I'd prefer the obliteration to happen shortly before the launch of any Nuclear attack, if possible.
Clinton's words come back to bite her
- Thread starter Woollyredhat
- Start date
I'd prefer the obliteration to happen shortly before the launch of any Nuclear attack, if possible.
Can't you tell the difference between threatening an attack and threatening a response?
Inter-continental ballistic missiles don't require pilots.
How did they plan to drive the Israelis into the sea without an attack?
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
i was talking about what they've recently said ... i don't remember iran threatening to drive the israeli's into the sea or anything similar ...
they said (IIRC) that the zionist regime would be wiped off the face of the earth, they didn't say they would be the ones to do it!!
I'm not even sure they said that.
Anybody that can provide a link to this would be good.
I'm very mindful of the propaganda that exists in the US/UK press over iran. I'd not be surprised if the iranian president never said anything of the sort.
It should be noted that the self same media got it all fucked up over iraq.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
That must have come as a great relief to the people of Israel.
Yeah as I said completely out of order, but not a direct threat to attack a country.
If you're saying that it's not yet time to 'obliterate' Iran, then I agree. I hope it never will be.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
However given the fact that Rumsfeld included Iraq in the "axis of evil" and a short while later it got invaded, I would say the Iranians have a bit more of a reason to be concerned about American attacks, even if like you i don't believe it's gonna happen
but its an understandable concern
talking of nuclear attacks ,did anyone hear that thing on the world service this morning, about depeleted uranium in afghanistan? also used in the balkans and in iraq ...
i agree with you fela that there is a bit of an attempt to "normalise" nuclear weapons and break the taboo of using them ... it's probably not just in america that that's happening.
also the fact that the nuclear weapons in existence now don't have such high destructive potential, they are "smaller" and so therefore "less bad" making it more acceptable to use them ...
but its an understandable concern
talking of nuclear attacks ,did anyone hear that thing on the world service this morning, about depeleted uranium in afghanistan? also used in the balkans and in iraq ...
i agree with you fela that there is a bit of an attempt to "normalise" nuclear weapons and break the taboo of using them ... it's probably not just in america that that's happening.
also the fact that the nuclear weapons in existence now don't have such high destructive potential, they are "smaller" and so therefore "less bad" making it more acceptable to use them ...
I wouldn't compare Hillary to Hitler but i do find it incredible that there wasn't more of an outcry about this especially given the reactions over similar statements by the Iranian president.
Because they were not similar statements.
Iran said. We want to destroy Israel.
How is that similar to America saying...IF you destroy Isreal, we will destroy you.
One is an unprovoked action of aggression the other is the suggestion of retaliation.
They are just simply not the same.
It seems to me, to be honest, that you people aren't really interested in anything but having a pop at America. It doesn't seem to matter whether Hilary was correct to say this, whether she was justified in saying it, whether any other political leader of America would say it ...or for that matter any other leader in any other nation that was in the same position.
All of this seems to mean nothing to you, you would rather instead continue in these nonsense attacks.
Why?
There is plenty to attack America on without making shit up. I could write a 10,000 word essay on the Evils of America, and never once have to pretend my offense at a statement that makes perfect sense in the world we inhabit.
Because they were not similar statements.
Iran said. We want to destroy Israel.
How is that similar to America saying...IF you destroy Isreal, we will destroy you.
One is an unprovoked action of aggression the other is the suggestion of retaliation.
They are just simply not the same.
It seems to me, to be honest, that you people aren't really interested in anything but having a pop at America. It doesn't seem to matter whether Hilary was correct to say this, whether she was justified in saying it, whether any other political leader of America would say it ...or for that matter any other leader in any other nation that was in the same position.
All of this seems to mean nothing to you, you would rather instead continue in these nonsense attacks.
Why?
There is plenty to attack America on without making shit up. I could write a 10,000 word essay on the Evils of America, and never once have to pretend my offense at a statement that makes perfect sense in the world we inhabit.
Whatever nuclear weapon is used has massive destruction capability.
But the worst thing will be is that they become somehow 'normal' once the US use them again.
I feel that is ONLY in the US that this is happening, the only exception being possibly the UK. But even they are probably still against the use of these weapons.
Although hardly anyone in the US or UK think this, thanks to their partial media, the US are the biggest danger to our world at the minute. I did get optimistic for a minute or so that once bush was gone... but no longer.
Batten down the hatches. The monster is loose.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
the french threated to turn iran into glass if any nukes went off on french or allied soil
http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?Ne
http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?Ne
Go on then, show the forum that this actually happened.
I think the reporting of this 'fact' was western propaganda, but i'm prepared to be proven wrong.
Show us they said this.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
i'm not interested in "having a pop at america".
The question is - why did she bring up such an absurd, unlikely scenario in an election campaign? that is what people are criticising ...
Iran is VERY unlikely to attack Israel with nukes.
and fela - sorry, but everyone knows that the US is a threat to world peace, it isnt some conspiracy type thing, everyone knows it - there have been polls in Europe with the majority of people saying that it is the biggest threat, so i don't think its being kept secret, i also dont think the media are as "controlled" as you're making out ... I dont think that the US are ABLE to attack Iran, they dont have enough troops and whoever got into power and invaded iran would have just committed political suicide.
the normalisation of nukes is a very concerning thing but i don't think iran is going to be attacked any time soon ...
Do those polls in europe extend to britain?
What are european governments doing about the american menace?
Why can clinton talk about killing off a whole population with no commentary or analysis in the british media?
And to be honest, it doesn't really matter what britain or europe think, if the yanks want to drop nuclear bombs, then they'll do it. They've shown since 911 that they'll do what they want regardless.
What are european governments doing about the american menace?
Why can clinton talk about killing off a whole population with no commentary or analysis in the british media?
And to be honest, it doesn't really matter what britain or europe think, if the yanks want to drop nuclear bombs, then they'll do it. They've shown since 911 that they'll do what they want regardless.
RhymnRzn
anti-doter
For the sakes of having a pop at America........right. More like, should we put our delicates in the hands of people with this so-called convention of wisdom? And it takes just about as much contextual haze to embolden the current administration to imagine a vain thing, and think they are approved to carry out the mischievous desire.
I agree, but my point on this thread has been why have the US media not tackled the comments of this disgraceful woman, a real potential future president?
This nation is off its bloody head. They are consumed with vengeance, enemies, hatred, and WAR.
Fucking insane they are.
You are only ever interested in proof when it proves you right, so you won't be interested in any proof on this subject.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
I don't see Iran the same as Iraq. There is a good case that people wanted to invade Iraq but there isn't for Iran. The US military is up to its neck already and so is the public. Iran is a very different prospect in terms of such a thing even without preoccupation with Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't see Bush picking the fight with Ahmadinejad. I think Bush and company would rather not have to deal with another problem since they don't know what to do with the ones they have already. But that's not to say Bush would run from this. I think he'll do whatever he wants including playing tough.
Because the British, and their media, can place things in their context. You should try learning that trick.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
Well that's a good point. People can talk big but it doesn't mean they can back it up. But I don't think that just because of the WMD thing it would be wise to always think the US and UK are lying. It may be the case that Iran has other plans for nuke technology.
I think you are well aware that was a paraphrase, unless I learnt arabic and downloaded some fonts to display arabic writing.....I am always going to have to paraphrase dinnerjacket.
Though I do believe I can find a piece about Iran saying "wiped out from the map"
Also just to point out, the question may have been hypothetically placed to Clinton....IF Iran were to launch a Nuclear attack...etc etc Given that she is running for President it wouldn't surprise me if people wanted to know their leaders possibly responses.
The question is - why did she bring up such an absurd, unlikely scenario in an election campaign? that is what people are criticising
Ok, that I can understand, but that point was not made before now. Up until now it has all been about how terrible nuclear war is, and how could anyone threaten anyone with that etc etc. When the reality of the world we live in, is that people have to know that this will happen if they use Nuclear weapons.
I can understand your complaint here, but I do not know the context in which she made the statement. Was she asked the Question? Or did she volunteer the Information?
If it is the latter, you are correct, if it is the former, shouldn't you be moaning at the Media?
RhymnRzn
anti-doter
aye, but they are foolin around with the robotics, and satellites endowed with missiles nowadays. Yet the homeland would not be scott-free from repercussions for going to such extent: it will be conquering for another sovereignty, not our own.
Even so, if you get something great for your home, on what basis can you threaten your neighbour for desiring the self same great thing?
If the US and UK want iran to not develop nuclear weapons, then they should first forfeit theirs.
These two nations are loud hypocrites.
It's very rare that the USG are not lying. Same goes for the UK one. Liars and hypocrites they are.
And bullies.
I'm always moaning at the US media, and to a lesser extent the UK media. In a democracy they are the fourth estate and it is their job to act as a check and balance against abuses of power by those in power.
Instead half the time they're in bed with those in power, and the other half of th time they keep quiet.
An exaggeration i know, but it's designed to make my point clearer.
Let's just say that the iranian president said those words, and i believe the british media say this. They did raise quite some stink about it at the time.
Now clinton says this sort of thing, and what is printed about it?
Rhetoric leads to actions.
Her talk is entirely dangerous, and comes in a time when many americans - people, media, and government sorts - are calling for the use of nuclear weapons to attack their enemies with.
Knowing how much importance americans attach to their presidents, to hear a prospective president talking in the manner, even if hypothetically (for now at any rate) of destroying 80 million entirely innocent people leaving not a trace of their blood and bones and flesh should be sending flashing warning signs leaping into the air.
But no, not a murmur from the media.
This is how hitler went from being a local maniac to the man enough germans obeyed leading to what we all know happened next.
American rhetoric since 911 has been getting increasingly violent. One attack on that country, and just look at how bellicose they've been since. Before that time they'd try and hide their warmongering ways, but not they just don't even bother trying to hide anything.
Iran misbehave? Never mind, we'll obliterate them.
Just let the meaning of that word sink in mate.
Similar threads
- Poll
