Obliterate Them!
Of rattlesnakes and dogs
There is a Persian proverb that says, “Esfahān nesf-e jahān 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.
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
KEM PATRICK (12:26) writes, “Hillary Clinton does not support the notion that we should attack Iran…. Any who state otherwise are wrong and just mouthing unture statements…”
On the other hand, ABCNews writes,
Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on “Good Morning America” Tuesday. ABC News’ Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.
“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.” …
Using such deliberately inflammatory & belligerent language is the action of a coldblooded warmonger. It’s every bit as bad as singing “Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb bomb-Iran.” There was no need to ramp up to using a word like “obliterate.” Any decent & responsible person would have responded that there isn’t the slightest reason to believe that Iran would attack Israel (let alone with nukes, which they don’t have) — indeed, the risks are 100% in the opposite direction. Why would Iran (a country that hasn’t attacked anyone in thousands of years) attack a country that has the world’s 4th largest nuclear arsenal, has attacked all its neighbors in the last few decades, & is visibly champing at the bit to blow Iran to smithereens?
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.
Quoting from the article:
“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.’”
Fortunes, of war; collateral damage, death, i.e., killing, destruction? What’s of ‘fortune’ about or in that?! Seems to me that it takes heartless, soul-less people to think in such terms; people who are insane, psycho…, delusional, self-righteous, ….
” Lord Trigo April 26th, 2008 1:55 pm
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.”
Just like she was also (NOT) opposed to the criminal war of aggression of her husband’s administration’s command against Kosovo, Yugoslavia, former Pres. Slobodan Milosevic, who the U.S. et al LIED their souls away about.
And that’s only one of the additional crimes she has always sided with while acting as if these crimes were not REAL, but which they irrefutably are. She’s married to war criminal many-times-over Bill or William, whatever, and as president of the USA, one of her duties would be to indict her husband and have him stand trial for his extreme crimes. Of course she is NOT going to do that, either; leaving the USA again in the hands of another VERY hypocritical presidency if she’s elected.
If elected and silent about her husband’s extreme crimes, then this will make what of her? COMPLICIT; even if it is after the fact!
The Clinton’s have evidently been proven to have long had and to still have strong ties to BIG CORP.
Obama’s not someone who can be similarly spoken of; there’s no similar track record for him. And like Obama’ites say, he strategically campaigns on the basis that he can’t say what a lot of people would like to hear from him, for he has, first, the primaries to win, and if he is nominated, then the race for the presidency; not some simple matter. I don’t know if that argument is reflective of the truth of the matter, but it’s a down-to-earth, realistic view that some people have expressed here at CD.
Lord Trigo spoils his post though, and it’s wherein he wrote:
“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?”.
Reality works out that way much too often, many people love the Peter Principle ladder, to reach as high as they can, regardless of their related incompetencies. But a real leader can both exist and be very good; just that we lack leadership of this kind, and I mean in the topmost key, so most influential positions, of govt.
ALL of the candidates should be stating firm opposition to war on Iran, for it’s likely totally within its legitimate legal and moral rights; it’s everyone else who is damn HYPOCRITE and pro-hegemony. It takes wicked, perhaps malicious, FOOLS to believe that Iran would first-strike attack any other country, last of all Israel. After all, it’s not like Iranian leadership is unaware of Israel being very nuclear-armed; although not the sole reason Iran would not commit a first strike against Israel or any Western countries or govts.
So what if Iran tries to cheat a little on the nuclear programme subject?! The USA doesn’t allow IAEA inspections of U.S. facilities, and the USA ensures that Israel can remain illegally nuclear-armed, war criminal, etc.; in addition to other countries or govts the U.S. govt aids in terms of illegal nuclear programmes. They’re all rejectors of the NPT too; but not Iran.
I recently read the argument that Iran becoming nuclear-armed would not serve for deterrence, but it’s inarguably false to claim. If Iraq had been nuclear-armed, then it’s nearly a certainty that this war would not have been launched, if even at all threatened. After all, the only thing that’d be needed for fast regime change at home would be for the govt being threatened with war to get just one nukie through, to successful completion of launch, with the full-effects “fireworks” happening at the targeted location. One nukie hitting NYC, this would surely move “Americans” to see to regime change at home, and as fast as possible.
There’d be that additional political risk. NO WAY; there’s no way that Iran would launch first-strike.
With the long and fact-based Clintons’ history, I would not trust Billary further than I could pick up and throw a 5 tonne boulder; hence NOT at all.
Thanks ~Anne~ I did watch it, what she did was reply to a hypothetical question whih was designed to make her look bad. ” Do you still beat your mother” type question.
When not aware of what questions will be asked, one is not always well prepared to give a reply which could suit ALL. She could have replied with, “That’s a hypothetical question, Iran has no nuclear weapons and as far as I know and according to the latest NIE report, does not intend to ever have them as Bush claims. So lets just stick to the issues which are abundant and discuss them. I would act approprialtey if any nation attacked another with nuclear weapons.”
That’s not how she replied, how she did was approprite to the question as it was asked. She said “IF”. If is a BIG word is it not? She never said she would attack Iran or ever use nuclear weapons. When Clinton was our president, we were well on our way to eleminating nuclear weapons and Bush screwed that up, as he has screwed up everything else Clinton did accomplish towards good.
I am pleased that armed duels are forbidden and against the law, or I fear we’d be missing a lot of bloggers here and I’d have never joined the group in the first place. Snowballs would be alright.
Another of the Clintons’, really Bill Clinton’s, extreme crimes is part of the following story, and everything related to it.
“Rwanda: UN’s Louise Arbour Under Fire Over 1994 murder of the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi
Global Research, April 15, 2008
Agence Rwandaise d’Information - 2008-04-09″
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8690
I don’t know if it was ‘murder’, having only read ‘assassination’, but I suppose ‘murder’ can suffice.
Keith Harmon Snow and other good analysts on … situations or conflicts in Africa, and for decades now, provide the information I’m referring to in terms of the U.S. govt’s criminal involvement in these assassinations of two state leaders, while also killing plenty of other innocent people in the process; speaking of only the passengers traveling with the two state leaders who were assassinated.
Maybe Hillary doesn’t know about this, but there’s NO way that she can not know that her husband is an extreme war criminal, and committed other extreme crimes against humanity. If she’s oblivious to all of this, then the least that can be said of her is that she is most definitely UNFIT to serve in high political offices; including the presidency.
As for Obama, my only gripe about him is that he spoke as if totally pro-Israel, not a word for Palestinian rights; repeatedly voted for more funding of the continued war or occupational war, call it as you wish, on Iraq; and in his pro-israel stance is the siding against Iran, as if Iranian leadership did anything particularly wrong or unacceptable, which they did not do. But between him and Billary; well, she has long track record of nothing but bad so far, while Obama apparently served years in politics before reaching the federal level, the Senate anyway, and supposedly was good during these prior years. Nothing truly good can be said of the Clinton[s] in terms of serving in politics; nothing at all.
Kem Patrick,
Based on the quote another reader posted near the top of these posts, I have to AGREE with you. The quote does have her saying that she’d respond [if] Iran struck Israel, while also specifying with the use of nuclear arms, and while it’s also clear that the Q&A is with respect to Iran hypothetically striking first, instead of replying to an attack from or by Israel.
I could not pick on her for that statement; I’d have to be FOOL to criticise her for those words. She answered the question fair-and-square.
But as for my overall perspective on the Clintons, both, my above posts state this enough.
Reuters, ABC, Time Magazine and other news services reported that Senator Clinton said “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran”. To deny she said it is nonsense, simple lying or both.
She has also boasted of the US’s capacity to “obliterate” Iran. Such speech is barbarous–acting on such words makes you a prima facie war criminal.
She supported the sanctions on Iraq that killed half a million Iraqis. from 1992 through 2001. In 2002 she voted for invading Iraq. She has often said “We must win the war in Iraq”. She lies about her own role in her husband’s administrations. She lies about Obama. And about much else.
What do we call such politicians? Since Goldwater, we call them Republicans.
Hi KEM PATRICK
I dont mind being told Im misinformed, but without you offering any explanation or alternative information your comment looks rather silly.
I saw the interview, and read the transcript again this morning. Her message is clear,so is the threat behind it.
It is in line with the political discourse in Washington these days. Add to that her own words that “the nuclear option is not off the table” delivered earlier this winter I find her latest genuflection to the warmongers both saddening and frightening.
This article has nothing to do with Clinton, yet that’s about all the comments refer to. It’s not about what she did or didn’t say or what she meant or didn’t mean. It’s about our country going down the tubes because of our military-industrial-media complex.
Hoa binh
” pzbrawl April 26th, 2008 4:40 pm
Reuters, ABC, Time Magazine and other news services reported that Senator Clinton said “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran”. To deny she said it is nonsense, simple lying or both.”
I agree with the rest of pzbrawl’s post, but the above could be possibly a situation due to one of those three, or another, news media reporting incorrectly, and the others copying from the latter; instead of [verifying] before using.
That sure seems to be what happened with the FALSE story of Iranian Pres. Ahmadinejad having said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map or Earth; words he has been proven to have NEVER said, but while the false claim made its way around the world and … FAST. It started with one liar, and then many copycats.
Poor Hillary. She is unfairly being held to account for what she says.
Kem claims (4:16 pm) that Hillary’s saying “IF” makes a big difference. This is ludicrous. She deliberately answered the hypothetical question with the most inflammatory & bellicose language imaginable, trying to pander to zealous protectors of Israel, & to rednecks and militarists who always think the USA should be bombing some country that’s done nothing to us.
The fact that she didn’t answer in restrained, temperate language speaks volumes about her character. As Kem himself admits, she could have responded to the question with something like “That’s a hypothetical question, Iran has no nuclear weapons and as far as I know and according to the latest NIE report, does not intend to ever have them …So lets just stick to the issues … I would act appropriately if any nation attacked another with nuclear weapons.”
The fact that she chose not to say anything of the sort, but instead went for the most belligerent imagery possible — this tell us all we need to know about her. This is a woman who has no compunction about pandering to militarists & redneck idiots, if she thinks there’s something in it for her. This is a woman who has been in the Senate since Bush stole the 2000 election, and hasn’t stood up once to oppose a single one of his crimes. (Hillary defenders should try to compile a list of “all” the courageous stands she’s taken against Bush since 2000. It would be a very short list.)
RichM: You are so right.
You Obamaites and Clintonites can fight until you all age out, but that won’t do a damn thing to stop the impending attack on Iran. Wimmer’s essay was not about Clinton or Obama. It is about trying to rein in the insanity that occupies our leaders. If bush and cheney have their way we will be in Iran well before the election and/or nomination. We can argue Clinton v. Obama until the cows come home, but the US is planning to blow the cows into the air with its MOP bombs, nuclear weapons, etc. Stop the damn bickering. Let’s stop the attack on Iran first.
Interesting:
History, Albert Camus, Kurt Vonnegut, the Pope, Dresden, World War II, Iran/Persia (home of the oldest of all western religions - zoroastrianism) and the horrors of war, all introduced by a quote from Hillary Clinton.
So what’s important here? Is it the horrors of war? Is it that it looks like the US is preparing to attack Iran? Or is it that Hillary Clinton used the word “obliterate” in an attempt to garner political support? Or is it all of the above?
Or maybe it’s the fact that the word “obliterate,” in reference to nuking Iran, was used by an American politician to garner political support in the first place. Maybe that’s the true horror of this article: that threatening to use nuclear weapons on human beings is viewed by an American politician as something that will garner him or her support from the American voters, when it should immediately cause the American voters to turn away from said politician in shock and fear.
Yeah, that’s it: the horror is the fact that the American people have been conditioned to think that Hillary’s threat to “obliterate” Iraq is a reason for them to vote FOR her, instead of AGAINST her. If Hillary didn’t believe that threatening to “obliterate” Iran would garner her political capital, she wouldn’t have said what she said. The horror is that there are Americans out there who are defending her for saying what she said.
Is Obama perfect? Not at all. How about McCain? He’s worse than Hillary. But that’s not the point. The point is that no American should be defending Hillary (or any other politician) for threatening to “obliterate” another country with nuclear weapons.
But this article isn’t really about Hillary, is it? It’s really about us. It’s about that fact that we’ve tolerated politicians like Hillary (and McCain and Bush and Cheney and so on), and religious leaders like the Pope and businesses like Lockheed Martin and the Mainstream Media and anything and anyone else who keeps on telling us that war, and nukes, is okay. And we should stop. After all, it’s making them rich, not us.
Hitleries friends:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261
“As if that weren’t damning enough, the Clintons have made clear yet again just how ample is their scuzziness quotient. No Democrat can touch it, other than Joe Lieberman, and even he really isn’t in their league. If necessary, they can play the gender card, so she got weepy in New Hampshire. They’re quite capable of playing the race card, and they did so in South Carolina. They’re happy to play the national security fear card, and they have, with the 3:00 AM ad, the Osama bin Laden ad, and now the obliteration of Iran bit. (If it walks like a Republican, talks like a Republican, and sounds like a Republican…) They’re capable of telling outright whopping lies, and so they do, like her unbelievably outrageous Bosnia gunfire story, and then the lies they’ve both told to cover up the original lie. They’re capable of sleeping with any enemy, and so they have, colluding with no less than Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife, of all people — the very topmost Conspirators of the Vast Right-Wing. Bill actually went on the Limbaugh radio show as both of them encouraged Texans to vote for her! Gee, what could possibly have been Limbaugh’s motivation for that? (Hint: President Hillary ain’t exactly what he had in mind.) What in the world does that alone say about how much the Clintons care about the Democratic Party?”
by David Michael Green
Face reality Dems, your party’s been hi-jacked.
” thoreau245 April 26th, 2008 2:25 pm
exactly, rebelnow.”
I’ll second, or third (whatever), that.
It’s indeed an excellent article, I very much appreciate the historical quoted texts or words, and the idea Wimmer proposes, for the Pope to get himself over to Iran, if and when there really is war threatened against Iran, unless he was to move and live there for a year or so, say, well, GREAT IDEA.
And it’s how I felt, much, about the UN weapons inspectors who all scrammed and fast with the imminent threat of war on Iraq in 2003. I figured that if they stayed, then this’d like very much or certainly guarantee that the war would not be launched for as long as the inspection team remained there.
The Pope going to Iran as Wimmer explains would be great, and Wimmer’s call for people to dissent and make it KNOWN so that politicians can’t be without knowing about it, this is also important.
He furthermore leaves me with the impression, unless he says it explicitly, that “Americans”, today, should be prepared to treat defence of country against ‘enemies from within’ a very serious matter, which by far MOST “Americans” have NOT done. Of course The People would need … like an army though.
An article that should only be helpful for making it clear that this threat of war on Iran is to be taken seriously, even if it turned out to be fake throughout, fake like for the sake of distracting anti-war and pro-justice people from Iraq; well, we don’t know that the latter is the truth yet, so we should take the threat seriously. And the article by Jim Lobe that I refer to in I believe my first post, above, is a good reference to carefully read and keep in mind.
It’s pretty much the same bunch of neocon, pro-Israel and -Zionism, … criminals in the White House and other relevant positions in high offices of the U.S. govt. There have been some changes, but it sure seems that this hasn’t changed much, if really anything at all. Libby, Rumsfeld, and others are no longer in the positions they had during the first term of hijackers Bush and Cheney; but the latter seem to have made sure to replace the others with more of the same sort.
Simple way to get to the Jim Lobe article reference is to go to the top of this page, click there, and then CTRL+F (page search) on “Lobe” or “Jim Lobe”, minus the quotes.
good grief KEM PATRICK ….take it easy…we still have a long ways to go in this campaign….don’t blow a gasket
“Reality works out that way much too often, many people love the Peter Principle ladder, to reach as high as they can, regardless of their related incompetencies. But a real leader can both exist and be very good; just that we lack leadership of this kind, and I mean in the topmost key, so most influential positions, of govt.”
The problem is with the concept of “leadership.” The vary nature of the leader/led relationship is what creates the problem; the led become dependent on the leader for solutions to their problems, and the leader eventually becomes disdainful of those beneath him because they have to turn to him for solutions. Some leaders are benign and good, but the concentration of power inevitably attracts those most likely to abuse it, and by the time they’re reigned in, the damage is usually done. The best way to prevent bad leaders is to decentralize power as much as possible and come up with decision-making alternatives to the traditional hierarchy-based power structures .
And let’s be real, people get involved in politics because they love the game. If helping their fellow man in a selfless manner was their immediate goal, they’d volunteer at the local soup kitchen, instead of going through all the crap one has to go through just to get within shouting distance of being elected. We should try to find the best of the lot, but let’s realize we’re not talking about Mother Teresa here. We should base our votes on cynical self-interest, just as the pols base their campaigns on it.
Lord Trigo,
Don’t worry, you’re not teaching anything to me in what you say; I’m very aware, and have long been very aware, of the reality you speak of.
But I agree with the clarification part of what you had meant, and which you stated in your last post.
Just drop the preaching; you have no sermons to give to me. NONE.
Also, when quoting from another post or article, whatever, specify what you’re quoting to up front, as I and most people do here. It makes it much easier to notice that someone’s replying based on a post we made; I just happened to indirectly notice that you quoted from me.
Simple solution: obliterate Billary and send them back to their corporate paymasters where they can keep screwing John Q. Public.
b) Sense of Senate.–It is the sense of the Senate–
(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;
(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi’a militia extremists in Iraq into a
[Page: S11828] GPO’s PDFHezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;
(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;
(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and
(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, as I said, the chairman of the committee is correct, the intention was to simply lay this amendment down tonight on behalf of Senators LIEBERMAN, COLEMAN, and myself. We will debate it after we have concluded further business.
YEA - H. Clinton
Blow a gasket??? ___LOL___ I’m havin fun here ~JLOVER~ You have a reading disability or an assumtionality problem?
Again, snowballs would be fine, in the summer? Paint-balls. Only one each per duelist.
F**k HRC - listen to the man who knows, Adm. Fallon:
“Get serious. They’re ants. WHEN the time comes, we’ll crush them.”
WHEN, not if, understand? He was fired because he didn’t agree on the day the Iranian ant-crushing should start. But, “serious” people, like HRC, understand the clock is running full speed ahead.
And WHEN means this: as soon as Cheneybush need a super-duper distraction when yet another of their anti-American scandals is revealed.
Remember: unless McCrazy “wins,” the GOPlunderers are out to pasture. And they did not spend thirty years lying and stealing their way to the top just to watch it all go bye-bye…
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.
You must have posted that comment a dozen or more times FRANK. You also are gulty of taking Fallon’s words out of context.
Soneone don’t agree “IF” is a BIG word. Let me give an example.
A boy says, “I’m going to punch Joseph Woods in the chops and kick his butt for threatening to hit my little sister.”
Or. “IF anyone threatens or hits my little sister, especially you Joe, I’ll kick their butt?”
“Great minds focus on ideas. Average minds focus on events and small minds focus on people”-Anonymous
Hoa binh
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
Rudyard Kipling
Hillary has made herself the most dangerous person running for office in History.
Even Hitler would not have dreamed of barking about “obliterating” a nation of 70.000.000 people which never attacked anyone.
Incidently, if Israel can’t “defend itself” alone with its nuclear weapons, what the hell are nuclear weapons good for?
Again you all have let KEM and/or Daniel D obscure the issues involved. When will you all learn these two are apologists who misdirect the well meant energies of CD - a la swiftboating of progressive ideas.
If you review the threads as I sometimes do, the most common response by sensible persons to these two posters is either:
‘KEM, you just do not get it!
or
‘DD, you just do not get it!
In your obsession with whether Hillary meant what she said, you have totally missed Mr. Wimmer’s point: we must do all we can to STOP an attack on Iran. What we should be asking is, what can we do? How can we help? Please visit his website.
There seems to be no question that if Bush and Cheney decide to bomb Esfahan or any other city in Iran, most of our elected senators and congressmen will go along (see the message above of the vote to condemn Iran). Charges are being trumped up now, we’re firing on little boats in the Gulf, we are blaming Iran for the disaster in Iraq. Instead of arguing over Hillary’s idiot comment, we should be marching in the streets and writing our senators and doing whatever we can to prevent another debacle and holocaust.
Ticonderoga, nice to see you here. Thanks for your post.
It is my understanding that it has not heretofore been U.S. policy (at least, never publicly stated) that if a country nukes Israel, the U.S. will respond in kind. It is also my understanding that if the U.S. nuked Iran, Russia would respond in kind and nuke the U.S. Anybody care to tell me if my understanding is correct?
I believe that the inability to see the extreme danger of Clinton’s statement is an example of cognitive dissonance.
We don’t have a mutual defense pact with Israel. In a legal sense, we are not allies, which means that an act of Congress would be required before any action could legally be taken by an American President against the sovereign nation of Iran if Iran had not directly attacked the United States.
That would have been a much better answer than “we can obliterate them.” It would have indicated that Hillary Clinton understood the law and the role of the Executive in a Constitutional Republic.
Thanks, heavyrunner.
anne faith,
Yes, Putin did specify Russia woud defend Iran if the US attacked.
Of course no US media ever reminds the public of this.
Hillary is simply trying to grab McCain voters. If necessary, she’ll try to grab neo-nazi voters.
It is amazing how one word uttered by one woman asked a stupid question designed to cause a problem can cause such a torrent of hate. It does not sound like progressive thought, more like a rabble rousing crowd calling for someone`s head or maybe a burning at the stake to satisfy everyone.
It is strange that the word –bitter– used by Obama was deemed to be appropriate, and the words G__ D___ America by Obama`s pastor were perfectly alright.
On wonders who we have posting here besides Obamamaniacs as it makes no sense for them to be so furious over nothing. We obviously have some people that believe slime is the answer to everything, and that sounds like the Repugs and their gang.
Kernel,
If you don’t undertand why the idea of obliterating 70 Million innocent people can cause dismay and outrage, I would say you are morally-challenged.
And how could being bitter about one’s catastrophically immoral and corrupt government be inappropriate?
Of course you’re the wizard who does ‘get it’ eh Crumudgeon99? What’s wrong, not (100), you miss one? ___Love the first part of your name.
I’ll tell you ‘wise guy’ what I don’t get, it’s that here at commom dreams, we so called highly intelligent “progressives”, will blog 150 comments on a stupid issue like this and a truly important issue that should be of the very most interest to all, gets 10 to 20 posts.
This month two articles came on about 9-11 and there were over 1,200 posts combined, arguing if it was explosives or the aircraft crashes that caused the Twin Towers to collapse. One set a Common Dreams record for posts. ___ Any good come of it all? __ Balls!
Recently Russian Scientists were scared shitlees of what they’re seeing in the Arctic perma-frost and lakes there where the surface water is boiling as methane escapes into our atmosphere. The vast majority here don’t even bother to read the articles on the subject. Didn’t see your name there ~Crumudgeon99.~
An artilce about the danger of the Arctic Methane gas came up this week and there were ten seperate posters who commnented. Guess we have to set our priorities.
The word “obliterate” gets a lot of attention, but it’s the Arctic Methane gas that’s going to “obliterate” every person on the planet if we humans don’t start right away to fight a real war against global warming.
So I think I ‘GET IT’ well enough and I think you’re a jerk. It wasn’t just Daniel David and I who are in disagreement with others here on this issue, so why point us out?
BTW. If any here do care about their family, here’s perhaps the most important article you will ever have the pleasure of reading, it takes about two minutes. The best part is where the world renouned geologist and author states, “Once it starts, there is no turning back, NO do-overs, once it starts it will play itself out.”
Well, it’s about to start, time is running out. ___ Ya get it Crumb? Don’t want to learn anythig of real importnce? ___ Ignore it and blast Hillary. Knock yourself out.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
Every nuclear weapon has a fingerprint, that is,experts can trace the country of orgin and site on where that nuclear material was made. What if a nuclear device was exploded here in the U.S. say in Miami,Fla.,and over 200,000 people were killed, and it could be proved beyond doubt that the weapons grade material was produced in Esfahan,Iran, what would be YOUR response. Turn the other cheek,or turn Esfahan Iran into a glass slick? I am against war for any political reason,but I know what my answer would be.
I visited with a male friend who spent time in the Air Force and asked his opinion of this news about aggression against Iran. He was adamant that our military can’t handle it. I argued back what Seymour Hersch described as the use of AIR power so that troops on the ground would not be needed; but he said they are ALWAYS needed in the aftermath.
What troops would willfully enter a zone that is rendered radioactive? Can they still justify their own wounds for the fallen ideals that sometimes legitimize so-called just wars? Or is it painfully apparent this is about blood for treasure?
Some in this forum act like Israel is wagging the U.S. tail but that is absurd! Are there mutual interests at the moment? Yes. Are both nations controlled by amoral elites. Yes. I would not be surprised if the whole Middle East blew up and ISRAEL became the fall guy… it would not be the first time Jews went down as scapegoats. Many social justice advocates who do NOT support Israel’s policies of aggression happen to be Jewish. I get tired of all the castigation against Israel. The Palestinian situation is horrible. No one can dispute that. To jump from that fact to one that projects Israel’s TOTAL influence over U.S. foreign policy represents tunnel vision.
TICONDEROGA, THOREAU 245: Excellent posts.
KEM PATRICK, DANIEL David - Why don’t you just chill and maybe send Hellary a Valentine.
Her entire track record on related issues puts her somehwere to the right of Madeline Albright. Not pretty. Hellary is just Cheney in drag.
You’re going to have to see it sooner or later - don’t fight it.
~MEDUSA ~ I never said I supported Hillary dummy. I supported Edwards or Kucinich. I said Hillary never said she would nuke Iran and ‘obliterate’ anyone. __ She didn’t, if you or any others want to say she did, I don’t care.
BTW, Daniel David and I seldom ever agree on anything. But at least he can understand what is written. ___ BTW, did you take the two minutes to read the link I offered, or is something of real importance over your head and you’d rather post some dumb remark and offer me your wisdon and lessons?
““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.” …”
What she could have said.
“Thats an absurd question. What country on the planet, even if they had a nuclear weapon and were ill disposed towards Israel, would face obliteration by attacking Israel with Nuclear Weapons, knowing full well, that even if the attack succeeded in wiping Israel off the map, that they would also face the same fate?.
One reason why the Soviet Union and our country never had a nuclear exchange during the Cold War is that we both knew what the consequences would be if we were unable to prevent retaliation by obliterating them with a first strike. Iran could probably get away with it with israel, as it is a small country geographically. But what about Israels friends like America and Britain. It would be sheer lunacy. Besides, Iran has not invaded another country in over 2000 years. With our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are unlikely to start.”
Transcript (cannot confirm absolute correctness)
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.
You’re correct about one important thing. ~WORDS ARE IMPORTANT~. YOU SAID, I cannot confirm correctness. Right you are, you get a cookie. ___ Feel better?
Hi ~Siouxrose~. Your friend is 100% correct, not 99.
BTW ~Medusa~, you can write bullshit that Hillary is Cheney in drag, but if you checked her votes, she is so far to the left of Cheney she fell off the stage.
Hillary Clinton is another of the vile disgusting human garbage running/ruining US.
Hey, Kem Patrick, why the many, many posts defending Hillary’s use of the vile word ‘obliterate’, which is a war-threatening word she certainly did use? Or does it depend on what the word ‘obliterate’ is (is)? Why do you, especially when you know it is relatively unimportant? She certainly did not need to remind the Iranians, who weren’t watching anyway, of their precarious situation.
I don’t see she cares one way or another whether she obliterates Iran or not, just so long as she can be President-Top Bitch, in what has become an unseemly grab for power by the quintessential Power-Lust couple, the Clintons.
Like Mao’s wife said, there is no better aphrodisiac than power. The Clintons certainly seem to believe this. They will do Anything to get the Fix of Power back, including betray and burn down the liberals, the progressives, the environmentalists and the Democratic Party. The Clintons will walk over all their dead bodies to get to the White House. And then sell them out… kinda like they did last time.
I believe that, just for their overt atrocious and selfish behavior alone, there should be no more Clintonistas in office. Along with no more Bushites or McInSanes.
And by the way, I believe you are correct in your statement that the methane gas/global warming problem is an orders of magnitude more important issue than terrorism or taxes… or whether you wear a flag pin or talk to a neighbor that used to be a radical in the 1960’s.
HillBilly could have used the term ‘obliterate’ instead in the following way: civilization, and perhaps life itself, can be obliterated in our lifetime if the environment is not respected, and we do not take these ecological problems as far, far more important than the Iraq BushWar idiocy, or the BushNoTaxes idiocy.
So she should have dismissed the stupid question on Iran, and turned to the methane/global warming problem for a response, if she believed this problem was important. She did not, and as far as I can tell, does not believe this to be important.
And damn Al Gore, that he chose not to run, so we have to choose between these far lesser three that are left (McInSane most especially, as he is actually actively Anti-Environ-Mental).
Gore really damaged the environmental cause by not running. Because now the MSM… with the total collusion of the calculating cynical campaigns of the three remaining contenders… can Totally Ignore the environment altogether.
Because the tiny brains of the MSM ‘journalists’ apparently cannot comprehend anything more complicated than a flag pin.
Reference the site: www.planetextinction.com. And weep.
~Ticonderoga~, I’m truly sorry, but I don’t see where Hillary threatened to attack Iran or obliterate anyone. Please explain it to me. She said if Iran were foolish enough to use nuclear weapons on Isreal, as president she would attack Iran and we could obliterate them.
That’not the exact words but essentially what she said. The transcript is posted here and the entire interview is not included. It is really silly to say Hillary would attack Iran.
Never did she say she planned on doing such a thing if she is the president. It was an answer to a hypothetical question. So tell me where she ever said she actually intends to attack Iran and based upon what? She has always said that she disagrees with Bush on his opinions concerning starting a war with Iran.
KEM most Americans are just sick of our politicans pandering to the AIPAC crowd. This pandering makes headlines all over the world and the world resents us for it. They see as as biased and one sided and they are absolutly correct. This in turn endangers Americans when we travel abroad.
On this site, I am amazed that we all can’t all agree on one thing and one thing only—that attacking Iran would be dispicable, immoral and a world encompassing disaster.
I loved Kucinich but if he had been the one to say such a thing I would be every bit as appalled as I am with Clinton or any other politician saying it. WAR is always a disaster! And obliterating a nation of people under any circumstances are words that should never be uttered, not even hypothetically. Any so called leader who does not speak first and foremost of finding ways to live peacefully will never get my support.
I’m not talking ONLY about Hillary, Kem (not even primarily). Of course she didn’t say she was planning on attacking Iran. Of course she was just trying to look tough when she said she would “obliterate” Iran IF Iran attacked Israel (which isn’t going to happen). Of course it was just rhetoric.
The point is that the rhetoric shouldn’t work - but it does. The point is that an American politician’s threatening to use nukes against another country shouldn’t be tolerated by American citizens. The point is that if we didn’t put up with this kind of garbage, the country wouldn’t be where it is today.
It’s our fault, Kem, not Hillary’s. She’s just doing the “obliterate Iran” rhetoric dance because she knows it will gain her election brownie points. We should be ashamed of ourselves, collectively, for letting her get away with it. If We, the People didn’t respond favorably to that kind of rhetorical garbage, politicians wouldn’t use it.
In the words of the immortal Pogo, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
Thanks ~Ticonderoga~, you are correct.
So was POGO. Think he said, “and it is us” though. __ Same thing.
As soon as I saw Kem Patrick posting first on this thread, I knew it was only a matter of time before he brought up his Methane Apocalypse obsession. By the way, I thought the original article was quite good but, unfortunately, the meaning was lost in the whole pointless argument about Hillary. Of course, in the end, I suppose we needn’t worry about starting a nuclear war by attacking Iran…we’re all going to be killed by giant farts anyhow!
I think that some posters like Kem Patrick should think of taking ex-lax to remedy their situation. He seems to be spouting out of his mouth way too much. It seems like he wants to oblieterate anyone who doesn’t agree with him.
He may think that people like me are old farts because my support for Nader got Bush elected. However, I think that old farts like him are the reason that we have supposed democratic candidates like Gore, Kerry, Obama and Hillary, which is why Bush got elected.
so it goes…
Kem___You are doing pretty good for being outnumbered. I agree with you that Edwards or Kucinich would have been better candidates but now all we have is Obama & Clinton. I cannot see that much difference, one is better here, the other there, so either one will work. However Hillary may have a better chance against McCain and it appears the Repubs think so too.
This may all be a waste of time, as Bush and Cheney are the ones that are ready to go after Iran, so none of the three candidates may have to worry about it. Some posters seem to forget who the real threat is on attacking Iran.
This article used the horror of Dresden to highlight the destruction of Iran. At one time, we were determined that such things should never again be done on this planet. Apparently, never has come and gone.
It is sad that few people look into history and learn from it. Santayana was right, and O’ the many millions that have proved his thesis correct with their innocent blood and their devastated cultures.
I think while the merchants of greed and death do their thing, promoting war and counting their profits, our Mother Earth may well be dying of exploitation and neglect.
Or, as some have said, perhaps God is getting tired of the experiment and is about to throw out the petri dish and try something else.
KEM — I am beginning to suspect that Walt Kelly had the POGOism well thought out long ago
Well said ticonderoga.
I dont know why or how your country has come to this sorry state,but you have. Maybe indifference and complacence, ethnocentricity and misguided patriotism. The Romans used the expression “Bread and circuses” “Panem et circenses” is an ancient Roman metaphor for people choosing food and fun over freedom. It often appears in commentary that accuses people of giving up their of civic duty and following whichever political leader offers to satisfy their decadent desires.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
I’m afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.
~Jim Garrison
“There is no telling how many wars it will take to secure freedom in the homeland.” - George W. Bush(1946- ) 43rd US President: Source: In a speech on August 7, 2002
——
Probably, no nation is rich enough to pay for both war and civilization. We must make our choice; we cannot have both.
~Abraham Flexner
“The war made possible for us the solution of a whole series of problems that could never have been solved in normal times.” - Joseph Paul Goebbels (1897-1945) Nazi Propaganda Minister
——–
“Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind…War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today.” : - John F. Kennedy
Since I forgot to yak about the real point of Mr. Wimmer’s article in my earlier posts, I guess I’ll do it now:
Why doesn’t somebody actually do something about the US’s war threat against Iran, instead of just talking about it? Why don’t we call Bush and Cheney’s bluff? Why doesn’t the Pope, along with a bunch of other higher-up Vatican muckety-mucks, go live in Esfahan so the US won’t bomb the place? After all, would the US dare blow up, or threaten to blow up, the Pope? How about a couple hundred American nuns? How about a couple hundred Peace Corps volunteers? They could do a tremendous amount for world peace simply by just living in Esfahan for however long it takes. A few hundred photogenic American college students living in Esfahan might help, too. They’d be a group of conscientious Americans holding themselves hostage for their country’s good behavior. Heck, I’d go live in Iran if it would do any good, but I’m just one unimportant guy, and for this to work it would have to be a very important and high-profile guy like the Pope, or a large number of fairly high-profile people, like a bunch of nuns or Peace Corps volunteers.
Anybody got an idea as to how a peace organization could get something like this off the ground? Is it still legal for an American, or a large group of Americans, to visit Iran? Or am I just nuts?
C’mon, your Popeness, why don’t you and some of your fellow priests fly to Iran and take up residence in Esfahan? You’d be doing the world a favor. There’s no way Bush and Cheney could get away with bombing you.
Hi anne faith. Nice to see you here, too.
Since heavyrunner already answered your question (better than I could have), I’ll just say this: Although Hillary’s “obliterate Iran” was just rhetoric, it was dangerous rhetoric. Somebody out there with a finger on a “nuke ‘em high” button might actually be dumb enough to believe it wasn’t rhetoric.
Threatening nuclear war, even if you don’t really mean it, for political gain is the opposite of cool. Hillary should be ashamed of herself for doing that, and we should be ashamed of ourselves for letting her get away with it.
Pal of mine, gave TRUTH at the 1st Winter Soldier with Kerry, told me 4 months ago Iran would be hit in October, 2nd or 3rd week. Did not say if we were the provocateurs or attackers or attackees, doesn’t matter end result = same.
Whine about Hillary for 15 hours, probably could have acted as an Ambassador and created World Peace with all of those hours.
I just keep hearig, Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock, Tick-To………..
Oh, there are far greater humans than this pope mortal that tells other mortals what they may and may not do. CodePink will be there, in Iran, Gaza and Jerusulum in October as Ambassadors.
Certainly with this many players whose to say where it will erupt. Since Llewellyn is building an Amusement Prk/Zoo(we loosed and murdered the Baghdad Zoo upon arrival)/skate park/hotels with culturally appropriate Themes and Pools. And we are coming home, um hum. Built and designed by the same guy that did Disney.
Jimmy Carter will do it, no Zionists wish his presence to be allowable in what used to be Palestine, per chance since Persians are incredibly hospitable and courteous they would most assuredly meet with him. Too many players , though. Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan and us with the EVIL-DOER leading the Psychopath in Chief.
Damn, shameful, how to stop this, how???????
It occurred to me the other day that after all the bloodying, should either candidate get the nomination and somehow get elected after all the turmoil, maybe even with a “scream ticket”, they would become President of what? We need a decent environment if we are to even live. Everything I am hearing indicates to me that we are living on borrowed time now because when we had a chance to save this world, the people in charge fiddled around and let things fall apart. Take care everyone and pray that we can die comfortably in our sleep rather than be part of a global catastrophe that it now seems to be too late to stop.
What Hillary said in the interview, besides being completely absurd, irrational, inflammatory, and contradictory, serves only to encourage the lunatics currently in control of US policy in their drive to nuke Iran. She is complicit! She’s complicit in promoting their aims.
While her intention was obviously to pander to AIPAC (which one must do to get elected to any office in the US), Clinton’s statement that if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel while still developing a nuclear weapon – that’s what she said, launch an attack with a weapon they have not yet developed - the US would “obliterate” that country. Her proposed sequence of events is illogical. It sounds to me that she just needed to throw a handful of words together to sound tough, regardless of her imprudence in the choice of those words.
In addition to the fact of the absurdity of her comment, another argument not presented by anyone commenting on her statement is the fact that Israel is quite capable, with its 300 plus nuclear weapons, of obliterating Iran by itself. If we must have the carnage, I’d rather it be Israel using its nukes than the US. And no one has seemed interested in pressing the point with Clinton as to whether she intended to mean with her use of “obliterate”, to kill every man, woman, and child within the confines of Iran and many others beyond the confines of Iran.
Lastly, in addressing Mr. KEM’s arguments in support of the Clinton Doctrine, I believe Mr. Vonnegut - were he still alive – would relegate Mr. KEM and Mrs. Clinton to the company of the cruel and heartless and Camus – were he still alive – would consign them to the pack of Spanish bishops and dogs.
One more:
Don’t really think the US is going to attack Iran at all, nukes or no nukes. Think it’s all bluff work. Reason why is because, no matter how rotten or greedy the current administration is, its members are neither stupid nor crazy, except possibly for George Bush, and he doesn’t matter, being little more than a puppet.
The real boss, Dick Cheney, is a smart guy and he knows perfectly well that bombing Iran would mess things up totally for him, as well as for us, so he won’t do it.
But he’ll keep on faking and bluffing to keep us all distracted from the fact that there’s a three-trillion dollar deficit and the economy sucks and gas prices are growing every day and global warming is real and we’re responsible for the deaths of a million Iraqis and etc.
As always, when this topic comes up, my comment is Crazy Bird’s call:
“ALL the bombs are in the hands of terrorists!”
Esfahan is a modern Iranian metropolis of three and half million people. Situated at an ancient crossroads……Esfahan is also home to Iran’s largest nuclear reactor….
Beruit and Bagdad also once housed historically significant museums and architecture, with beautiful boulevards, covered bridges, palaces, mosques, and minarets…. etc etc etc. Look what happened to them?
The US is systematically destroying Islamic culture and history.
Where is Oswald when we need him?
The US military industrial complex is obligated by law to exploit the ignorance/apathy of the taxslaves for shareholder profit, and drive another bombing campaign into their minds to displace ideas of peace. Destroying the public will brings the elites a twofer - wealth redistribution on both the economic AND political fronts. Terrorizing those who sit on the oil makes it a threefer. At the very least the elites will distract the public from everything that’s being neglected. ticonderoga, the Congress serves as the White House’s enabler (Israel’s benefactor), writing blank checks, etc.
“Some in this forum act like Israel is wagging the U.S. tail but that is absurd!…The Palestinian situation is horrible. No one can dispute that. To jump from that fact to one that projects Israel’s TOTAL influence over U.S. foreign policy represents tunnel vision.”
- Posted by Siouxrose @ April 26th, 10:41 pm
___________________________
Read Walt and Mearsheimer’s “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.” Only then will you realize how disproportionately powerful the Israel lobby is, especially when you include the Christian Zionists. I don’t think anyone has argued that the Lobby has TOTAL influence over US foreign policy. Let’s just say they have enormous influence over US foreign policy in the ME, which is their bailiwick. They don’t give orders to US Congressmen, all they have to do is distribute tons of cash to influence their votes. This is straight out of Political Science 101. The Congressional authorizations for war against Iraq and Iran would probably never have passed without heavy arm-twisting from the Lobby.
As for Palestine, it’s not the “situation” that’s horrible. It’s the Israeli ethnic cleansing, collective punishment, and terrorism against Palestinians, all at US taxpayer expense, that’s horrible. Why do US politicians almost unanimously support these crimes against humanity? Out of conviction? Haha. And Israeli atrocities against Palestinians are just a taste of what Israel has planned for the rest of the ME. The Zionists have long plotted the destruction of Iraq and Iran to eliminate obstacles to Israeli apartheid and expansion. Wakey, wakey.
Hillary should watch Threads. It’s on Youtube. It also starts with a crisis in Iran. It is perhaps the most shocking and depressing film ever made.
Here’s a short version.
OSTROGOTH: I am fully aware, as per wakey, wakey, and I see that politicans pander to Israel. What is not often realized is that ISRAEL may well be the PAWN in this little game of empire, chasing the short end of the energy stick and causing calamitous violence in the process of seeking possession of something all too transitory. I do NOT support Israel’s policies, but I find it irresponsible to blame that nation for what US politicians, UK and up until recently Canada and Australia also fostered very much on their own. It’s a money game controlled by elites. Israel has players at the table, but let’s not let that blind us to who else is sitting there calling shots. Literally.
Any country attacking israel would be treated as if they attacked the US. There is no difference between the two countries.
Siouxrose, I suspect you’re right about Israel being a pawn. I have no proof, but it looks to me like Israel was created because the allies knew there was oil in the Middle East, and also knew that if they recreated the Biblical Holy Land in the region they’d have a reason to keep a military presence there.
Without Israel the US would, if it wanted to keep a military presence in the Middle East, have no choice but to admit that it was there for the oil. Can’t do that. Gotta have an excuse.
So Israel is using the US as muscle to keep it untouchable by the Islamic countries in the region, and the US is using Israel as an excuse to beat up Islamic countries for their oil. And the Bible is the glue that makes all this possible. And nobody wins.
… mostly on _ t a r g e t _ ticonderoga:
The BAMFORD memo set this all into motion in the 1920s, when the ZIONIST and BANKERS hatched the OIL plan.
Isn’t it amazing ( near to unbelievable ) to consider that these CRAZY psychopathic MANIPULATORS, actually created BOTH WW1 and WW2, FASCISM/COMMUNISM, POGROMS, the massive holocaust deaths and suffering, migrations of millions
Now that’s some really insidiously devious and wicked ___ B __ I __ G___ _P I C T U R E _ Unwholesome dissociated from reality _ T H I N K I N G _, isn’t IT ?
IT puts EVIL like blowing up frogs into perspective of being a PIKER-IN-TRAINING.
KEM PATRICK -bakatcha - it’s all you deserve.
You’re deliberately blinding yourself to the obvious - go get that valentine ready. And maybe some koolaid. You might benfit from a book on punctation and syntax so people know what you mean when you cuss at them and throw an abuse bomb.
Yes, she had a couple of extra modal auxiliaries in there, but her track record reveal her to be a rabid warmonger nevertheless. Though she did not say “We will bomb Iran” for the obvious reason that this would set off a firestorm of international protest, she came as close as she legally could.
So, baby boy, stop being such a freekin’ naive PUTZ! Bakatcha.
Way to go ~MEDUSA~, you fully explained why your strange opinion that Hillary is aligned with Bush is correct. Gosh is this a spelling contest and English 102 course here? ___ LOL.
Love the intelligent posts written by ~MISANTHORPE~, they are so intelligetly written and loaded with informative information that we can all cherish. Sort of like having a Karl Rove here. __ We are blessed. Thank you so much mess-and-thorpe, way to go.
Essayist Andrew Wimmer puts a focus on the troubling matter, at least to some Catholics, of the Papal trip to the U.S. recently. It served as a photo-op for Bush and Cheney to cast two war criminals in such a favorable light.
Over a year ago this pope was reported to be a fan of Henry Kissinger, just Google the two names and read of their kinship.
The pope has a serious addiction to warmakers.
One can only wonder what message the pope had for Bush on the occupation of Iraq.
What message did the Pope have for Bush?
The Pope placed his hand on Bush’s head as Bush knelt obediently and respectfully kissed his ring and said, “My God George, that’s a terrible haircut, you should make an appointment with John Edward’s barber.”
I often thought about the insane leaders of other world nations in the distant past, like Henry the Eighth, Nero, Caligua, Vlad the Impaler, and more recently, Hitler, Stalin, Poppa Dock, Saddam, and so many many others, and I always wondered why their people didn’t do anything about them?
Now we have our “King George” and I’m beginning to understand why. It’s the people who are actually insane. They don’t get pissed until there’s no food except cake.
Hmmm, CAKE it is ( but what of the underlying infra-structure that bakes the cakes ? )
No comment KEM abo