View Story | 340 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
were her supporters inanely chanting "Hillary" even after they'd read the sign.
Do any of them actually care that's she'd offered to wipe out millions of people? I'd suggest the supporters on display here have no souls, but I suspect the closer truth is they have no moral imaginations. They can't imagine the moral depravity Hillary is advocating --instead, they see the CodePink gambit as just one more instance of political theater. It's not so much that they don't have a conscience, it's just that they have become so innured to vilifying lies that when someone takes note of a statement that is truly horrendous --in or out of context -- their conscience isn't even engaged.
To paraphrase John Kenneth Galbraith, Republicanism is cruelty tempered by incompetence.
by DelicateMonster on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:04:34 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
nuclear strike on Israel, just what is the U.S. supposed to do with Iran after that? Write a stern letter? Tell them they were bad? What?
Hey, psssst... I heard that McCain wants to stay in perpetual war, so he'll institute a draft. Pass it on. (The republicans taught me well)
by gooderservice on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:16:57 AM PDT
because
What should happen NOW is diplomatic engagment--not nauseatingly stupid and inhumane saber rattling that can only further polarize the situation and potentially lead to such violence.
Good leaders understand that. Demogagic morons like Clinton apparently don't.
by DelicateMonster on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:20:17 AM PDT
What should happen NOW is diplomatic engagement
but should that fail in the years to come, and they do strike Israel, she's absolutely right what should follow.
by gooderservice on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:35:51 AM PDT
African slogan favored by T. Roosevelt: Talk softly, and carry a big stick?
When you pre-emptively threaten massive retaliation for someone who is actually relatively ineffective and innocuous what you do is actually create the threat that will make them want to arm. It becomes a kind of self-fulfiling prophecy--we've seen this repeated ad nauseam with the stupidity streaming from the Bush administration.
Intelligent, nuanced diplomacy generally follows the African proverb. Clinton's following Bush's lose lose advice: Bluster loudly then don't follow through. It's a cheap, demagogic political gambit that could well convince Tehran that, should HRC get elected, they really do need to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, if they hadn't been inclined to prior to that.
In the region there are three countries with historical records for preemptive violence and/or using nuclear weapons. The United States, Israel and Iraq. All of them have at one time or another been at war with Iran. But Iran has never instituted a pre-emptive war, nor do they have nuclear weapons.
Who do you think an objective observer would say is the greater threat to disability in the region? Turn off your "Israel first" preconceptions and start acting like a rational observer and you'd be surprised at just how hideous Clinton's remarks are.
by DelicateMonster on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:47:42 AM PDT
... I haven't written enough to explain it.
Turn off your "Israel first" preconceptions and start acting like a rational observer
I don't have an "Israel first" preconception; I have a U.S. first preconception.
I would insert the name of any country in place of Israel and advocate obliterating them if they launched a nuclear strike on any country.
Now you know and won't be wrong again.
by gooderservice on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:26:19 AM PDT
I doubt anyone will be so wrong as to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume your humanity again.
Perhaps now you'll explain why murdering millions of civilians would be an appropriate response to an act of aggression by a foreign government against a foreign country. Because I don't think you got to that yet, and I don't want to end up "wrong."
by Dems Did Manzanar on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:03:16 AM PDT
So no one ever, ever wrongly will give me the benefit of the doubt and presume my humanity.
But I want you to like me. It's so important.
"Act of aggression?" I would call a nuclear strike against people just a tad bit more than an "act of aggression." So we're obviously not talking about the same thing.
by gooderservice on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:29:34 PM PDT
about this statement
So, for example, if Israel decided to preemptively attack Iran to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons ( like they did against Iraq in the 1980s) and they used tactical nuclear weapons (which they have) should we nuke Israel?
by mhsteacher1 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:13:37 AM PDT
Insert Japan, and the country launching the attack is us, as that's the ONLY such attacks ever launched. Were there a more powerful country, by that reasoning, we deserved to be obliterated.
"We the People of the United States..." -U.S.Constitution
by elwior on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:34:57 AM PDT
"Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media." -- Noam Chomsky
by ratmach on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:10:05 PM PDT
I believe WE are the only nation on earth that has launched a nuclear attack against another nation and its people.
Thank US for being so belligerant that everyone on the US hit list wants their own nukes if only to deter the proven monster.
**Yeah, I'm mad! I've been paying attention.
by greylox on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:33:20 PM PDT
by elwior on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:30:12 AM PDT
for her to say obliterate Iran, and absolutely stupid for you to agree that is what should happen.
DelicateMonster's comments are completely correct.
Yours and Hillary's response are tragically ridiculous.
Irie.
Hillary and Bill ought to exit stage right from American politics
by pwr2thepeople on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:37:57 AM PDT
by ratmach on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:08:50 PM PDT
said Israel is a stinking corpse, so tha means that everybody in Iran deserves to die for having a stupid president.
Boy, it's a good thing we don't have that problem here in the U.S.
Uh. Except we do got a stupid president. Who has ordered invasions of two of Iran's neighboring countries.
Wait. Remind me again what Iran did to us that warrants all this talk of nuking again?
Are we really such a Nation of Bed Wetters that we need to talk about nuking a country because its idiot leader said mean things about one of our allies?
America: It's a good IDEA for a country ...
by Tony Seybert on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:23:52 AM PDT
.... because of their leaders, the U.S. should easily be the most hated country on earth. As bad as Ahmadinijan is, George W. Bush puts him to shame on the "evilness" scale.
by ratmach on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:14:05 PM PDT
He's unpopular with his own people, and he'll be out with the next election.
Roughly speaking, there are three centers of power in Iran. The Presidency, the military, and the clerics. And if I had to choose the weakest of the three, it wouldn't be the military or the clerics. If you want to know what Iran is going to do, watch the military and the clerics (OK, it's not so easy, they're both pretty secretive). Neither of them have a mutual-anhililation death-wish, which is what a serious direct attack on Israel would be.
Obama > Clinton >>> McCain
by lilnev on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:29:16 PM PDT
by Karma for All on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:21:19 AM PDT
initiated a pre-emptive strike against anyone...
If I had three wishes, one would to be alone one at a time with everyone from FAUX-NEWS for 7 min. in a closet with no retribution.
by fromdabak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:34:09 AM PDT
by Karma for All on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:39:15 AM PDT
Lebanon anyone? What about Syria and Iraq? Israel has bombed them all pre-emptively and war criminally.
by elliott on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:10:04 AM PDT
We're pro-choice on everything! - Libertarian slogan
by CA Libertarian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:32:24 AM PDT
by fromdabak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:08:29 PM PDT
by ratmach on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:15:33 PM PDT
by fromdabak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:07:59 PM PDT
They've already hit nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria, and we've done nothing but cheer.
by CA Libertarian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:28:06 AM PDT
their nuclear sites? Somebody had to do it.
by gooderservice on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:31:58 PM PDT
Israel is not the United States. Let them deal with their own problems. We are not the world police.
by blitz boy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:25:19 AM PDT
by fromdabak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:25:32 AM PDT
The U.S. should just sit back and watch Iran obliterate Israel, our only democratic ally in the Middle East, who has already done some work that helped the U.S.
Of course, after Israel is obliterated by Iran, the U.S. will have absolutely no problems in the future with the surrounding countries there. We'll be very safe, especially if we do nothing. Great plan.
On the other hand, if the good Iranian people truly realize that if they vote for a government that will obliterate Israel, that will hurt them, and therefore they can help not to empower that government.
Hillary didn't say if Iran is thinking about building a nuclear weapon; she said if Iran strikes Israel with a nuclear weapon. Big difference.
by gooderservice on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:33:57 AM PDT
capabilities to "obliterate" Israel, however Israel does have those capabilities.... The Iranian people voted for the nutcase because they were scared of being invaded by the U.S. like we did the country right next to them....
Last time I checked the U.S. and Israel are the ones in the Middle East dictating policies to everyone else in the region. We haven't been honest brokers in the region, because we take what our "allies" say as gospel and force it on the countries in the region....
by fromdabak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:38:19 AM PDT
Then it's a good thing you won't be the next president. The issue is future capabilities, not what exists the last time you checked.
by gooderservice on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:28:20 AM PDT
That's why we're in this incredible mess in Iraq now.
Because Bush got people to focus on mythical "future capabilities" instead of the reality of now - which itself he lied about.
The issue is actual, extant threats to the United States of America.
Which, last time I checked, is the only country whose constitution the president is sworn to protect and defend.
A president who would put the interests of another country above the national security interests of the United States is a traitor, plain and simple.
Just like George W. Bush.
by CA Libertarian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:43:05 AM PDT
Like Anthrax? How about dirty Bombs? So you think we should just go to War now because of what we think another country might be capable of?
Oh wait, we already did that in Iraq. That turned out so well, I guess we should just keep doing it?
You must be the change you want to see in the world. - Mahatma Gandhi
by fetalposition on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:15:49 PM PDT
can see that. The only thing that should give anyone pause about her doing this is that she would stoop to anything, including carelessly implying nuclear action by our nation, to win some votes. We all know this.
In the meantime, her words do nothing but encourage nations across the globe to try to get nukes. This is counter to Democratic core principles. Let's drop the pretense and facade. We know her for what she is: a politician with designs on winning elections, period.
by Karma for All on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:58:24 AM PDT
when Costa Rica obliterates St Thomas? What then?
Or Surinam nukes Botswana?
Get it? Hyped hypothetical events. And this is hilarious:
How's that worked out for us? Beacon of democracy and freedom for the world. We have War Criminals in the White House and our elected representatives won't touch impeachment.
And you expect the good Iranian people to do what?
Wake.The.Fuck.Up.
Your position and frantic hypothetical is crap.
Bottled hot water for dehydrated babies? WTF?!
by JVolvo on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:47:07 AM PDT
Perhaps they hold stocks in the Military-Industrial Complex.
There has to be some underlying motive.
A personal one, of course.
Just like with Republicans who vote so that they get tax cuts.
It's always a greedy and personal motive.
JOIN, or DIE.
by eroded47095 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:30:02 AM PDT
Israel has a second strike capability? That if Iran attacks Israel, Israel can "obliterate" Iran all by itself?
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/...
by mhsteacher1 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:18:27 AM PDT
Iran will NEVER attack Israel first. Not Ever. They ain't crazy and they DON'T attack other countries FIRST. Israel DOES.
So, cut the crap.
Really, who the fuck do you think yer bullshitting?
You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.
by mattman on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:50:04 PM PDT
... on this. It's not that "if Iran were to have a nuclear attack on Israel, blah blah blah... we could totally obliterate them." is in itself so wrong to say.
It's that in the context of the war we currently are in, hypothetical war threats have a way of fanning the flames of fear, animosity, and anger. This is not the kind of talk to throw out on the wind while we are siting on the brink of catastrophe.
Remember in the Bible it warns of "rumors of wars"? That's what she is playing into. and until she says I am sorry I said something so offensive, we can only assume that she actually meant it.
Either she has no discretion and humility, or she is looking more and more like a war-monger every day.
If you like Iraq, you're gonna love Iran.
by FundaMental Transformation on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:01:20 AM PDT
In one of the early debates last year, she refused to answer a similar question becuase it was dealing in hypotheticals. She only resorted to dealing in Hypotheticals herself in such an extreme way when her back was to the wall and she needed the votes of frightened White folk and the Jewish Community in PA.
by fetalposition on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:21:37 PM PDT
from using their nukes and turning the who region into a sheet of glass
--- Fight the stupid! Boycott BREAKING diaries!
by VelvetElvis on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:29:42 AM PDT
the dolphins would never have invented or used nuclear weapons. Maybe we're just the wrong species.
by lilnev on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:38:49 PM PDT
nuclear attack on Israel, the you are pretty fuckin' stupid and uninformed.
To do such, would be an act of suicide, if for no other reason than Israel would retaliate with nukes of its own.
Besides, Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program according to the NIE, so why is this way of thinking even entering your brain?
You've swallowed the propaganda Kool Aide. Bravo.
Maybe you belong on FreeRepublic or Red State.
by LivinginReality on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:48:31 AM PDT
if Ireland nukes Luxembourg, which is about as likely?
Barack Obama and the Democratic Party sold out the Constitution for the telcoms. They've lost my vote in 2008. I'm voting Green.
by simca on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:16:03 PM PDT
Try getting some info on this issue instead of playing hypotheticals.
Iran's only enriched uranium to industrial reactor levels of 5% purity. The USA and Israel enrich uranium to weapons grade purity of 90%.
Next, Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. Its centrifuges have blown up and are unreliable. Iran does nukes--about 200 of them.
Third, Iran has had not invaded other countries for 150 years. It forced out IRAQ from its territory and held land of Iraq for defensive purposes until the war was over in 1988. Think about how many countries Israel has invaded since 1982. Then try thinking about how many countries the USA has invaded since 1980. Then ask why the USA has 800 military bases around the world.
Fourth, if you want to get deeper in this, try to find a history of why communities of shepherds and farmers and villagers in 1982 decided to band together to form a southern Lebanese defense force to protect themselves from the Israelis who had invaded (and still occupy) their land and their farms. This group is called Hezbollah.
Next stop reading the blatherings of Lieberman or AIPAC and start reading the accounts online of people like you and me who live in Lebanon.
Lastly, start reading how Cheney, Bush, and Rice played along with Israel for its invasion of southern Lebanon in 2006 and how Rice did Israel's bidding. Then try to understand there is a difference between the Israeli people and the Israeli government and its army.
by Literacy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:48:24 PM PDT
If they are fully aware it makes it all the more frightening.
ROAD2DC ... IGTNT
by snackdoodle on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:18:14 AM PDT
are representative of elderly, white, (lower) middle class white population in America - women and men. She is presumably correct to say that she got the mostly lower and middle class white voter. Isn't that backed up by exit-polls? These voters don't care (as a general matter) about Iran or Iranians. They care about themselves and then maybe America. Many, many (too many) people had no qualms admitting they supported 'nuking 'em all' after 9/11.
by fightorleave on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:23:22 AM PDT
"Hillary, Hillary, Hillary!," completely disregarding the issue of threatening to obliterate a nation of over 65M people. Wow. Very depressing.
"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government....President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years." Al Gore
by psnyder on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:16:38 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 340 comments