Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Russians having fleet manuevers around Alaska makes sense, since Alaska is close to its borders. How close is the Strait of Hormuz to the US borders?
The Strait of Hormuz is in Iranian territorial waters.
There is no "international water" in the Strait of Hormuz, by any rules that the US has ratified.
Rather an exaggerated figure you are putting forth here...Iraq Body count has the figure of civilian deaths at between 83,000 and 90,550, and most of the deaths were caused by Sunni VS Shiite conflict, which is bad enough that I do not see the need to exaggerate.
The Associated Press About 151,000 Iraqis died from violence in the three years after the United States invaded, concludes the best effort yet to count deaths — one that still may not settle the fierce debate over the war's true toll on civilians and others.
The estimate comes from projections by the World Health Organization and the Iraqi government, based on door-to-door surveys of nearly 10,000 households. Experts called it the largest and most scientific study of the Iraqi death toll since the war began.
Actually, there are two topics both of which were asked by the OP and although they are two very different questions, they both need to be answered:
Hillary Clinton, vows to obliterate Iran if it attacks Israel? What is the morality of obliterating a captive people?
First off, it sounds like Hillary is running for a position in the Israeli Knesset more than she is for President of the United States. Then again, there are many who would be more than willing to place the interest of Israel above that of the United States simply from religious reasons.
Many will tout the strength of Israel then bite at the bit to be the first to "defend" and retaliate on behalf of Israel in the event that Iran were to attack them because they are "surrounded by enemies".
We may also want to ask ourselves what level of attack would constitute full and wide scale strikes from the United States? Would something as small as an incident in the straights of Hormuz between ships or an alleged link between a bombing and the Iranian government constitute such a full scale retaliation? Would Israel be willing to risk the lives of one of the largest Jewish populations on earth that resides within Iran?
In the end, I guess it boils down to, "To the victor goes the morals", or so history will write.
First off, it sounds like Hillary is running for a position in the Israeli Knesset more than she is for President of the United States. Then again, there are many who would be more than willing to place the interest of Israel above that of the United States simply from religious reasons.
Many will tout the strength of Israel then bite at the bit to be the first to "defend" and retaliate on behalf of Israel in the event that Iran were to attack them because they are "surrounded by enemies".
We may also want to ask ourselves what level of attack would constitute full and wide scale strikes from the United States? Would something as small as an incident in the straights of Hormuz between ships or an alleged link between a bombing and the Iranian government constitute such a full scale retaliation? Would Israel be willing to risk the lives of one of the largest Jewish populations on earth that resides within Iran?
In the end, I guess it boils down to, "To the victor goes the morals", or so history will write.
Hillary is just posturing, whereas Bush and Cheney are dying to invade Iran. Hillary has too much common sense, and too much morality.
Pandering to warmongers is a sign of strong morality? hmmm
Where is it written that we have a right to attack Iran? I know Bush has been itching to attack them under the guise of axes of evil. We are hated enough, I do not think we should attack UNLESS they attack us first.
Hillary is every bit as hawkish as the worst of the neoconservative parasites, don't let her peach pant suit fool ya.
I don't think so. She is closer to Obama, but her advisors had her chasing polls all the time. I think the underlying person is a lot more wholesome than Bush/Cheney.
I don't think so. She is closer to Obama, but her advisors had her chasing polls all the time. I think the underlying person is a lot more wholesome than Bush/Cheney.
There is a mountain of evidence out there that seems to suggest otherwise.
Quote:
Hillary expressed her views by phone to the President: ‘I urged him to bomb.’ The Clintons argued the issue over the next few days. [The president expressed] what-ifs: What if bombing promoted more executions? What if it took apart the NATO alliance? Hillary responded, ‘You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?’ The next day the President declared that force was necessary.
Hillary the Hawk (http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_03_27/cover.html - broken link)
While this was written for the American Conservative Magazine, it was written by Justin Raimondo of AntiWar.com fame.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
