Anyone who supports this kind of sick psychopath?
youtube.com/watch
Just think the impact this kind of threat has in a nation which has two countries on either side of them that have been attacked and are being occupied by US troops.
youtube.com/watch
Just think the impact this kind of threat has in a nation which has two countries on either side of them that have been attacked and are being occupied by US troops.
posted by:
|
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05Bullshit, they chant "Death to America" on a weekly basis -
-
Re: Hillary No
05/06Bullshit, they chant "Death to America" on a weekly basis >>
yes they do, and "we" make threats by high ranking people in the state often. also people here in this country say bomb iran everyday. What is your point?
-
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05cDub:
> Anyone who supports this kind of sick psychopath?
My god, I hate Hillary half of much as I hate McCain, but i find myself defending both of them this week.
She might be a pathological liar, but she's not a psychopath.
She's just taking up back 20 years to the cold war mentality; back towards mutual assured destruction.
It is an extremely dangerous approach. It hasn't lead to our destruction yet, but it harkens back to WWI where mutual defense pacts dragged Europe into a massive war.
Is that where we want to go back to? -
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05How do you have MAD when you are making threats against a nation without nuclear weapons?
Leading Democrats didn't used to make bald-faced threats to obliterate entire nations. Anyone with an ounce of humanity says something like "we will prevent that" or "we will protect out ally".
Iran's hard-liners just won Parliament again. Of course. Nothing helps hard-liners like a (real) threat of obliteration from an aggressive outside power.
You guys woulda made A-Grade Nazi foot soldiers. -
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05but she promises to give us all free Reverend Wright bobble heads if elected. . .
www.youtube.com/watch
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05If Iran engages in conventional warfare (such as in response to its civilian power plants being bombed), nuclear destruction killing most of 75 million people is not an acceptable response. Its going too far, and even suggesting it is going to cause us problems.
A conventional military attack against their launching cites and military bases should be more than sufficient....of course we would be in a better position to defend Israel if we were not in Iraq....The occupation of Iraq makes us vulnerable. The value of having bases in the region is not worth of trade off of having our soldiers within striking distance of Irans conventional arms. If we really had to fight Iran (Which I do not support and hope we can avoid), it would make more sense to use air power from a few hundred miles away outside of torpedo range, and not occupy the country by land...but so long as we occupy Iraq, we cannot accomplish this.
But I dont support any attack on Iran. -
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05Basically Sent, whether or not I agree with your emphasis on a hypothetical dreamed up by the US and Israeli right ot justify their imperial aggression, you are a more prudent speaker than H. Clinton. -
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05Israel has the fifth largest stockpile of Nuclear weapons in the world---they can do their own obliteration of Iran if it comes to that. Her statement all come down to the fact that Hillary is testicularily challenged. Which is also why she is not going to win the nomination. Sorry hill you were born into a country that is more sexist then Pakistan ask Benazir Bhutto. Ooops dead ex-presidents do not speak.
-
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05Hillary is the only democrat who can win: Obama cannot win. He cannot win white voters. He cannot win middle class voters. He cannot win catholic voters. He can't win the small states and he absolutely cannot win the big states. He can't win the souht and he can't win traditional democratic states (Massachusetts, etc.).
Obama is a disaster waiting to happen. I don't even like Hillary, but if you're a democrat, she is the only hope. -
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05we physically don't have the ability to invade Iran. . .our military is too small and overstretched. -
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05
she didn't say "invade", she said "obliterate" (i.e., *nuke*) - that was completely f*cked up and unexcusable.
definitely one of the top reasons i won't vote for her. (not that i'm voting for the Big O. or McBush.) -
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05
but then again - the context is everything.
i have yet to read the *exact quote in context* or to watch her say it.
the whole situation (Iran having nukes and attacking Israel) is purely hypothetical, so perhaps her gaffe was... just that. bad phrasing.
or who knows - maybe she was just trying to make some sort of a point that it's clearly not in Iran's interests to acquire nuclear weapons and/or attack Israel since they would be "obliterated". again, i need to watch this before i can make a conclusion and i retract what i said in my last post.
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05<she didn't say "invade", she said "obliterate" (i.e., *nuke*) - that was completely f*cked up and unexcusable.>
So, what would you suggest happen to a country that attacked one of our allies by nuking them? Nothing? We just let them get away with it?
The WHOLE IDEA is that Mutually Assured Destruction keeps people from attacking with Nukes.
Should WE be allowed to nuke anyone with no feelings of worry for repercussions?
She was simply saying what we believed vis a vie the Russians during the cold war. With MAD, it kept both sides from ever going close to nuking one another.
She's right.
Again.
What should her response have been? -
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05Reverend Wright is effectively, Obama's VP. Was that so hard?
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05There is a difference between atomic weapons and nuclear weapons. A small atomic bomb could easily take out 20 city blocks and kills thousands, or maybe even tens of thousands of people. I dont really have the exact numbers, but it could easily take out a neighborhood and do damage to a large surrounding area. These are not weapons that destroy entire cities or nations however.
Nuclear weapons and hydrogen bombs by contrast are the doomsday devices that the duck and cover programs aired in the 50s were about....not that it would really matter if you duck and cover.
Killing all 70 million people is going to far, especially for a conventional attack.
Iran has one of the largest Jewish populations outside of Israel, certainly the largest in asia or the middle east outside of israel. Why should they be killed because of the Revolutionary Guards decision to attack (Possibly in response to being attacked)? -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Hillary No
05/05Further, the whole hypothetical is absurd and designed to whip up fear. Iran's not a threat, and if the US establishment decided it wasn't trying to regime-change it, a deal could be made rather quickly to allay fears on all sides.
Of course, its too late for that now, nobody in their right mind trusts Washington to do anything other than execute on the PNAC script. -
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05Myself....I am just tired of any Bush or Clinton....period.
Plus......I can't stand the way she talks to people.......this whiny , grand-motherly voice.........WTF.....Reagan used the same trick to appeal to the nation. -
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05The thing that bugs me about her talking is she takes the same approach as Bush that she's just explaining everything, and the questioner is stupid and just doesn't understand the one true truth that she does. Totally annoying. -
-
Re: Hillary No
05/06it sounds to me like someone we already know from the past. .
although some alts are cute and fuzzy. . .some alts are dirty and cause warts. . .
does that mean we should treat them the same??
-
-
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Hillary No
05/06<Killing all 70 million people is going to far, especially for a conventional attack.>
Remember, she never said a word about killing 70 million people. She used the unfortunate adjective 'obliterate', which I took to mean that she would do what it took to end the threat of Iran using nukes ever again. Would she kill 70 million people? No, of course not, but she WOULD respond, and many millions would die. But, that's the issue with MAD - if you want to go down that road, then you know what you're getting into.
<Iran has one of the largest Jewish populations outside of Israel,>
Correction: Iran has pretty much ALL the Jews that are not in Israel in the Middle East because the rest were chased out of the countries in the region. Israel has only about 30K Jews in Iran, and live under the shadow of Islam, even having to study in Arabic in their own schools.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pers...us_in_Iran
Sounds great, 'eh?
<Why should they be killed because of the Revolutionary Guards decision to attack (Possibly in response to being attacked)?>
Come on. It'd suck if that 30K died, but then again, if Iran nuked Israel, FAR MORE than that 30K would die. And, Israel is not going to just up and nuke Iran. Come on now.
<Drop your dumb bullshit for five seconds, pose the matter to yourself in blunt terms, and see the light of dawn breaking over the Lost Age of your years of worthless bigoted evil.>
Now, I don't even know what the fuck that meant, but it was a great sentence.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05thank Duana now go back to Rush's scheduled operation Chaos. Hate to break the news to you Obama has already won--unless Hillary can win 68 percent of the votes in all remaining contests. . . -
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05I guess Duana likes candidates who threaten to kill 70 million people. -
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05I think the moderator of "conscious women tribe" just revoked her tribe membership. -
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05Mr. Cdub,
Iran are the one's threatening to "wipe Israel off the map". Hillary is just defending, in no uncertain terms, our great friend,and democratic ally, Israel. As opposed to Obama, whose 'friends' are anti-Israel.
It's very clear where the candidates stand. I'm not even a Hillary fan, but only she can win. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Hillary No
05/05It is my opinion that Cliff should come back and tell us what he thinks. . .
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Hillary No
05/06<< Iran are the one's threatening to "wipe Israel off the map". >>
So she made the same threat back. The fact is both nations are just pissing in the wind on this issue.
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Hillary No
05/06It's very clear where the candidates stand. I'm not even a Hillary fan, but only she can win. >>
No democrat can win.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05<Hillary is the only democrat who can win: Obama cannot win. He cannot win white voters.>
Sad but true. The numbers available TODAY confirm this sad reality.
<Obama is a disaster waiting to happen. I don't even like Hillary, but if you're a democrat, she is the only hope.>
I'd not go so far, actually. I still think that Obama would beat McCain simply because he's a shitty candidate. BUT - Hillary would be assured a win. -
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05I don't know where you Nervous Nellies get the idea McCain's unbeatable. He's flawed and useless and broadly disliked even in his own party.
It was nauseating to watch shallow, silly, vain Hillary mouth tough-guy platitudes as if she was auditioning for "Buffy The Vampire Slayer." It's nice when candidates show their psychopath credentials this early on. -
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05I didn't find it 'nauseating' so much as 'sidesplitting' - same anatomical geography, I guess.
We'll come full circle if McCain plays blues harmonica on Letterman or something.
-
-
-
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05<If Iran engages in conventional warfare (such as in response to its civilian power plants being bombed), nuclear destruction killing most of 75 million people is not an acceptable response. Its going too far, and even suggesting it is going to cause us problems.>
Let's be fair here - was the question not what she would do if Iran NUKED Israel? There was no talk of conventional war, was there?
dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/05/hillarys-oblite.html
Yes, this is a discussion about if Iran nuked Israel, not conventional weapons. So, the usual suspects that are generally wrong are wrong again.
So, is what Hillary said so bad? If Iran wants to nuke someone, should they be able to do this?
Her answer to this that I saw TODAY on CNN or MSNBC or was that the idea is a mutually assured destruction, so her nuanced response was that she wanted Iran to know that if they nuked someone, they'd get nuked. That's how MAD works. And, that's the correct response as far as I am concerned.
<But I dont support any attack on Iran.>
Unless they start attacking other countries, that is. If they DID launch conventional missiles at Israel, then what? What should Israel's response be in your opinion? -
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05If Iran nukes Israel, then Israel should do whatever they think is best. If Iran attacks Israel with conventional weapons, Israel should return in like kind.
No one from the US should threaten to use nuclear weapons on anyone. It is just bully talking. It is possible to let nations know through diplomatic channels how the US would respond to any attack on our friends and allies.
This is one of the worst things that Hillary has said so far.
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05I really, believe --strongly -- that Obama would get beat by McCain, in a very large landslide. Here's why: the public knows very little about Obama. The far left couldn't care less about his past, because he's black and that's enough to sucker them all in: without even wanting to know anything else.
Reverend Wright is Obama's VP. He will be in the fall. Even more so. It's not because the Republicans (of which I am not one) are "mean", but because Obama made choices in his life --friendships with terrorists like Ayres and Black Nationalists like Wright -- that Americans don't agree with or even like. It isn't "racist" not to want your president to have friends like that.
Hillary is a liar -- a bad one at that -- and from a totally dysfunctional relationship. Yet, everyone knows her deal. Moreover, she continues to win the big states, whites, middle class voters. She would probably beat McCain. SHE, actually, is the "change" candidate and believe me, I am not a fan of hers.
Obama will get completely crushed in the fall: African Americans and upper class liberals are not a coalition that elect presidents. Just the cold, hard truth.
-
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05"Reverend Wright is Obama's VP. He will be in the fall."
Haha.
This is person is an alt. Thats not even the users real picture. The IP matches previous characters of a similar nature. -
-
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05Im not sure how to check IPs, but I know people who claim they are able to. Thats as much as I will say. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Hillary No
05/05sounds like total bullshit unless they are tribe employees.
-
-
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05
<<from a totally dysfunctional relationship>>
(hi Duana btw. great to have you here. :)
i know this is a minor point and perhaps OT, but... i disagree with that assessment re. "dysfunctional relationship".
imo, it's a right-wing talking point which little basis in reality.
so, ok. Bill and Hillary don't necessarily *always* sleep (or have oral sex) with *each other*, but... so effing what??
maybe, they have an agreement with each other. maybe, they don't -either way, it's no one elses'business but their own.
they strike me as an amazingly COMMITTED (and happy, and successfull) couple (who have a very well-adjusted daughter, too, btw) - and.... as far as i'm concerned, all power to them.
-
-
Re: Hillary No
05/05OK, I can see your point Inna, about the Clinton's. But, it doesn't change my view that people "know" who Hillary is: no one knows who Obama is. And, his books are what he wants you to know. He's close to the nomination and it would be a disaster along the lines of McGovern if he got it. I think he will because white folks are nervous that the convention will be like the L.A. riots in '92, if he's denied the nomination. Now, to think that "blacks" will all rise up in the name of the great Obama is what's really racist.
-
-
-
-
-
-
