Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38

Thread: Hillary lofts nuke threat on Iran

  1. #1

    Hillary lofts nuke threat on Iran

    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.

    [CENTER][SIZE="5"][B]Clinton warns Iran of U.S. nuclear response[/B][/SIZE]

    [SIZE="3"][I]Senator: ‘Massive retaliation’ for attack on Israel would likely include NATO
    [/I][/SIZE][/CENTER]

    [QUOTE] Iran ‘risking massive retaliation’ ([URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24246275/"]watch[/URL])[/QUOTE]

    [URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24246275/"]MSNBC[/URL]
    updated 1 hour, 28 minutes ago

    [INDENT]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.”[/INDENT]

    Now watch the irony, as Crusaders here and everywhere who hate her, now defend her position. This should be excellent.
    Last edited by Press_Coverage; 04-21-2008 at 10:49 PM.

  2. #2
    [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

    Seems reasonable enough to me. Iran nukes Israel, killing millions of innocents, we in turn nuke Iran. Not a preferabe option (for anyone involved), but a threat that must exist for deterrance sake, if nothing else.

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2493796]Seems reasonable enough to me. Iran nukes Israel, killing millions of innocents, we in turn nuke Iran. Not a preferabe option (for anyone involved), but a threat that must exist for deterrance sake, if nothing else.[/QUOTE]

    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. Morph that 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 by Press_Coverage; 04-21-2008 at 11:14 PM.

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2493813]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. Morph that 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.[/QUOTE]

    Guess Iran is ****ed then, eh?

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Dallas Via Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    3,159
    I would think that if Iran was stupid enough to send a nuke into Isreal that Isreals response would pretty much seal the deal for Iran before we even had the chance to turn on the TV and rightfully so.

    There is no way Iran does something like this. It would result in there complete destruction. No one can be this stupid. Iran talks alot of **** but they never seem to back it up. They are the next North Korea, only difference is N.Korea gets away with threatining to nuke the US then we have talks with them. Heh . But we wont talk with Iran.

  6. #6
    I have to agree with Smashmouth here

    Iran throws a lot of empty threats out there, especially concerning eliminating the state of Israel, to appease the hardliners, but realistically would have to recognize that attacking Israel would be a big mistake. I think any Middle Eastern country today is hesitant to attempt any forceful actions against Israel for one uncertainty and one certainty. The one uncertainty being how many nukes Israel actually is in possession of, and the certainty being that with whatever amount they do have, Israel would almost be guaranteed to use them against a foreign power if it felt the country was in danger of being overrun.

    There is no incentive from a political and international standpoint in attacking Israel for Iran.

  7. #7
    We should continue our policy of not allowing Iran to have nukes rather than idle threats about what to do after we allow them to have them.

  8. #8
    I think this comment was completely irresponsible by Clinton and was a bit of pandering to the Jewish and anti-Iran crowd. This type of commitment should only be made by a treaty involving the govt's involved, not just as a debating point during a political campaign.

    Israel does not need the US for deterrence against Iran, and has never had nor asked for US military involvement in it's struggles.

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2494646]I think this comment was completely irresponsible by Clinton and was a bit of pandering to the Jewish and anti-Iran crowd. This type of commitment should only be made by a treaty involving the govt's involved, not just as a debating point during a political campaign.

    Israel does not need the US for deterrence against Iran, and has never had nor asked for US military involvement in it's struggles.[/QUOTE]

    and/or she was capitalizing on obama's stupidity when he announced months ago that nukes were completely off the table and he would not use them under any circumstance....
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 04-22-2008 at 01:34 PM.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    6,971
    Hillary just panduring as usual and getting desperate as the end is about to come for her and Bill.


    Isreal has enough nukes to wipe the whole middle east off the map and wouldn't need anybody to come to their defense. As far as I know we don't have the same pack with them like we do with Japan and others.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2493787]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.

    [CENTER][SIZE="5"][B]Clinton warns Iran of U.S. nuclear response[/B][/SIZE]

    [SIZE="3"][I]Senator: ‘Massive retaliation’ for attack on Israel would likely include NATO
    [/I][/SIZE][/CENTER]



    [URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24246275/"]MSNBC[/URL]
    updated 1 hour, 28 minutes ago

    [INDENT]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.”[/INDENT]

    Now watch the irony, as Crusaders here and everywhere who hate her, now defend her position. This should be excellent.[/QUOTE]plz its more of "i'll say anything to get elected"matra that the clintons are famous for.this will have absolutely zero effect on the people who can't stand her.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2493813]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. Morph that 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.[/QUOTE]where did you read that hillary has a healthy percentage of"bomg em now" crowd?

  13. #13
    WWOD- What Would Obama Do?

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2494646]I think this comment was completely irresponsible by Clinton and was a bit of pandering to the Jewish and anti-Iran crowd. This type of commitment should only be made by a treaty involving the govt's involved, not just as a debating point during a political campaign.

    Israel does not need the US for deterrence against Iran, and has never had nor asked for US military involvement in it's struggles.[/QUOTE]

    Pandering? How so? She expressed an opinion about what should happen in regard to what is an increasingly plausible scenario. She is hardly the first person to address the subject.

    In any event, your argument is incorrect since her speech makes no commitment by the US government. She is instead I think it fair to say suggesting what the policy of the government would be were she to take office. How that policy might be effectuated would remain to be seen, and entering a treaty has not been ruled out.

    Your last point may be correct, but I am not aware of any public knowledge that establishes your point as the truth.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=2foolish197;2494745]where did you read that hillary has a healthy percentage of"bomg em now" crowd?[/QUOTE]

    It has become increasingly notable that Obama supporters put out inaccurate statements in characterizing Clinton and others.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=Big Blocker;2494828]Pandering? How so? She expressed an opinion about what should happen in regard to what is an increasingly plausible scenario. She is hardly the first person to address the subject.

    In any event, your argument is incorrect since her speech makes no commitment by the US government. She is instead I think it fair to say suggesting what the policy of the government would be were she to take office. How that policy might be effectuated would remain to be seen, and entering a treaty has not been ruled out.

    Your last point may be correct, but I am not aware of any public knowledge that establishes your point as the truth.[/QUOTE]
    Well the opinion of someone who is President is a mighty important opinion, and stated so bluntly could be looked upon as a commitment of the US if she were to be President.

    I can assure you that no US soldier, nor any other country for that matter, has ever fought in any of Israel's wars. If you don't believe me you can investigate it on your own.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=Big Blocker;2494836]It has become increasingly notable that Obama supporters put out inaccurate statements in characterizing Clinton and others.[/QUOTE]

    And the reverse isn't more true?

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=CTM;2494906]And the reverse isn't more true?[/QUOTE]

    At least she is willing to debate him one on one something he now is rejecting in NC because he can't afford to be in another forum that is not fully scripted.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2493796]Seems reasonable enough to me. Iran nukes Israel, killing millions of innocents, we in turn nuke Iran. Not a preferabe option (for anyone involved), but a threat that must exist for deterrance sake, if nothing else.[/QUOTE]

    What if Israel nukes Iran first, killing millions of innocents based on false intelligence? Should Israel also be nuked by us? How should they be punished?

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=Smashmouth;2493913]I would think that if Iran was stupid enough to send a nuke into Isreal that Isreals response would pretty much seal the deal for Iran before we even had the chance to turn on the TV and rightfully so.

    There is no way Iran does something like this. It would result in there complete destruction. No one can be this stupid. Iran talks alot of **** but they never seem to back it up. They are the next North Korea, only difference is N.Korea gets away with threatining to nuke the US then we have talks with them. Heh . But we wont talk with Iran.[/QUOTE]

    Exactly . Iran nuking Israel is so unrealistic.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us