Comments:Hillary Clinton threatens to 'totally obliterate' Iran if it attacks Israel

So now Clinton wants to murder the Iranians. --A101 - (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

wth --71.254.97.20 16:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC) iran never did anything wrong


 * Well she did say that it was if they attack Israel first. But I think her timing of selecting Earth Day to speak of obliterating entire countries to be so choice. --SVTCobra 16:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know what she'd think if Israel attacked Iran first. For some reason I don't think she'd feel the same way. Wikidsoup - (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

She says " reckless, foolish and tragic"... how many things have been done by the United States administration in recent years that can be described as " reckless, foolish and tragic"? This statement totally puts me off of Clinton, if there's one thing the world doesn't need, it's the total obliteration of a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.185.2.81 (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you read what Clinton said carefully, you'll notice she did not talk about obliterating a country, she talked about "the Iranians" and totally obliterating "them", i.e. obliterating 70 million Iranians rather than destroying things like civilian infrastructure (roads, hospitals, schools, dams). She did (in what's cited here) talk about "they" who might consider launching an attack on Israel, which is rather ambiguous about whether this means the government or the whole population. But it's pretty well impossible to obliterate a government. You could bomb a cabinet meeting but there would be enough political/social infrastructure to quickly recreate a temporary government and later on elect a longer term government. "totally obliterate them" is really a call for genocide and it's quite POV for this article not to have connected to international definitions of genocide and not to have included relevant context. However, the article's old now, so there's no point trying to fix it now. Mehrnaz Shahabi's article points out quite clearly how Clinton is threatening genocide. In contrast, while Ahmadinejad is not quite an angel, his biggest threat against Israel is that the Israeli government should "vanish from the pages of time" the way that the Soviet and Shah governments "vanished" (not by foreign invasion!), and that the best way to accomplish this would be a referendum through the whole of Israel and the Occupied Territories. This is not particularly friendly for a head of government to say, but it's not a threat of genocide. Boud (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What the fuck
Everyone who looked at this and thought "What the fuck" please sign here.--209.66.200.45 17:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait... didn't her husband make a bunch of threats toward some middle east countries in the 90's saying we'd kick their ass if they didn't listen... they didn't listen and uh... he still did nothing but blow smoke. So is she posturing like her hubby to appear strong? I wonder if that's a sign of how much involvement the former pres will have in her decision making (does that sound unconstitutional to anyone else?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.15.151 (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * w:User:Ian Lee 22:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.145.133 (talk)
 * I'll sign, but I don't know why you're surprised. Could you possibly be the only person who didn't know how hawkish Clinton is?  Of course, whether she is this way by her nature or because she thinks it's the only way for a woman to be taken seriously in national politics is anyone's guess.  --on WP as User:Kasreyn.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.204.85 (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's my signature. Is this her idea of foreign policy???  Perhaps it's to win superdelegates? I'm surprised she said something so foolish. Umm... just a hint Hillary: we don't want any more "wars"... She wants to win, right?

for once
I like something she said. But i would bomb Iran for funding Terrorist in Iraq and Lebanon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.16.129 (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

no idea
But she might just be making a play for super delegates, i.e. trying to seem more likely to beat McCain. Well, Obama will motivate the base. I imagine most super delegates that vote based upon chances to beat McCain will give him props for that. Nyarlathotep - (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Grrrr
If I choose Obama, I attack Pakistan. If I choose Clinton or McCain, I attack Iran. Wtf?

Come on guys, it...it can't be that hard to NOT go to war, right? Could we have a 20-year period where we don't start another war or conflict. Is that so hard to fucking ask? Fephisto - (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

someone once said, back to business as usual. I agree with that statement 24.23.49.181 22:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there is still a difference between attacking terrorists within an allied country if said allied country is not able to respond and threatening to obliterate a country whether allied or otherwise.
 * As far as I know, not even the Bush administration ever used the word "obliterate" referring to an entire country. Does she really thiink she'll get more votes with such statements?--146.234.100.106 08:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh Goodie
We can look forward to even more war in the future! Hooray!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.61.169 (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

if it happened
Realistically, if Israel gets attacked by anyone, America is going to rally in support of Israel. We're their biggest ally, they're our little sea of influence in the Middle East... so what else would we do in that situation other than help out Israel? It wouldn't be like Iraq where we went in essentially unprecedented, it would be like Afghanistan when we went in there with a reason, and a purpose.

Sidebar: "If you act a fool sonny, I'll whip out the belt on your hide!" I got an image of a grandparent threatening a little kid for some reason. 72.171.0.146 04:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's all wars nowadays.
nuf said —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.128.250 (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton has barbarian brains!
This confirms my decision not to vote for her. I'm sick of this narrow-minded rhetoric.

Her statements confirm that she is, indeed, another puppet.

Our country needs to get its act together. Electing more idiots would not be a step in the right direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.2.52 (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To think this woman wants to become the US president.
It's disgusting that someone so...obnoxious and crude, would even be in the running for a presidential nomination is beyond me. She brings nothing to the table, and all she does in debates is try to make Obama look bad so people look past the fact that she is a terrible candidate. I just hope word of this latest outburst reach PS voters before they vote. Maybe we'll get lucky, and she'll lose...Then she'll go cry, again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.199.232 (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hilary, you don't make sense
So you want to do something reckless, foolish and tragic to Iran in order to deter them from doing something reckless, foolish and tragic to Israel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supawhitney (talk • contribs) 22:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Snuke
There's no stopping the Snuke! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.106.150 (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hillary is right. Extremism has to be controlled aggressively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.240.28.26 (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.156.67.216 (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's that time of the month!
Somebody needs a new rag! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.147.142 (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That is completely ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.54.187 (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)