What is Mrs Clinton on?

quote:

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.

Fred, I think we agree now on what Mrs C said - and it didn't state "nuclear" when she said she would attack. I think we agree that she reminded us all that the USA "would be able to" totally obliterate Iran - and we agree that this is probaly diplomatic-speak that the US has nuclear weapons that it could use. But, and its a very big but, she could have said "we would totally obliterate Iran". She didn't. She is keeping this option open and with it the option to use nuclear weapons.

Nothing to worry about. Iran has assured us all that it doesn't seek to develop nuclear weapons. So the whole issue is entirely hypothetical anyway. Plus I doubt whether Mrs C would secure a second term as President. So IF (big IF) Iran was lying about its nuclear ambitions, any reaction to an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel would probably rest with some other US President.

I can't imagine anybody in Iran loosing sleep over Mrs C's remarks.

Cheers

Don

Don

quote:

Nothing to worry about. Iran has assured us all that it doesn't seek to develop nuclear weapons.

It's all good then....

Would that be a bit like this, spoken on September 30th 1938?....'"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time."

Cheers

Jim

Fred's worried. I'm trying to offer him some reassurance.

Cheers

Don

Don

I don't think it is working....

Cheers

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
But, and its a very big but, she could have said "we would totally obliterate Iran". She didn't.

Clinton said: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)."

And in that attack "we would be able to totally obliterate them." There is no ambiguity whatsoever in her intended meaning, which everyone except Don, apparently, clearly understands to be: "If Iran nukes Israel, the USA will nuke Iran."

quote:

I can't imagine anybody in Iran loosing sleep over Mrs C's remarks.

No one, that is, except for 71,000,000 Iranians.

Sincerely,
Fred

quote:

No one, that is, except for 71,000,000 Iranians.

Only if they believe their own government is nuts enough to nuke Israel in the first place.

I am sorry, but I am having trouble keeping up here ... when one listens to Ms Clinton speak, how does one know where to put the parentheses ? Or, if taken from a "report" of the statement, how does one know, unambiguously, of course, that the person writing it down knows what they are talking about, parenthetically speaking. I can be so stu ...... sorry, almost jumped threads there.

Jeff A

quote:

And in that attack

Seems like we have been listening to different versions of her statement.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Lawson:
So I pose the question to you, Tony.
"if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel?"
What would you do if you were President?
Cheers
Jim

A legitimate question, nearly lost in the constant steering back to the second post, which (apparently)(I think I did that correctly) is receiving its due notice (I thought I actually understood it the first time).

So, Tony, FredCo, Jayd, Bruce, Don, Jim et all,

"if Iran 'nuked' (I think I'm getting it) Israel", what would you do
if you were President ?

I'm thinkin' a "time-out in the corner" would be a reasonable starting point - or would that be too reactionary ?

Discuss

What is Mrs. Clinton on?

Bill? Probably not.

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

And in that attack

Seems like we have been listening to different versions of her statement.

Don, if you go back and read again you'll see that the phrase "and in that attack" is mine, clearly marked by lack of quotes and italics. And it refers to the same attack stated in her first sentence.

Fred

'No matter who you vote for, the government always gets in'

(the late and great) Bill Hicks.

Not sure if I prefer the Bill version, or


Whoever you vote for, Government wins.

Crass


I would definitely pick Bill to provide me with a night of entertainment!

It is somewhat depressing though that about half of Americans appear to subscribe to the old anarchist line of:

"Don't vote, it only encourages them"!

Perhaps the process is too long? By the time the election comes all the candidates appear fairly lacking in integrity after twelve months of muck racking.

The trouble is that any candidate can only be human, and therefore absolutely prone to making mistakes. Mistakes that are gleefully jumped on by the other candidates or their supporters, as if anyone is the race is perfect.

I think the low turnouts in countries like the US and the UK are due to a relative complacency and negative electioneering as much as real apathy. Though I would say that there is apathy, but induced by the very candidates themselves, rather than inherent in the electorates ...

George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

I think the low turnouts in countries like the US and the UK are due to a relative complacency and negative electioneering as much as real apathy.

Actually, there has been record-breaking voter turnout across the board in the current US primary season.

I agree that in past elections apathy and complacency have resulted in low voter turnout, but the excitement generated by Obama and Clinton has reversed that trend.

By the way, I think those with the right to vote have a duty to vote, even if they have to hold their nose to do it. It's an absolute disgrace that many people who can, don't.

All best,
Fred

quote:

By the way, I think those with the right to vote have a duty to vote,

At last, something we agree upon!

However, we are often given a choice between two (or more) unsuitable candidates. I wouldn't wish to be "forced" to vote between the "devil" or "the deep blue sea". So there would have to be a blank entry or "none-of-the-above" that would count as a valid vote. If "none-of-the-above" won, there would have to be a re-election - no transferable votes.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

By the way, I think those with the right to vote have a duty to vote,

At last, something we agree upon!

I don't agree. Democracy means choice, and choosing to abstain is one of those options. It does NOT mean you have no right to criticise (as some suggest) because surely it can be seen as an active rejection of the available candidates rather than just apathy. It is the responsibility of the candidates to appeal to voters, voters should not be forced to choose (especially in a two horse race). I'd be happy if the ballot paper included a 'none of the above' vote to record an 'active abstention'.

I do not believe we should have compulsory voting in the UK at General Elections for these reasons.

Incidentally, I note that 3 US states still bar those with any prior felony conviction from voting. That is pretty disgusting to my mind. Surely such regulations should be nationally regulated and homogenous?

Bruce

When I find there are no candidates I wish to vote for in elections I always spoil my ballot paper with a suitable comment.

IMHO due to alarming erosions of our civil liberties we have even more of a duty to participate in democracy, at least as far as one can bear.

Hi Bruce,

I would generally agree with you. The entire basis of Liberal Democracy is that people should be as free as possible, without of course infringing the freedoms of others. I do not see how anyone’s choosing not to vote infringes anyone else’s liberties.

One small point.

quote:

Incidentally, I note that 3 US states still bar those with any prior felony conviction from voting. That is pretty disgusting to my mind. Surely such regulations should be nationally regulated and homogenous?

That is down to the separation of powers between the States and the Federal government, something which I would contend is a fantastic idea as it limits the excess of the centre at the expense of the periphery. True it seems unfair in this particular example, but I think increasing centralisation would be counterproductive. I don’t think it’s especially fair that Scottish students doing my course pay no fees when I do, but I don’t think Westminster removing those powers from the devolved parliament would be a proportionate or desirable response to that!

Regards,


Dom

Much as I agree re centralisation of power surely a national election should mean uniform national regulations. I can see that state governor elections might have local variations but we are talking about electing the President here.

Bruce

I would agree in the case of a national election. However, the US Presidential Election is not a national election; it is 50 separate elections to elect each State's representatives to the electoral collage, which in turn elects the President. This again being an ingenious method to prevent the more populous States dominating excessively. The right to decide who can and cannot vote is reserved to the States, except where they make rules that are unconstitutional, i.e. contravene the Bill of Rights.

Makes sense more now, thanks

Bruce

I always show up and take a ballot. If I don't like any of the candidates or measures, I submit my ballot and I have participated. I think that it is kind of lame to not even bother to show up and then complain about the state of democracy, gubment, etc...

DCT

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

By the way, I think those with the right to vote have a duty to vote,

At last, something we agree upon!

However, we are often given a choice between two (or more) unsuitable candidates. I wouldn't wish to be "forced" to vote between the "devil" or "the deep blue sea". So there would have to be a blank entry or "none-of-the-above" that would count as a valid vote. If "none-of-the-above" won, there would have to be a re-election - no transferable votes.

I can't think of a single presidential race in which I would not have voted for one of the two candidates, no matter how unenthusiastic I was about the candidate I'd chosen ... one can always vote to help keep the worse one out of office, and that's worthwhile enough.

McGovern? Carter? Mondale? Dukakis? Clinton? Gore? Kerry? Definitely worth my vote against Nixon, Reagan, Bush the Elder and Bush the Younger.

All best,
Fred