Hillary Clinton is Willing to Nuke Iran

Hillary Clinton Is Willing to Nuke Iran

Go to website for video.

1959- The US gives Iran a 5-megawatt nuclear reactor which became operational in 1967
Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it in 1970.
The Islamic Revolution in 1979 saw the overthrow of a CIA back Dictatorship-The Shah


Israel, a nuclear state, has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. By NOT declaring nuclear capabilities, Israel doesn't have to let inspectors in!

The Iranians took their own country back, to escape Britain and US control of their oil. And to rid themselves of a brutal dictatorship!

Iran isn't a threat to the US, nor is Iran a threat to Israel!
It's the US and Israel that has been threatening Iran!
Hillary Clinton is Pro-Nuclear-War!
She must be STOPPED!!!

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18285.htm

 

Would you like to show me a candidate who wouldn't be willing to nuke Iran?

...other than Dennis Kucinich?

 

Nuking Iran is the dumbest idea I have ever heard, and as I posted in another thread would be a terrible idea. No one is going to nuke Iran, regardless of what you have heard or people have said.

 

may be because she is a favorite of zionists?
http://www.forward.com/articles/hillary-the-favorite-in-race-for-jewish-donations/

 

Or maybe because its just the dumbest idea I have ever heard. The Jews have nothing to do with this.

 

So? We gave technology to a friendly state on the assumption that it would be used peacefully.

I don't understand why libertarians and liberals are utterly unable to grasp the concept that a temporary alliance of convenience against a mutual enemy (the Soviets) is nota perpetual ringing endorsement of their ideology. Welcome to the world of international relations, where states change and so do the relationships between them.

So?

Wait, let me get this straight: you're complaining that a state which did sign the treaty should get a free pass to flaunt its terms because a neighboring state which did not sign it and is therefore not obligated to follow it is not following it. This makes no sense.

No, they "took their own country back" because the shah was seen as a U.S. puppet, and no other reason.

To rid themselves of a brutal dictatorship? You have to be kidding me. They set up a blood-soaked theocracy in the place of the old nominally secular monarchy that preceded it. Iran is far more a brutal dictatorship today than it was under the shah.

I know how things are in libertarian la-la land, where no revolution ever ends badly, but this one did. They are no freer of dictators today than they were in the days of the shah. The only thing they have today that they didn't have entirely then was autonomy. And that means nothing except that they bring whatever they get on thier own heads.

Prove it.

International relations is a game of probability; it always has been. If all we have to go on is a a puppet-dictator (Ahmadinejad) who has said it's OK to nuke Israel being manipulated by clerics who have said it's OK to nuke Israel, all of whom are voicing support for the pursuit of nuclear technology, all of whom have expressed their desire for the destruction of Israel, and all ethnic citizens of a nation that has previously gone to war with Israel on more than one occasion, then the probability is unacceptably high that they still pose a threat to Israel.

I'm not saying it's definite (in fact a threat, by definition, is uncertain -- a risk). We won't know if it's definite until after it's too late to avert it. In fact I concede the possibility that Iran is simply very poorly-administered by tactless old fogies who haven't got the sense to play the game of international relations. The difference here is that whereas I concede I might be wrong (despite a preponderance of evidence that I'm not), you won't even brook the possibility that you're wrong. You're simply stating, flat out, that Iran poses no threat, when years of history and the actions and behaviors of current Iranian rulers contradict you.

You clearly don't even understand how treaties work; why should we take advice on how to run the world from you?

 

Wow...you must not be a big fan of the American Revolution, huh?

 

What the hell are you talking about?

 

I just figure that we fought the Revolution for autonomy more than anything else, and you've just expressed your belief that autonomy is more or less pointless.

 

What the heck is the point of this thread?

That video is the dumbest thing I ever saw, Hillary saying we should not let Iran get nukes and all options are open followed by clips from terminator.

Does that mean you support Iran getting nukes?

Hillary is not going to nuke anyone. That speech is just starting negotiations from a position of strength.

 

It's just typicial fearmongering from KeepOurFreedoms.

 

No, what I expressed was my belief that the Iranian revolution accomplished very little besides giving them autonomy. It was not, as KoF expressed in typical libertarian historical revisionism, a revolution against tyranny itself: they merely swapped a foreign tyrant for a domestic one.

 

Now i might vote for Hillary. It goes back n forth from Hillary to John Edwards.

 

You know whats amusing? The fact that Iran is this great threat ..the fact that all of a sudden we are in the cross-hairs of impending doom ...those assertions coulpled with the fact that we just heard the same fart a few years ago about Iraq!!

Nobody see this spate of amazing coincidence that in comes 2 oil tycoons, and suddenly just about everybody in the oil rich counties doesn't just loathe Americans ..but are about to attack!!

Iranians are not like us nor should they be. And if they don't like us ...the fact is ... its justified given the history of our involvement with them.
When they had a democracy we helped topple it and usher in the very Mullahs we now villify ..because we wanted their oil. We armed Saddam and aided his, mining their land and killing 1,000's of Iranians in the process.

The true evil ..is what we as Americans should see in the mirror...but we don't. Know why? Because of the underlying hypocrisy ..the naievty that grips this country!! The fact that we as a nation are easily moved by imagery and distorted facts! To get us hating a race, or an entire nation only takes a few 2 hour long hollywood movies or a few 30 second ad campaign!

In the case of those on the right ...it only takes a 5 second rant from bush ..all he has to do is say it! They hear that and they quickly forget Iran's help in providing critical intelligence that helped us in Afghanistan, and Irans will aid to the refugees who feld then.

Making it easy to believe one of the oldest successfull nation is evil!!

Hopefully this is yet another one of Hillary's bait and switch tactic to pander to more than just the democratic base.

The fact is should she win ...Bill will be running the country again by proxy!

Thats not too bad though ..given what we have now.

 

Iran is simply playing the power game in the Middle East. When we went into Afghanistan they had alot to gain by helping the US presence there, but by going into Iraq and classifying them in the "axis of evil" (which we then proceeded to invade) they are backed into a corner. No big shock they are pursuing a bomb, or helping the insurgency in Iraq.

Iran is not a threat to the US really militarily, however, they can wield enormous influence in Iraq that can make Iraq get alot worse alot more quickly. No one has forgotten about what Iran did, its what Iran is doing now that is of more importance in this debate.

There is no need for an invasion of airstrikes as I have posted elsewhere, but they certainly are not friends of the United States or US interests in the region.

There are alot of reasons Iran is acting they way they are, and from their point of view it all makes perfect sense. ( I will go more into that if you want me to)

Hillary is not going to nuke Iran, no one is, its the dumbest idea out there. But keep in mind that if you elect Hillary, Bill is NOT going to be running the show, no matter what you may think.