Hillary Clinton: Nuke Iran if they nuke Israel

[TheNamelessWonder]

We can all be thankful this crazy ***** isn't going to be the next president. Though to be honest, McCain would probably be all over the red button in such a case as well...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24246275

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed Monday that as president she would be willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran if it were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

Clinton's remarks, made in an interview on MSNBC's "Countdown With Keith Olbermann," clarified a statement she made last week in a Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia. In that debate, Clinton, D-N.Y., said an Iranian attack on Israel would bring "massive retaliation," without defining what the phrase meant.

In the interview Monday, Clinton affirmed that she would warn Iran's leaders that "their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States."
Story continues below ***8595;advertisement

She said U.S. allies in the Middle East were being "intimidated and bullied into submission by Iran," raising the prospect of an "incredibly destabilizing" arms race in the region.

"I can imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons themselves" if Iran were to develop a nuclear arsenal, she said.

Clinton said it was vital that the United States create a new "security umbrella" to reassure Israel and its other allies in the region that they would not be threatened by Iran. She said she would tell them that "if you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran, the United States, and hopefully our NATO allies, would respond to that."

Clinton seeks tougher profile than Obama
Clinton's hinting at a nuclear option last week set off a wave of commentary in political circles that she was seeking to position herself as a hawk as the primary campaign winds toward an end. Her opponent for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, has said that he would not rule out any options if Iran were to become a nuclear power, but he has not explicitly said he would be willing use nuclear weapons.

Clinton's remarks reflected the theme of her latest advertising in Pennsylvania, where Democratic voters go to the polls Tuesday with analysts in both camps saying she must win the state's primary if she is to remain a credible candidate.

Obama leads Clinton by 1,655-1,513 among delegates won in primaries and caucuses, according to NBC News' count, while she has the advantage, 262-238, among superdelegates, the party officials who attend the convention by virtue of their positions. But Clinton leads in Pennsylvania by 5 to 7 percentage points in most tracking polls released Sunday.

Clinton's new ad says that only she has the experience and toughness to confront the threat of global terrorism, using a picture of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in an echo of Republican attacks against Democratic Senate candidates in 2004.

Asked by Olbermann if the use of bin Laden in the ad was "waving the bloody shirt," she said she was not indulging in Republican-style fear-mongering against Obama, who has been the subject of false rumors that he is Muslim.

"The fact is the next president will be sworn in at a time of very, very difficult world conditions," Clinton said. "There's nothing at all, in any way, inappropriate in saying look, presidents face the unexpected all the time. We don't know what the next president will face."

She said the Democratic nominee was sure to face such attacks in the fall campaign, and "we're going to have to go toe to toe with John McCain on national security. We ought to get real about some of the big issues were going to face."

[Charlie_B]

I for one don't believe Iran would ever nuke Israel without being 100% prepared to nuke America as well. Even if Clinton's crazy nuke threat wasn't an issue, any American PM would strike Iran very hard in retaliation.

America needs to wake up to the fact that Israel's conduct in international relations is disgraceful and they don't deserve the blind loyalty and protection they receive. It's like an arrogant kid in the playground who goes around doing whatever he wants knowing his older brother will protect him.

[anth]

I for one don't believe Iran would ever nuke Israel without being 100% prepared to nuke America as well. Even if Clinton's crazy nuke threat wasn't an issue, any American PM would strike Iran very hard in retaliation.

America needs to wake up to the fact that Israel's conduct in international relations is disgraceful and they don't deserve the blind loyalty and protection they receive. It's like an arrogant kid in the playground who goes around doing whatever he wants knowing his older brother will protect him.

Charlie_B, I usually view you as a sage full of wisdom but on this topic I must disagree. At least once a week Iran threatens to wipe Israel off the map (they have finally admitted that Israel is on the map!). Israel is surrounded with enemies who view them as unwanted. Here are a few news items from within the past week.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080421/pl_ ... _carter_dc (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080421/pl_nm/palestinians_israel_carter_dc)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 2FShowFull (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208422644275&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... %2FPrinter (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208422645234&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 2FShowFull (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208422645429&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsS ... h=20080418 (http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20080418)\ACQDJON200804180748DOWJONESDJONLINE000609.htm&selected=9999&selecteddisplaysymbol=9999&StoryTargetFrame=_top&mkt=WORLD&chk=unchecked&lang=&link=&headlinereturnpage=http://www.international.na
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/a ... rent_id=17 (http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=213194&version=1&template_id=37&parent_id=17)
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125908

I think that about covers the dangers Israel faces. They are surrounded with enemies who are not only vocal with hatred but violent as well. Take a look at a map of the middle east and get a good feel for the size of Israel vs its neighbors. Have you ever read the details of the 6 day war?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
Isn't that amazing. I dont know why everyone hates the Jews. They kick ass.

As for Iran wanting to nuke the US I agree. They hate us almost as much as they hate Israel.
And as for Hillary.......or Obama.......or Mccain....were screwed.

[Charlie_B]

Firstly...
A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel"

1955-1992:
* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
Nations.
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians

Many thanks to Harbie for that.

I don't disagree that Israel is surrounded by neighbours who dislike them, but that alone isn't justification for the gross abuse of power Israel has repeatedly demonstrated. I don't hate the Jews at all, in the same way that I don't hate Muslims, Arabs, whatever. There is only a certain extent to which 'pre-emptive' violence can be justified, and in my opinion Israel abuses this to a degree unseen anywhere else on the planet - and certainly not to a degree acceptable in International Law.
If Israel wishes to continue to exist it should work on a foreign policy which at worst doesn't murder people with merely the thinnest of excuses and at best works with their (admittedly hostile) neighbours in a progressive way which actively seeks to find a long term solution to the problems in the middle east. At the moment there is no evidence of this happening. "You kill one we'll kill 100" is not a viable long term strategy for peace.

[TheNamelessWonder]

I do wonder why the US government is always fellating the Israelis, regardless of which party is in charge.

[anth]

That list of resolutions was entertaining. Basically they shouldnt be allowed to do anything. I like the one where they shouldnt be occupying occupied territory.

[f0xx]

First, this is my own oppinion and it might differ from some of your oppinions, but it is still mine.

My oppinion on the "Hillary going to nuke Iran if they nuke Israel"
I believe thats the right thing to do and well said. The only good thing nuclear weapons serve for are keeping the world peace. Let agressors know that if they use such force they will be targeted with such weapons aswell, that the only possible way to make them not use nukes.

My oppinion on the Israel is surrounded by enemies statement:
I have though about the so called "country of jews" for some time and for a country which has been created out of the generousity of another country they seem a bit "too agressive". Hell I am not their neighbour and yet I don't like how they are treating their neighbours...

[Illumination]

lol Charlie. I just had a conversation with Harbinger about this topic and he told me there were tons of resolutions against Israel ... Im glad he didnt start rattling them off!!!

I think that Hillary needs to watch what she says. There are ways to not answer questions or to say that all options would be considered...but in my eyes if part of the world gets blown up, then retaliating with more nuclear weapons may start a chain of events that is Earth-ending. It would be a horrible situation and I dont think one can truly decide what is best for all to do when the whole situation is hypothetical. Is a retaliatory nuclear attack an option, of course...but surely there are other paths to be considered (even militarily) that dont invlolve fall out that would harm innocent nations.

[Charlie_B]

If you look over the resolutions again anth you should realise that they aren't trying to stop Israel doing 'anything', but rather there are a lot of resolutions because Israel repeatedly has recourse to the killing of civilians, blowing up people's homes and various other gross violations of basic human rights. Their 60 year campaign of terror and violence is unacceptable, inexcusable, and should be an affront to any decent nation - which is why they have been so extensively condemned.
And what have they achieved, except the pain and suffering of thousands of innocent people? You yourself have pointed out how tension in the area still simmers - and is it any surprise! Peace will never be a realistic dream while Israel keep bombing their neighbours every few months - they need to show long term commitment to a peaceful resolution, and cease this vile saber-rattling. So far, that has not happened to any significant degree and a number of previously neutral nations are beginning to turn against Israel as a direct result of their conduct.

[f0xx]

Totally agree with Charlie_B on this one.

[Nonny]

That list of resolutions was entertaining. Basically they shouldnt be allowed to do anything. I like the one where they shouldnt be occupying occupied territory.

If "anything" means flattening civilian homes, dropping bombs on civilian areas in case a high-profile target is present, rounding up and imprisoning entire adult male populations of villages in case a few are terrorists, charging into villages on a whim with tanks causing untold destruction and cutting off food, water and fuel supplies to large civilian populations because that will somehow make the victims like Israel more....??

Yes, Israel shouldn't be allowed to do "anything".

[Jorizz]

The use of nuclear weapons is in no situation, not a single one under any circumstance justified. Let that be said, what particulary strikes my is the inqonsequent, and maybe even hypocrit, US foreign policy on matters such as human rights. I'm not putting all the blame on Israel but their current actions against the palastines are an outrageous perpetrate against fundemental human rights. This in no way permits the agressive provocative behaviour of it's neighbours which I also condemn.

However, putting a WALL around a country(province, eh?) and cutting innocent civillians from food, water, anything supply is shows a huge disrespect of the people whom it should be negociating with, it is absurdly rude and an action which is only counterproductive and does not attack their enemies but forchristssake, innocent people.

[anth]

When your neighbor starts lobbing mortars at your house you basically have 2 options: Kick his ass or get blown up. I know that oversimplifies it but....... When the person firing the mortars is hiding in a civilian area and the only way to stop him will end in civilian casualties who is morally to blame.

[CFalcon]

I know that oversimplifies it

ya think?

hmmz, there are 10 people in that town of 10,000 who are firing rockets at us. only solution: shell the place then starve anything that survives.

:|

[Jorizz]

Anth that example is in no way applyable to the current issue for very simple reasons. First of all you try and reason with your neighboors, makes 3 options. Secondly it is not only Palestine firing rockets, it goes vica-versa. Thirdly, yes if your neighboor was firing rockets at you whilst holding a million hostages I would indeed thing twice before leveling the place.

There is no excuse for simply putting a wall and thereby imprisonating a largly innocent amount of people and cutting their food and water supplies, electricity needs, trade goods, anything.

[anth]

"imprisonating" is my new favorite word. Does anyone actually follow the news daily coming out of the region?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 2FShowFull (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208870490120&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
thats today.
Every day there is something similar. You have to take stock in the tactics being used against Israel before you condemn them for their responses. Any govt that is surrounded by enemies yet sits complacent will fall. The current round of "peace agreements" in the region is shattered almost daily due to attacks on Israel.

[CFalcon]

Imagine some impressionable idiots from your town kill a handful of people in the next town. You, your friends, your family, had nothing to do with it. You cannot possibly see it as reasonable for that neighbouring town to then cut off the water supply to yours, to build a wall around your town, to destroy your house, and to shell your neighbours. Imagine, right now, going to the shop tomorrow and not being able to buy any food because of those few idiots, who have nothing to do with you. Its all very well sitting comfortable behind your computer and saying Israel are being forced into doing these things, but just try and imagine the reality of it if you can. You can probably even imagine, that if this continues for months and months, that even people you know will decide enough is enough and will take action.

No-one is defending the actions of terrorists, but Israel's response is completely disproportionate and ultimately causes more problems than it solves. I don't claim to have the answer, if I did I'd be a political genious, but I know what *isn't* working and that's random, senseless, ham-fisted retaliation.

[Jorizz]

Anth, I am in no way justifying any violent, - predominently lethal actions by Palestine. However two bads doesnt make one good, they are both terribly wrong and whilst Israel is facing very little condemnation, action from majorly Western countries the Palestines are being demonized in the media. The same goes for Arabian or Muslim media where Israel's actions are harshly critized and the palestines are let go of any critique.

Does this solve anything whatsoever? No! It is time for countries to stop taking sides and build bridges between the two, to endorse the peace activities, to condemn any form of violence or violations of human rights no matter who your partners are. If you wish to play the "yes or no" game. Fine, but remember - ultimatly this needs to be solved and in a conflict where both parties are responsible for macarbre deeds there should be no picking sides.

ps: The last time I heard something about rockets and missles they can actually reach over a wall but yeah it was deemed necassry to put them in isolation anyway, I salute to Israels military intelligence....

[Nonny]

When your neighbor starts lobbing mortars at your house you basically have 2 options: Kick his ass or get blown up. I know that oversimplifies it but....... When the person firing the mortars is hiding in a civilian area and the only way to stop him will end in civilian casualties who is morally to blame.


In which case the UK should have flattened the Republic of Ireland in the 70's and be done with it?

[f0xx]

When your neighbor starts lobbing mortars at your house you basically have 2 options: Kick his ass or get blown up. I know that oversimplifies it but....... When the person firing the mortars is hiding in a civilian area and the only way to stop him will end in civilian casualties who is morally to blame.

Lol thats an ace.

Okay, lets say you live in a country. Second world war ends and some of the strongest (militart wise) countries in the world tell you "Hey, we will take this peace of your country (which is accidently the sacred land of 3 religions) and give it to the jews because WW2 did most damage to them. Not very fair, but still acceptable. Now those jews come and with time passing they want more land and start invading their neghbours. Their neghbours on the other hand are poor, don't have the tanks and technology which Isreal has to fight back... so they have 2 chances: swallow and give the land to the jews or find another way to fight them. This other way might be a bit dirty yes (modern politicians call it terrorism), but what other choice do Palestinians have ffs? To be honest I admire them (Palestinians) a lot. They give their lives for their country trying to fight tanks and rockers with sticks and stones... The agressor here is Israel and non other. Open your eyes.

[Jorizz]

I would agree with you there f0xx however, that is not relevant currently. What is relevant that Israel accepts the cease-fire agreement made by Hamas and get around the table and start negociating instead of fighting. This conflict has lasted long enough and it could be solved, the missing ingredient however is political goodwill.