Hillary Clinton threatens Iran with "obliteration "

by tomeile Wed Apr 23, 2008 14:30

In recent weeks ,there has been a marked increase in the belligerence of tone coming from politicians and commentators in the nuclear-armed states of America and Israel regarding Iran - a country that does not have nuclear weapons , and towards Palestinians who refuse to cooperate in their own extirpation.

At the end of February , Israel’s deputy defence minister Matan Vilnai threatened Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip with a "holocaust." Despite a temporary tactical row-back following the fully expected outcry at the minister's remarks , Israel and its backers have continued with their apocalyptic threats . Israeli infrastructures Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer speaking at the start of a week long “home front “emergency drill on 11 April warned ,

“An Iranian attack will prompt a severe reaction from Israel, which will destroy the Iranian nation"

On the same day , neo-conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer, writing in the Washington Post, urged America to adopt what he termed the "Holocaust Declaration ":
"It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran (sic), as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran."

Writing five days later in the Jerusalem Post , the Israeli commentator , Calev Ben-David , offered the opinion that it might be necessary ,
“to test a weapon (or long-range ballistic missile) in public ……… to highlight the ability to inflict massive destruction in response to a first strike”.

by the digger Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:25

Whats the problem here?

Iran are told that if they launch a nuclar strike to eliminate the State of Israel they in turn will be destroyed.

Deterence anyoone?

You have to talk to people in the language they understand, folks.

by Biker Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:45

From the Merriam's-Webster online dictionary:-

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obliterate

Obliterate- One entry found.

obliterate

Main Entry: oblit·er·ate
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): oblit·er·at·ed; oblit·er·at·ing
Etymology: Latin oblitteratus, past participle of oblitterare, from ob- ob- + littera letter
Date: 1600
1 a: to remove utterly from recognition or memory b: to remove from existence : destroy utterly all trace, indication, or significance of c: to cause to disappear (as a bodily part or a scar) or collapse (as a duct conveying body fluid) : remove 4
2: to make undecipherable or imperceptible by obscuring or wearing away
3: cancel

Presumably you don't obliterate a country without obliterating it's people (all of them) - men, women and children. This would include supporters of the government, opponents of it, political dissidents, old people, disabled people and children too young to even know what obliterate means - even in their own language. Is that what Hillary Clinton means?

by tomeile Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:51

Good question Digger. The main problem I see is that Clinton is threatening to start a nuclear war that would result in the death of seventy million Iranians .That’s what the obliteration of Iran would entail. Why should she be doing that ? To get nominated as either a Democratic or Republican presidential candidate in the US you have to give assurances to the corporations and billionaires who provide the vast amounts of money needed to fund presidential campaigns . These interests see Iran as standing in the way of the middle-eatsern oil which they need desperately and intend to steal . Clinton wasn’t so much warning Iran , as sending a message to these unelected corporations and billionaires . She is telling them that ,if elected to the presidency ,she is willing to commit mass murder in order to preserve American global economic hegemony and she is inviting Barrack to join her in a game of chicken .

by Mike - Judean Popular Peoples Front Thu Apr 24, 2008 19:09

The problem is that were Iran to launch a strike against Israel (using the weapons they dont actually have but thats another story) The people ordering such a launch (along with their Israeli counterparts) would presumably be safely holed up in some underground bunker and the only folks getting obliterated would be the poor sonsofbitches above who (along with their Israeli counterparts) wouldnt have much say in the mattrer.

But why would Mrs Clinton feel the need to become involved anyway given that Israel has the capability to pretty much "obliterate" anything of significance in Iran (and its neighbours) without any help from the US.

And what pray tell would Clintons response be to any first strike mounted by the only country in the region (as of now) to actually possess WMD ?

by tomeile Fri Apr 25, 2008 13:39

This is a matter for everybody in the world , including Ireland ,not just the Iranians . Even if you think that it is no big problem to murder 70 million people , you have to face the fact that, if Hillary Clinton obliterated Iran , as she has threatened to do , Ireland would not be unaffected . Other middle-eastern countries are certainly aware of risks and are starting to make preparations .

After Dick Cheney’s visit to Israel and Saudi Arabia at the end of last month , a leading Saudi newspaper ,Okaz , reported that the Saudi Shura Council immediately started planning to deal with “sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom” . According to the Riydah based Arab News these plans are in response to indications that Iranian nuclear facilities may be bombed in the near future by either Israel or America.
Scientists in America have used Pentagon-devised software to measure the impact of a "limited" nuclear attack on the main Iranian underground nuclear site in Esfahan , predicting three million deaths by radiation within two weeks.
Israel held a massive five-day civil defence drill two weeks ago at the start of which Ben-Eliezer ,a senior cabinet minister threatened Iran with complete destruction in retaliation for any attack –he wasn’t just referring to attacks with nuclear weapons.
The only way to obliterate the Iranian nation would be to use nuclear weapons . How would such a ‘nuclear incident’ affect Ireland? Is it a coincidence that we are all about to get a booklet through the door over the next two weeks detailing what the government thinks we should do in the event of a ‘nuclear incident’ ?
The lack of any statement from the IAWM on the threat to humanity implicit in the recent threats coming from Israel and America is inexcusable imo.

by Jack Fri Apr 25, 2008 14:11

The prevailing winds in and around the 30 Degree North latitude are westerly and Slightly Southerly.

What is west and slightly South of Esfahan ?

Yup, Israel ! They aint never gonna bomb Esfahan with Nukes for that reason alone.

Secondly Iran aint got no Nukes.

Its all whacked out political diatribe to impress the mindless American masses.

by Jack Fri Apr 25, 2008 14:16

Did I get my terminology right there ?

You know what I mean - they blow TOWARD the West and slightly TOWARD the South i.e. exactly TOWARD Israel.

by Sceptic Fri Apr 25, 2008 15:42

This is just electoral hawkishness of a desperate variety and speaks of her unsuitability for the top job. Anyway it’s not that she is threatening to eliminate Iran and its entire people. Any US attack on Iran would be conventional unless Iran had nuclear weapons. Moreover it would be aimed at the regime and its military capacity not the populace and would never involve invasion. The US would only attack Iran with nuclear weapons if Iran had such weapons and threatened either itself or a State in military alliance with it or which has a pledge of protection eg a NATO member or Saudi Arabia under the Carter doctrine. Israel is not in that category and can look after itself including ensuring the mutual destruction of a nuclear adversary. If Israel went down at the hands of Tehran one can count on Israel taking Tehran down with it. It would not rely on the US to so. The hope is that MAD deters successfully as it did during the Cold War. The various scenarios underscore why it is considered vital that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. The instability arises from the fact that Israel has no strategic depth. One nuclear strike on it and it’s the end. Therefore it has to be pre-emptive to survive. That’s what makes things so volatile.

by tomeile Fri Apr 25, 2008 16:38

‘Anyway it’s not that she is threatening to eliminate Iran and its entire people.’
Yes she most certainly is threatening to eliminate Iran and its entire people .That’s what the word obliterate means ,as Biker pointed out yesterday . Clinton’s speech may make her unsuitable for the job as far as you and I are concerned ,but that’s not the way corporate America reacted to it . After her victory in Pennsylvania she was, according to her fundraisers , on track for raising $10 million in 24 hours - a record amount for a single day.

by Sceptic Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:08

The word “obliterate” is not to be taken literally though I agree it was unwise to utter it in the first place. All she had to say is that she would pursue a firm policy with Tehran. Clinton is a cynical person who goes in for a bit of sabre rattling when it suits her and at the same time can be a bit of a peacenik if it’s to her advantage. Serious tension with Iran would be very damaging to the world economy – you can be sure that corporate America does not want a war in that region. It is not business interests that is driving tensions in the region – it is the behaviour of Tehran and suspicions about its intentions on the part of its neighbours and wider afield.

by tomeile Sat Apr 26, 2008 15:28

There’s nothing in Hillary Clinton’s political record to date that could make anyone draw the conclusion that she is really at heart ‘a bit of a peacenik’ , who is ' unwisely ' bluffing Iran with a round of old fashioned ‘ sabre rattling’.
When somebody wants to take on the role of president of America , and when that person says that she is prepared to obliterate Iran, the rest of the world should take her at her word . Clinton hasn’t tried to clarify her statement since she made it on Tuesday ,so it can only be assumed that she meant it to be taken literally. In fact she implicitly acknowledged that she wasn’t speaking metaphorically when she added that what she had just said was “terrible “ on the same program :

“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."

The threat would ‘perhaps’ deter Iran , Clinton is clearly saying .If that doesn’t work she would , if president , obliterate a country of 71 million people.

Many people would agree with Sceptic when s/he says that the behaviour of Tehran is responsible for tensions in the region . Others would argue that America and its ally ,Israel , are responsible for such tensions . Whoever is right , the world is in a state of serious tension right now - it’s not a question that these tensions “would be damaging to the world economy” as Sceptic writes . Had cheap Iraqi oil been flowing into the coffers of corporate America, the Federal Reserve Board might have been spared the embarrassment of last month’s vote of no confidence in their system by the board of Bear Stearns Bank .
In the present state of growing world volatility and instablity ,there is a strong possiblity that some nuclear armed country will be tempted to use WMDs . As a senior British military source said in an interview with the London Independent last year , “the trouble with talking about military action is that you actually end up bombing.”

by Fred Johnston Sat Apr 26, 2008 21:04 sylfredcar at iolfree dot ie

Oldies like myself will recall the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Hillary is simply pandering to the worst mob-mentality of the US voter; I would suggest that her knowledge of or care for Iran and what goes on there is less than the average Page 3 devotee here in Ireland. Not-so-far-past experience should have taught us that the US administration lies continuously as a matter of foreign policy; that a presidential candidate should tap in to the sitting administration's penchant for untruths in an effort to gain the hearts and minds of a censored and deliberately frightened populace is hardly surprising. Hillary Clinton is never likely to say, for instance, that she is appalled at Israel's ignoring of more than 30 Security Council resolutions over its treatment of the Palestinians, nor that she is against the US spending billions to prop up a country which won its territory by the expulsion of half a million people from their homelands. Do you think that she is somehow different from other goal-in-sight American politicians?

by Ahmadinnerjacket Mon Apr 28, 2008 01:53

Hillary didn't mean to say "obliterate". She meant to say "the regime will vanish in the pages of history.

by Sceptic Mon Apr 28, 2008 13:06

What she actually said was that the US would have (and does have) the capacity to obliterate Iran which is a statement of fact and a reality that underlay the cold war in regard to the principal opponents. It was not a statement of intent and in any case she is a candidate not yet president. Such tough talking is alarming but on the other hand it might be beneficial in concentrating minds in Tehran which might be entertaining the possibilities of nuclear adventurism. Tehran now knows that neither Clinton (nor McCain) will tolerate any nonsense from it in terms of extending its regional ambition by nuclear threats or menace.

by tomeile Mon Apr 28, 2008 13:44

Peter Symonds on WSWS today questions the timing of the US intelligence report into the Syrian site bombed by Israel seven months ago . Given the increased belligerence of US propaganda against Tehran , Symonds concludes that the intelligence dossier is “a menacing threat against Tehran” which the Bush regime asserts is intent on building a nuclear bomb .

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/syri-a28.shtml

The presence of what appeared in Israeli satellite photographs to be North (not South!) Koreans working at the site in the Syrian desert has been used by America and Israel to undermine the recent relatively benign reports from the IAEA on Iran and N. Korea’s nuclear programs .
The Daily Telegraph ,the house paper of Britain’s military top-brass , reported last week how Western security experts believe that many North (not South!) Korean scientists who were filmed working on the Syrian project were also frequent visitors to Iran's top-secret atomic facilities.see:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtmlxml=/opini...4.xml

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff , is expected to present ‘evidence’ this week proving that Iran is training and supplying weaponry for the killing of American soldiers in Iraq .Mullen warned last Friday that America 'has the power to strike Iran ' and insisted that , in spite of the fact that US forces were already engaged in two wars in the region, he has reserve capabilities in the Navy and the Air Force for any further military action that might be needed.

Zionists are not inclined to trust anybody but Israel’s own military when it comes to what they term the “existential threat “ to Israel from non-existent Iranian nuclear bombs . Today’s Editor’s Notes in the Jerusalem Post by David Horowitz makes chilling reading.
Noting the consensus among Israel's political and military leaders that “Israel has never been as threatened as it is today “, Horowitz warns that , in the months ahead , “the government may have to take a decision that many leaders here consider to be the most significant the modern state has ever had to make” . He leaves no doubt in readers minds that the decision will be about whether to launch an attack on Iranian nuclear installations .
Horowitz wonders if such an attack ,which might lead to “war with Syria and with Lebanon, and upsurges of violence on other fronts, too” ,would be worth it . He lets ‘a particularly well-informed Israeli’ who spoke to him on the matter last week answer for him : "One nuclear missile on Tel Aviv, and it's over." …."Did we
all gather here after the Holocaust to be wiped out by one bomb?" see:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1208...wFull

by tomeile Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:58

George W. Bush admitted yesterday that he released U.S. intelligence about the nuclear facility that Israel bombed in Syria in September so as to put pressure on North Korea and send a message to Iran

"And then we have an interest in sending a message to Iran and the world for that matter about just how destabilizing nuclear proliferation would be in the Middle East," Bush said.
See: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/979135.html

by tomeile Thu May 01, 2008 13:08

An updated Israeli intelligence assessment has concluded that Iran is likely to have the technology necessary to make a nuclear bomb some time this year ,Israel’s Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said yesterday . Mofaz, a former defence minister and IDF chief of General Staff , made the claim on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day and stressed that ‘any means of ensuring Iran does not go nuclear would be valid’ . Referring to Iran as ‘ the central threat to humanity in the 21st century’ and clearly equating it with the fascist regime of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Holocaust , Mofaz insisted that “this time" the Jewish people would not let it happen .
see
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=120887053306...wFull

The Irish Anti War Movement has issued no press release- or even any statement on its website - on the escalating danger of a 'nuclear incident' occurring in the Middle-East in the near future despite the clear warnings coming from both Israel and America.