Hillary Clinton opines that an Iranian nuclear bomb would “spark an arms race” in the Middle East.
Quite unlike a massively nuclear-armed Israel.
Or the presence as American Secretary of State of someone who, as a Presidential candidate, promised to nuke Iran if so instructed by her campaign’s financial backers in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Were those here exact words?
ReplyDeleteYes.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe you.
ReplyDeleteIt was before a Senate Committee, and shown on the news at midnight and 1am over here. You can probably find it on the Net.
ReplyDeleteI can find, if I look hard enough, a clip of Hillary Clinton publicly stating that she would nuke Iran if ordered to by oil-rich Arab countries? In so many words? That's what you're telling me?
ReplyDeleteAny hints about search terms?
Oh, that. I thought you meant about the arms race.
ReplyDeleteOh, I suppose you might. She certainly said it. I first read it in The Spectator, and then in various other perfectly respectable publications online.
It would be great if you could provide us with a reference, because this is quite a big deal. As it is, I confess I'm somewhat sceptical.
ReplyDeleteI'll see what I can track down after all this time, but this has been on here, and on many other (often very pro-Clinton) sites, numerous times without ever being contradicted or queried. Her own supporters accept that it is the case.
ReplyDeleteIt's not the threatening to nuke bit, you understand. It's that she would do it when instructed by the Saudis. If nothing else, it seems an odd position for someone running for President to make - vote for me and I'll surrender sovereignty over our most powerful weapons.
ReplyDeleteFor a start -
ReplyDeletehttp://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/life-and-lives/629056/part_2/living-faith.thtml
Written by Taki. But published with the editorial approval of Matthew d'Anconna.
I must be alone in actually HOPING that Iran gets nukes. It will make them safer than NOT having nukes (eg Iraq).
ReplyDeleteAnd I find it arrogant that super powers think nukes is their entitlement but other nations are "unstable".
Iran is not any more unstable than Pakistan or Israel.
Admittedly Iran makes noises aout wiping Israel off the map.....but its not much different from Israel not wanting Palestine to be on the map.
Iran has only ever called for the dismantlement of the Zionist system, not for anyone to be "wiped off the map".
ReplyDeleteI am ferociously opposed to nuclear weapons. But if I were an Iranian voter, surrounded by nuclear Israel and nuclear India plus occupied Afghanistan and occupied Iraq, then I might take a different view.
"Hillary Clinton has just pledged that if Iran attacks — listen to this — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE, she, as president, would nuke Iran. "
ReplyDeleteYou do see the enormous gulf between this and what you said, don't you?
Iran has only ever called for the dismantlement of the Zionist system, not for anyone to be "wiped off the map".
What is the Zionist system, and how does it materially differ from the existence of Israel?
"You do see the enormous gulf between this and what you said, don't you?"
ReplyDeleteNo. They get to decide if they are "under attack". But then, since they paid for her campaign, why not?
"What is the Zionist system, and how does it materially differ from the existence of Israel?"
No one needs to die for Zionism to come to a end. As is happening anyway, with the letting in of all and sundry, not because they are Jewish, but simply because they are not Arab. That, and the growth of the ultra-Orthodox.
No wonder that the secular Ashkenazi nationalists of Likud and Avigdor Lieberman's lot are in such a foul mood. They are singing their swansong, because secular Ashkenazi nationalists will do anything for Israel except live there, or have anywhere near enough children if they ever do ship up there.
I have long sinced given up on being nuanced on the subject of Israel and Palestine (and the broader Islamist world). The Internet does not lend itself to nuance between being anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli or pro-Palestinian and pro-Terrorist.
ReplyDeleteAs a 15 year old in 1967, I watched plucky little Israel in awe and support.
Not so now.
Sooner or later, one of these "sides" will win. Neither is "my" side.
I care not which side wipes out the other side.
Nor should anyone else who is not involved in this squalid and sordid affair.
Don't worry, she'll be out on her ear in the second term.
ReplyDeleteThank God.
ReplyDelete