What is Mrs Clinton on?
Posted by: Tony Lockhart on 22 April 2008
"If I'm the president, we will attack Iran... we would be able to totally obliterate them,"
Ok, the context was what if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel, but still.... I wonder if Bill cringed?
Tony
Ok, the context was what if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel, but still.... I wonder if Bill cringed?
Tony
Posted on: 23 April 2008 by fred simon
quote:Originally posted by Jim Lawson:
Fred
We've learned to live with yours....
Oh, so it's pile-on time now? I wasn't addressing you, Jim.
Fred
Posted on: 23 April 2008 by jayd
What I said:
What you represented as my meaning:
Please don't abstract a word from my post and use it in a completely different context, while suggesting your meaning was my own. It's dishonest. I gave my opinion of the scenario and the question posed by the ad; you turned it into an approval of Clinton's tactics.
quote:Clinton's "fear-mongering" ad <snip> painted a realistic scenario, and asked a relevant question.
What you represented as my meaning:
quote:Originally posted by fred simon:
if you think this is a "realistic" and reasonable campaign tactic, fine.
Please don't abstract a word from my post and use it in a completely different context, while suggesting your meaning was my own. It's dishonest. I gave my opinion of the scenario and the question posed by the ad; you turned it into an approval of Clinton's tactics.
Posted on: 23 April 2008 by jayd
quote:Originally posted by fred simon:quote:Originally posted by Jim Lawson:
Fred
We've learned to live with yours....
Oh, so it's pile-on time now? I wasn't addressing you, Jim.
Fred
Hi Fred. Sorry for butting in, because I know you weren't addressing me, but I just had to say... I'm not 100% sure you fully grasp the notion of how a public forum works. All readers can read all comments, and (I believe) are free to respond to them. If I'm wrong about this, I apologize.
Posted on: 24 April 2008 by KenM
quote:Clinton's "fear-mongering" ad didn't mention Obama. It painted a realistic scenario, and asked a relevant question
Jayd,
Given that Israel has nuclear weapons, and given that Iran does not, how can the scenario painted by Mrs. C be realistic? If only for that reason, I would have thought that an initial strike by Israel was more likely.
Iran is in a difficult situation as an oil-rich nation threatened by the large US occupying force in Iraq and subjected to constant threats by Israel and the US. In their situation, would it be surprising if they wanted nuclear arms?
Ken
Posted on: 24 April 2008 by Roy T
I wonder if Mrs C is willing to reassure the whole wide World that she would be just as quick to use American nuclear weapons to defend NATO countries if they attacked by Iran? After all an attack on any NATO country is an attack on all and iirc this is written into the NATO treaty.
Posted on: 24 April 2008 by jayd
quote:Originally posted by KenM:
Jayd,
Given that Israel has nuclear weapons, and given that Iran does not, how can the scenario painted by Mrs. C be realistic? If only for that reason, I would have thought that an initial strike by Israel was more likely.
Iran is in a difficult situation as an oil-rich nation threatened by the large US occupying force in Iraq and subjected to constant threats by Israel and the US. In their situation, would it be surprising if they wanted nuclear arms?
Ken
KenM,
I have a strong suspicion you haven't seen the ad I'm discussing. In fact, judging from what you wrote, I'm nearly sure of it. However, don't let that get in your way. Please continue.
Posted on: 24 April 2008 by KenM
jayd,
Do you mean this one?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7361509.stm
I stand by my earlier remarks.
Ken
Do you mean this one?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7361509.stm
I stand by my earlier remarks.
Ken
Posted on: 24 April 2008 by jayd
quote:Originally posted by KenM:
jayd,
Do you mean this one?
No. Actually, that's an interview. An ad is somewhat different.
Posted on: 24 April 2008 by KenM
I have not seen an advertisement on this topic, and based my reamrks on the interview. I thought that it was irresponsible scaremongering of the worst possible sort, and I was disappointed by Mrs Clinton.
Is the advertisement significantly different in its content? If so, then in what way?
I thought that this thread referred to her remarks during this interview, but perhaps you want to extend the topic.
Ken
Is the advertisement significantly different in its content? If so, then in what way?
I thought that this thread referred to her remarks during this interview, but perhaps you want to extend the topic.
Ken
Posted on: 24 April 2008 by Don Atkinson
Guys,
Cool down. Fred is up to his usual tricks of scaremongering.
Either read what Clinton said or listen carefully to what she said in the video clip.
Iran makes the nuclaer strike.
Clinton never once said that she would launch a nuclear strike.
She did say the US would be able to obliterate Iran, not that they would obliterate Iran.
Also, probably worth noting, that by the time Iran gets its hands on a nuclear weapon and delivery system (and remenber they have assured us all they have no such ambitions), the next President of the USA will probably have been replaced. So it won't be Clinton's decision any how!!!!!
Cheers
Don
Cool down. Fred is up to his usual tricks of scaremongering.
Either read what Clinton said or listen carefully to what she said in the video clip.
Iran makes the nuclaer strike.
Clinton never once said that she would launch a nuclear strike.
She did say the US would be able to obliterate Iran, not that they would obliterate Iran.
Also, probably worth noting, that by the time Iran gets its hands on a nuclear weapon and delivery system (and remenber they have assured us all they have no such ambitions), the next President of the USA will probably have been replaced. So it won't be Clinton's decision any how!!!!!
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 24 April 2008 by fred simon
quote:Originally posted by KenM:
Is the advertisement significantly different in its content? If so, then in what way? I thought that this thread referred to her remarks during this interview, but perhaps you want to extend the topic.
Hi Ken,
The TV ad makes no mention of her threat to obliterate Iran if they attack Israel with nukes, but does serve up a generous portion of fear mongering and saber rattling, using imagery of Pearl Harbor, 9/11, and bin Laden. Right out of the Karl Rove play book.
All best,
Fred
Posted on: 24 April 2008 by fred simon
quote:Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Cool down. Fred is up to his usual tricks of scaremongering ...
... Clinton never once said that she would launch a nuclear strike.
Excuse me, Don, but I'm going to ask that you retract your disparaging implication here ... I never said that Clinton said she would attack Iran without provocation. In fact, I was the first poster to this thread to correct and chastise that mistaken premise. Here is what I wrote in the second message of this thread:
However, please let's not make it even worse by misstating the actual quote. She didn't say "If I'm the president, we will attack Iran," and it's inflammatory to imply that she did.
As you note, her context was that if Iran nuked Israel, the USA would nuke Iran.
Sincerely,
Fred
Posted on: 24 April 2008 by Jim Lawson
Such a douche bag.....
Posted on: 24 April 2008 by Bruce Woodhouse
Letter in The Guardian yesterday on the lines of 'I wonder how Mrs Clinton would respond if asked wether the US would obliterate Israel if it should attack Iran. After all, seems more likely'. Made me smile.
Bruce
Bruce
Posted on: 25 April 2008 by Don Atkinson
quote:Excuse me, Don, but I'm going to ask that you retract your disparaging implication
Fred,
We are at a tremendous disadvantage over here. We have only the BBC and one or two newspapers who report who said what and when. It isn't always obvious whether the reports are in context or taken out of context. I should be grateful if you would make it clear whether you were actually there, at the interview, when Mrs C made her remarks, or whether like me, you are relying on various news reports including the video clip posted in this thread. My ONLY sources of information on this particular subject are the BBC news at 10 o'clock a couple of nights ago, the BBC webb page, the video clip in this thread and of course, the comments of others in this thread.
First, YOU are (unwittingly?) using scaremongering tactics in this thread. All poiticians do it. We all do it. Its life. Not everybody is taken in by it. It is quite often counter-productive. You said it always works. You are wrong.
YOU have twice said the USA would nuke Iran. Mrs C never said that. YOU have interpreted it that way and want to ensure that others follow suit - that is scaremongering. She might even have intended it to be interpreted that way - who knows?. But she didn't say it, at least not in the news reports I have quoted above.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 25 April 2008 by KenM
Don,
If there is a way to obliterate a country without nuclear weapons, I have yet to hear of it. Mrs Clinton did not say that she would use nuclear weapons, but how else would she do it?
And I wasn't present at the interview either.
Ken
If there is a way to obliterate a country without nuclear weapons, I have yet to hear of it. Mrs Clinton did not say that she would use nuclear weapons, but how else would she do it?
And I wasn't present at the interview either.
Ken
Posted on: 25 April 2008 by Don Atkinson
Ken,
Like Fred and one or two others, you are either frightened or scaremongering.
Mrs C said if she were president, the US would attack Iran (if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel). No mention of a US nuclear attack - either pre-emptive or retaliatory. If you heard different I'd like to know when and where you heard it.
In the same part of the interview she also said that the US would be able to totally obliterate Iran and that their leadrers need to know that. She didn't say the US would obliterate Iran.
I have no doubt she chose her words carefully. OTOH, in her position, I wouldn't have responded in the same way as she did, even if I had every intention of using nuclear weapons to obliterate Iran in retaliation of an attack on Israel.
Cheers
Don
Like Fred and one or two others, you are either frightened or scaremongering.
Mrs C said if she were president, the US would attack Iran (if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel). No mention of a US nuclear attack - either pre-emptive or retaliatory. If you heard different I'd like to know when and where you heard it.
In the same part of the interview she also said that the US would be able to totally obliterate Iran and that their leadrers need to know that. She didn't say the US would obliterate Iran.
I have no doubt she chose her words carefully. OTOH, in her position, I wouldn't have responded in the same way as she did, even if I had every intention of using nuclear weapons to obliterate Iran in retaliation of an attack on Israel.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 25 April 2008 by jayd
quote:Originally posted by KenM:
If there is a way to obliterate a country without nuclear weapons, I have yet to hear of it.
link
Posted on: 25 April 2008 by u5227470736789524
quote:Originally posted by KenM:
If there is a way to obliterate a country without nuclear weapons, I have yet to hear of it.
Force them to read political threads on the Naim forum while listening to Fred's music ?
Posted on: 25 April 2008 by Jim Lawson
LOL
Posted on: 25 April 2008 by KenM
quote:Like Fred and one or two others, you are either frightened or scaremongering.
Of course, I'm frightened. Not to the extent of hiding under the bed, but certainly concerned. The world is a dangerous place and statements like that of Mrs Clinton make it no safer. The US and UK have embarked on a counter-productive, unwinnable war in Iraq and are tied down by the Taleban in Afghanistan. And she is contemplating further military action?
Ken
Posted on: 25 April 2008 by Don Atkinson
quote:And she is contemplating further military action?
Nope, that would imply a pre-emptive strike/invasion. Mrs C didn't state or imply any sort of pre-emptive attack.
Try to keep these things in perspective.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 25 April 2008 by KenM
In my book, "military action" does not in any way imply "pre-emptive". To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.
Ken
Ken
Posted on: 26 April 2008 by fred simon
quote:Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
I should be grateful if you would make it clear whether you were actually there, at the interview, when Mrs C made her remarks, or whether like me, you are relying on various news reports including the video clip posted in this thread.
YOU have twice said the USA would nuke Iran. Mrs C never said that.
Don, now you're just playing word games. Here is what Hillary Clinton said:
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.
"Totally obliterate" ... there is no other way to interpret that other than that she is threatening nuclear retaliation to a hypothetical nuclear attack by Iran on Israel. I don't care how you want to spin this, Don, but you know it, I know it, everyone knows it ... that's what she was saying.
"Totally obliterate" is widely accepted diplomatic code for a nuclear attack. Back in the days of the Vietnam war, General Curtis LeMay talked about using nuclear weapons against North Vietnam, but he used phrases like turning Vietnam into a "parking lot," or bombing them "back to the Stone Age." Everybody knew damn well what he meant.
If you truly don't think that's what Hillary meant, then you are uninformed and naive. But I actually think that's not the case ... I think you're just being disingenuous for the sake of it. Case in point ... what's this nonsense about whether I was "actually there" for the interview? What ... you think someone doctored the tape?
I will also remind you yet again that although this thread started with a misstatement of Hillary's comment, that she threatened to attack Iran, I was the first one to correct that and to chastise the inflammatory nature of that misstatement. Lord knows that what she actually said is bad enough.
Finally, am I frightened? Hell, yes! Anyone who isn't frightened by the state of the world isn't paying attention.
Sincerely,
Fred
Posted on: 26 April 2008 by u5227470736789524
Well, I got up this morning at 2 am after another night of nearly no sleep. Planning a long day of music listening and enjoying the exact same three meals I have eaten every day for the last five years.
It will be a great day no matter, as I am spending the evening with 10 or 12 friends who will gorge themselves on food and drink while I share only the joy of their friendship and sharing time with people I love and by whom I am loved.
I will leave the saving of the world to you, Fred ...
"It don't mean shit to a tree"
Jeff A
It will be a great day no matter, as I am spending the evening with 10 or 12 friends who will gorge themselves on food and drink while I share only the joy of their friendship and sharing time with people I love and by whom I am loved.
I will leave the saving of the world to you, Fred ...
"It don't mean shit to a tree"
Jeff A