Clinton has no regrets over Iran threat

[OhioChick]

Source: Times of India

5 May 2008, 0118 hrs IST

INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA: Hillary Clinton said on Sunday she had no regrets about vowing to obliterate Iran if it used a nuclear bomb on Israel, but Barack Obama accused her of George Bush-style "saber-rattling."

Clinton was asked on ABC News whether she had any regrets about threatening to "totally obliterate" the Islamic Republic if it used nuclear weapons against Israel, which prompted Tehran to complain to the UN.

"Why would I have any regrets? I am asked a question about what I would do if Iran attacked our ally, a country that many of us have a great deal of, you know, connection with and feeling for," the Democratic senator said.

Read more: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/USA/Clinton_has_no_regrets_over_Iran_threat/articleshow/3010292.cms

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Right on!

:woohoo:

[harmonicon]

29. So you like the idea of a nuclear holocaust? NT

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

39. No.

---> :sarcasm:

[Freedom Train]

54. That Iran will be obliterated if they attack Israel

is exactly what KEEPS them from attacking Israel. Thus, nuclear holocaust is avoided. You just don't get it.

[Megahurtz]

45. ???

Not!

[Justitia]

2. Of course she doesn't. She just like Bush, she never backs down on a really, really bad idea.

You know, like invading countries, using torture and dropping cluster bombs on civilian populations - and that's just during the convention in Denver!

[Deja Q]

3. I still agree with her.

While nuclear force is ALWAYS a last resort, countries like Iran SHOULD be watched closely. They HAVE played games, countries other than the US HAVE said Iran is a danger, the list goes on. Especially as she has said she would use nukes only if Iran opted to use a nuke bomb, she is making a stand against a country inclined to use barbarism, using the one language they can fully recognize: A stern response.

If she is trying to scare Iran into not making and using bombs, the approach is... blunt. But I can't think of a better way to keep them under control, given how Iran has turned its own back on the UN in the past.

http://www.infolive.tv/en/infolive.tv-22093-israelnews-iran-rejects-new-un-incentives
(Just one of many)

[Sequoia]

11. Israe is the one to be watched closely.

I know people in Iran and they are NOT f'ing barbaric !!! I guess she plans on carpet bombing Iran like we did Dresden during WWII where the fire was hotter than an oven and just incinerated children.

[The Stranger]

25. Anyone else agree? Or is it just you and Hillary on this disastrous disaster?

[harmonicon]

30. I guess my mother was wrong...

.... now 2 wrongs do = right?

[OnyxCollie]

33. Read the IAEA report on Iran.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-4.pdf

Hillary's comments and vote on Kyl/Liebverman remind me of bushco/repub excuses about Iraq, that "Everyone thought they had weapons." Another excuse to start another war.

[freedomnorth]

40. Quite contrary, Iran has been very compliant with IAEA. nt.

[freedomnorth]

41. duplicated my own post.

[JTFrog]

4. Bush in a Pantsuit.

:nuke:
:nuke:
:nuke:
:nuke:

[OhioChick]

5. ......

:spray:

[Ashy Larry]

6. Has she ever expressed any regret over anything?

[Lady-Damai]

8. Great picture. n/t

[MessiahRp]

7. So I just got to ask, how is she the "Goddess of Peace" again?

-Voting for the IWR which gave Bush authority to start a war in Iraq
-Voting for Kyl/LIEberman which ramps up threats against Iran
-Using threats of nuclear violence on Iran to promote war rhetoric and look "tough" for her campaign

Yep sure sounds like what a "Goddess of Peace" would say.

:eyes:

Rp

[JTFrog]

9. Goddess of Peas. Doing her part to promote Whirled Peas.

:nuke:
:nuke:
:nuke:
:nuke:

[shadowknows69]

10. No offense Israel but....

I don't have enough "connection with and feeling for" you to want my President to start WWIII if you get attacked. It's really nothing personal, I'm just kind of attached to breathing.

[Hardrada]

37. Same here. Why do we always have to be Israel's big brother anyway?

[barnel]

52. the kid with the big brother is always the one that picks fights

it's true in junior high, and it's true with nations

[Megahurtz]

46. Me too.

Israel are the ones that should be watched.

[raystorm7]

12. Whats new?!

[Malva Zebrina]

13. Oh what a lovely country we live in

an hysterical woman states she would annhilate the entire population of Iran, who is no threat to the United States== all those people, women , babies, children, old women and old men and all those in between to

DEFEND FURKIN ISRAEL?!!!!\\

Hillary and Bill Clinton have lost their minds and if this is what the American people want, we are sadly the worst country in the world for supporting policies like this. Problem? Nuke the crap out of all the civilians in Iran. That oughta fix it, eh?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Malva Zebrina]

24. I consider myself an informed voter

and one who would not vote for a shameful candidate. NOT Why should I go into the booth in shame of my candidate and be expected to vote for her and her husband, who have shown themselves to be utterly shameful?

Because McCain would win if I don't? Because some tom foolery with the Supreme Court would demand I vote for a shameful liar (s)?

No one knows who she,obviously more from the Republican right than a Democrat, as she stands now, would nominate to the court. That is, imo, just plain bribery based on no facts whatsoever. She may very well, given her untrustworthiness,try to put on the court another Republican, for all we know. I have no doubt she will NOT NOMINATE A LIBERAL to the court.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barnel]

49. THAT is the problem

'all those people, women , babies, children, old women and old men and all those in between '

a total lack of concern over the innocent who would suffer, same as the Iraq war

and people wonder why we are hated

no, i dont 'sympathise with the terrorists'

but i do have sympathy for the innocent caught in the middle

[wtmusic]

14. Poor phrasing.

Would she obliterate all the citizens of Iran too? Wipe it off the map?

She is hysterical. In her attempt to sound tough on nation defense she will make things much worse.

[bhikkhu]

15. And no regrets about her IWR vote, as I recall

That's why she will lose. She has plenty of positives, but this is just stupid.

[Baby Snooks]

16. What would you do?

I am certainly no defender of Hillary Clinton but reality is what would YOU do if you were president and Iran destroyed Tel Aviv with a nuclear device and in essence left Israel with no real government to speak of?

The statement by Hillary Clinton reflects a harsh reality of our world. Some apparently believe that we should do nothing if it happens except perhaps condemn it. And signal it's okay. We will do nothing. And then Iran will destroy another city in another country. And then another. And then another. And eventually our cities would be destroyed. Pacifism is fine as an ideal. It sometimes does not reflect the harsh reality.

What if our allies did the same thing if Iran destroyed Washington with a nuclear device and in essence left us with no real government to speak of?

[Seymour Glass]

17. of course nuclear deterance

ONLY works if those who threaten to use nukes understand that this action would cause and guarantee the utter destruction of their own nation.

Wake up "hi info" folks

[wuushew]

18. Israel has hundreds of thermonuclear warheads

Why would you want the POTUS to cause further environmental and radiological damage to the Earth? Have you forgotten that Russia also shares a border with Iran? Adding our MAD to Israel's MAD doesn't benefit us in any rational or realpolitik way.

[Baby Snooks]

21. So you would do nothing?

Iran might decide to destroy whatever city you live in instead of Tel Aviv. You might survive. And probably feel much differently.

Reality is that Iran is making the threat. Not Israel. Israel would respond. Unless there was no government to make the decision to do so.

In a perfect world there would be disarmament. It is not a perfect world. And it would become even less perfect if one nation were allowed to destroy another nation in a nuclear attack and be allowed to destroy another. And then another. And then another.

You need to read the writings of Khomeini. That is what Iran would do. In the belief that they were merely ridding the world of "infidels."

[The Stranger]

26. Iran could not "destroy whatever city" even if it wanted to (which requires a pretty bigoted notion

of Iranians, to begin with).

Iran has no nuclear weapons. Let's read that again, now, together: Iran has no nuclear weapons.

[khaos]

27. are you serious? turn off your TV.. please

JFC

[wuushew]

32. All modern nations have continuity of government plans

I have read in the JP online that large underground bunker is under construction for governmental officials.


In nuclear war, typically population centers are destroyed by large yield air-burst ICBM warheads. Physics dictate the scope of the damage and the response time for an attack.

Even if somehow a full size nuclear warhead was detonated on the ground its damage would be highly lessened compared to a ballistic warhead. Ground-cover, buildings, soil and the atmosphere itself all serve to absorb the energy of the explosion. I have researched the damage radii for various size nuclear devices and short of delivering a bomb directly to the Knesset the chances of destroying the Israeli government by coup-de-main are infinitesimally small. Also outside fiction novels "suitcase nukes" do not exist, and if they did it would be extremely challenging to build from an engineering standpoint.


Carefully study the links I give you, and formulate a plausible scenario where a majority of the Israeli political command and control structure would be eliminated before counter-attack measures could be put in place. It is possible to greatly reduce gamma radiation, thermal pulse and overpressure damage depending on how far from ground zero you are and what type of structure you are in.


Mind you our first atomic weapons like Fat Man only yielded 21 kilotons, which is much less than the blast radii in these diagrams.



http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html





http://www.radshelters4u.com/index.html#1a




I never said Iran launching an attack would not be a catastrophic, but Israel does have numerous hardened silos and a limited ABM capability. I just don't understand why or how the U.S. would need to get involved?


Either Iran would be decimated or both countries would be decimated. America's role would be/should be pallbearer not to hop on the bandwagon.

[Caradoc]

22. What if?

Exactly, What if? And it's a mighty big 'if'? Compound one nuclear catastrophe with another? The rhetoric on this is absolutely infantile, albeit cold-blooded infantile. IF Tel Aviv or Washington was bombed, would anyone take the time to at least make 100% certain who was behind it? And WHAT IF said attack was made with nuclear material stolen or sold on the black market without the knowledge of the government whose program created it? What population of innocents would you justify taking it out on?

The old testament is a very old and now useless book, written by people long dead to reflect a world long past. In nuclear terms 'eye for an eye' is the ruin of us all. No Iranian wants this...they know what the consequences would be. But the rhetoric from McCrazy and Clintonella is pandering to the most juvenile and simple-minded. C'mon America...you know better.

[harmonicon]

31. I can't speak for anyone else, but I can tell you what I would do:

first, I would cut Israel free from US aid, which only serves to prop it up as an illegal state, which functions as a haven for all of the worst abuses of the US. They have unchecked nuclear capabilities, they torture, they murder and they force the majority of the population (who just happen to be a bit more brown-coloured) to live like vermin in their own towns and homes.

Iran has a damn good reason to be scared shitless by Israel. It is an illegal country guilty of the most vile things we have ever accused any enemy of. I think it's far more likely that Israel would nuke Tehran before the Iranians made an aggressive move.

If, in this completely bat-shit crazy scenario, Iran did nuke an Israeli city, I assume the UN security council would jump into high gear and sort something out a bit more sensible than nuclear winter all across central asia.

[Megahurtz]

48. Here! Here! The best answer yet!!!

:applause:

[ToughLuck]

19. She already has the Zionists vote, she wants to add Republicans now..wacko!

[newburgh]

23. Straw man. Funny her and her husband cared nothing about the innocent

dark people of Darfur. What if's already happened and she failed...

[classysassy]

34. Billary

B.S. for votes,

[ckramer]

35. Hillary would not regret a bit sacrificing Americans' lives for Israel

She sounds like an Israeli.

This idea that the US must shield Israel from the consequences of its intransigence, its policy of apartheid in the occupied territories, its unacknowledged nuclear arsenal that hangs like a sword of Damocles over the Middle East, really exemplifies how American interests are ill-served by the "special relationship." Israel's unmitigated aggression and heedlessness act against our interests, in the Middle East and around the world, and yet still we give them our unconditional support. Israeli military supremacy in the region and diplomatic hubris is the purest product of American hegemony, which is why US policy toward Israel is really the touchstone as far as the War Party is concerned. That is why Obama has been relentlessly grilled, and his advisors have been examined under a microscope, in regard to this issue.

Hillary Clinton, as far as the War Party is concerned, is the "safe" candidate: she came through for them with her recent remark that Iran ought to be "obliterated," while we must cover Israel – and unnamed other countries in the region – with our nuclear shield. She doesn't care what she has to do in order to win, and if that means making Obama unelectable – well then, so be it. Rush Limbaugh, Bill Kristol, Richard Mellon Scaife, Sean Hannity – these are her new allies. Who's next – Norman Podhoretz? What more confirmation do we need of my contention that both political parties in America are merely the "left" and "right" wings of the War Party?


http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12769

[scarface2004]

36. ask me!!!

you attack israel and i ll obliterate detroit!!!

[unkachuck]

38. '..."totally obliterate" the Islamic Republic...'

"Why would I have any regrets?..."

....a saber-rattling war-monger to the core....I'm warning you, I can not support her....

[otohara]

42. Troubling Talk Reminiscent of....

she's incapable of admitting mistakes, and now throws experts under the bus. Doesn't take an elite expert to conclude, Sen. Clinton is sounding an awful lot like cowboys Bush/Cheney.

[barnel]

43. WHY are our candidates promising retaliatory hypotheticals?

and why do they always seem to involve defense of one particular country?

[barnel]

44. We will bankrupt ourselves for Israel

and when we're used up, I wouldnt be surprised if they cozied up with our enemies, to keeep the tap flowing

Sirach 13:
5
As long as you have anything he will speak fair words to you, and with smiles he will win your confidence;
6
When he needs something from you he will cajole you, then without regret he will impoverish you.
7
While it serves his purpose he will beguile you, then twice or three times he will terrify you; When later he sees you he will pass you by, and shake his head over you

[barnel]

50. Dwight D. Eisenhower: 'We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. ' nt

[barnel]

47. She reassured India a war for Israel would not interrupt flow of jobs to India

from USA

(joke - sort of)

[barnel]

51. why are specifics only promised to OTHER countries while BS generalities are given to US?

Hillary Clinton bowls over Indian MPs promises H1B increase



Hillary Clinton bowls over Indian MPs (from Newindpress, India)

Wednesday March 2 2005 00:00 IST IANS

NEW DELHI: She came, she spoke and s

http://boards.blackvoices.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ti-careers&tid=1661

[barnel]

53. How about promising US that she wont support another unnecessary war?

since the last one she voted for is bankrupting us?

isnt that more important than telling Israel

'go ahead and pick a fight with Iran, we'll back you up unconditionally'?

[barnel]

55. We all pay for saber-rattling at the gas pump

make no mistake about it, these threats helped push the oil price up