Jump to content

Hillary "obliterating" Iran


Recommended Posts

Apparently Ahmadinejad isn't the only politician out there threatening to blow entire countries off the map. Senator Clinton feels it acceptable to "obliterate" countries as well.

Thursday, April 24, 2008 :Democratic Party presidential candidate Hillary Clintons pledge to obliterate Iran if it attacks Israel marks a sharp escalation of threats against that country and its entire population.

Clinton made her comments on Tuesday, the day of the Pennsylvania primaries.

*cut*

Rephrasing the question to address a potential Iranian nuclear strike on Israel, Clinton said, I want the Iranians to know, if I am the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that, because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society, because at whatever stage of development they might be with their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.

*cut*

Clintons choice of words is significant. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines obliterate as to remove utterly from recognition or memory and to remove from existence: destroy utterly all trace, indication, or significance of.

Moreover, she said that it is Iran and the Iranians who would face total obliteration. If one were to take her words literally, what she is saying is that she would respond to an attack by the Iranian government on Israel by completely wiping out all trace of the people and history of Iran that is, to commit genocide against a population of some 71 million people.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/04/24/18494851.php

That last (bolded) paragraph sums up my take on the whole thing pretty nicely.

So where the massive front-page headlines like the day after the infamous Ahmadinejad comment? In her defense maybe it's all lost in translation, maybe she meant to say "remove the occupiers of 'Persia' from the page of time" and the media blew it out of proportion right? :lol:

Oh, no I beg your pardon. They're only mad when they threaten to wipe out entire countries... and they live over 'there'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 226
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That last (bolded) paragraph sums up my take on the whole thing pretty nicely.

So where the massive front-page headlines like the day after the infamous Ahmadinejad comment?

The difference is Iran's statement isn't conditional, Clinton's is.

The second difference is Hillary isn't talking about obliterating Iran as a nation or a people she is talking about the weapons.

Condition one: Rephrasing the question to address a potential Iranian nuclear strike on Israel

and then...

because at whatever stage of development they might be with their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.

She is saying that even though Iran may have weapons at some point, no matter how many they have, the US will obliterate them (the weapons) so the wing nut comment...

what she is saying is that she would respond to an attack by the Iranian government on Israel by completely wiping out all trace of the people and history of Iran that is, to commit genocide against a population of some 71 million people.

Is just the kind of nonsense they put out to keep the airheads happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is Iran's statement isn't conditional, Clinton's is.

The second difference is Hillary isn't talking about obliterating Iran as a nation or a people she is talking about the weapons.

Condition one: Rephrasing the question to address a potential Iranian nuclear strike on Israel

and then...

She is saying that even though Iran may have weapons at some point, no matter how many they have, the US will obliterate them (the weapons) so the wing nut comment...

Is just the kind of nonsense they put out to keep the airheads happy.

I believe I already acknowledged this point by bringing up the whole "occupiers and page of time" comment. My implication was that your ilk will be sure to say Ahmadinejad's words were explicit, while hers were taken out of context. Right? To spell it out for you - according to his side, *his* words were taken out of context.

As for the conditional vs. unconditional threats - please. We're talking about America vs. Iran. A sophisticated democracy vs. a theocracy.

Your argument of "well he started it" hardly works past elementary school. Why? Because you can always keep pushing back the timeframe of when the squabble started. The world didn't start on 9/11 2001 and as much as you hate to admit, the grievances of the region go back way before the last few decades.

My point here, therefore, is not to excuse one side or another - it's about drawing a parallel in the rationale of Hillary Clinton's approach to conflict and a person whom we consider a complete nutjob.

The richest country in the world with the biggest military in the world threatening "obliteration" of other countries is the type of rhetoric we expect of two-bit authorative theocracies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read her comments to say that if Iran attacks Israel with nucs, the the US will retaliate and "would be able to totally obliterate them" which is stating the obvious. It doesn't necessarily mean that they would totally obliterate them.

What she seems to be saying is that the concept of MAD is alive and well as far as she is concerned. It is a proven concept that kept the world nuclear conflict free for the entire Cold War. Having Imadinerjacket know exactly where he stands with no misunderstanding may very well keep him from making a very stupid mistake. A good thing IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the conditional vs. unconditional threats - please. We're talking about America vs. Iran. A sophisticated democracy vs. a theocracy.

I fail to see how that is relevant. Are you saying Iranians are stupid?

Your argument of "well he started it" hardly works past elementary school.

I don't recall making that argument.

My point here, therefore, is not to excuse one side or another - it's about drawing a parallel in the rationale of Hillary Clinton's approach to conflict and a person whom we consider a complete nutjob.

I think it's prudent to let nations know what your actions would be if they crossed the line. Iram did the same except for them, crossing the line is Israel's continued existence.

The richest country in the world with the biggest military in the world threatening "obliteration" of other countries is the type of rhetoric we expect of two-bit authorative theocracies.

Perhaps you missed my english reading lesson above. She didn't threaten to obliterate a nation, she threaten the obliteration of Iran's weapons programme.

Which in my opinion should be done anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read her comments to say that if Iran attacks Israel with nucs, the the US will retaliate and "would be able to totally obliterate them" which is stating the obvious. It doesn't necessarily mean that they would totally obliterate them.

What she seems to be saying is that the concept of MAD is alive and well as far as she is concerned. It is a proven concept that kept the world nuclear conflict free for the entire Cold War. Having Imadinerjacket know exactly where he stands with no misunderstanding may very well keep him from making a very stupid mistake. A good thing IMO.

Pssst, do me a favour and tell Dancer then that Hillary said was indeed threatening the country and not the "weapons" :lol: as Dancer seems to claim.

As for your opinion on whether or not threatening a (counter) genocide is a good thing - so be it. I'll stick to my guns in believing that if you have the strength to subdue your opponent, as does the US, there is no need to go on and kill not only him, but his entire family and relatives as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are toast.

All of us.

Because of the idiot sticks at America's helm.

If Hillary wins, the Dems will lead -- if Obama wins, the Repubs will lead.

Either way Iran is going to be nuked.

Hillary is the sameoldsameold and Obama is just too new (too young, too black, too Muslim, too smooth, too "groupielike" popular and too centrist to be elected by Americans.

no matter who is elected, the US is so screwed -- and by default so are we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A) I fail to see how that is relevant. Are you saying Iranians are stupid?

B) I don't recall making that argument.

C)I think it's prudent to let nations know what your actions would be if they crossed the line. Iram did the same except for them, crossing the line is Israel's continued existence.

D) Perhaps you missed my english reading lesson above. She didn't threaten to obliterate a nation, she threaten the obliteration of Iran's weapons programme.

Which in my opinion should be done anyway.

A) It means America (supposedly) should have more common sense given its secular egalitarian beliefs as opposed to Iran... and she also has the military capability to address conflict in a different manner than a two-bit theocracy like Iran.

B) You said Clinton striking Iran would be "conditional"... in other words "He started it".

C) Oh, so now you agree that she's talking about the country?

D) Then she would have spent the entire evening yesterday clarifying herself the way all politcians do when their words are misrepresented. She would not allow the following remarks to go without response:

In the United Kingdom, which has been a steadfast U.S. ally in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as on the issue of Iran, Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, a ranking British diplomat, criticized Clinton's remark as gratuitous:

While it is reasonable to warn Iran of the consequence of it continuing to develop nuclear weapons and what those real consequences bring to its security, it is not probably prudent ... in today's world to threaten to obliterate any other country and in many cases civilians resident in such a country.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbey...hillarys-t.html

Edited by BC_chick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for your opinion on whether or not threatening a (counter) genocide is a good thing - so be it. I'll stick to my guns in believing that if you have the strength to subdue your opponent, as does the US, there is no need to go on and kill not only him, but his entire family and relatives as well.

It is a promise to respond in kind. If you are into wiping out families, expect to be treated accordingly. Your response to a nuclear attack would seem to be a good spanking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
QUOTE: because at whatever stage of development they might be with their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.

She is saying that even though Iran may have weapons at some point, no matter how many they have, the US will obliterate them (the weapons) [...]

You may be right, and I hope that's what she meant, but it's not really clear; and others are interpreting it as obliterating Iran, too. This is from United Jewish Communities:

Hillary Clinton says US could `totally obliterate' Iran after nuclear attack on Israel

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that the United States would be able to "totally obliterate" Iran if the Islamic Republic's government should launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a promise to respond in kind. If you are into wiping out families, expect to be treated accordingly. Your response to a nuclear attack would seem to be a good spanking.

Iran attacking Israel and 'totally obliterating' Iran in return (Clinton's words) are hardly "responding in kind."

I just hope she's appealing to those who doubt her strength as a woman by posturing. Otherwise, she's really off her rockers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may be right, and I hope that's what she meant, but it's not really clear; and others are interpreting it as obliterating Iran, too. This is from United Jewish Communities:

Hillary Clinton says US could `totally obliterate' Iran after nuclear attack on Israel

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that the United States would be able to "totally obliterate" Iran if the Islamic Republic's government should launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

She's getting criticism from all over the world, including from allies (see my response to the same post from Dancer). There is no way she would wait this long to clarify herself if she did not mean obliterating the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
Iran attacking Israel and 'totally obliterating' Iran in return (Clinton's words) are hardly "responding in kind."

I just hope she's appealing to those who doubt her strength as a woman by posturing. Otherwise, she's really off her rockers.

She didn't say the U.S. would obliterate Iran, only that it could; that we would be able to.

For the record, Iran making a nuclear strike against a nation and getting a nuclear stike back in response would be "responding in kind."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iran attacking Israel and 'totally obliterating' Iran in return (Clinton's words) are hardly "responding in kind."

I just hope she's appealing to those who doubt her strength as a woman by posturing. Otherwise, she's really off her rockers.

As far as I can see this would be in the event of a nuclear attack on Israel. If you look at a map you can easily see that it wouldn't take many nucs to obliterate a country the size of Israel. The fact that they would also lay waste to parts of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan at the same time, either doesn't seem to occur to these people, they don't give a crap, or they are just posturing themselves.

I hope she is not posturing and I hope Imadinerjacket and his buddies takes her seriously because if they do, the likelihood of a nuclear exchange in the region is much less likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
As far as I can see this would be in the event of a nuclear attack on Israel. If you look at a map you can easily see that it wouldn't take many nucs to obliterate a country the size of Israel. The fact that they would also lay waste to parts of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan at the same time, either doesn't seem to occur to these people, they don't give a crap, or they are just posturing themselves.

I hope she is not posturing and I hope Imadinerjacket and his buddies takes her seriously because if they do, the likelihood of a nuclear exchange in the region is much less likely.

In light of the question Hillary was responding to, it would be in the event of a nuclear attack on Israel, so it most definitely would be "responding in kind."

It's clear to me now that Hillary was referring to the country, not the weapons, but it's also clear that she only said the U.S. "could," not that we would "obliterate" them. I also see nothing wrong with warning a nation that they could be in for a similar attack should they initiate such an attack themselves. I have a difficult time understanding why anyone would be critical of the attack made in response without at least as much criticism/condemnation for the initial act.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

B) You said Clinton striking Iran would be "conditional"... in other words "He started it".

If Iran attacks Israel with Nuclear weapons....gosh golly BC, what do you think? Should they warn Iran that they will have a benefit concert instead?

Gsoh Golly! He stated it.....talk about a high school grasp...or at least grasping for straws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's all the fuss about...former French President Chirac made the same bellicose type of comments in 2006:

PARIS, Jan. 19 -- President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests. He said his country's nuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make a tactical strike in retaliation for terrorism.

While not stated very diplomatically, Wilbur is correct about Clinton's retort. US strategic forces have been configured to turn Iran into a parking lot of emerald glass for a long time. Candidate Clinton is just taking advantage of this fact to toughen up her resume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, personally I think they are all assholes.

Hillary, Chirac, Ahmedinejad - all of them. All eggs in the same basket.

Imagine - declaring the will to genocide a whole group of people. Sickening - sickening beyond belief.

Let's see - who recently did apparantly try to do this? Hmmmm... oh yeah Mr. Nasty Hitler! Funny eh, how we can demonize one and all with the title of 'the next Hitler' yet WHO is really calling or war? Who is REALLY calling for genocide? An obliteration?

Fuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never heard of him. Is he North Korean?

Now that was funny.

Thank you, really.

I needed a laugh - it's been a very long and really stressful week.

(please keep this post, as it is probably one of the very few times I will actually be thanking you, Dancer!)

Shoot - perhaps we should put a star on the calender? hmmm..

Anyways - thank you.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope everyone stops yelling and starts being nice to everybody. War is bad, the world needs food, not bombs to kill kids.

I think I love you! :)

My motto is 'Just be Nice'.

(It's difficult around here sometimes though!! So many want to obliterate folks with nukes!!)

Thank you FrootLoops, you have also contributed to cheering me up today!

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope everyone stops yelling and starts being nice to everybody. War is bad, the world needs food, not bombs to kill kids.

Blows on his pitch pipe and clears his throat....

Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya

Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya

Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya

Oh lord, kumbaya

Someone's yelling lord, Kumbaya,

someone's yelling lord, Kumbaya

someone's yelling lord, Kumbaya

Oh Lord, Kumbaya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, personally I think they are all assholes.

Hillary, Chirac, Ahmedinejad - all of them. All eggs in the same basket.

Imagine - declaring the will to genocide a whole group of people. Sickening - sickening beyond belief....

Aw shucks....we better rethink this nuclear war thing because even if we win, somebody is going to accuse us of...gulp...genocide! Then there would be the EnviroMentalists.....and PETA types bitchin' too. Oh no...not that!

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...