Welcome to PatsFans.com

Hillary lofts nuke threat at Iran

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PressCoverage, Apr 21, 2008.

  1. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    She actually finally said it. Bravo, Hill. This should lure a decent percentage of the loon "bomb 'em all" vote.

    I've mentioned it once, I'll mention it for the 100th time:

    Two families, 28 years... Now? Prolly 36 years.

    Clinton warns Iran of U.S. nuclear response

    Senator: ‘Massive retaliation’ for attack on Israel would likely include NATO

    MSNBCupdated 1 hour, 28 minutes ago

    Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed Monday that as president she would be willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran if it were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

    Clinton’s remarks, made in an interview on MSNBC’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann,” clarified a statement she made last week in a Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia. In that debate, Clinton, D-N.Y., said an Iranian attack on Israel would bring “massive retaliation,” without defining what the phrase meant.

    In the interview Monday, Clinton affirmed that she would warn Iran’s leaders that “their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States.”
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2008
  2. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Not that I'd consider myself a big fan of Hiilary, or one of her defenders, but.....

    Would you really have a problem with her telling Iran that if they were to set of an unprovoked nuclear device in Israel that they would face a retalitory nuclear strike in response from us? You do realize they are ally, correct? :confused:

    It's the only language the Iranians would understand. Not that I think that she really qualified to remotely be able to make that kind of a call, but I only read into those comments as her responding to a question about "what would you do if?". It's hardly making a direct threat against Iran. I viewed it more as her reaffirming our relationship with Israel rather then making a threat.
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2008
  3. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Noted. But of course she has to qualify it that way. That's global politics talking.

    But I view it as more than that. Let's be real here. When you bring nukes to the table, and publicly state that you're willing to use them as a threat against a certain scenario (an unsubstantiated one, at that), and don't expressly say "and, no other scenario," you're announcing a wide, vague policy regarding nuclear weapons. It's a threat that will now SPEED UP Iran's nuclear ambitions, not deter them. Consider that along with the current empire's strict adherence to "pre-emptive" hawkish policies, and wallah.

    As I said, Hillary has now lured a healthy percentage of the bomb'em all crowd. People who are casting a vote based on nothing more than their nightly fear of the Muslim boogeyman.
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2008
  4. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,242
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +20 / 3 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    Last year there was talk of a military treaty between the US and Isreal. If Isreal was attacked we would respond. It doesn't matter if the pact was ratified,if Isreal were to be attacked to me its a given that we would respond.
  5. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    .
    No surprises here. Why would anyone be shocked at seeing Hillary shore up her Jewish constituency, along with reaffirming America's support of the existence of Israel? Somebody has to stand up and say they will defend Israel or it is very likely that nut cases like the current president of Iran will actually launch a real effort to destroy Israel. I don't see this as pandering to a nuke 'em all crowd as much as stating a distinction that she has with Obama.

    The state of Israel has many imperfections, but it has a right exist, and that right has been repeatedly and publicly denied by the current Iranian leadership, along with many other militantly anti-Israeli actors in the middle east and elsewhere.

    Second point: "two families for 28 years, 36 years," so what?? Change just for the sake of change is not good. If a better candidate exists than Hillary, that one should become president; but if she is the best, then she should get it. Personally, I think McCain would be better than anyone else in contention.


    //
  6. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,845
    Likes Received:
    90
    Ratings:
    +151 / 3 / -19

    It is not change for the sake of change, change is necessary.. the relationships of the past 20 need change, and despite your calls for 20 year terms of presidents fresh blood is needed at 1600 Penn ave..

    Not sure about McCain yet, need to know who his partner will be..

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>