. No thank you on a Clinton presidency. Obama, who I think is horribly flawed and not tons different, is the best of the three, that isn't saying much though.
Iran has a large, young democracy movement. Why doesn't Clinton show some courage for once, buck the orthodoxy and say that instead of violence the US will attempt to work with democratic groups in Iran, not "democratic" groups who are willing puppets of US big business?
Why would Israel, with the world's fourth largest nuclear and sixth largest army, need our help, especially with our military stretched beyond the breaking point? If anything, they're the ones in a position to come to our defense of others, not the other way around. But don't hold your breath -- consider Netanyahu's recent remarks how 9/11 was the best thing to happen for Israel in years ...