"if Iran does achieve what appears to be its continuing goal of obtaining nuclear weapons"

[LSK]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24256056

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3192271&mesg_id=3192271

I just can't get over that statement by Hillary. Is she blatantly lying or completely ignorant? She does have a past of http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/25/204032.aspx">NOT READING NIE's. She also did vote on that damned http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349">Kyl-Lieberman amendment and of course her famous http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237">IWR vote and http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00235">her Nay on the Levin amendment. Has she apologized for the IWR vote yet? Based on her actions since then, she apparently learned NOTHING about the mistakes of the Iraq war and starting wars of CHOICE.

I know what you will say, that Obama said "all options are on the table". However, he does not go around lying about Iran still developing Nuclear Weapons nor does he bring up the unspoken obvious that if Iran nuked anyone, there would be an equal response. No shit sherlock.

But the facts are that Iran stopped its Nuclear Weapons program in 2003. The http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml">IAEA does not seem to find anything just like the Inspectors found no WMD in Iraq in 2003. The "insane" president of Iran has said in interviews that nuclear weapons are useless because he knows if you use them, they are used on you. Also Iran has a history of NOT ATTACKING ANYONE. Therefore THERE IS NO REASON AT ALL TO EVEN MENTION IRAN NUKING ANYONE.

We all know that Bush and Cheney have a bizarre bloodlust desire to attack Iran and that could start a very bad chain of events involving Russia and China. So why even give them any support at all? Yet Hillary seems to have a pattern of doing just that.

When I joined DU in 2003, this was anti-war central. It was for many years. Its the war stupid. BFEE, illegal occupation and all that. For some reason, Hillary supporters now want to forget about the anti-war movement.
They are quick to throw people like Keith Olbermann, Randi Rhodes, Move-on.org under the bus. They make up excuses about Iran that sound much to familiar to the excuses about Iraq in 2002 and 2003.

Even thou I am an Obama supporter, up until this week, I had no problem voting for Hillary in the general. But this nuke Iran talk and the pattern of repeating Neocon talking points makes me very nervous about her. How exactly is she different than McCain on foreign policy?

For all those Hillary supporters who thought the Iraq war was a big mistake, how on earth do you explain her words about Iran? If you have no problem with this, why are you on DU in the 1st place?

[SunsetDreams]

1. The Pentagon says Iran does not have Nuclear weapons

[redqueen]

2. K&R

[anigbrowl]

3. I strongly agree. Iran is unfairly demonized by the USA...

because many Americans are still smarting from the humiliation of events that took place in 1979.

Now, don't get me wrong - Iran has major faults. I don't like their theocratic social climate, I don't approve of their liberal use of execution, I don't agree with their ongoing war of words with Israel. I could give yo a long list of things I don't like about Iran.

However, they are mostly to do with the government that runs Iran now, which I don't think is a very good representative (or servant) of the Iranian people. I feel that the incumbent government there exists largely as a response to George Bush. The Iranians were extending an olive branch to the US during the presidency of Khatami, and it was rejected - which is how we wound up with Ahmedinejad. On a broader note, the regime there (where the government of the day is subordinate to 'supreme leader' Khameini) does not serve the interests of the Iranian people well either...but nor has it served them that badly. For all its faults, it's the system they've chosen to live with for the time being.

People seem to forget that Iran was the fist democracy in the Middle East, back in the first half of the 20th century. Unfortunately, that didn't work out so well for Standard Oil, and so the US cheerfully set about wrecking Iran's democratic system in order to reinstall a more pliable monarchy (and then failed to even pay all the oil royalties that were the price of his pliability). The US has fucked Iran over repeatedly; it's time we took some responsibility for that.

Frankly, I am just fine with them having a nuke because I don't believe they would ever use it except as a defensive deterrent.

[LSK]

4. also, I might add that comments about Nuking them influences them

The people of Iran will have a negative reaction to comments that Hillary has made whereas comments from Barack about sitting down and talking with the leaders will have a positive and calming influence on the population of Iran and therefore the radicals will have less influence on the general population.

Barack seems to get diplomacy while Hillary does not.

[XemaSab]

5. She's crazy

:crazy:

[newmajority]

6. AIPAC is the only one pushing the whole "Iran is STILL building nukes, g-d damn it!!" hysteria

Unfortunately, there are some in Congress who will take AIPAC's word over that of the NIE, the IAEA, or anyone else.

[billyoc]

7. They'll take AIPAC's money, too. Small wonder where comments like "such a fucking whore" come from.

:eyes: