Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
There is a Persian proverb that says, "EsfahÄÂn nesf-e jahÄÂn ast" or "Esfahan is half the world."
And there is the American zeitgeist that says, "Obliterate them."
Esfahan is a modern Iranian metropolis of three and half million people. Situated at an ancient crossroads, Esfahan has embraced the great ebb and flow of human existence for more than ten centuries. Once one of the largest cities in the world, and more than once the capital of Persia, it is renowned for its Islamic architecture, with beautiful boulevards, covered bridges, palaces, mosques, and minarets.
Esfahan is also home to Iran's largest nuclear reactor. Its university houses the country's nuclear research program. Enough said.
"U.S. Weighing Readiness for Military Action Against Iran," the Washington Post headline read on Friday. At a Pentagon news conference Friday afternoon, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair, Admiral Michael Mullen, said that the United States was considering "potential military courses of action" against Iran, and pointing to reserve capabilities in the Navy and Air Force said, "it would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability."
* * * *
"A few days after the raid the sirens screamed again. The listless and heartsick survivors were showered this time with leaflets. I lost my copy of the epic," writes Kurt Vonnegut, "but remember that it ran something like this: 'To the people of Dresden: We were forced to bomb your city because of the heavy military traffic your railroad facilities have been carrying. We realize that we haven't always hit our objectives. Destruction of anything other than military objectives was unintentional, unavoidable fortunes of war.'"
"The leaflet should have said, 'We have hit every blessed church, hospital, school, museum, theater, your university, the zoo, and every apartment building in town, but we honestly weren't trying hard to do it. C'est la guerre. So sorry.'"
Totally obliterate them. "That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that," says presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Candidate Obama assures us that he "will take no options off the table," while candidate McCain sings, "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb, Iran." C'est la guerre. So sorry.
* * * *
Sixty years ago, as Europe lay in the ruins of war, Albert Camus was invited to the Dominican monastery in Latour-Maubourg. "What does the world expect of Christians?" the friars wanted to know. "What the world expects of Christians is that Christians should speak out, loud and clear, and that they should voice their condemnation in such a way that never a doubt, never the slightest doubt, could rise in the heart of the simplest man. That they should get away from abstraction and confront the blood-stained face history has taken on today."
German theologian and political activist Dorothee Soelle put it simply, "The truth is concrete."
In 1948 at Latour-Maubourg, the Dominicans told Camus that the Catholic church had in fact spoken out, but that the arcane language of papal encyclicals had obscured the message. The Vatican had indeed signaled its condemnations, but by necessity through diplomatic indirection.
Last week, Josef Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, eschewed the oblique and chose to come to the United States in person. Traveling under the banner "Christ Our Hope," his message took the form of a skillfully crafted literary inclusio, bracketed by the Willkommen of George Bush and the vaya con Dios of Dick Cheney. Into the vortex of an exquisite choreography vanished the wars of aggression, torture of innocents, destruction of civilizations, and desecration of law.
Camus told the Dominican friars, "When a Spanish bishop blesses political executions, he ceases to be a bishop or a Christian or even a man; he is a dog just like one who, backed by an ideology, orders that execution without doing the dirty work himself."
* * * *
"It is with some regret," Vonnegut writes, "that I here besmirch the nobility of our airmen, but boys, you killed an appalling lot of women and children. The shelter I have described and innumerable others like it were filled with them. We had to exhume their bodies and carry them to mass funeral pyres in the parks-so I know. The funeral pyre technique was abandoned when it became apparent how great was the toll. There was not enough labor to do it nicely, so a man with a flame thrower was sent down instead, and he cremated them where they lay. Buried alive, suffocated, crushed-men, women, and children indiscriminately killed. The method was impersonal, but the result was equally cruel and heartless. That, I am afraid, is a sickening truth."
In December Boeing completed work on a project that was conceived here in St. Louis and put on the fast track by the Pentagon. Tested in the New Mexico desert last spring, the Massive Ordnance Penetrator or MOP is a 30,000-pound conventional weapon designed to penetrate 200 feet before exploding. The Senate approved $83 million to retrofit the B-2 Stealth bombers to make the delivery.
The line separating conventional and nuclear weapons has been systematically eroded. The Nuclear Posture Review of 2001 says "nuclear weapons ... provide credible military options to deter a wide range of threats, including WMD and large-scale conventional military force ... U.S. military forces themselves, including nuclear forces will now be used to dissuade adversaries from undertaking military programs or operations that could threaten U.S. interests or those of allies and friends..." The National Security Strategy of 2006 adds that "the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively ... using all elements of national power ... Safe, credible and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role..."
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a "limited" nuclear attack on the main Iranian underground site in Esfahan would result in three million people killed by radiation within two weeks and 35 million people exposed to dangerous levels of radiation in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India.
"The occupying Russians, when they discovered that we were Americans," writes Vonnegut, "embraced us and congratulated us on the complete desolation our planes had wrought. We accepted their congratulations with good grace and proper modesty, but I felt then as I feel now, that I would have given my life to save Dresden for the World's generations to come. That is how everyone should feel about every city on Earth."
* * * *
"We are still waiting, and I am waiting," said Camus, "for a grouping of all those who refuse to be dogs and are resolved to pay the price that must be paid so that a human can be something more than a dog."
Last Sunday a small group of us stood in front of the Catholic cathedral in St. Louis for a few hours with a model of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. While the pope was preaching at Yankee Stadium, we held a banner calling for him to go to Esfahan to begin the creation of an Iran Peace Shield. It was a small beginning. Conversations were opened. One young man disdainfully reminded us that we were in front of church, while an older women making her way slowly up the steps with a cane looked up at the MOP and said, "What? Attack Iran? We can't do that!"
"How can you excoriate the pope and make an appeal to him at the same time," we've been asked. As human beings, how can we not? As the humanist Vonnegut said, "If Christ hadn't delivered the Sermon on the Mount, with its message of mercy and pity, I wouldn't want to be a human being. I'd just as soon be a rattlesnake."
The crude reality is that our weapons of mass destruction, both nuclear and conventional, are prepared for an assault on Iran. Our warships are in the gulf. Our planes are on standby. And all of this is consummate human folly.
Some who are knowledgeable say that nothing save pure dumb luck can change the course upon which the United States government and its military have embarked. We can't live with that. We are taking steps to escalate the appeal, not only to the pope but to anyone of a stature who's presence in Esfahan would serve as a real deterrent to the launching of an assault by the United States. To put it simply, Dick Cheney would not drop an MOP on Josef Ratzinger's head. To whom else can we make our appeal? We are going to make the appeal as noisily and with as much public disruption as we can muster. And we urge everyone else reading these words to do the same. Make your own appeal to those with whom you have connections wherever and however you can. Disrupt things. We believe that we can create an effective shield with people in Esfahan and with noise everywhere.
Will we give our lives for Esfahan?
Andrew Wimmer is a member of the Center for Theology and Social Analysis in St. Louis. The Iran Peace Shield is an action coming to birth. Will you join us? The website is skeletal at the moment but will be taking shape over the coming days at www.iranpeaceshield.org.
We invite your comments and conversation via email to wimmera@gmail.com.
178 Comments so far
Show AllHillary would bomb Iran in a heartbeat. She has a big Zionist backing...she will be a Bilderberg president...that is about control and power. IF the Zionist neocon leaders (not to be confused with the Israeli people or Judahism)...say push the button...she will push the button.
"It's baffling that most people don't realize that when Hillary Clinton is inaugurated as president (pre-selected by the global elite as George W, Bill and the others were) it will be a continuation of the past 28 years of a Bush / Clinton plutocracy supporting globalization for trans-national corporations, not doing "the work of the people."
Do you really think we live in a democratic society when two families have ruled the top two leadership positions in America for 28 years? And once Hillary is in place they will continue for another 4 to 8 years. Think about it, remember that Bill Clinton pushed NAFTA through which created the decline of America's middle class, and start to connect the dots behind the scenes of the media movie."
http://salonesoterica.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/hillary-clinton-a-bilderberg-presidency/
Read this letter is you think the Clintons are "for the people".
http://carolynbaker.net/site/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=310
Of course all of this may be irrelevant if the elections are canceled....and Bush institutes martial law.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/04/375010.shtml
MAYDAY ALERT! -- Terror Drills Could Go Live!
author: Major Fox
An impressive array of military men join Captain Eric H. May, the Internet intelligence writer, in issuing a false flag alert for May 1-8, when the Bush administration will be conducting nationwide terror exercises.
MAYDAY ALERT! -- Terror Drills Could Go Live!
By Dr. James H. Fetzer
Major William B. Fox
Captain Eric H. May
SFC Donald Buswell
The name "false flag" comes from the old pirate's ruse of flying another country's flag during an attack, thereby shifting blame for the attack to a party that had nothing to do with it. Governments use false flag attacks to push their nations into dictatorship or war. As military experts, we fear that national terror drills, scheduled for May 1-8, could be used to camouflage a false flag attack in the United States.
False flags...martial law...AND an attack on Iran (they will be blamed, of course).
Dictatorial powers in place....
It continues to amaze me how there are some on the left that will rail against the injustices in Burma, Tibet, or Columbia etc. in an open and honest way but will always find a way to excuse Israeli atrocities and Israeli's influence on our own political system. These are often the same people who like to point the blame elsewhere whether its the idea that ohhhh the Arab regimes are just as bad (which is true many are) or its some sort of mysterious global elite (and not real people and think tanks and organizations), or its just America's business as usual. Sorry but most of us don't buy into that anymore not when Israeli spies get caught every other week in this country.
I am amazed at just how tiresome you people are. I'm sorry, but please listen to yourselves. I have never joined one of these discussions, but most of you are so damn tiresome. Why are you continuing to argue with people who refuse to think, and couldn't give a damn about changing anything in the world. If you think that telling everyone over and over that Hillary said 'if' is clever, it isn't. That is the kind of argument that 5th graders cling to. Get off of your computer and out of your mother's basement. There are real problems in the world, and this kind of shit is not helping anyone. I am sickened just to have to explain this.
~JHGFJHGFYT~ Good for you, well said. I see none of the big mouths here have bothered to post a word on the most serious issue humanity faces, the new article here about climate change. ___ Not at all surprised.
"The most serious issue humanity faces."
And KEM what might that be?
Nope ~MESANTHORPE~, it's the article titled _____"How to Be A Climate Hero".___
It's the second one from the top here. I didn't write it, so it isn't my opinions. There have only been three denying trolls show up there, so why don't you go join in and have some fun and display your incredible ignorance and stupidity? You can just ignore the posts I wrote and scroll right on by if you wish so I don't annoy you.
Any who may have opened that link I offered here and disagree with it, I didn't write that article either.
If any take the two minutes time necessary to read it and don't see just how deadly serious it is for all of humanity, which includes our children, then you're lots smarter than the author and he's considered by his peers to be pretty darn smart.
Atta-boy, a vote for Nader or McKinney, is a vote for McCain.
If you don't like Hillary, you don't like chipmunks.
Which article was that:
LOUDMOUTHED NUTCASE OBSESSED WITH PREDICTION OF METHANE DOOM (?)
KEM -- I guess what you mistook for a grudge, is really my twisted sense of "agreeing to disagree", and suggesting that you were tired was just my way of expressing that I had noticed how often you have been posting, on many different threads.
I enjoy discussing things with you ( and I do learn from you ) and don't really see how I did much more than obliquely ask for your comment, which of your own priority was already evidenced my your NOT commenting on it.
If conspiracies are temporarily "off the table", between you and I, then that's how it is, and l respect your decision.
"Neat as a pin" is just a colloquial expression, which I perhaps incorrectly guessed was within your contextual space growing up, but never too important to you personally. I had doubted that your sock drawer is all lined and everything carefully ordered and straight in its proper place - as that is nominally a symptom of tightly wound and shallow people - and ALL evidence is that you obviously are NOT one of those types.
My apologies, again we jump into a chasm of misunderstanding, too often ginned by my absurd sense of "humor". Does it make you better comprehend me, for me to acknowledge that I am "high functioning" autistic, ADHD, depressed, and a 6-sigma deviate ( well perhaps only 4 sigma, on a poor day ) ?
I personally am substantially "beyond" 'neat as a pin', and was in a way, poking fun at myself
I don't like Hillary because she is untrustworthy, dangerous and has Imperialist leanings. But I fear the crackpots associated with Alex
Jones worse. To my mind they are so warped and dangerous they make my skin crawl. I hate right wing lying of any type.
If the election turns out to be between Clinton and McCain I will vote for McKinney or Nader.
That's Okay NAM, after being blasted by several here today, I guess I got a bit pissy. I'm not at all neat as a pin either, on the contrary. Sock drawer? are you kidding, they get put in any drawer. Ha haaaaa, my socks are all hanging on the clothes line right now with Ev's bras.
BTW, for one with those mediacal problems, you sure do have a sharp mind and are a top-notch writer.
~DCBELTWAY~ It's just my opinoion as to what's the most serious issue. I believe that an issue that concerns the distinct possibility of eradicating all life on the only planet we have to live on is the most serious. ___ Strange belief naturally.
What is occurring right now with global warming is going to cause what has happened twice previously in Earth's long history, unless we correct the problem now, begin now I should say. Read the link I offered in a post above this one.
When the billions of tons of methane gas "burps" out of the ocean's floor-beds, all life, except some bacteria, worms, some deep sea life, some plankton and perhaps some small rodents was wiped out within a few hours time. So to me that's the MOST serious issue.
Some like ~Mesanthorpe~ disagree, Hillary and Obama are a far more serious issue. ~Mesanthorpe~ is nasty when disagreeing. __ Likely a druggie, or a very sick in the head dude.
Boy, still nobody wants to address the issues! What's gotten into you people this weekend? Is it the weather? You're usually better than this...
"Totally obliterate them. 'That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iraq need to know that,' says presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.' Candidate Obama assures us that he 'will take no options off the table,' while candidate McCain sings 'Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran.' C'est la guerre. So sorry." Quoted directly form the article.
Why the long exchange over Clinton? (What was the context of her use fo the term 'obliterate'? What was the question? What was the motivation of the questioner?)
Yes, her statement was more blatantly phrased than Obama's 'nothing off the table' tactic, (and neither could be compared with McCain's puerile show).
However, isn't the point that all three of the candidates are willing to talk about attacking a nation that has said not one word about attacking or invading anyone? Not one of the candidates is taking a stand against this insanity, but rather, they unthinkingly pick up the theme.
I just can't help quoting this fool:
"When the billions of tons of methane gas "burps" out of the ocean's floor-beds, all life, except some bacteria, worms, some deep sea life, some plankton and perhaps some small rodents was wiped out within a few hours time. So to me that's the MOST serious issue."
I would have thought that KEM PATRICK would find himself in good company with "some bacteria, worms, some deep sea life, some plankton and perhaps some small rodents" and, therefore, not feel at all threatened.
"My pathological need", according to ~MISANTHORPE~, for KEM to discuss global warming and the resulting MOST serious issue, methane gas released into our atmosphere.
It really should be everyone's "pathological" need. Here we have another article, the third in two days with the headline word OBLITERATE.
Everyone knows that's Hilary's WORD and so the article is not truly about a possible war with Iran, which would be a disaater for our country and very possibly the beginning of WW three. ___ No, it's truly about Hillary versus Obama.
Now Hillary versus Obama is an important subject, but I do believe we have had well over 100 such articles here about the pair this last month alone. Is that really our MOST important subject matter? Does anyone actually believe, Hillary would start a war with Iran as soon as she was elected to the presidency? ___ McCain might.
What these damn articles of Hillary versus Obama have done, is create fricton with almost every blogger who writes comments here. Many are so disgusted, they have stopped reading Common Dreams. Half are for Hillary and half for Obama and it has been nothing but nasty and hate filled threads for over three months.
The Neo-cons who have invaded this site are doing cartwheels and Rove is probably laughing himself sick about it, or having orgasisms. So we can have our little shit fights here about Hillary, or we can think about what happens if no one attempts to correct the global warmng issue. McCain won't, he denies global warming. If he's elected, don't expect anything to be done about it.
And if you don't believe it is our MOST serious issue, then you either didn't bother to open that link I offered and read the two minute article, or you may think it's just my personl "pathological" need. Which it is not.
I didn't write that article about the Arctic methane gas, __(A ticking time bomb)__ which we'd better defuse and the fuse is getting short. It is the most serious issue humanity has EVER faced. ___Ignore it, listen to the ~Misanthorpes~and McCains and tell your family and kids you love them and to have a nice day.
Two precious minutes of your time to read this.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
"Kem's pathological need"??? ___ It's actually "YOUR" business.
In other words ~RICH M~ in your opinion Hillary should be just like you, or me, or someone else. She's she. That's how she answered the question and as ~Mike Corbeil~ says, it was an apropriate answer and I agree.
I would have used different words, but I'm not running for office and being hit with hypothetical questios and not having adequate time to think of the MOST appropriate reply. Have you ever said somethng and wished later you had used different words? But you weren't beign mean or nasty, just that you could have used different words which may have been taken the wrong way?
There are plenty of things to be critical of Hillary about, I'm only saying __ (she did not threaten to nuke Iran) __ and some here claim she did. That's just not so. Any who state that have a reading comp problem.
Here we go again, number three here at Common Dreams on the word "Obliterate". And the Bleat goes on.
Read her entire comment and reply to a hypothitical question on that subject please. Hillary Clinton does not support the notion that we should attack Iran. She does not support maintaining permanent military bases in Iraq and her views are 'directly opposed' to McCains. Any who state otherwise are wrong and just mouthing unture statements, bleat away, but please do offer credible links to substantiate the bleats.
I think KEM only read the headline.
The master's of war continue to outdo themselves, unwittingly pushing the already crumbling empire closer to total destruction.
Hoa binh
If it's "bleating" to express utter horror of the posed prospect of an Iran attack of sufficient intensity to accomplish the task proposed,then let me be the number one bleater.Dubya and Cheney have taken this country so far down the path towards destruction during the tenure of their "administration" that what was then unthinkable is now being drummed up.Total insanity for want of oil???Study the history of that area of the middle east.
The madmen run the asylum,yet the inmates pick shit with the chickens!
God,your children have gone mad,discipline appears to be in order. Bob
It is a shame the people take propaganda at face value. They teach critical thinking at the University, but so few people really take the time to examine what they hear. If you listen to Fox "News" you get your daily dose of propaganda and are told what to think like good conservatives. It is not true, but don't let truth get in the way of belief.
That my boy is part of what she said, that comment is taken completely out of context of the entire conversation and I do believe you are fully aware of that. That is exactly what I meant when I used the word "bleat".
Once again, Hillary does not agree with the Bush polcies regarding Iran, nor does she support them or McCain's views on the issue. I did read the entire article the word "Obliterate" was directed at Clinton.
How catchy you are with your ovine/Sonny & Cher characterization!?
What part of "obliterate" leads you to conclude Clinton doesn't "support the notion that we should" attack Iran? What is your hypothitical (sic) question, by the way? Where are the links you ask of others?
Were you a victim of "No Child Left Behind"?
Facts are a bitch, huh?!
"ABC New writes". ~LOL~ Suddenly we are to trust ABC new. My my, and so many of us progressives state the news is controlled by the same No-Conn people who control Bush. Bleat, bleat, bleat.
Read the entire transcript of that interview ~STYVE~ ___ Have you? __ Do you understand it?
Why od you insult me for offering a valid opinion? As some of the comments already posted show, it's obvious I was correct. Just half truths and bleating.
Hillary Clinton supported the war in Iraq and said recently in Scranton Pennsylvania: "We must win the war in Iraq"" and yes she did say she would obliterate Iran and yes she is a neocon warmonger who with the help of her right wing friends is trying to push the democratic party to become a second neocon party. She is a liar and a demogogue and will make McCain look like a moderate before too long.
Please do post the ENTIRE transcript of that interview, where you state Hillary said she would attack and or obliterate Iran ~Countess~. It is NOT what she said. And the bleats go merrily on.
"Clinton enjoys strong Jewish support due to her standing as a popular senator from the state with the country's largest Jewish population, her work promoting Jewish issues and support for Israel, and the popularity her husband enjoyed among Jews when he was president."
Hillary gets significant contributions from the Jews, therefore, any nation that dares to oppose the Jews, is going to be obliterated by her.
By any historic or objective interpretation of international law the invasion of Iraq was and remains a war crime of the highest order.
Until last year, the Clintons held substantial stock in major military industrial corporations.
Thus, HILLARY IS A WAR CRIMINAL AND WAR PROFITEER !
I hate to break the news to you Obamaniacs, but he's not really any better than Hillary Clinton when it comes to pro-war profiteering! If he's so great why isn't he leading the call to stop all this madness?? He won't do it because he cares more about himself than us. Yes, Hillary Clinton says really dumb things - that is why it's best to vote outside of the Democratic party, for Nader or McKinney (or Gravel or Kucinich or ?) We have to support candidates who recognize that Israel is a terrorist nation, AND the United States is a terrorist nation, too.
It is not my habit to agree with KEM, but the notion that Hillary Clinton somehow WANTS the USA to attack Iran, either before or after the election is just not so. OF COURSE, she is talking tough---you can't be elected if you don't. But her goal is not war, it is peace through strength and credible retaliatory threat.
Bear in mind there are Muslims in the world who talk about wishing to wipe Israel off the map all the time. Hillary (and most everyone in America) is saying the same thing---Try it if you dare. Plan to be a pile of dust. RHETORIC hoped by all never to be carried out.
Keep at it, Kem, it takes a long time for some people to get the real picture, especially when they do not want to hear the truth. Propaganda and twisting people`s statements are so much more fun. Hillary could have used a better choice of words, but in an interview, who says everything just the way they want. It was a stupid question and possibly was meant to draw out a dumb remark. To compare her to Bomb Bomb McWar is totally wrong, as he admits being a warmonger.
Kem Patrick, have you forgotten that Clinton was First Lady when sanctions against Iraq were killing thousands of children? Oh, but wait, she was really opposed to that, just like she was opposed to NAFTA, hahaha. She's privately said that she can't come out too strongly against the war because it would hurt her electoral chances. "Better that a thousand Iraqi women should die than one American woman be denied her chance to become president" should be her motto. Anyone who runs for president is by definition a narcissistic meglomaniac; why else would you assume that out of the 300 million people in this country, you're the only one suited for the job? It doesn't really matter, anyway; whoever wins will inherit a crumbling empire running on borrowed time (and money). Oh well. I guess all experiments, even noble ones, have to end sometime.
Here's the pertinent excerpt from the ABC interview with Clinton. Y'all can judge for yourselves:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fUiFcaWxn8o
Excellent article by Wimmer, with relevant and insightful quotes by Vonnegut and Camus. It's not about what Hillary said or what she may or may not do, it's about the impending bombing of Iran.
Wimmer is asking all of us take some action now, in his words "Disrupt things!"
It's somewhat ironic that Bush's Manichean ideology may lead him to his own (and our) ultimate catastrophe in the very land of Mani's origins.
NO ~LORD TRIGO~I have not forgotten Hillary was first lady when Bill Clinton was making a fool of himself. Although while doing so we were as a nation in pretty good shape, in top notch shape when compared to the present disaster Bush has created.
I'm of the opinion, the couple are two different people. She has bigger tits for one thing and cannot enjoy the pleasure of a friendly blow job and had a different mind and different opinions. I understand they, like all husbands and wives, disagree at times.___ Strongly disagree. ___ I respectfully reply maLord.
Hi ~ANNE FAITH~ is that EXCERPT you posted the entire word for word interview?
exactly, rebelnow. wimmer is drawing attention (quite necessarily) away from the "who said what" syndrome of many bloggers to the much more pressing need to confront all politicians (democrats included) on the reprehensible memory loss of other cultures--iran and the persian heritage being only one of many.
what should be challenged consistently is the american sense of entitlement to consider any other nation a "bombable" commodity, threat, piece of exotic amusement, etc. wimmer seems, laudably, to commend us to fight the powers that be when they continue to issue false alarms and calls to arms against peoples who have every right to exist as we do.
Ma Clinton, she got slab sides an' big shoulders. Baldy McGoon, he evolution in reverse. Oshama, he slim tailored empty suit. All gotta s'pote Izzul. And they love Murka. So look out, Eye-ran.
Hillary is a political whore--and AIPAC her pimp.
Her threat to "obliterate" Iran is an act of terrorism, a consept which has lost most of its original meaning since neocon/likundiks started their propagandawar. Terrorism is not synonymous with resistance to Zionism or PNAC's wet dreams of "Pax Americana". Terrorism is through actions or words instigate fear on innocent people for political puposes.
Neither Hillary Clinton nor Osaba bin Laden are terrorists.They are political figures who sometimes use fear as a weapon to obtain their goal...Some will say this is semantics. I say it's not. Islamists are a problem for the West,and growing in number and strenght for every innocent muslim IDF or US soldiers kill. It is imperative that we understand the driving force behind these activists, and not settle for the skewed and twisted definition presented by Bush' speechwriters.
A poster writes: "OF COURSE, she is talking tough—you can't be elected if you don't."
Maybe it implies that you wouldn't vote for a person who puts peace diplomacy ahead of tough talking but not everybody feels that way.
I found it offensive when Kerry said, "I will hunt down Bin Ladena and kill him" or Hillary says, "we would be able to totally obliterate them." These are not statements that I want coming out of my President's mouth. Where is due process, where is protection of civilians, where is there talk of peace and justice?
Just listen to the words she directs against Chavez. And she has never said that she would withdraw all troops from Iraq.
And from her own mouth. "If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from." ~ Hillary Clinton February 2007
so it goes...
Kem, no. It's the part where she uses the words "massive retaliation" and "obliterate." Here's a longer version of the interview: http://youtube.com/watch?v=abJ2jbXasNg
As far as I can tell, in HRC's own words, she threatens to obliterate Iran based on a baseless "threat". The real threat to stability in the region, beyond our presence, is Israel. Would anyone ever ask a candidate what they would do to Israel if they attacked one of their neighbors. Oh wait, they do that every day - yet no one would ever ask a candidate about it, and of course, no candidate would ever get away with threatening to "obliterate" Israel. Aren't they the ones with nuclear weapons?
Any US war with Iran is a war "made in Israel." The Israel lobby, which includes US Christian Zionists, has been long been maneuvering the US into a war with Iran in order to safeguard Israeli apartheid and racism. Sane Big Oil players don't want total war with Iran because it would trigger economic chaos. The MIC needs constant, low-level warfare to make money, but not nuclear war. So without constant pressure from Israel and its powerful lobby, few US politicians would approve nuclear strikes on Iran. It's true that Cheney's an oil man, not a Zionist. But he's a hopelessly corrupt politician, and when his Zionist power base howls for the destruction of Iran, he listens. Besides, an undestroyed Iran jeopardizes the ongoing US destruction of Iraq. What the hey, in for a dime, in for a dollar.
It's an easy call for our current corrupt, neofascist leaders.
Re HRC's "obliteration" comments, I didn't hear her threatening to obliterate Israel if it attacks Iran. Obviously a much more likely scenario, but not a peep from HRC on that one. Wonder why the rest of the world hates us so much?
Does anyone have the ENTIRE transcript of what she said and the exact context of what she said? Perhaps someone could post it here, so we don't get comments like ~DAGA's~ which are based upon misinformation. Sorry, Daga that's a fact.
No one asked her that queston ~OSTROGOTH~.
"No one asked her that queston ~OSTROGOTH~."
-By KEM PATRICK April 26th, 2008 3:20 pm
___________________
No, and if they had, her answer would have been the same: "obliterate Iran." haha
Kem, as far as I can tell, the entire conversation about Iran is included in the youtube link I posted at 2:56 p.m. I didn't see the GMA program when it aired (since I don't watch ABC) so I don't know how long the entire interview ran. But the portion that I posted runs for four minutes and goes all the way to the conclusion of the interview. I can't say what might have been left off the beginning of the youtube piece (probably just an introduction of the Senator), but if you watch it, it appears that there was only one segment that dealt with Iran. And it places her statement in context, which I believe is what you wanted.