For Iran, and for Clinton to openly say these things (that we all know are true) if she hopes to get the far-left anti-American votes. Her words were pretty non-controversial to thinking people, however, TPM and PRESS TV are getting bent out of shape:
| from www.payvand.com posted with vodpod |
Senator Hillary Clinton says she has no regrets over her threats to ‘totally obliterate’ Iran if Israel is hit with a nuclear bomb.
“Why would I have any regrets?” Senator Clinton said Saturday in response to ABC News’ question as to whether she had any regrets about threatening Tehran.
“I am asked a question about what I would do if Iran attacked our ally, a country that many of us have a great deal of, you know, connection with and feeling for,” the Democratic hopeful continued. The former first lady added that she sought to make it ‘very clear’ for Iranian echelons what to expect if they ever draw up a plan for attacking Israel.
“I sure want to make it abundantly clear to them that they would face a tremendous cost if they did such a thing,” Clinton expounded.
Filed under: Uncategorized , anti-American, Nukes, Obliterate Iran
If only I can believe Hillary. I want to but her connections with the Chinese worry me.
The Left is extremely touchy about talk of war with a country with large oil reserves. We’ve been wrongly sent to war once, we really don’t want it to happen again. Add that to Hillary’s trial membership in the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, and it’s understandable if people have reacted strongly.
Interesting new layout.
Sergei,
But the simple fact is, even Obama would come to Israel’s aid if She was attacked by Iran. Heck, he assisted Kuwait (well, at the request of the KSA). If any country was to come under nuclear attack from a belligerent regime, it’s pretty safe to say that they would then receive international support. No one wants a renegade gov’t like Iran’s with nuclear weapons.
The new layout will be evolving. This template comes with default CSS, so I’ll be designing it all myself. I’m going to try to make it look pretty much the same as it did, except with 2 sidebars (this wasn’t an option before).
See – this shit just pisses me off when it comes to Hillary. Obama started with talk about going nuclear with Pakistan as an option last summer and she just had a little hissy fit about it.
She seems more like a follower than a leader. She’s not willing to make any statements that could lose her votes – everything is assessed. Obama’s statements last year caused an uproar and they were controversial for a party that’s looking to get out of war but he took his chances and stated them. Having a harsh stance on Iran – yeah, that’s a no brainer – yippee.
“But the simple fact is, even Obama would come to Israel’s aid if She was attacked by Iran.”
That’s irrelevant. What worries people is not what she would do in that situation, but the fact that she feels the need to announce it.
“Obama started with talk about going nuclear with Pakistan as an option last summer”
He did? I know that he talked about a military strike against Waziristan, but I don’t recall him saying anything about nukes. (Incidentally, nukes wouldn’t be very effective in Waziristan, because there aren’t any really big targets and the mountainous terrain would greatly reduce the area affected by the blast. If you’re going to use weapons of mass destruction against the Waziris, something like napalm (and maybe a little dabbling in the weather, assuming that we still have that technology) would make a lot more sense.)
I know he said he would ignore the Pakistani gov’t if they not permit us to track down terrorists on there land. However, I’m not sure he said nukes.
I think that both Hillary and Obama were trying to reassure the more realist Democrats (referred to above as “thinking people”) as opposed to the idealist leftists (the far-left anti-Americans). This latter group includes the BAFC and the TTIC. With all the pandering to anti-Bush and so-called anti-war groups, not to mention the yearly Kos convention, it would have been foolish for the candidates to leave it at that and not clarify how they would respond in a military situation.
She’s acting like she’s the President already; if she doesn’t announce things like this (when President) then Iran will not be deterred.
Also, what she is talking about is using the treat of nuclear retaliation to deter Iran, this is still a relatively mild answer to people’s fears about the IRI. I don’t think that we need to bring nuclear weapons on the table at all, I just think their nuclear facilities should be bombed until they can go a decades without talking about wiping Israel off the map and inciting their people to chant “Death to America!!!”
Of course, international support will be required for any preemptive strike. But this won’t be a problem because Iran’s been pissing off a lot of people (e.g. kidnapping British Soldiers, seething about the French/UAE partnership).
oops, my bad – you’re right, the only thing that stuck in my head was that the discussion went nuclear – Obama said he would go after terrorists in Pakistan if Musharaf didn’t reign them in but when asked if he would go nuclear he said no. However, I ran across this statement by Hillary:
“Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons,” Clinton said. “Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons.” http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3441342&page=1
Still – even back during that discussion – Hillary does not take the lead, she attacks Obama for the statements and then goes on to basically take the same position as Obama in regards to Pakistan. Now with this whole thing – she’s doing exactly what she used to attacked Obama for in the Pakistan discussion.
[...] she’d go nuclear on Iran if they go nuclear on Israel - and she has no regrets. Konservo has video of her Iran/nuclear statements and I was reminded of the whole Paksitan debate that ensued last [...]
“Also, what she is talking about is using the treat of nuclear retaliation to deter Iran, this is still a relatively mild answer”
Since the United States does not have a Death Star, nukes are pretty much the best we can do.
“I just think their nuclear facilities should be bombed until they can go a decades without talking about wiping Israel off the map and inciting their people to chant ‘Death to America!!!’”
If you want people to stop hating you, it’s generally not a very good idea to drop bombs on them. Imagine if Mahmoud Ahmadinijad were to deploy the Revolutionary Guard against our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying that America should not have a military presence in neighboring nations until it was able to go for a decade without talking about bombing Tehran. Would you be OK with that? Or would you demand we unleash enough firepower on them to level Mount Damavand?
Regarding the no more “Marg bar Amrikâ!”, that’s just cultural imperialism.
lol – “treat”
should be: “threat”
Ah, but the difference is, we have not attacked (directly ~ as far as we know…) Iran yet, also, I have heard Bush and Ahmadinejad described as equally fanatic and dangerous.
I think this is a gross mischaracterization of Bush and a trivialization of Ahmadinejad. Let me know when Bush says we have to wipe Persia off the map.
Nukes aren’t the answer for Iran. Plus the people there hate their regime and we would lose much ancient artifacts, the ones the Muslims haven’t destroyed. It would be sad for Iran to get nukes. There is another solution.
WW2 Style Fire Bombing. The problem of course is that the Iranian regime wants this. They think that by starting some destructive war the Mahdi will come and rescue them. There’s other ways of dealing with Iran.
Trajan,
I think Clinton is talking about nukes because she thinks it will deter Iran from any plans they might have to attack Israel. She’s not suggesting that we use them necessarily… yet.
I really think the Iranian regime wants to get Nuked! They believe the 12 Iman will return. But I agree this Nuke talk isn’t helpful.