Hillary won't rule out NUKING civilians?!

[calmblueocean]

This is -- pardon my french -- fucking CRAZY!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288_pf.html

The AP asked Obama "whether there was any circumstance in which he would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat terrorism and bin Laden.

"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance" in Afghanistan or Pakistan, Obama said. He then added that he would not use such weapons in situations "involving civilians."

"Let me scratch that," he said. "There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

So Obama first ruled out using nukes on civilians to get bin Laden (thank god) but then went further to say that using nukes was not on the table, period. But Hillary refused to take the notion of nuking civilians off the table as Obama did:

"Presidents should be careful at all times in discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons," she said, adding that she would not answer hypothetical questions about the use of nuclear force.

"Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don't believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse," Clinton said.

If you cannot issue a blanket statement denouncing the use of nuclear weapons on civilians, I sure as hell am NOT going to vote for you.

I have maintained for a long time now that Hillary has every right to stay in the race, and even though I disagree with a lot about her, I will vote for her if she's the nominee. But if she really can't bring herself to rule out using nuclear weapons on innocent civilians, then I simply can not and will not vote for her, and will change my sig to reflect that.

I'm watching how this develops.

[BeatleBoot]

1. After Mass Last Sunday

They told me she likes to eat fetuses, too.

And of course, Vince Foster was murdered.




:rofl:

[AnnieBW]

2. Where's your "Goddess of Peace" now?

Don't get me wrong - I likes my Warrior Goddesses. But she's not resembling Athena anymore - more like Kali or the Morrigan.

[Zhade]

3. She's more Callisto than Xena at this point.

NT!

[styersc]

4. Hillary seems to hate civilians the way Rev Wirght hates

white people.

[Kittycat]

6. Is wright running for POTUS? I must have missed that memo.

:eyes:

[styersc]

13. No, Wright is influencing one candidate to make sure he will not

offer protection of technology to protect my family.

Thank goodness Hillary is eager to see my daughter grow up.

Clinton '08 or '12 if need be.

In it to win it for me and my family.

[movonne]

20. Are you for real...how about the people you nuke might like to see their

children grow up...

[TahitiNut]

22. You give credence to those who once called that "the footprint of a backward chicken."

You dishonor those protesters who first stood in harm's way and gave that emblem a decent reputation.

The use of that avatar while expressing a "Nuke 'em!" posture is hypocritical at best.

[Zhade]

15. Even if that were true, Wright's not advocating nuking them.

Specious reasoning from a clintbot? No!

[Kittycat]

5. I agree with you. Her statement was not only careless, but could also create

more short term diplomatic problems with Iran, and our soldiers in Iraq - where some factions are influenced by Iran. Just shows how completely fucking clueless she is... Sounds a lot like * & Cheney really.

[bobbert]

7. She recommends using fear to keep peace, the way the cold war kept peace

Obama wants everyone to just feel safe

[calmblueocean]

12. Yeah, telling the world we won't rule out nuking Kabul to kill some terr'ists is real "peaceful".

Like GWB's kind of "peace".

[Cali_Democrat]

8. The Goddess of War

[AnnieBW]

29. That's offensive to Witches!

n/t

[invictus]

9. Hillary and McCain have so much in common. They are both comfortable with mass murder. n/t

[Thepricebreaker]

10. How do you nuke without hurting civilians??

[anigbrowl]

17. As Truman discovered, you can't.

I can think of some exceptions, but they're pretty contrived - huge military bases in remote parts of Russia and suchlike.

[calmblueocean]

19. You could use small, tactical nukes on a remote battlefield.

Which Obama has ruled out, in part because it says to the world that nuclear force is no different from conventional weapons, and makes using nuclear weapons more acceptable.

[walldude]

11. Here's more of what she said..

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel).

...In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. 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."

I saw this and saw the defense of her statements on DU. I posted a thread with this question in it:

If Iraq were to somehow get a nuclear weapon tomorrow, they would have every right to drop it on the U.S. Is that correct? We invaded their country, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, they had no WMD's, no ties to 9/11 and were not a threat to the U.S. Yet we invaded and are occupying their country.
Hillary claimed if Iran attacked Israel we would be within our rights to "obliterate" them with nukes. Using that logic I would have to assume the Hillary supporters who back up her statement would be in support of Iraq obliterating the U.S. if they were somehow able to get a hold of a nuke. Or can you explain how we would be within our rights but Iraq would not.

Funny, not a single Hillary supporter bothered to answer.

[Kaleva]

21. What you left out

of Hillary's statement is that she would do such a thing if Iran first attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

[walldude]

24. Actually I didn't leave it out. But it doesn't change my question anyway

Are you saying that killing millions of innocent people is a proper response to killing millions of innocent people? And if so are you going to welcome the Iraqi Army here to kill you? Because we invaded their country, no wmd's, no ties to 9/11, no threat to us. Seems like if you think dropping a nuke is the proper response to someone dropping a nuke then you'll be glad to allow Iraq to come here and carpet bomb our major cities.

edit: oh and from the previous post: (if it attacks Israel)

and here: Hillary claimed if Iran attacked Israel we would be within our rights to "obliterate" them with nukes

[Kaleva]

25. I'll qoute you

"Hillary claimed if Iran attacked Israel we would be within our rights to "obliterate" them with nukes."

Where is the part where Hillary said that if Iran were to attack Israel with nuclear weapons? You left that out which then makes the rest of your argument flawed as you are trying to say that Iraq ought to be free to use nuclear weapons against the US even though the US didn't use such weapons on Iraq.

[walldude]

27. Ok sorry I left out nuke. You are picking nits here..

Nukes or no nukes the basis of her argument is the same, the response to mass destruction is more mass destruction.

[Kaleva]

26. I'd like to add though

that I think Hillary's comments were quite foolish and nothing good was accomplished by saying such.

[depakid]

14. "I sure as hell am NOT going to vote for you."

Unfortunately, that means you're going to be in for a lot of electoral disappointment in your life.

[Zhade]

16. At least it'll be later, since he'll get the chance to vote for Obama over McLame.

NT!

[calmblueocean]

18. You've got the Amnesty Intl logo as your avatar -- do human rights matter or not?

Having your city/town/village "obliterated" by nuclear weapons, having your family obliterated by nuclear weapons... how is that not a human rights issue?

[BigDaddy44]

23. Since its virtually impossible to use a nuke without impacting civilians...

If Obama is going to state he'd never use nukes on civilians, then he'd have to be for totally dismantling our nuclear arsenal. If you're never going to use it, its not a deterrent, and there's really no need to have it.

[davidpdx]

28. I talked to one of my co-workers today from Australia

and he couldn't believe Hillary Clinton said that. His view was that she was trying to over compensate because she is female and trying to look tough. (note: I actually live overseas and work with people from may different countries)

I'm not certain I agree with him totally, but I do think saying that was a mistake given the fact that the US is now involved in two wars. Saber rattling is what Bush has been doing for 7 years with Middle Eastern countries as well as North Korea. Look where that has gotten us.

[invictus]

30. Hillary is not someone who can be trusted as Commander-in-Chief. Her Tuzla lie shows that she has ..

... delusions of military grandeur. Not to mention her callous threat of genocide and mass murder through the "obliteration" of an entire nation.