When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
The thing is, Hilary doesn’t run the show, she’s just the Secretary of State. Everything that Obambi has said over the last two years leads me to think that the Clinton statement is just a smokescreen.
There will be little resistance from the St. Barry administration to the reality of Iranian nukes. If anybody thinks this strongly worded basket of nothing means anything, they are delusional.
mynameis
14 years ago
It’s interesting to observe that Iran is actually currently a non -nuclear armed signatory to the nuclear non proliferation treaty. By contrast, our wonderful allies – all of whom have Tehran in range – Pakistan, India and Israel, are actually currently nuclear armed non – signatories to the nuclear non proliferation treaty.
Add in the fact that Iran has nuclear Russia to the north, Nato to the east and west in Afghanistan and Turkey, and American forces in Iraq, the Persian Gulf, the Mediterranean and the Arabian peninsular, and you’ve got to ask yourself, wouldn’t you want a nuclear deterrent if you were running Iran?
drjohn
14 years ago
Wait- I have heard this before…..somewhere……
Oh yeah-
World won’t permit Iran to have nukes: Bush
The United Nations (UN) nuclear watchdog’s decision to report Iran to the UN Security Council is a clear message the world will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, US President George W Bush says.
“This important step sends a clear message to the regime in Iran that the world will not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons,” the US leader said in a statement.
Uh, yeah, Hillary, you just go on believing that…………
David Adams
14 years ago
Just last week Hillary was saying; “WHEN Iran gets(nukes) the United States would provide the Gulf States with a DEFENSE UMBRELLA”. It seems that both her and Obama are reading words written by someone else; neither one of them can remember their previous statements.
AdrianS
14 years ago
There’s a difference between:
1) We Will “Never” Let Iran Get a Nuke, and
2) We will “Prevent” Iran from Getting a Nuke.
Iran should be PREVENTED from getting nukes; either by friendly incentives or by preventative preemptive measure peaceful or otherwise.
The peace of nations in the middle east and elsewhere depends on this.
liam09
14 years ago
@mynameis: so you’re saying Iran is playing ball and our allies are not? Just because they sign or agree to something, doesn’t mean jack. How do you think Hitler was able to start taking over countries? He signed plenty of agreements.
The fact is, the less nukes that are out there, the better. Stop playing bleeding heart politics with this. The goal is to reduce nuclear arms around the world, not ratchet it up just because a country feels insecure and vulnerable. Things would change drastically for India, Pakistan, or even Israel if they decided to launch a nuke.
In essence, you are defending Irans ability to replicate a scenario such as the Cuban missile crisis, that we dealt with in the cold war. You are also suggesting that in some way, if they did have nukes, it would protect them. They would be the so-called glass parking lot of the middle east. Instead of oil, their new economy is windshields and energy friendly windows. Oh wait, they will be radio-active. I guess Iran will just be a big waste of land.
Hey, it wouldn’t be a problem if they laid low, didn’t think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would bring about the twelfth Imam, and wanted to wipe the earth clean of Zionist pigs. You don’t allow lunatics to buy guns, why allow one to have a nuke. Same outcome just on a larger scale.
You gotta love bleeding heart idealists. Reality isn’t part of their vocabulary.
dallasdan
14 years ago
Hillary has no credibility, given Obama’s indifference to the uprising of freedom-loving people in Iran. As noted above by KingShamus, she isn’t calling the shots on what America will or will not do. Obama won’t lift a finger to impede the muslim nuclear menace, and when Israel takes matters into its own hands they will get no help from us.
The safest way to remove Iran as a nuclear threat is to accept Israel’s right to survive by seeing them take out or severly damage Iran’s nuclear facilities with conventional weapons. But hold your breath if they do, because the first nuke used in anger or hate could result in the obliteration of our planet.
Aqua
14 years ago
Billary will remain Sec of State for exactly 1 more year and 6 months. Then she will resign in disgust and challenge Barry in the primary. Bet on it. She will spill every little secret she has on Obama’s administration.
The thing is, Hilary doesn’t run the show, she’s just the Secretary of State. Everything that Obambi has said over the last two years leads me to think that the Clinton statement is just a smokescreen.
There will be little resistance from the St. Barry administration to the reality of Iranian nukes. If anybody thinks this strongly worded basket of nothing means anything, they are delusional.
It’s interesting to observe that Iran is actually currently a non -nuclear armed signatory to the nuclear non proliferation treaty. By contrast, our wonderful allies – all of whom have Tehran in range – Pakistan, India and Israel, are actually currently nuclear armed non – signatories to the nuclear non proliferation treaty.
Add in the fact that Iran has nuclear Russia to the north, Nato to the east and west in Afghanistan and Turkey, and American forces in Iraq, the Persian Gulf, the Mediterranean and the Arabian peninsular, and you’ve got to ask yourself, wouldn’t you want a nuclear deterrent if you were running Iran?
Wait- I have heard this before…..somewhere……
Oh yeah-
World won’t permit Iran to have nukes: Bush
The United Nations (UN) nuclear watchdog’s decision to report Iran to the UN Security Council is a clear message the world will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, US President George W Bush says.
“This important step sends a clear message to the regime in Iran that the world will not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons,” the US leader said in a statement.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1562546.htm
Uh, yeah, Hillary, you just go on believing that…………
Just last week Hillary was saying; “WHEN Iran gets(nukes) the United States would provide the Gulf States with a DEFENSE UMBRELLA”. It seems that both her and Obama are reading words written by someone else; neither one of them can remember their previous statements.
There’s a difference between:
1) We Will “Never” Let Iran Get a Nuke, and
2) We will “Prevent” Iran from Getting a Nuke.
Iran should be PREVENTED from getting nukes; either by friendly incentives or by preventative preemptive measure peaceful or otherwise.
The peace of nations in the middle east and elsewhere depends on this.
@mynameis: so you’re saying Iran is playing ball and our allies are not? Just because they sign or agree to something, doesn’t mean jack. How do you think Hitler was able to start taking over countries? He signed plenty of agreements.
The fact is, the less nukes that are out there, the better. Stop playing bleeding heart politics with this. The goal is to reduce nuclear arms around the world, not ratchet it up just because a country feels insecure and vulnerable. Things would change drastically for India, Pakistan, or even Israel if they decided to launch a nuke.
In essence, you are defending Irans ability to replicate a scenario such as the Cuban missile crisis, that we dealt with in the cold war. You are also suggesting that in some way, if they did have nukes, it would protect them. They would be the so-called glass parking lot of the middle east. Instead of oil, their new economy is windshields and energy friendly windows. Oh wait, they will be radio-active. I guess Iran will just be a big waste of land.
Hey, it wouldn’t be a problem if they laid low, didn’t think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would bring about the twelfth Imam, and wanted to wipe the earth clean of Zionist pigs. You don’t allow lunatics to buy guns, why allow one to have a nuke. Same outcome just on a larger scale.
You gotta love bleeding heart idealists. Reality isn’t part of their vocabulary.
Hillary has no credibility, given Obama’s indifference to the uprising of freedom-loving people in Iran. As noted above by KingShamus, she isn’t calling the shots on what America will or will not do. Obama won’t lift a finger to impede the muslim nuclear menace, and when Israel takes matters into its own hands they will get no help from us.
The safest way to remove Iran as a nuclear threat is to accept Israel’s right to survive by seeing them take out or severly damage Iran’s nuclear facilities with conventional weapons. But hold your breath if they do, because the first nuke used in anger or hate could result in the obliteration of our planet.
Billary will remain Sec of State for exactly 1 more year and 6 months. Then she will resign in disgust and challenge Barry in the primary. Bet on it. She will spill every little secret she has on Obama’s administration.