ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 10/19/2017 03:59 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  3.791 Visits   10 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
04/23/2008 09:33 PM ID: 70219 Permalink   

Hillary Threatens to 'Obliterate' Iran

 

Hillary Clinton joined the rhetoric against Iran on Tuesday by touting the United States' ability to "totally obliterate" Iran. During an interview on Good Morning America, Hillary was questioned about a hypothetical nuclear attack against Israel.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," she responded. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Although Iran insists its nuclear program is purely for civilian purposes, Israel has stated it may strike Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent its acquisition of nuclear weapons. Iran has vowed to retaliate militarily if this occurs.

 
  Source: www.guardian.co.uk  
    WebReporter: smack Show Calling Card    
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  55 Comments
  
  More links and info  
 
Another source and link to the interview.

http://abcnews.go.com/...
http://www.youtube.com/...


It's my first submission, any constructive feedback is appreciated =)
 
  by: smack   04/23/2008 09:39 PM     
  Heres a good question  
 
How many countries has Iran attacked without provocation in the last 5, 10, 20 or 50 years? Now ask the same question about the US.

This pretty much sums up my point.
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/23/2008 09:54 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
Agreed. It just goes to show the hopelessness of the political climate in the US. It doesn't matter who gets elected, it will be more of the same.
 
  by: smack   04/23/2008 10:02 PM     
  This  
 
Woman will be the perfect example of BAD BOSS, just because she is a Woman.

Anybody wants an explanation to this bashing a woman pls feel free to poke.

(Isuzu getting his Kitana ready)
 
  by: isuzu     04/23/2008 10:06 PM     
  @isuzu  
 
Not to taunt, but think there's a lot more reasons why this particular Woman shouldn't be president. Her views on Censorship, Healthcare and Foreign Policy all scare the crap out of me.
 
  by: smack   04/23/2008 10:11 PM     
  this really pissed me off  
 
Clinton should be locked up for saying this. Apparently she never heard of the NIE which said Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. She's outright lying and threatening nuclear war. Threatening a non-aggressive nation is a war crime. It's in violation of the UN charter which is a treaty of the US. The talking heads always bring up the mistranslation that Iran wants to "wipe Israel off the map". In reality, it's the US and Israel which have repeatedly promised to wipe Iran off the map, and it's they who actually have the capability to do so.
 
  by: ManilaRyce     04/23/2008 10:19 PM     
  LOL  
 
i thought this was a new member posting fiction again. it's surprising. cause now repub's like her cause she is hardliner against iran.
 
  by: DRK   04/23/2008 10:42 PM     
  well  
 
thinking about it now. she wants to be america's thatcher.
 
  by: DRK   04/23/2008 10:45 PM     
  Good job smack!  
 
 
  by: caution2     04/23/2008 10:47 PM     
  Let's not get too carried away  
 
Lower in the source, the reporter notes:

"US policy, whether Republican or Democrat, is to retaliate with nuclear weapons against anyone launching a nuclear strike against Israel."

So really all Clinton is doing here is saying she will abide by U.S. policy. It's not the candidate at fault -- though she has plenty of faults -- in this instance; it's the policy of the United States we should be debating.
 
  by: l´anglais     04/23/2008 10:52 PM     
  Hillary Caved To The Bushites While In Congress  
 
She either believed in what they were doing or sold herself out. Not what I want in a leader.
 
  by: ichi     04/23/2008 11:01 PM     
  lol  
 
How gullible do you people get?
 
  by: steme   04/23/2008 11:07 PM     
  @l'anglais  
 
A valid point to some extent, but the real problem here is the choice of words.

Powerful rhetoric, whether just reiterating known policy or not, has reverberating political consequences.

In this case it severely damages any diplomatic progress we are making Iran.

What the hell ever happened to diplomacy in the U.S?

 
  by: smack   04/23/2008 11:16 PM     
  @l'anglais  
 
"So really all Clinton is doing here is saying she will abide by U.S. policy. It's not the candidate at fault"

No, Clinton is definitely at fault. The doctrine of massive response is a decision left up to the Commander in Chief. It is Hillary's decision whether or not to nuke Iran, and she's stating clearly that she will. Kennedy abandoned this policy during the Cuban Missile Crisis in favor of having more flexible policies which didn't bring us to the edge of nuclear holocaust everytime we felt threatened.

There is, however, a big difference between Iran and the Soviet Union. Iran hasn't attacked anyone since the 17th century and does not have nuclear weapons. So what's the threat to Israel? Israel considers Iranian support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to be a great enough threat for nuclear obliteration, and Hillary has made it clear that hostilities with Iran will increase if she is elected. Even Henry Kissinger is more in line with liberals on this issue, as he has recently promoted nuclear abolition. Clinton is arguing that we need to go back to Cold War tactics.
 
  by: ManilaRyce     04/23/2008 11:17 PM     
  @steme  
 
Are your only mockery and sarcasm? It's all I ever see you use.

You should really take a critical thinking class if you'd like to make any legit points with anyone that can think for themselves.

It may work for Sean Hanity, but you don't have a hang-up button or call screener.
 
  by: smack   04/23/2008 11:22 PM     
  @steme  
 
CORRECTION =)

Are your only tools of debate mockery and sarcasm? It's all I ever see you use.

You should really take a critical thinking class if you'd like to make any legit points with anyone that can think for themselves.

It may work for Sean Hanity, but you don't have a hang-up button or call screener.
 
  by: smack   04/23/2008 11:22 PM     
  @caution2  
 
Thanks, surprised no one beat me to this one =)
 
  by: smack   04/23/2008 11:26 PM     
  lol  
 
Some how I'm the one lacking critical thinking? Oh noes the losing candidate of a election is using G.W style tactics... Lets all panic and run around in shock...
 
  by: steme   04/23/2008 11:31 PM     
  @steme  
 
I asked you if sarcasm and mockery were your only tools of debate, and you answered with sarcasm and mockery.

D*mn good if you're point was to inject some clever irony into the situation, but I don't think you pulled it off.

FYI - Your straw man tactics need some work. You're not successfully & convincingly misrepresenting my argument.

The condescending "tone" gives it away. If you try it a bit more subtle it will be a lot more effective.
 
  by: smack   04/23/2008 11:42 PM     
  @Manilla  
 
You make an interesting point. I was aware that the massive response doctrine had gone the way of the dodo, but the source seemed to be referring to a different policy specifically regarding a nuclear strike against Israel. Can you shed any light on that? I've been digging around, but I haven't found anything yet.
 
  by: l´anglais     04/23/2008 11:50 PM     
  .  
 
Perhaps this should have been emboldened

"Hillary was questioned about a HYPOTHETICAL nuclear attack against Israel."

Israel would probably nuke the hell out of em before the US.
 
  by: keanu1982     04/23/2008 11:50 PM     
  @steme  
 
I asked you if sarcasm and mockery were your only tools of debate, and you answered with sarcasm and mockery.

D*mn good if you're point was to inject some clever irony into the situation, but I don't think you pulled it off.

FYI - Your straw man tactics need some work. You're not successfully & convincingly misrepresenting my argument.

The condescending "tone" gives it away. If you try it a bit more subtle it will be a lot more effective.
 
  by: smack   04/24/2008 12:03 AM     
  ShortNews  
 
Wow, just did a double-posting. Apparently it's bad to hit the refresh button shortly after submitting another comment.

I should brush up on my posting skills...
 
  by: smack   04/24/2008 12:11 AM     
  @l'anglais  
 
As far as i can tell, the source is saying that the doctrine of massive response has been applied to Israel by both Democratic and Republican presidents, but they're making it sound as if the president has no choice but to follow this outdated policy. That's incorrect.
 
  by: ManilaRyce     04/24/2008 12:12 AM     
  so  
 
So why didn't the interviewer then pose the, perhaps more likely, hypothetical scenario of Israel launching a nuclear attack on Iran. How would Hillary respond? Obliterating Israel perhaps?
 
  by: jendres     04/24/2008 12:50 AM     
  She's allready had 8 years as pres.  
 
She was pulling the string (literally, or maybe she wasn't >Koff..Monica..Koff<)and telling Bill what to say. Problem is I saw better ventriloquists at a grade school talent show. She just wants to pick-up where she left off. Reagan now there was a president.
 
  by: CaveHermit   04/24/2008 01:15 AM     
  @smack  
 
Great first submission, and well written as well. Keep up the good work.
 
  by: StarShadow     04/24/2008 01:30 AM     
  again  
 
Everyone doesn't even pay attention to "science," and they go right for the low blow. Uranium doesn't make the kind of nuclear bomb you need for "political purposese." This is what they are manufacturing, uranium, the same thing we use in our reactors here. They have never once been caught trying to steal/buy/man/bear/pig Plutonium, which is what you will need to make a really big "pop." Now I know some of you bastards sitting infront of your computer will say "but the WWII bombs we dropped in Japan were Uranium." I will say, true to that, but they used plutonium based wedges to strike the uranium to start the fission bomb. So again, I am correct, and no Iran isn't trying to obtain Plutonium. let them have nuclear power, geez. Why do we get bent out of shape trying to again waste all of our resources and force a country we hate to use only oil. It's absolutely stupid. I shill Ron Paul in for president, as he's the only person not stupid enough to get us into another war.
 
  by: meshuggahfan   04/24/2008 01:37 AM     
  America  
 
will continue to bully and be veered as a threat to the World's peace, if blatantly in your face attitude is to protect israel with all it's might, while israel is committing all kinds of atrocities to humanity.

Then you have Mccain who went to have the blessings, while this chihuahua is going to Nuke Iran IF???

XX Hillary. It seems like Master Puppeteers hand is buried deep in one of the orifices already...
 
  by: isuzu     04/24/2008 02:07 AM     
  Hilary Clintion's comment.  
 
This is very irresponsible of Hilary Clinton making a statement like this. And this is why we need a change in Washington, and I personally would never vote for her.
 
  by: xlzdk1   04/24/2008 02:19 AM     
  so she says  
 
I don't believe her. Sounds to more like hyped up rhetoric to appeal to the electorate (which it doesn't appeal to me). I think the best thing we as americans could do is to start completely over and tear down the govt. In the dec of independence it says if govt sucks the people have the right to abolish it and start again. I guarantee you if I or anyone else tried to do that and claim its in accordance with the declaration we'd (I) would be sent to guantanamo and labeled a 'terrorist' or 'insurgent' or 'anti-occupation rebel' or any other stupid label the bush bastards use.


Man Im worked up now!!
 
  by: RyanB     04/24/2008 02:27 AM     
  Hillary showed Amazing stupidity.  
 
Ok, so ya nuke Iran to ashes. You think fall out will remain behind borders? Israel would have so much radiation being so close it would have to be evacuated as well. I can't wait for the day I read that all the oil there has been pumped out cause the place will hold no international concern.
 
  by: ericcode   04/24/2008 03:05 AM     
  @ManilaRyce  
 
iran did attack. while iraq was the one to trigger the war. it is in fact iran even with the chaos of the change over to the ayatollah. they kick'ed saddam's troops asses. he slowly drove them back. when there was a pseudo cease fire it was IRAN that then started another MAJOR ATTACK against iraq, it was so bad he then sought chem weapons. reason iran had a comeback was they inlisted kurds already deep in the country to surprise attack his troops in the area to keep them busy as iran took hundreds of square miles of iraqi territory.
 
  by: DRK   04/24/2008 03:39 AM     
  2 Says They Do  
 
Isn't America and Israel the only countries that keep spouting that Iran has/will have Nukes? Even tho the countrie that have repeatedly been in Iran inspecting and stated Iran in fact does not have anything outside of the quest for a power source?

I am still curious as to why and how Israel has such a stronghold on American policy? I mean, what are they good for? Not being hateful, but Israel as a country outputs, and is good for ...... what? Can anyone tell me? In what fashion does Israel benifit America as to have America risk being in a nuclear war on the other side of the globe?
 
  by: Discarded Vet   04/24/2008 04:05 AM     
  Hillary  
 
should be fighting the US policy. There is no evidence that Iran is a threat to the US. In fact ALL of your intelligence agencies have agreed Iran has no nuclear weapons program.

She's just lost whatever little respect I had left for her. In the absence of Edwards and Kucinich, Obama all the way please.
 
  by: p_g_chris   04/24/2008 04:30 AM     
  Hillary, Hillary...  
 
Well, I'm still voting for her. I've been keeping tabs here and there of stuff she's said. What she said sounded reactionary. If anyone were to attack Britain, the US would retaliate against whoever started it. I think she was reacting to "what if Iran attacked Israel first..."

Regardless if Israel started the attack first, without provocation. They'd have a lot of things to answer for and it makes me wonder if our government would even back their actions 100%. I'm not in favor for letting an allied nation attack a questionable nation; even for the reasons put forth. It's retarded.

Don't worry, there's going to be another revolutionary war within the next 100 years at some point and it's not going to be against other countries; it'll be against our own countrymen. Treat the people like dog and they'll bite back. Matter of time.
 
  by: Quintessence   04/24/2008 06:37 AM     
  @DRK  
 
You say that Iran attacked Iraq, then say that Iraq started the war in the next sentence. What exactly are you trying to argue here?

Saddam wanted to invade Iran since before he was president to strengthen his oil trade and elevate Iraq as a great regional power. In 1979, the pro-American Shah of Iran was ousted in the Iranian Revolution, and replaced by the Ayatollah Khomeini. Since Iran no longer had Western support, its army was in a degenerating state and the country was fairly unstable. Saddam saw this as the perfect time to strike and the US provided him with intelligence, economic aid, and weapons (some of which he gassed the Iranians and later the Kurds with).
 
  by: ManilaRyce     04/24/2008 06:41 AM     
  @Quintessence  
 
Soooo, why are you voting for this war criminal again?
 
  by: ManilaRyce     04/24/2008 06:43 AM     
  @manilla  
 
did you read what i wrote again? slowly? try it again.

you argued IRAN hasn't attacked anyon since the 17th century. even though saddam started the war between the countries. there was a so called cease fire. during that time the iranian forces reorganized and did a major attack that drove saddam to a desperate point where chem weapons halted their deep advance into the country. they almost took mosul even with the chem weapon usage.
 
  by: DRK   04/24/2008 07:19 AM     
  I still think this is overblown  
 
I'm reminded of how, during the 2004 presidential debates, Kerry said he would "track down the terrorists; find them; and kill them!" I think candidates are coached to occasionally engage in this kind of tough-guy talk; Hillary maybe even more so, since she's not a guy.

Campaign managers probably think it's a winning move to have their candidates rattle their sabers now and again. Sad thing, it probably works with a lot of people.
 
  by: l´anglais     04/24/2008 07:37 AM     
  @ l'anglais  
 
"....winning move to have their candidates rattle their sabers now and again...."

I'm not too sure about that, this time around. Every American and non-American I talk to is sick of the whole idea of war with anyone - and rightfully so. I know I DAMN SURE AM !!
 
  by: Discarded Vet   04/24/2008 07:41 AM     
  I can think of 8  
 
Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Kurdistan

All countries that have been attacked or occupied by Iranian armed forces or forces armed and trained by the Iranians.

Then there is of course Kuwiats oil tankers during the Iran Iraq war.
 
  by: CapitalistPig     04/24/2008 10:03 AM     
  Nuclear war  
 
is not something to be taken so lightly as this retarded woman seems to have.

There was a story on SN recently about how even a small nuclear conflict could have catastrophic consequences on the environment and global ecosystem. It's all very well talking rubbish about obliterating people, however, I wonder how many patriotic Americans would be celebrating after the dust cloud turned their country to perpetual night, the crops failed and they froze and starved? Not so smart then.

That's without mentioning the radiation cloud which could blow any which way the wind went poisoning all in its path. The poisoned sea as the rivers deposit radioactive crap into them obliterating the fish stocks. How about the acid rain which would get blown round the world and poison all our water supplies?

Basically, this stupid woman, with one sentence, threatened (potentially) the lives of every human being and animal on the planet. Will America be dumb enough to vote her in though?

Oh and Smack - good story, welcome to SN :-)
 
  by: Maxx20     04/24/2008 11:11 AM     
  @smack  
 
It's been said already but I'll repeat it: good first summary!
 
  by: ixuzus     04/24/2008 12:13 PM     
  @CapitalistPig  
 
>> Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, Syria,
>>Lebanon, Palestine, Kurdistan
>>All countries that have been
>>attacked or occupied by Iranian
>>armed forces

Please show how and when Iran attacked any of these countries within the past 100 years.

When I look up my history books, I can find several internal coups (rebellion and such) and several instances of Iran being attacked by other nations.
In total approx. 15 dozen military incidences Iran was involved in during the past 100 years. But I can't find any credible proof for your claim that any of these military operations were triggered by Iran.

When I then turn the pages to the USA, I find a list of over 50 such military operations the US was involved in during the past 100 years. Many of which were actually initiated by the US.

When I then flip through the pages of all other nations in the world, there is none that has started and fought in even closely as many wars as the US.
So if the USA is really wanting to make the world a better place, they would nuke themselves. That would end the majority of military struggles on this planet instantly - leading to a better, safer and more peaceful world.
 
  by: scrut999   04/24/2008 12:56 PM     
  Great Job!  
 
Superbly written & very informative! Keep it up!!
 
  by: sparks08   04/24/2008 04:38 PM     
  correction  
 
Not 15 dozen.
1 dozen
 
  by: scrut999   04/24/2008 05:19 PM     
  @StarShadow @ixuzus @sparks  
 
Thanks for the positive feedback... I'll try to keep them coming! =)
 
  by: smack   04/24/2008 07:27 PM     
  Well-- what do you expect her to answer?  
 
a. "Well, we would enter negotiations and surrender to Iran."

b. "I would personally go to Iran and congratulate them."

c. "Screw the lobbyists, destroy the Zionist presence in the Holy Land! Inshallah!"



 
  by: theironboard     04/24/2008 09:21 PM     
  AIPAC  
 
AIPAC -- American Israel Public Affairs Committee is pushing big for a war in Iran like they pushed for Iraq. Stop the Zionists!
 
  by: FoxSecurity   04/24/2008 09:44 PM     
  US politica needs an overhaul  
 
scrut999

Great point and post. That about sums it up.

Discarded Vet

Hillary Clinton is in essence a puppet of the pro-israel lobbies and interests which are bankrolling her candidacy. She has no option but to toe the line of her paymasters. Even Obama is being made to jump through similar hoops.

There is a lot of things wrong with US politics and one of the biggest is that ALL presidential candidates out there (Republican or Democrat) are beholded to pro Israel (Zionist) interests. They are courting and chasing the same money.


Unless something changes in US politics, the pro Israel (neo-con zionist) elements in the US will always hijack US politics to serve Israel.

Call me a conspiracy nut. However, all the big players in US politics, Hollywood, US main stream Media, Majority of US senators, major US banks (including the FDR), US big business and the Evangelical Christians are all Pro Israel and that creates a lot of pressure on any US presidential candidate through their finance and support to ensure that they deliver a pro Israel agenda at the expense even of the US interest and the US tax payer.

AIPAC a pro Israel lobby is one of the strongest lobbies that skews US politics towards serving Israeli (Zionist) interests.


Israel does NOT benefit the US. However, it derives a lot of benefit from the US more than even a lot of US citizens.

 
  by: mosaddique   04/24/2008 10:58 PM     
  @ mosaddique  
 
".....big players in US politics, Hollywood, US main stream Media, Majority of US senators, major US banks (including the FDR), US big business and the Evangelical Christians are all Pro Israel ....."

That's what I am trying to figure out the "why" to. Why does everyone seem to bow to Israel. What has Israel done for the world, and all these people that adhere to their wishes?
 
  by: Discarded Vet   04/25/2008 08:59 PM     
  @Discarded Vet  
 
My take in answer yo your question is this:

I believe, that the zionists are very clever and they have, over a long period of time, obtained control over key levers of power and institutions.

If you study these institutions closely you will see that the power bokers, mover and shakers are either zionist or pro zionists.

Sectretive (and non secretive) organisations exist (e.g. the freemasons, Bilderberg Group, AIPAC, Rupert Murdoch (foxnews), etc) who use their immense wealth and existing power bases to ensure that only those who are prepared to serve these interests get to positions of power.

Anybody who is against their interests are hounded out of office by various means.

A book by Ex Senator Paul Findlay titled "They dare to speak out" on this subject is an instructive read. This book is about how AIPAC operates in the US.


Thus it is more about how they ensured their writ runs large in the key areas of international power politics and commerce.

Another long story I will hint at at but it requires a detailed analysis. The interest based economy works to the advantage of these interests in ensuring that all money flows their way and thus they eventually buy up everything leaving the world saddled with debt and themselves as powerfull banker barons with power to shape events. This is a very complicated game which needs in depth study to understand the inherent evil within it.


The upshot is that the power they weild behind the scenes is immense and they can even force governments around the world to legislate on their behalf.

Just look at the holocaust and the anti-semitism industry.

As I said until the "people" take control over their politics and finance (the FDR should be publicly owned), there is little hope of countering this zionist threat that is a danger for the US and the world.
 
  by: mosaddique   04/26/2008 02:19 PM     
  @reality check  
 
for anyone thinking this is US policy, end of story ... think again ...

Obama has said that he will immediately speak with Iran, Syria & North Korea without precondition.

Hillary is 4 more years of the same types of approach that we've already seen fail horribly. support Obama, change the approach!
 
  by: bpearson   04/29/2008 01:54 AM     
  Shoot first  
 
Great policy Hillary, it worked in Vietnam, it worked in Korea and it is so working in Iraq. Is there anything you can't do with a gun Hillary? Oh, yeah, promote peace.
 
  by: grumpy ray     04/30/2008 11:05 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2017 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com