Clinton says the US could totally obliterate Iran

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by HornsInTheHouse, Apr 22, 2008.

  1. HornsInTheHouse

    HornsInTheHouse 500+ Posts

    Hillary Clinton said she could "totally obliterate Iran" is it attached Israel with atomic weapons. Not much subtlety in that. It means kill every single Iranian and destroy every piece of infrastructure in the country. The mighty conventional American military can't destroy the military component without killing 70 million Iranians? Clinton is probably doing this to look tough and appease the hard-line pro-Israel crowd.

    How ironic that the protection of Israel, a country set up as reparation for the Holocaust, is secured through the threatened genocide of another nation.

    Reuters
     
  2. YouTeeAye

    YouTeeAye 100+ Posts

    Well Clinton is a dumbass then. But the choad that is Iran's president, he needs to be obliterated ... piece by piece.
     
  3. EuroHorn

    EuroHorn 2,500+ Posts

    I think that statement is correct. And we wouldn't even have to invade.
     
  4. Wild Bill

    Wild Bill 1,000+ Posts

    I think she said it to shore up the white male and Jewish vote.
     
  5. Dr.Strangehorn

    Dr.Strangehorn 100+ Posts


     
  6. UT-69745551

    UT-69745551 250+ Posts

    Its easy to sell fear in this country. Bush did it well. Hillary is a little smarter. Having said that, if obliterating Iran or another 3rd world country would guarantee her election, she'd probably push the button without losing sleep.
     
  7. Mr.Wizard

    Mr.Wizard 1,000+ Posts

    The body language was unflinching, I thought it was effective.

    If Iran knows the outcome, why even agitate Israel, nipped it in the bud.
     
  8. MaduroUTMB

    MaduroUTMB 2,500+ Posts

    Nothing says "tough foreign policy" like threats to nuke a bunch of random brown people.

    Honestly, Iran's 30% unemployment rate and resulting asshat leader make the situation over there pretty clear. The Persians want money and respect. That's it. They don't want to attack the Jews and they don't want to build nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad is a hindrance the second that the EU and US allow Iran to sell its oil.
     
  9. HornsHornsHorns

    HornsHornsHorns 500+ Posts

    I finally agree with Hilary on something.
     
  10. uberheadymagical

    uberheadymagical 250+ Posts

    Well, she's right.
     
  11. UT-69745551

    UT-69745551 250+ Posts

    Now this is getting scary. Bush's brain inside of Hillary's body. She must be getting advice from Carletta Rove.
     
  12. bozo_casanova

    bozo_casanova 2,500+ Posts

    She is correct, we could totally obliterate Iran.
     
  13. washparkhorn

    washparkhorn 2,500+ Posts

    Neocons everywhere! There! And over there! Oh, and under that rock!
     
  14. Hayden_Horn

    Hayden_Horn 1,000+ Posts

    just because it is a fact does not necessarily mean that she should be saying it.

    that said, maduro is spot on, as he often is.
     
  15. Napoleon

    Napoleon 2,500+ Posts


     
  16. TexonLongIsland

    TexonLongIsland 2,500+ Posts


     
  17. bozo_casanova

    bozo_casanova 2,500+ Posts


     
  18. HornsInTheHouse

    HornsInTheHouse 500+ Posts


     
  19. rickysrun

    rickysrun 2,500+ Posts

    Most important thing a president does is make sure there is no confusion about who's in charge, and who is the world's only superpower. After she's sworn in, she needs to walk right down to the Situation Room and blow Iran off the face of the Earth Set the tone for your first 4 years.
     
  20. Brubricker

    Brubricker 250+ Posts

    Five years ago we were damn-sure certain of our ability to obliterate Iraq. Looks like we've really done it, too. Just look at where it's left our army today.

    Let's do it all over AGAIN!! We can OBLITERATE Iran!! WOOHOO! [​IMG]
     
  21. Summerof79

    Summerof79 2,500+ Posts

    She is correct.

    Assinine comparisons to neocons who LOOKED for a reason to invade Iraq to promote their visions of flag waving democracy is unnecessary, but expected. Not that I don't think Wash understands the difference, more of a knee jerk defense of his love for Bush and co.

    UT-69745551- better look really closely at the timing of Bush's "rollout" on Iraq in the months before the 2002 election if you want to see the real use of War as an election tool. (The decision was largely made in the Spring a a hint)
     
  22. Statalyzer

    Statalyzer 10,000+ Posts


     
  23. Nolalonghorn16

    Nolalonghorn16 250+ Posts

    She didn't say could, she said would. One suggests ability, the other suggests intent.

    Plus, we survived 40 years of the Cold War under a philosophy of Mutually Assured Destruction. The nuclear threat is certainly nothing new.
     
  24. accuratehorn

    accuratehorn 10,000+ Posts

    It certainly would get her presidency started off with a bang.
     
  25. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    I'm not a Clinton fan, but put me in the "nothing to see here" group. She's talking about a situation where Iran decides to use nuclear weapons on another country. Her response would I assume have been the same had it been any other country not named "China" or "Russia." (And it might have been the same for those two, I'm just not sure how she would have responded to that particular question.)

    As many have pointed out, she's not saying anything that practically any sitting president since Truman would not also have said. And she is not talking about invasion, as I understand it, she is talking about a nuclear response or some other massive missile attack.
     
  26. HornsInTheHouse

    HornsInTheHouse 500+ Posts


     
  27. Statalyzer

    Statalyzer 10,000+ Posts

    I might agree with you if they hadn't threatened to use nuclear missiles in a first-strike on previous occasions.
     
  28. Super

    Super 500+ Posts

    She's saber-rattling to look like a tough guy.
     
  29. Dr.Strangehorn

    Dr.Strangehorn 100+ Posts


     
  30. cloydtex

    cloydtex 250+ Posts


     

Share This Page