Clinton's words come back to bite her

[Dravinian]

Again you refer to misbehaviour.

I don't understand.

Clinton saying she would launch a Nuclear attack on Iran in retaliation is a terrible thing, 80m dead, shock horror gasp, someone get the defibrillator.

Yet the fact that it would only happen in retaliation from a Nuclear attack by Iran?

That is simply Iran 'misbehaving'

Why the double standard? Why is it such a terrible thing when it is the US vs Iran but just misbehaviour when it is Iran vs Israel?

I have really not seen an answer to the M.A.D. question, it is a deterrent, because the threat is there to use it. If a President is asked if they would use it, even if in their heart of hearts they really couldn't bring themselves to give that order, they would still say they would. They simply have to.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Iran misbehave? Never mind, we'll obliterate them.
.

Nuking Israel would be misbehaviour.

 

[fela fan]

Nuking Israel would be misbehaviour.

But did iran threaten to do this? If so, please show me any kind of link that demonstrates this.

 

[Dravinian]

But did iran threaten to do this? If so, please show me any kind of link that demonstrates this.

She was posed a hypothetical question and she answered it.

IF Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel what would your response be.

You can't now ask for proof that such an attack was every threatened, the question was based in that context. You can't decide to refuse to accept the context of the question because there is no proof for it, it was a hypothetical.

The point is, if Iran used nuclear weapons against Israel it would be pretty abhorrent, as you pointed out nuclear weapons kinda suck, as such the only retaliation left open to the USA and I would dare say the UK and possibly other member states of Europe, would be to retaliate in a way that made it clear to every other nation on Earth, any nation using Nuclear weapons in an unprovoked attack will not exist long enough to celebrate.

It is the only defense we have, to make the use of them so expensive that no country would dare risk it.

 

[fela fan]

She was posed a hypothetical question and she answered it.

IF Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel what would your response be.




It is the only defense we have, to make the use of them so expensive that no country would dare risk it.

No, i'm asking for links to the iranian president having said he would like to wipe out israel. I am saying this was western propaganda, well, US propaganda specifically, and arising out of this therefore is that he US public now think that iran have threatened to blow up israel if they can get nuclear weapons.

In this climate, clinton was posed the question and we all know what she would like to do.

I believe the hypothetical question is based on lies about what iran have or have not threatened to do.

As for your last bit, of course, i sadly have to agree. We can't uninvent these insane weapons. However i believe the US are using propaganda to soften up their public so that they can actually use the nuclear weapons in support of their empire building.

After all, the US never start all their wars because of poverty, they start them over ideas, over greed. And it's getting logistically difficult to spread their limited military resources over the planet.

Hence they wish to move onto using nuclear weapons, which will do their job just so much QUICKER! The key question to me remains: will the US public allow them to do this?

Looking at the non-reaction clinton's obliteration remarks it does not look good.

 

[Dravinian]

I believe it is a faux concern, it was in the context of an unprovoked nuclear attack and she gave exactly the answer that everyone expected her to give.

It wasn't any lessened, it wasn't softened in anyway, it was asked in the cold contrast of a nuclear attack by Iran. How is that softening the American public up?

Had the question been raised in terms that were not absolute, if the question was asked. If Iran became a problem, a threat, etc then your argument might be valid, but it wasn't asked in those terms, it was asked in the terms of a Nuclear attack.

As to what the Iranian President said or didn't say, I don't think it is relevent to this argument. I think he courts the controversy that he creates and I think to deny that and pretend that it is some sort of western media conspiracy to misrepresent him is a bit naive.

 

[fela fan]

Okay, think that then.

Fine by me.

 

[Woollyredhat]

Obamas reply was much wiser, he replied that they would be dealt with appriorately.

Instead of obliterate.

 

[Rentonite]

All the hand wringing and bewailing wont change the glaring fact that the battle for afganistan and the battle for iraq are just preludes to the main event.
This has been brewing since the hostage crisis. Iran was a progressive country that fell off the wagon and reverted to iron age theocratic thinking.
The Government enforces reliegion.... Mmmmmmmm
OK so we know that Iran doesnt have a nuclear weapon yet. ya know how we know that????? because they havent used it yet.

 

[bendeus]

the hand wringing and bewailing wont change the glaring fact that the battle for afganistan and the battle for iraq are just preludes to the main event.

The 'main event'. Do you think its so simple as to just wade on in there like you did in Iraq and Afghanistan? Have you paused to consider:

a) The effects on the global economy when Iran effectively blocks the straits of Hormuz with those nice new torpedoes it recently bought

b) The very real possibility of an oil price shock when it withdraws its oil production from global markets, with most evidence indicating that there is no longer sufficient oil production capacity to be ramped up globally to meet the shortfall, and with the concomitant effects on an already shaky global economy

c) The inevitability of a direct confrontation between the US and China - a major ally of and investor in Iran and its oil reserves. China is heavily dependent on Iran's crude.

d) China's capacity to shift its foreign currency reserves and oil purchasing over to Euros as a response, and thus China's ability to send the US economy into meltdown?

In the light of all of the above, Clinton's words were very, very badly thought out. It's the bellicose rantings of the playground bully though, isn't it? Shows her colours as clear as day, though. Another fucking wannabe hawk circling above the White House trading on how hard she's going to be an how many asses she's gonna kick. It's like watching some of the more colourful individuals from WWF wrestling, I swear

This has been brewing since the hostage crisis. Iran was a progressive country that fell off the wagon and reverted to iron age theocratic thinking.

he abolished the multi-party system of government so that he could rule through a one-party state under the Rastakhiz (Resurrection) Party in autocratic fashion. All Iranians were pressured to join in. The shah’s own words on its justification was; “We must straighten out Iranians’ ranks. To do so, we divide them into two categories: those who believe in Monarchy, the constitution and the Six Bahman Revolution and those who don’t… A person who does not enter the new political party and does not believe in the three cardinal principles will have only two choices. He is either an individual who belongs to an illegal organization, or is related to the outlawed Tudeh Party, or in other words a traitor. Such an individual belongs to an Iranian prison, or if he desires he can leave the country tomorrow, without even paying exit fees; he can go anywhere he likes, because he is not Iranian, he has no nation, and his activities are illegal and punishable according to the law”.[20] In addition, the Shah had decreed that all Iranian citizens and the few remaining political parties must become part of Rastakhiz.[21]

The Shah used secret imprisonment and extensive torture to maintain power. Amnesty International estimated the Shah's political prisoners at 60,000 to 100,000 in number.[22]

Source

Progressive my fucking arse!

 

[FridgeMagnet]

It's true that the question, technically, was "what would you do if Iran nuked Israel", but actually it was more two things:

1. a quick reinforcement of the idea that Iran has nukes and is just itching to destroy Israel and may need "dealing with" any time now, i.e. a little bit of propaganda thrown in;
2. an opportunity for the candidate asked the question to display their warmonger credentials (or not) and also, simultaneously, their political correctness in hostility to Iran.

So if you say "I would deal with it as appropriate" you're low-warmonger; if you say "I'd nuke them no question" you're progressing upwards and if you say "god damn we'd nuke the fanatical bastards back into the stone age then march our boys in and shoot anything that's left" you're near the top. It's an opportunity for political display, it doesn't mean anything apart from that, the actual question itself is completely stupid.

 

[frogwoman]

She should have said that it isn't very likely to happen and therefore the question is a bit meaningless...but then that could have got her labelled as an "enemy of israel" ...

 

[Dravinian]

It's true that the question, technically, was "what would you do if Iran nuked Israel", but actually it was more two things:

1. a quick reinforcement of the idea that Iran has nukes and is just itching to destroy Israel and may need "dealing with" any time now, i.e. a little bit of propaganda thrown in;
2. an opportunity for the candidate asked the question to display their warmonger credentials (or not) and also, simultaneously, their political correctness in hostility to Iran.

So if you say "I would deal with it as appropriate" you're low-warmonger; if you say "I'd nuke them no question" you're progressing upwards and if you say "god damn we'd nuke the fanatical bastards back into the stone age then march our boys in and shoot anything that's left" you're near the top. It's an opportunity for political display, it doesn't mean anything apart from that, the actual question itself is completely stupid.

I agree the question is a stupid one. There is no reason to ask that question. I also feel that if Barack was pushed on the issue, I believe he would say something along the lines of 'the use of nuclear weapons is not out of the question' something slippery like that, he is a true politician.

I believe this is more about politics, I don't believe the question was a surprise to Hilary and I think she was playing the 'straight talking' politician to Obama's usual bendy political bullshit, on an issue she knows most Americans are pretty straight on. ie Don't fuck with us, we are the best in the world blah blah blah.

I think this has as much to do with Iran as what I am going to have for dinner has to do with Iran.

 

[fela fan]

You're probably right.

But what it demonstrates to me is that the US are a disgraceful nation who have no qualms about murdering large numbers of people for nothing more than their greed and ideas.

 

[Dravinian]

You're probably right.

But what it demonstrates to me is that the US are a disgraceful nation who have no qualms about murdering large numbers of people for nothing more than their greed and ideas.

Bit pessimistic.

I think it shows America's self-belief and their arrogance at their own importance. I think the fact that Bush goes to such lengths to hide the death toll in Iraq is an indication that the American people when confronted with death on a massive scale, are not happy about it, they do have qualms about it and they won't accept it blithely unless they feel it is neccessary.

The problem is the media seem to be in cohorts with the Government to hide the cost of the Iraq war and I think since 'mission accompished' so long ago, it has dragged on as a tediously long skirmish in the mind of the average american. They think that it is all over, just the last throes of a defeated opponent.

I also think that it is a part of an international apathy that we in the UK share too. We are there, we are a part of it. We do very little about it. Some people do their part, but most people do not do their part. So little changes.

I think it is a bit snobbish to be blaming the American public for being much like us, lazy, apathetic, content..pick an adjective that suits you.

 

[fela fan]

Agreed with a lot of what you say.

But the elites/powerbrokers, the media, the public are all inextricably linked, with each being responsible in their own way for the carnage their foreign policy causes to millions of people.

Personally i prefer to put most of the blame on the rather pathetic media. They were somewhat better one or two generations ago, but nowadays are next to useless. Well, not to those in power mind.

 

[Rentonite]

??? ("Personally i prefer to put most of the blame on the rather pathetic media. They were somewhat better one or two generations ago, but nowadays are next to useless. Well, not to those in power mind.")

Are you Kidding me??? Where have you been? ill bet you are not exposed to the same "media". Here in the states the "media" are a bunch of roll over and surrender monkeys.... and you blame them for the War???? WTF...

 

[poului]

6tril79p;uijo

Well, it looks like she's on the way out now so start hoping.

 

[fela fan]

Well, it looks like she's on the way out now so start hoping.

Nah. They're all the same. They've been murdering humans in huge numbers for over 60 years now. Why would they suddenly stop with the next president?

Doesn't matter who the president is, the people and media are the same. They pull his strings. He only gets his power from them.

 

[poului]

Nah. They're all the same. They've been murdering humans in huge numbers for over 60 years now. Why would they suddenly stop with the next president?

Doesn't matter who the president is, the people and media are the same. They pull his strings. He only gets his power from them.

Yes, yes, yes, state the obvious.

 

[fela fan]

Yes, yes, yes, state the obvious.

Well what ya hoping for then?!