Asked how she would respond if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel, she replied with a stark warning.

"If I'm the president, we will attack Iran... we would be able to totally obliterate them," she told TV network ABC.

"That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic."

Tehran is facing tougher UN sanctions for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7376741.stm


why the fuck is she running as a democrat?! what the hell is the remaining difference between Hillary and McCain?

come to think that around the end of last year I was supporting Hillary over Obama. djeses, my opinion has changed!!!

What's the difference between Hillary, Obama, and McCain? On the political scale, barely anything.

Dick and no dick.

I knew it. Only a woman would start WWIII

But seriously, I can't believe that ANY American would still vote for her, after she said that. Exactly how war hungry are the Americans?

You know what would be funny? Have Obama, McCain and Clinton on Opie and Anthony, lets just sit back and listen to see what transpires. lol

Oh, yes, of course! If Iran launches a nuclear attack on any country, we're supposed to just beg them to stop. Or maybe give them an angry look. That will teach them.

They don't have to, they just have to stop using the dollar. They have already done so, see here and here. Even more news on this here (google news).

^Yep, IIRC Saddam was about to go from the Dollar to Euro when he got invaded.

Yes, and the rational response to killing millions of innocent people is to kill millions MORE innocent people. When they're all DEAD, and the fallout kills millions more when the winds carry it onto Iraq, Saudi, Turkey and who knows where else, THEN THEY'LL LEARN!!! No offense, Chug, but that attitude is simply idiotic.

When you have a rogue country that's launching nukes, it would be completely idiotic to do nothing about it. Besides, we could send Iran back to the stone age without resorting to nukes ourselves.

has the world elected USA to police planet earth?

Dude, Iran will NEVER launch a nuke. They sure as hell won't be the first ones to attack. So they want nuclear tech? Any why shouldn't they have it? I mean you have (US), we have (UK). Sure the dude is a little crazy, but he sure as hell isn't that crazy to launch a fucking nuke at a country! OR an unprovked attack on a 3rd world country, gee maybe like Iraq? And who the fuck says that Iran crosshair is aimed US? Your intelligenece services? Pffft, we all know how intelligent they are - one word - WMDs.

Sure you could send Iran back to "the stone age" but then you would have to deal with the whole of the middle east. And your aren't too popular over there anyway. Not to mention that all the oil producing countries own your asses.

Besides, can the US even afford another pointless war? The US is headed for recession, and you want to make things worse, by spending more $$$ on another war and throwing American lives away. Here's an idea, please STFU and sort out your own country, before you tell others how to run theres.

(PS, this isn't aimed at your Chug - nothing personal. It's aimed at the US Government, indirectly, through you)

I agree, Iran wants nukes because they DON'T want us invading, not to cause us to. Nukes are a deterrent, not a useful method of attack.

Well then, if we all know that Iran isn't going to launch any nukes, then that defeats the point of this thread.

Iran hasn't THREATENED to launch any nukes, but Hillary has. That's the point.

Not to mention that Israel has nukes of their own should they wish to use them. They don't need US help annihilating themselves or their enemies in the stated situation. The whole offensive posturing thing she's doing is nothing more than a publicity stunt - and she deserves the bad publicity she's getting from it.

Nukes are best used as a "background" weapon; they work fine without talking about them. The moment you begin posturing with them, then people get nervous and bad things start happening. If she's going to be using the threat of nukes any time someone threatens US interests, let alone if that's the FIRST card she plays, then she should NOT be Commander-in-Chief, not in this world climate. This isn't the fucking Cold War anymore - if that card is going to be played today, then the other team is going to do more than make idle threats about the use of WMDs.

nice illy *hi-5*
sick burn


LOL jks jks but i agree. no personal offence to anyone, i like the peeps on this board, its why ive stuck around for so long. but anyways, there hasnt been much mention of this over here in the AUS media ..

edit: speaking of sticking around, i looked at my join date.. 3rd may 03 its now the 5th may 08 = 5 years

+1. Nice, agreed. What has Obama said about the US-Iran relations?

well well. the dude would open up discussion:

In his Democratic presidential bid, Mr. Obama has vigorously sought to distinguish himself on foreign policy from his rivals, particularly Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, by asserting that he would sit down for diplomatic meetings with countries like Iran, North Korea and Syria with no preconditions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

the world's current outright refusal to not consider "rogue countries" and terrorist groups as worthy spokespartners is helping NOTHING to stabilize the situation. terrorist or not, the guys are intelligent and can be reasoned with. they have principles, like do we. as I mentioned way before already.

anyhows, I for one am pretty damn pleased with the answer Obama gives in that article. i'll quickly make myself a US citizen and vote for the guy! change indeed...

Indeed, I would do the same.

I take it McCain will want to occupy the whole of the middle east?

I find it funny how people who say they don't want war and want the troops to come home won't vote for Ron Paul

hypocrites -_-

I'm a little late to the chat, but I'll throw my .02 into this...(btw..I am not a Hilary supporter, and I'm against war whenever possible)

1. Hillary was asked her response IF Iran launched a nuke. It wasn't Hilary saying on her own accord.

2. Although Israel does have its own nukes, one would presume that after a nuclear attack, its unlikely the small nation would be in any condition to respond, if there was much of anything left.

3. We are allies of Israel, as well as many other countires. Israel was used as a media ploy to get shit stirred up. If the country was UK, or Canada, the repsonse most likely would have been the same.

4. I am all for discussion of issues before resorting to violence. But when an act of war is made, it is a deliberate inviation to cause the death of people.
If an entity attacks another entity, it has now declared that its assets (people/land/money) are potential victims. That is the risk an entity takes.
To sit back and ask to talk after being attacked is a surefire way to show weakness, not diplomacy. Diplomacy works when both sides are willing to compromise and talk. It also only works before an attack is made, or after both sides have suffered and want to end it.

In response to the US government and WMDs. US intelligence declared there were no WMDs. Bush and his cronies, on the other hand, said there were. Big difference.

I do agree with Obama and Paul. Even terrorist groups have some intelligence at the top levels. But the question does remain, will these groups talk and compromise in any way? Or are they 100% determined that their way is the only way? That is where diplomacy can succeed or fail.

corrected.


100% determination never exists. you are bound to change some thing about your approach when confronted with other opinions. even so, going from 100% to 99% already is a big deal: there already exists the chance that an attack will not be gone forward with.

In your opinion, but you have to add in the factor of survival. You only say "please stop. pretty please? Lets talk about it" for so long before you no longer exist.
As I said, I am a peaceful person, and I think discussion exists whenever possible. But that possibility can go away.


Thats also opinion. There are plenty of people who are 100% on things. Pick your controversial issue. Abortion, gay marriage, women in the military, jews existance, black slavery, white supremecy.
Thats why they are extremists. Sure, there are terrorists who would compromise and have Israel/Palestine as 2 states. But there are plenty of others who are 100% determined to destroy Israel and Jews.

Thats the problem with much of todays world. The leaders are extremists in their issues. Bush is convinced invading Iraq was right thing to do. For countless years now. I am 100% convinced it was the wrong thing to do.

Its a nice idealistic world to always sit down over coffee and work out your problems. But the world doesnt work that way. Its not a human thing, its a living thing. Animals, humans, everything that lives, essentially fights for domination, or existance.

Does the leader of a pack of tigers sit back and let a younger tiger take over? No, the younger one challenges the leader, and winner takes it. And although we posses higher brain functions, when it comes to survival and existance, we return to those basics that got us this far.

hey dk. i never said you can not show muscle! you can and you need to do so - but you can still seek to negotiate. you start by explaining consequences (which would be "war". One which is BACKED by most all countries, the UN, NATO, G7, WTO etc etc). you continue by explaining your demands and you end by asking how the country is going to get to those demands. if they continue, they know the consequences.

funny to say, but that IS much like we did with Iraq. that country even started handing over its weapons a few months before that "pre-emptive strike" ffs! don't tell me "negotiation" does not work!





that is your opinion and mine indeed is not alike. you have "plenty of others" who are 100% determined to destroy - whoever - given current circumstances. given certain prerequisites. Take away these prerequisites and they WILL change opinion / side / etc. etc.