Hillary on Iran: We Would Be Able to Totally Obliterate Them - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-29-2008, 04:49 PM   #1
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Hillary on Iran: We Would Be Able to Totally Obliterate Them

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/st...4698059&page=1

"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."
__________________

__________________
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 04-29-2008, 04:57 PM   #2
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 03:35 AM


I understand you want to appear tough on defense, but that's quite possibly dumber than anything Bush or McCain have said on the subject.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 04-29-2008, 05:00 PM   #3
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


I understand you want to appear tough on defense, but that's quite possibly dumber than anything Bush or McCain have said on the subject.
I agree.

She said this a week ago. Where is the outrage from MoveOn, Michael Moore, Code Pink, etc.?
__________________
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 04-29-2008, 05:30 PM   #4
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 03:35 AM
Hillary Clinton will say ANYTHING to get elected - to appear the "toughest". She is ruthless, a liar and not to be trusted. However, the way the media is now attacking Obama from all sides with regards to the Rev. Wright controversy it wouldn't surprise me at all if she stole the nomination. If that is the case I will personally give up on America completely, I say "completely" because I was still holding out a tiny hope that something could possibly change for the better but if Clinton or McCain get elected then something close to doomsday is right around the corner.
__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 04-29-2008, 06:05 PM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:35 AM
Being FYM, a Presidential candidate threatening genocide will probably generate around 5 responses, while threads discussing whether or not one soap actor called another a f*gg*t and whether a radio show host who was rude about some black girls on air should merely resign or commit hara-kiri go to around 700 pages.

The choice of Presidential candidates, overall, is really incredibly poor, and I think a lot of this is due to the way the system is designed. There were some very good candidates that the system rejected - Dennis Kucinch, Ron Paul, Joseph Biden.

Now we are down to the last three and having this Zionist stooge and her Republican counterpart (who is probably even worse) as candidates still very much in the game shows up the US system as currently constituted to be completely and utterly crap. It's probably one of the worst democracies in the world, and I'm being nice to even include it within the ambit of 'democracy'.

Countries like Ireland and Switzerland - for example - have much better systems, but the US, as always, knows best.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 04-29-2008, 06:41 PM   #6
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,730
Local Time: 01:35 AM
Well yes, we probably could obliterate them. I'd prefer to hear her talk about what we should do, however.

If she thinks that's what we should do, then ... jeeeeeeeez.
__________________
corianderstem is offline  
Old 04-29-2008, 07:21 PM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:35 AM
I find it interesting that the context of this statement was conveniently omitted by our OP.

Quote:
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."
So, basically, Hillary is saying that she'd "attack and obliterate Iran" in the context of a hypothetical Iranian nuclear strike. In all fairness, does anyone here think that Bush or McCain would wait for something as large as a nuclear attack before considering attacking Iran? After all, the GOP has become the party of the "preemptive strike," and Hillary's comment was certainly not "preemptive" in context.

Basically, it was a standard question to see if she'd have the balls to make tough military decisions, if she had to. And what other choice did she have in answering this question? I would see FOX News et al. jumping all over her, if she had stated at all that she'd just sit back and do nothing. Then she'd be portrayed as "weak on military matters."
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-29-2008, 07:28 PM   #8
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 03:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
I find it interesting that the context of this statement was conveniently omitted by our OP.



So, basically, Hillary is saying that she'd "attack and obliterate Iran" in the context of a hypothetical Iranian nuclear strike. In all fairness, does anyone here think that Bush or McCain would wait for something as large as a nuclear attack before considering attacking Iran? After all, the GOP has become the party of the "preemptive strike," and Hillary's comment was certainly not "preemptive" in context.

Basically, it was a standard question to see if she'd have the balls to make tough military decisions, if she had to. And what other choice did she have in answering this question? I would see FOX News et al. jumping all over her, if she had stated at all that she'd just sit back and do nothing. Then she'd be portrayed as "weak on military matters."
O.K sure...but quit defending the witch o.k.
Let us wallow in her mistakes as the Rev. Wright destroys Obama
__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 04-29-2008, 08:03 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Harry Vest


O.K sure...but quit defending the witch o.k.
Let us wallow in her mistakes


it was not a mistake

if Iran nukes Israel or wipes them off the map

the answer is not

"I will talk to our enemies"

and as for Obama

who was against preemptive attack on Iraq in 2002?

Well, in 2004 he was for preemptive attack on Iran

Quote:
Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran

By David Mendell, Tribune staff reporter

September 25, 2004

U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.

Obama, a Democratic state senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood, made the remarks during a meeting Friday with the Tribune editorial board. Obama’s Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, was invited to attend the same session but declined.

Iran announced on Tuesday that it has begun converting tons of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making fuel for a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for Iran to suspend all such activities.

Obama said the United States must first address Iran’s attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

“The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?” Obama asked.

Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-29-2008, 08:59 PM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:35 PM
And invading Pakistan apparently.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-29-2008, 09:12 PM   #11
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 03:35 AM
"Missile strikes" and "Obliterate" are two totally different things.
One suggests tactical targeting and the other suggests total annihilation of a country. Dare I say it's a bit of a difference.
__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 04-29-2008, 10:08 PM   #12
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
So, basically, Hillary is saying that she'd "attack and obliterate Iran" in the context of a hypothetical Iranian nuclear strike.

And what other choice did she have in answering this question?
Exactly...I'm wondering what some of the people jumping all over her here would've suggested she say instead.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-29-2008, 10:19 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 04:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Harry Vest
"Missile strikes" and "Obliterate" are two totally different things.
You haven't seen what just a missle strike by our country can do lately, have you ?
Not that I want to see anything like this, mind ya.

Oh and no wallowing allowed. Melon was right. There was no mistake hence no outrage..
__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 04-30-2008, 12:55 AM   #14
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 04:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
Being FYM, a Presidential candidate threatening genocide will probably generate around 5 responses, while threads discussing whether or not one soap actor called another a f*gg*t and whether a radio show host who was rude about some black girls on air should merely resign or commit hara-kiri go to around 700 pages.

[...]

Countries like Ireland and Switzerland - for example - have much better systems, but the US, as always, knows best.


unfounded disdain does not become you, especially when you're not nearly as informed about US politics as you'd like to fancy yourself. were Iran to nuke Tel Aviv, Switzerland and Ireland would stand and applaud as Tehran were likewise leveled.

HRC's comments are defensible in context, and deep's predictable Obama spin is ... well, predictable.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-30-2008, 08:15 AM   #15
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 04:35 AM
I believe she said and made it clear that it would be strictly a nuclear attack by Iran on Israel. I'm not into that either but that's what she said. Yes of course some people want to see if "she has the balls", while at the same time they would jump all over her for having them. No need to call her a "witch" really, but that's the way around here.

Who cares about the other comment ...personally I'm completely bored by it.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com