There was a time when liberating 50 million people would be a moral act. What happened? In Iran they execute gays and political dissenters, but they would never build a nuclear weapon for bad reasons, right? You're sure about that? Because, it sounds a lot like what people said before World War II.
Posted by The Dude at April 30, 2008 11:16 AMSo cheney has already decided to start a war with Iran. bush has been saying that we need to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. One would have a hard time finding a better terrorist-magnet than manufacturing a war with Iran. The ironic part is that since the Iraq invasion thoroughly discredited the cheney/bush regime as a source if intel, they could have a valid case and few people around the world would believe them.
Posted by jwrjr at April 30, 2008 11:31 AMBecause one illegal, immoral, and unjustified war just might not be enough. In an American election year.
Referring to Clinton and her statements about obliterating Iran: "One of the things that we've seen over the last several years is a bunch of talk using words like 'obliterate,"' Obama, an Illinois senator, said in a separate ABC interview. "It doesn't actually produce good results. And so I'm not interested in saber rattling." Barack Obama
There was a time when liberating 50 million people would be a moral act.
I'm sure The Dude is referring to our success at liberating Iraqis...from the need for security, jobs, eating, education, healthcare, life itself. But Hillary has you covered here Dude, what with her promises to obliterate Iran with nukes.
I know, I know...like her AUMF vote...the war in Iraq and nuking Iran will never happen because, for her, they are just rhetorical devices. Well, the Iran part at least because Iraq didn't turn out to be too rhetorically beneficial. But Iran will be! Her supporters assured us of that.
Posted by phidipides at April 30, 2008 11:37 AMLooks like Russia and China are about to get the opportunity to see a test of the anti-ship technology they have been developing for the last forty years.
I wonder what the odds are on whether the US warplanes, standard missiles, and automatic gatling guns will trump the anti-ship Noor missile and the Hoot supercavitating torpedo.
Will it be a contest of the US shooting turkeys on land or the Iranians shooting fish in the Gulf barrel or both?
With the advent of the sophisticated AshM and the supersonic torpedo, has the age of the carrier now passed like the age of the battleships?
I have had some bad dreams and premonitions about this.
Posted by Nobody at April 30, 2008 11:43 AMLooks like Russia and China are about to get the opportunity to see a test of the anti-ship technology they have been developing for the last forty years.
You mean, the missles and torpedos developed with the secret United States defense technology Israel sold to China and Russia?
Posted by phidipides at April 30, 2008 11:48 AMonce again, phid, you dishonestly post-parse clinton's statement. she said we'd obliterate iran if they used nukes. i know this is a terribly complicated concept to grasp, but it's called nuclear deterrence. it managed to get the world through the cold war without any nuclear attacks. how radical and dangerous of clinton to suggest that the same concept might be applicable to prevent other potential conflicts.
Posted by Turkana at April 30, 2008 11:53 AM...how radical and dangerous of clinton to suggest that the same concept might be applicable to prevent other potential conflicts.
The use of nuclear force or threats of retaliation don't equate to Clinton's genocide related comments. Somehow, I don't trust her judgment or experience when it comes to preventing conflict:
"So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation." Hillary Clinton supporting her vote for the AUMF, October 10, 2002
I know, it was Busch's fault. A man misled her. Kind of a running theme with her.
Posted by phidipides at April 30, 2008 12:06 PM"You mean, the missles and torpedos developed with the secret United States defense technology Israel sold to China and Russia? "
Of course, but the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and Koreans are clever people and I'm sure their product is better than the stolen plans. Even though the US may think so, it does not have a monopoly on smart engineers.
Posted by Nobody at April 30, 2008 12:10 PMI'm sure their product is better than the stolen plans.
There were no plans stolen. The Israelis sold them functioning units.
Posted by phidipides at April 30, 2008 12:24 PM"A man misled her. Kind of a running theme with her." ha! Phid, have you forgotten where you are posting?? better put your flak jacket on.
Posted by T2 at April 30, 2008 12:44 PMbomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran-McCain (warmonger)
nuke, nuke, nuke, nuke Iran-Hillary (warmonger)
Posted by Upton at April 30, 2008 01:12 PMi know this is a terribly complicated concept to grasp, but it's called nuclear deterrence.......let's not confuse pandering with deterence....does the NIE report on Iran mean nothing?
Posted by Goyo at April 30, 2008 01:16 PM...better put your flak jacket on.
Not to worry, T2. I'm high on the good things in life...powerful gasoline and clean underwear! (Many thanks to Firesign Theatre)
Posted by phidipides at April 30, 2008 01:33 PMlet's not confuse pandering with deterence....does the NIE report on Iran mean nothing?
She was asked what we would do if Iran nuked Israel. So regardless of the NIE, the question supposed that Iran had nukes. Hillary said we have the capability to obliterate them and that that's a terrible thing to say but they need to know that their actions would have consequences.
Posted by CG at April 30, 2008 01:46 PM...but they need to know that their actions would have consequences.
They live next door to Iraq. I'm pretty sure they know it. From this they also know that non-action has it's consequences...a message Hillary sent to them with her AUMF vote.
So what's the real message? Hillary made a gigantic putz of herself with a very stupid war-baiting comment so that she could prove she has big brass balls.
Stupidity = Deterrence in Hillary world. And we are at a point where the republi-cons have been and are beating the war drums against Iran which makes her comment even more dastardly, reprehensible and irresponsible given the climate in the United States. It WASN'T diplomacy that drove her to say it. It was lack of judgment and lack of leadership.
Posted by phidipides at April 30, 2008 02:01 PMShe was asked what we would do if Iran nuked Israel. So regardless of the NIE, the question supposed that Iran had nukes.
Therefore the question was rhetorical and she should have said so....not pandered to AIPAC because of a false flag!!
Hillary said we have the capability to obliterate them and that that's a terrible thing to say but they need to know that their actions would have consequences.
Like the Iranians don't know that the US has the capabilities.
Incredible that anyone would stick up for such a stupid friggin statement.
Sorry but "Hill" is hoping to appear as a right of centre candidate which won't matter to the Faux News crowd anyway!! jmhfo!!
Posted by Goyo at April 30, 2008 02:14 PMTherefore the question was rhetorical and she should have said so....not pandered to AIPAC because of a false flag!!
And what did Senator Obama have to say?
When asked how he would respond to a nuclear attack by Iran, Obama told ABC News' Robin Roberts that he would do everything he could to prevent the country from having weapons in the first place.
"I was absolutely clear about the fact that if Iran used nuclear weapons on Israel, or any of our allies, we would respond forcefully and swiftly," said Obama.
"But, in some ways, this hypothetical presupposes a failure to begin with," said Obama. "We shouldn't allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, period."
"I have consistently said that I will do everything in my power to prevent them from having it and I have not ruled out military force as an option," he said.
Now, was Obama just "pandering to AIPAC and a false flag" also?
Bring it on Iran! Ike prepared me for the Rooskies, and I'm more than ready for you whimps, dad gum it!
HELP ME! I've "duck'n covered', and I can't get up!
Posted by TIKI AL at April 30, 2008 02:21 PMCondoleeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzza is not a pathological liar, she is a professional liar - just like the rest of the Bush regime members, past and present.
Posted by Shirin at April 30, 2008 02:30 PMNow, was Obama just "pandering to AIPAC and a false flag" also?
That would be an affirmative...conclusion: neither of these people seems to have any convictions to have courage about...sad state actually that the repug stiff wants a 100 years in Iraq and the Dem candidates respond to ridiculous suppositions with war beating nonsense....must be the water down there but in general it appears that the load of bunk about Iranian aggressions has sunk intio the realm of possibilities of so called progressives.....repeat: Iranians are not the aggressors it is the US military and the Israeli government...let's go back to the weapons of mass destruction argument as if it ever existed!! I suppose...lol
Posted by Goyo at April 30, 2008 02:30 PMHillary Clinton's genocidal "obliterate Iran" remark was reprehensible, stupid, and disgusting. So, now the penalty for Iran's government nuking Israel (which Iran cannot do since it has no nuclear weapons, and no nuclear weapons program) is genocide of the Iranian people? Talk about collective punishment!
And by the way, collective punishment - not to mention genocide IS a war crime, so Hillary is now on record stating she her willingness to commit a war crime, and a grievous one at that. GREAT presidential material we have available to us these days, isn't it?
Posted by Shirin at April 30, 2008 02:35 PMand every president who ever promoted nuclear deterrence agains the soviet union was genocidal. and every president who promoted deterrence against china attacking taiwan has been genocidal. the shrill is deafening, kids.
Posted by Turkana at April 30, 2008 02:39 PMLook what you started Turkana...Its a boomerang.
trying to divert topics away from the divide.
Posted by peter at April 30, 2008 03:00 PMheh- thanks, peter. at least someone notices that i can't post anything, without it being hijacked but certain cultists.
Posted by Turkana at April 30, 2008 03:03 PMPlease Turkana....to equate the Soviet nuclear threat to the mythical Iranian threat is specious and childish and you know it....Hillary was not talking deterence and you bloody well know it...there is no Iranian nuclear threat because Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and the IAEA and the NIE can not find any evidence that they are attempting to acquire them...so pack your cult crap where there is little sunlight...you were wrong about that statement so get over it!! Picking "pants pissing peter" as an ally is a bit off color!
Posted by Goyo at April 30, 2008 03:17 PMYou'll note it wasn't me...right?
Today’s lead out of Baghdad was: “BAGHDAD - The killings of three U.S. soldiers in separate attacks in Baghdad pushed the American death toll for April up to 47, making it the deadliest month since September.”
OK, fine. What was the death toll a year ago. War like everything else is seasonal, with activity rising in the spring and declining in the winter.
So what were the U.S. casualties in April 2007 for comparison?
AP left that out. Here is the story. If I’m wrong, tell me.
The correct answer is 104 U.S. deaths in April 2007 — or more than double the year later figure. Note the headline: “April Toll Is Highest Of ‘07 for U.S. Troops.”
Half of last year's total, highest since Senator Clinton found Petraeus's report beyond belief.
Posted by peter at April 30, 2008 03:20 PMof course, goyo. unless you look at bthe actual question, which involved a very hypothetical situation. by why use the actual context when you can invent one?
Posted by Turkana at April 30, 2008 03:36 PMHELP ME! I've "duck'n covered', and I can't get up!
No! Not Tiki! Where has the love of God gone when a good man is lost to the hell of his hair being stuck to the bottom of a school desk by gum? Not this one, God! Not this one!
Tiki! Speak to us...alas, poor Tiki. I knew him well. But there shall be revenge. Oh yes indeed, revenge....we shall soldier on in the name of TIKI. REMEMBER TIKI!
Posted by phidipides at April 30, 2008 06:54 PM"every president who ever promoted nuclear deterrence agains the soviet union was genocidal. and every president who promoted deterrence against china attacking taiwan has been genocidal."
Anyone who threatens to "obliterate" an entire country is talking genocide. Therefore any president who has threatened to obliterate any country has been genocidal at least in his speach. So, has any president ever threatened, as Hillary has, to obliterate an entire country? In any case, it's difficult to think of an American president who has not committed plenty of war crimes. The United States is a very war-like state. And when was the last time the United States used its military for defense?
Posted by Shirin at April 30, 2008 10:35 PMThe Dude (gay porn name?): "There was a time when liberating 50 million people would be a moral act. What happened?"
yeah, we caused more than 1,000,000 Iraqis to be liberated from their lives, we caused millions to be liberated from their homes
pants pissing peter: "The correct answer is 104 U.S. deaths in April 2007 — or more than double the year later figure."
fuck you, you yellow cur, there would be ZERO American deaths if Dear Leader hadn't LIED to the American people (and used the Pentagon to wage a psyops operation on us via the korpate media)
Posted by Gay Veteran at May 1, 2008 11:02 AM