2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIs a war with Iran imminent under Hillary Clinton as president
Hillary has threatened to nuke Iran(and South Asia). And, she threatened to attack Iran many other times - as late as October 2015. She said if she were president we would go to war with Iran. Do you believe that if Hillary Clinton is president, a war with Iran is imminent?
"In 2008, she promised if elected president to obliterate Iran if it attacked Israeleven if the United States was unthreatened and Congress had not authorized war: I want the Iranians to know, if I am the president, we will attack Iran... And I want them to understand that... we would be able to totally obliterate them [to retaliate for an attack on Israel].
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fein/-hillary-clintons-appalli_b_9157892.html
More Links:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-hesitate-military-action-iran-attempts-nuclear/story?id=33630243
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/14/hillary_is_still_the_democrat_for_war_she_won_the_debate_but_her_bellicosity_toward_iran_sounded_very_dangerous/
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24246275/ns/msnbc-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/t/clinton-warns-iran-us-nuclear-response/
46 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
A war with Iran is imminent if Hillary is president. | |
37 (80%) |
|
A war with Iran is not imminent if Hillary is president - could happen but who knows? | |
7 (15%) |
|
I don't know either way | |
2 (4%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Anyone " w. eyes that can see...."
She's just gotta do it.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)dflprincess
(28,091 posts)and she thinks it makes her look tough - like Margaret Thatcher.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)What's not to enjoy?
MADem
(135,425 posts)still_one
(92,492 posts)not been very accurate.
Of course is another lame attempt to allow the dissing of Hillary, in this case with a hypothetical straw man
MADem
(135,425 posts)Don't stick the fork in the toaster, but that toast is BERNt.
The BERd has fallen off the perch....! And he ain't pining for the fjords!
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)She considers war criminal Netanyahu a friend.
Read more: http://forward.com/opinion/national/324013/how-i-would-rebuild-ties-to-israel-and-benjamin-neta/#ixzz47AmFOrYy
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Donald Trump is your enemy, not Hillary Clinton.
Unicorn
(424 posts)Obama wouldn't break it, he defended it against her.
Note: that she was against it from the beginning, and only agreed in the 11th hour, many believe because of polls. She even claimed she had supported it and it was a good thing when she campaigned in Dec 2015 - even though she had publically demanded to break it within 2 weeks of it being signed and had threatened to attack Iran.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)I doubt I would pat myself on the back regarding her foreign policy. But hey Kissinger agrees, so that must be good, right? Or just good and right?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Her overt ties to Israel and threats against Iran make that clear.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Control-Z
(15,682 posts)under Hillary Clinton as president?
artislife
(9,497 posts)Carolina
(6,960 posts)it's what she does! MIC corporatist $Hillary never saw a war or opportunity for regime change that she didn't like.
IWR was the straw for me. Since then, she has only added more misery to the world (Honduras, Libya, Syria) and thereby, reinforced my opinion that she lacks good sense, sound judgment and fitness for the position of POTUS.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)pkdu
(3,977 posts)Unicorn
(424 posts)She picked up for Condolezza who was also arguing to go to war with Iran during her last few years as SOS.
They were both literally trying to get us into that war - by selling us that Iran was a threat and it was necessary that we go to war with them. There was no if.
pkdu
(3,977 posts)But 2 points for trying the Condoleezza deflect tion.
Unicorn
(424 posts)But I don't believe that is possible. Some of us remember when she was SOS and remember when Condolezza was. But that's also the kind of people who pay attention and not just during elections. And the kind of people who would google and not pull crap out of their butt in retort. The people saying yes in this poll are informed. They aren't pulling it out of there arse. Anyway, back to ignore for you. It's impossible to even attempt to tell you what was going on or expect you to google.
Splinter Cell
(703 posts)It would happen if she was President.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)I guess the alternative is to allow Iran to commit genocide.
Are Bernie supporters for the genocide of Jews? You realize that would include Bernie, don't you?
Unicorn
(424 posts)She also said if they attacked Israel. I believe in Oct 2015 she said both. I have to drive home but am happy to come back here later and give links.
Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2016, 01:01 AM - Edit history (2)
"But Clinton, despite her words of encouragement for Obamas efforts to reach a deal with Iran, did not wholeheartedly endorse the process.
But even if we do get such a deal, we will still have major problems from Iran, she said. They are the worlds chief sponsor of terrorism. They use proxies like Hezbollah to sow discord and to create insurgencies, to destabilize governments. They are taking more and more control of a number of nations in the region and they pose an existential threat to Israel.
So even if we are successful on the nuclear front, we still are going to have to turn our attention to working with our partners to try to rein in and prevent this continuing Iranian aggressiveness, Clinton said."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-cautions-that-an-iran-deal-wont-123141563306.html
---------------------
This is well worth reading: How Clinton inforces the Iran Treaty - by selling arms to Israel and intefering with iran plans and proxi's
Clinton echoed the Obama administrations pledges that the U.S. will continue to ensure that Israels military capabilities are superior to those of others in the region. She called for increased funding for Israels rocket and missile defense systems, including the Iron Dome, which Israel says intercepted 90 percent of the rockets fired from Gaza into populated areas during last years war with Hamas. She pushed to provide Israel with technology to detect tunnels used by Hamas to funnel fighters and weapons in and out of the blockaded Gaza strip. Clinton also announced that she supports selling the the F-35 to Israel, which would make it the only U.S. ally eligible for the new generation of fighter aircraft.
IIn addition to boosting aid to Israel, Clinton called for increased cooperation with U.S. allies in the Gulf to counter Irans ability to back militant proxy groups in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and the occupied Palestinian territories. Critics and cautious supporters of the nuclear accord have both warned that at least some of the cash bound for Iran as a result of sanctions relief will go to arming its proxies.
Clinton zeroed in on cutting off Irans ability to fund and arm Hezbollah, the proxy in Lebanon that has been fighting alongside President Bashar al Assad in Syria. Her speech also called on U.S. allies to block Iranian planes from entering Syria. In addition, she recommended increasing the U.S. military presence in the Middle East as part of a broader effort to ensure that the Strait of Hormuz, a main passageway for the flow of international oil off the coast of Iran, remains open.
Clintons calls for putting more troops in the Middle East and blocking Irans efforts to prop up Assad signal that her approach to Syria would be hawkish compared to the cautious path taken by the Obama administration. Although President Barack Obamas official position is that Assad has lost legitimacy as the leader of Syria, he balked at military action there in 2013 and has more recently acknowledged that Iran will need to play a role in any negotiated solution to the four-year-long civil war
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-iran-israel_us_55efb2fbe4b093be51bcbb6f
---------------
Note: that the Iran nuclear deal was lifting sanctions to be able to audit Iran, she's been calling for sanctions to be restored(the nuclear deal broken) since October when it was reported that Iran did a missle test. However some sites say they are in their right to do the test and the nuclear deal was only about nukes:
But we shouldnt thank Iran for the prisoners or for following through on its obligations. These prisoners were held unjustly by a regime that continues to threaten the peace and security of the Middle East. Another American, Bob Levinson, still isnt home with his family. The treatment of our Navy sailors earlier this week was offensive, including the release of a demeaning and provocative video. Iran is still violating UN Security Council resolutions with its ballistic missile program, which should be met with new sanctions designations and firm resolve.
So we cant take our eye off the ball. As President, my approach will be to distrust and verify. I will vigorously enforce the nuclear deal as part of a comprehensive strategy that confronts all of Irans negative actions in the region and stand side-by-side with our ally Israel and our Arab partners.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/statements/2016/01/16/statement-on-iran/
----
http://www.juancole.com/2016/03/hillary-clinton-goes-full-neocon-at-aipac-demonizes-iran-palestinians.html
----
Retrieving more links... will up date this thread as I grab them
Unicorn
(424 posts)I will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon, Clinton told a Washington think-tank on Wednesday.
"The Iranians and the world need to understand that we will act decisively if we need to," she said. "As president, I will take whatever actions are necessary to protect the United States and its allies."
"Clinton further said, I dont see Iran as our partner in implementing the agreement. I see Iran as our subject in implementing the agreement."
From : Press TV
http://217.218.67.231/Detail/2015/09/09/428479/US-Iran-Nuclear-agreement-Hillary-Clinton-military-action-
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... predicted that Obama would start that war.
btw ... you claim that "She said if she were president we would go to war with Iran".
Do you have a direct quote for that? Or are you hiding the conditions under which she said she'd do that?
I think I know the answer.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)but I don't think she'd be so rash as to start a whole new war just to look ruff n tuff...
TheFarseer
(9,328 posts)He's not constantly trying to prove he's the toughest SOB in the room when it comes to military action like HRC. Btw if Iran nukes Israel, I'd be in favor of war with Iran. They're trying to get nukes is not remotely a good reason to go to war.
hack89
(39,171 posts)hatred for Hillary seems to derange many here.
TekGryphon
(430 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)31% don't have a clue what's in store with H as POTUS.
Here is the clue: Her husband bombed Iraq almost back to the stone age and set Iraq up for the bush invasion that she voted for!!
That same mindset of "They are sitting on our oil" will continue with H.
31% with no clue!!
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Baobab
(4,667 posts)have no natural moral compass. Which means she is likely prone to make really bad decisions. Thats what they do.
She's a narcissist. An NPD person. So starting an unnecessary war doesn't carry the revulsion to her that it would to a normal person.
To me thats just terrifying. Its the very last thing we need in a President.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)Kittycat
(10,493 posts)LuvLoogie
(7,066 posts)msongs
(67,478 posts)support lol
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Not to mention that "manhattan project" to make sure no one can encrypt their snapchats.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)And I fully expect president Clinton to fall for (collaborate in?) it.
onenote
(42,821 posts)I've been here for 12 years and I've seen that prediction over and over and over.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)betsuni
(25,764 posts)Unthreatened obliteration OMG, totally.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...like the terrible "obliterate" line, but I think her militarism will continue on a smaller scale the GWOT orientation of the Obama Administration. Civilians will die, but in places fewer Americans have heard of, so that the carnage will not be as visible. As long as defense contractor donors are kept happy, we won't be faced with what we would call all-out war. Hell, someone will probably give her a Nobel, too.