There was an interesting response from Hillary Clinton today on ABC's Good Morning America when asked what she would do if a nuclear-powered Iran attacked Israel.
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic."
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)."
I'm wondering, is Hillary (if elected) going to be a President with an itchy trigger finger? And how does that compare to her criticism of the Bush administration going into Iraq?
If you can't see the difference between going to war on a pretext built on lies and going to war to defend an ally tehn you need your eyes tested and your brain replaced.
ReplyDeleteAh, but anon, this seems black and white now, before the event. But what if Israel strikes to take out a nuclear missile factory (also known as "nuclear power station") and Iran counter strikes. For example.
ReplyDeleteWhat if a terrorist group sets of a nuclear device in downtown Tel Aviv and all indications point to Iran supplying this gear, but they of course profess innocence?
In both scenarios, the liberal lefties will be saying "it wasn't Iran's fault" and denying the evidence (whatever that might be)*
Of course, after the fact, Iran would ensure the evidence is moved or hidden clouding the waters more.
Hillary is talking tough for votes. And possibly even to send a message to Iran that she should be taken seriously. As seriously as a female infidel can be taken by an Iranian chauvinist at least.
It was much the same with Saddam:
* He had bought nuclear technology from France.
* He had killed and tortured more people than has died in the last 5 years of Iraqi conflict
* He had invaded Kuwait
* He had trained at least 5,000 terrorists and armed forces that fought in campaigns in Bosnia and others
* He rewarded the families of suicide bombers with $20,000 bonuses.
* He ignored UN inspection requirements and was continually engaged in brinkmanship
* He was supported financially from the UN in scandals such as Oil for Food, illegal trade deals with various countries during trade embargoes and working around trade sanctions to line up the purchase of arms.
He was a bad man, and the "pretext" is not as clear cut as you think (IMHO).
*Not that I am suggesting Iran would actually do this, and that there is a real danger they are accused of bad behaviour for the wrong reasons. It is a very dangerous world we are entering, and Iran getting Nuclear weapons is not going to make it safer, even for them.
The way she is single handedly nuking the Democrat party makes anything to do with Iran look tame.
ReplyDelete