Clinton-Warmonger Part II

Regarding this article, http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php

You know, I really have trouble disagreeing with what she is saying. It would be nice if we could be bestest buddies with Iran, but given their track record... and what did Israel do to deserve our lack of concern?

Their track record is that Iran has not actually started a war with anyone since the 1700s.

Bringing up the dubious quotes of Ahmedenijad as proof that we ought to invade another country is idiocy at best. We are the ones with a most dubous track record.

:applause:

What you say is not to defend Iran, it should be clear to even the most thick-headed rightwing pea brain if they took their mind out of storage and started it up for a minute. What you're pointing out, if you don't mind my saying so, is that the US has lost all credibility to point the finger at any other country's foreign policy, considering how insane our own has been in the last six years (at least).

In addition to the hostage crisis and Holocaust denial, what about human rights violations?
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=iran

I'm not saying we invade but neither is Hillary. I just wouldn't trust them with a nuclear weapon at this time.

Yes. That's right. They would do nothing. Just like Pakistan, Russia, China, India, and Israel. Throw in U.S. occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is surrounded by nukes and it would be suicidal for them to use one. The only Shia state would disapear off the face of the earth and they damned well know that.

using them as a deterrent.

What sparked the hostage crisis? Could it have been the US interfering in Iran for 20 years and then sheltering their dictator the Shah?

And as for trusting anyone with nukes, well only one country has used them. Twice. And that country is now being led by batshit crazy socioopaths.

So lets just hope the world doesn't decide to disarm us. Although the world would probably be a better place if it happened.

I have no doubt the U.S. is responsible for Irans's current problems. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Hillary's comments are correct. A country (referring to its leaders) that denies the Holocaust ever existed, and now commits severe human rights violations, cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. For that matter, no country should. And, yes, it would be nice if we could disarm every country of nukes.

We do not know the context of her statements from that article, but the statements taken at face value are correct, IMO.

Their president denied the holocaust so the entire country should suffer? I point again to the lunatic running this place.

Personally I think the only reason Iran wants nukes is to protect themselves from Israel which does have nukes.

And what severe human rights violations are you talking about? We should attack every country that does what they do. They would be China, Pakistan, half the damn middle east, the US until 30 years ago so on and so on.

As for the context of her statements it is simple. She is trying to get the jewish vote. Period. And she is trying to show that she is a woman with balls.

We are on the brink of WWIII and the US will be the ignitor of the fires that will consume the world.

which seems to be absolutely essential to working out a deal with them on nukes.

Dude how old are you? Do you remember us "trusting" the USSR or China with nuclear weapons? Trust?!? We let it be know we would exterminate them if they even hinted at threatening us. Thus the cold war. Emphasis on COLD. It worked before, let's try it now before we start bombing yet ANOTHER country.

It sounds like your vision of the future is an increased number of nations with nuclear capability. It's not mine.

The Bush administration is giving nuclear technology to INDIA, which refuses to sign the nuclear non proliferation treaty. Are you advocating attacking India? Don't you remember shrubs infamous remark about how he was looking forward to fucking Mangos from India in return?!

...then installing a brutal murderous dictator and propping the fucker up for decades for the benefit of BP and other oil corps, a "hostage crisis and Holocaust denial" is a piss in the ocean.

:shrug:

Iran does not have a track record of starting wars. If you can point me to a war that Iran or Persia started in the last 200 years or so, please do so.

Most notably Hezbollah...

The fact that we have an ass for a President does not mean we ignore the potential danger posed by an Iranian government, the armorer for terrorism, in possession of nuclear weapons...

got a link?

I am arguing not taking the potential of a nuclear Iran is foolhardy

My point is that the prospect of a nuclear Iran, who is indisputedly a major financier of terrorism, should not be taken lightly...and the fact that they have not "started" a war does not mean they are not extraordinarily dangerous. They finance people who start wars!

Although they haven't harmed us, but I know they'd like to, is no casus belli.

And the same fools are lining up to support its being one again.

'We should not ignore the potential threat of an Iranian government in possession of nuclear weapons' is not saying they have them now. Where Iran is now, is where India was 40 years ago with nuclear technology.

Regarding their potential threat, I understand Iran's need to advance technologically, but their funds could be used on methods of clean energy rather than nuclear. The reason why they went the nuclear route is suspect.

to wipe them off the map?

Why shouldn't Iran seek a deterrent to our belligerence?

It is a sectarian political party and militia organization that stepped away from terrorism a long time ago.

The US UK and Israel are pretty much alone proclaiming Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

"Six countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, officially list Hezbollah, or its external security arm, as a terrorist organization. All other nations do not list Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. The terrorist label is controversial and highly political as many Arab and Muslim states support Hezbollah's goals and consider it resistance organization.<14><15> The European Union does not list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.<16>. Russia says that it doesn't list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization because it does not view Hezbollah as a threat to Russia.<17><18> Human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch accused Hezbollah of committing war crimes against Israeli civilians.<20>"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

The premier financer of international terror would be the various Saud family members and assorted other wealthy gulf arab families that are nominally our allies.

Iran has not started a war with anyone since the 1700s.

Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago, an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.

But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran, former administration officials said.

Last month, the Bush administration abruptly shifted policy and agreed to join talks previously led by European countries over Iran's nuclear program. But several former administration officials say the United States missed an opportunity in 2003 at a time when American strength seemed at its height -- and Iran did not have a functioning nuclear program or a gusher of oil revenue from soaring energy demand.

"At the time, the Iranians were not spinning centrifuges, they were not enriching uranium," said Flynt Leverett, who was a senior director on the National Security Council staff then and saw the Iranian proposal. He described it as "a serious effort, a respectable effort to lay out a comprehensive agenda for U.S.-Iranian rapprochement."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727_pf.html

CC: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards.