This is the last blog posting option. There has been a lot of talk about Iran on the campaign trail. Hillary Clinton in the last few days has made some controversial statements about Iran. Just give us your reaction to this video clip.
-Amir
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
First of all I'd like to point out that Hillary has some crazy eyes. I worry that her eyes will get very dry because she did not blink once in any of these clips. I feel like she's trying too hard to appeal to this American sense of destruction when felt threatened against any outside forces. "We will obliterate them", truly...peaceful...keep it up Hillary. I'm pretty sure the terms "negotiation", or "peaceful" talk are out of her vocabulary. I wonder if she has ever turned on any TV stations other than FOX to get her news. Maybe she should turn on CNN once in a while, or heck, our British allies BBC to get her news. Maybe ignorant is the new "liberal".
What I find most disturbing about this clip is that she is actually running for president, and may, MAY have a slight chance of winning the democratic nomination. Personally, I think there is something wrong with anyone who ever considers running for president of this nation, but this takes it to a whole new level.
Where's Ralph Nader when you need him?
Why can't she pronounce "Iranians" correctly?! It's e-RON-e-in, not e-RAIN-e-en. Oh boy. I don't know if I can trust someone with a nuke if they can't even pronounce words correctly.
Hillary's comments make me so upset. I really hope our next president is a whole lot wiser than the one we have now. I'm crossing my fingers for a pacifist.
As a potentially strong candidate for the American Presidency, one would think that Hillary Clinton, while obviously needing to pander to the desires of the general public, would display a bit more tact in addressing the question of a nuclear Iran. Instead of first addressing the absurdity of the question, Hillary Clinton takes a stance that makes it amply clear that America will opt for coercion in the place of diplomacy with Iran if she is to win the Presidency.
She completely neglects a number of assumptions that are intrinsic to the question, “If Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response [America’s] be?” First, Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, nor is there sufficient evidence to prove that Iran is seeking to develop them. Secondly, Iran has never expressed interest in using nuclear force against Israel or any other country, for that matter. The very least she could have done was preface her tactless and undiplomatic answer to this question (“We would be able to totally obliterate them [Iran]”) with a mention of these presupposed conditions. The political and rhetorical methodology is clear: For the most part, Americans are opposed to Iran’s possession of nuclear technology and are highly sympathetic to the state of Israel. Hillary Clinton, then, said exactly what the general American public wanted to hear. If Clinton were to win the Presidency and put these policies to work, however, she would indubitably find that coercion is not, and has rarely been, the most effective incentive to cooperation. I hope that her political experience as First Lady and Junior Senator of New York will help her consider the ramifications of taking such a stance against Iran. Finally, for the sake of America and the world, I hope that her answer to this question is merely an attempt to garner votes and not a serious stance on foreign affairs policy and attitude.
I'm absolutely against the idea of Iran, or as a matter of fact, any other country having nuclear weapons and I believe Iran nuking israel would be the most horrible thing they could ever do. The question is are they really that stupid to actually attack Israel?!?!? I doubt it! They might sometimes announce threats just to show off how powerful they could be but to actually get into war with Israel and consequently the U.S. would be the biggest mistake.
Clinton's comments really upsets me!!!! I guess I'd have tolerated her if she'd say that Iran needs to know there'd be serious consequences if they attack Israel, but I find it very disturbing that she actually used the phrase "OBLITERATE". It's just NOT WISE to make comments like that as a democratic candidate!!!!
In response to the eyes portion of the first comment, I think that happens when you get entirely too much plastic surgery...I think. Aside from that I tend to agree heavily with the final posting on this video clip. The question she is asked is totally loaded and is used as a tool to appeal to the more conservative sect of the Democratic Party. To ask "what if" Iran bombed Israel is stupid because it’s not going to happen. If that was the case almost all world powers of any importance would be against the Iranian people and it would spell both economic and social disaster for Iran... they know that we know that, LET THE DAMN IRANIANS HAVE NUCLEAR POWER!! THIS IS RIDICULOUS!
I don't see the big hullabaloo. Reality check...this is election time and rhetoric against nations such as Iran, China, DPRK are extremely popular. The truth is that the majority of the American public is not well scholar-ed in foreign policy. What is important to Americans is that we have a strong leader in the international scene. Look at the backlash Barack Obama received for stating that he would meet with leaders of "rogue" nations.
Clinton is responding to a very distant scenario. A lot of dominoes would have to fall, at the "right" time and place in order for Iran to actually Israel. This is a highly unlikely scenario because of the global response, as seen by this video. The reality is, however, that with US-Israel relations, an Iranian attack on Israel would likely receive a very harsh response by the United States. In essence, chill out, this rhetoric of the election process and Hillary trying to show strength.
I really don't understand all this talk about the inevitable Iranian strike on Israel. Has Iran ever been at war with Israel (unlike almost every other country in the Middle East)? Is Iran massing troops on the border? When was the last time Iran initiated a war of aggression? 1700? They talk about these things as if they are just biting at the bit to blow up Israel.
Simply looking at history, the idea that these two countries will go into open conflict with each other is far fetched at best. Iran's leaders aren't great people, but to think they are insane enough to attack Israel because of the Palestinians is retarded. And even if they did attack then Israel is more than capable of retaliating alone (they have well over 50 nukes).
All this talk is pure politics. Hillary has to be able to terrify then re-assure the people about possible war just like Bush has done with great success.
WOAH woah woah. Excuse the informality, but did I just hear that Hillary Clinton has no problem bombing Iran? Oh that's right-she said it maybe fifteen times in these clips, fourteen of which 'Iran' was pronounced 'Ear Rain'. Beautifully done.
No tangents.
I must admit after watching this that I'm embarrassed of Hillary's knowledge of Iran, particuarly because I am no authority on Iran and even I am aware that Iran does not intend to develop nuclear weapons and furthermore, nuke Israel. The last time I checked Iran was developing nuclear energy, and there was no substantial evidence indicating that Iran intended to develop weapons to start a nuclear war.
Her continuation of Washington's 'preemptive strike' mentality is truly disappointing, and the feigned aggression and stern face (stern is polite, ritalin enhanced is more appropriate) create a glimpse into an incredibly narrow-minded potential presidency.
And did she say OBLITERATE? Excellent word choice. This only embellishes the common view of America as a violent, international police force. Well done.
I agree with rana,although it is not possible to predict what the Iranian government would do against Israel, I doubt they are "stupid" enough to actually attack.
Hillary has been taking this position on the war partly because it would attract republican votes (like that would happen for her...), but as she still has a strong chance of being the future president, it is sad that she stands her position in such a way, there is no tact in her interventions. I can not believe she is representing the democratic party with her use of "oblitarate" and her destruction driven speach.
I am not sure how out of context those clips were taken. I am sure that Hilary was asked a hypothetical situation to which she responded, it would have been a whole different thing had she just brought this up randomly. That being said the seriousness with which she answered the question worries me. I do not believe that there is much evidence to suggest that Iran would nuke Israel, it seems to be all speculation and I would not like to have another president who runs around jumping to conclusions like a gossiping middle-schooler who delights in an exaggerated sense of drama.
There seems to have been a recent spike in anti-Iranian sentiment in both the campaign trail and public discourse. First of all, Petraeus claimed, unequivocally, that Iran-backed special groups (i.e. Quds and Hezbollah) are the biggest threat to stability in Iraq and responsible for the death of hundreds of American soldiers. While its questionable just how rash Bush will act in his final months in office, he can attack Iran without Congressional approval (IRC is designated as a terrorist organization).
As far as the campaign goes, there seems to be a clearly delineated dichotomy that the U.S. must choose between Israel and Iraq. I'm not sure when the issue became so cut and dry and when the potential for diplomacy on both fronts ceased to exist. It seems fairly unlikely that Iran is planning on "wiping Israel off the map" in the near future nor is it remotely clear that this the basis on their enrichment program. Shaping foreign policy on such presuppositions is, frankly, ridiculous...campaign season or otherwise.
First, a response to pehya's comment about nader...
nader is trying to join the election, but up against formidable obstacles of getting on the ballot in many different states. My old roommate is one of his right hand men in DC; he needs people in cali to help so if you are into it, let me know and i can put you in touch with him.
As terrifying as the combination of Clinton's eyes and her nuclear threat against Iran is, I would have to agree that i think it is primarily posturing for the elections. America has long taken the side of Israel against much of the rest of the middle east, partly due to zionist pressure within the US, partly to racism, and partly to an obligation i think many americans feel towards Israel after WWII. I have more faith that Iran would not attack Israel than that Clinton wouldn't attack Iran, but I hope I am not being overly optimistic when i say that i don't think that Hillary really believes that there is any potential of the actualization of this situation. I find her language of "those people over there, which ever of them is in power" to be pretty offensive, as though she doesn't know who the leaders of Iran are, or as if it doesn't matter b/c "they" just need to be spoken sternly to, like small children. It seems much more likely that Israel would strike Iran first with such backing from the US(especially since evidence seems to show that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons), and as much as I'm against nuclear weapons and war in general, I feel like if Clinton is threatening Iran with retaliation, the same peace-keeping strategy should be extended to Israel.
I would be interested to know what questions she was addressing when she made those comments, if any.
Wow, I don't really know where to begin with this post, but lets just talk about her body position and her eyes, she looks like she is ready to pounce on the interviewer..Instead of promoting peace and talking about ways that the US/Iran/Israel can all dipomatically get along and live amongst each other in today's society she is talking about bombing the #@$#@ out of Iran? It is easy to see she is appealing to the foolish citizens of the country who know nothing about Iran nevertheless the state they live in. This video was wack/fake/and a tool. I truly believe that this video influences people easily and promotes hate.
There seems to be a lot of dissent against Hillary Clinton's remarks in this blog posting, and I understand way as she does sound ridiculous reiterating over and over that she would attack Iran based on a possible nucler attack on Israel by Iran, but I would like to see how much this video clip has been edited from original footage and how much Hillary's remarks, if they have been, have been taken out context.
It does seem to be an exagerated threat and should not even be discussed, but obviously a nuclear attack by ANY nation on an American ally would provoke a response by the US military, so its not necessarily what she's saying that makes no sense, but the fact that she's even saying it. Nobody in Iran is seriously considering detonating a nuclear bomb on Israel and starting World War III. Our next leader needs to stop this current policy of containing and verbally threatening Iran before somebody goes too far and the hope for possible diplomacy between our two nations officially is thrown out the window...
Even the Bush administration isn't stupid enough to to actually declare that they'll "obliterate" a country for attacking Israel. I think this just shows how powerful the Israeli lobby is in the U.S., that it can convince presidential candidates to put Israel's national interests ahead of U.S. national interests. And people are worried Barack Obama might feel compelled to help Kenya?! I mean, if Iran decided to bomb "new Europe" or something, would we "obliterate" Iran then? It's just all so ridiculous it's scary.
It's a little odd to see both the Republican soon-to-be-official nominee and one of the Democratic hopefuls agreeing on an issue though. Maybe a war on Iran will unite the country just like the Iraq war did...
I think what is even more insidious than her actually saying she would be willing to obliterate Iran is that it actually helps her to say that sort of thing. It shows her as tough on terrorists and strong on national defense. It's just another way to conflate all the issues that are actually facing us as far as U.S. national defense is concerned. And it is no one's best interest to start obliterating anyone.
"It does mean they have to look very carefully at their society." This comment seems very out of place with all the others. She is sending a message to the government of Iran but that comment seems to be very accusative towards every Iranian. Also worth noting, in her speaches in front of crowds, she uses the pronunciation I-RAY-NIAN but talking to the reporter she uses EE-RAW-NIAN possible trying to appeal to a less educated public at a rally versus a more educated public watching television to learn more about her.
Ignoring what this says about Hillary, what does this say about American society that presidential candidates feel that they have to seem war-mongering and aggressive in order to accommodate their voters?
We can make fun of politicians all we want, but at the end of the day, there is a large amount of blame on the populace who remain uneducated and ignorant of the world around them. Congrats on Berkeley kids for expanding their knowledge, though.
And as much as we want to think that Iran isn't going to pursue nuclear weapons, there is no way to know for sure what the actors in the upper echelons of the Iranian government are thinking. However, in the spirit of mutual trust and international cooperation, I'm all for nuclear power!
Well, I don't have a TV right now so I missed all this talk about Iran on the campaign trail. I must say that I am surprised that she is making such strong statements when she probably could take a more middle-ground approach. I feel like she should have steered the question towards her desire to prevent an attack rather than just focusing on the worst-case scenario. I am sure a lot of Israelis would even think that comments like these that focus on violence only create more tension and will curb progress.
Well, I don't have a TV right now so I missed all this talk about Iran on the campaign trail. I must say that I am surprised that she is making such strong statements when she probably could take a more middle-ground approach. I feel like she should have steered the question towards her desire to prevent an attack rather than just focusing on the worst-case scenario. I am sure a lot of Israelis would even think that comments like these that focus on violence only create more tension and will curb progress.
The way she speaks is completely disrespectful. It’s almost as if Iranians are nothing but terrorists and barbarians that would actually bomb Israel. She claims that the United States would “obliterate” Iranians if they were to do that. First of all, what a terrible and weighty word!! Gosh, I hope she doesn’t become president.
I also agree that she is just saying that to win the uneducated's vote. I mean she has to right? As a woman she probably doesn't want to sound too nice or too scared to say that she is willing to go to war or attack a country if they hurt our allies. This also shows that she is so into winning this race that she is willing to say anything, even if it offends some people.
Although Hilary is not being very peaceful with her words here, I do believe that she has a point in her message. What she is trying to do is allow Iran to develop their nuclear energy program as well as develop nuclear weapons if they want to. I think she is getting at the right message here because she will let Iran do what they believe they have the right to do in developing nuclear energy without being told not to. However, she is simply making it clear that if they do end up launching on Israel, America's ally in the Middle East, that they will be "obliterated". Although it sounds harsh, it is the right message because you can no longer say that Iran wasn't warned about what would happen if they were to attack Israel. Hilary is correct when she says she believes that this threat will deter Iran from attacking Israel because unless the government is truly crazy, they will not do anything that would allow their country and home land to be obliterated. So that is generally how I feel about Hilary's comments regarding Iran and the future of developing its nuclear program.
in my opinion, hillary is making these comments to show people that she is not afraid to take action. a lot of her campaign has been based on showing how much experience she has for this leadership position. im a little upset that she is also jumping on the "obliterate iran" bandwagon, probably to just appease the voters. however, she does make a point that there must be something done by iran to result in such an attack, rather than threatening to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb iran (mccain's view). so at least she isnt in favor of just starting a war out of nowhere... but you can't trust politicians anyway... with this attitude, she'll call anything an "attack on israel" and start ww3
What Hilary Clinton is saying is not really news at all, it is her playing politics to show voters that she would not be a weak president. It is sad that these comments need to be said because an attack on Israel would surely warrant a response by Israel and its allies worldwide. This type of talk is turned into propaganda by both sides and fuels emotional responses, while not furthering an intelligent, informed discussion of the situation.
Hard talk about what our response would or could be is not revealing any new information to the leaders in Iran. If it was and Iran really did plan on attacking Israel they would have done so already. Additional conflict in the Middle East is not in the interests of either side.
What candidates should be talking about is how we need to begin to engagement through direct talks with Iran and not going through an intermediary like Pakistan to communicate. An open dialogue with Iran should help ease tensions and stop this useless propaganda that feeds on our desire to hear about how much butt we could kick if we choose. As we have learned we can destroy countries relatively easily, the problem lies in what to do after the country is decimated. If we had that answer then wouldn't we be on the offensive if Iran was that big of a threat?
I feel as though Hillary was trying very hard to appeal to xenophobic notions that Americans have with regards to the middle east. I dont think she actually believes that a nuclear strike is actually an option but was trying to appeal to military hardliners within the united states. I think that hillary has to over compensate and masculanise her answers when trying to seperate erself from her competitors n aspects of national security. If Hillary had played anything other than a hard line with reference to iran then she would have risked being casted as a weak woman. The problem wih mysogeny within the united states is that any woman in a position of power has to overcompensate for the fact that she is a woman. Especially when she casts her self as harer on terrorism and more experianced in international relations than her opponent Barack Obama.
Post a Comment