1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Clinton: "We would like to see a nuclear free Middle East and a nuclear free world."

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Mathloom, Jan 11, 2011.

  1. Mathloom

    Mathloom Shameless Optimist
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    18,535
    Likes Received:
    18,750
    What a joke. I was there. She was ranting on and on about Iran (fair enough, that's why she's here) but then when she gets asked the question: "if you want to avoid an arms race here, and you say that nuclear weapons would be a problem for this region, then why does the US allow and support Israel in keeping nuclear weapons?"

    Her reaction was hilarious. Initially, she was shocked because she expected that no one would be allowed to even ask such a question. Then her voice just shrank and refused to comment and blurted out the hypocrytical sentence I've bolded above.

    How such a sham of a policy stance can be allowed to continue is hilarious to me. I'm sure the US could garner far more (and less expensive) support for disarming Iran if they took, if not the same, then similar approach with Israel's arsenal of undeclared nuclear weapons. Even if Israel is just half as religiophobic, paranoid, aggressive, unpredictable, unstable and non-transparent as Iran, it doesn't justify them having roughly 100 nuclear weapons versus Iran's ZERO. You can't even use the Palestinian conflict to justify it because you can't drop a nuke in your own freaking backyard.

    What does she do now? She riles up the Middle Eastern countries against Iran, essentially fanning the flames of conflict in a region that's already handicapped by conflict. If policy makers had half a brain, they would realize that neighbouring countries are the only hope of disarming Iran, yet they haven't even been included in direct negotiations and are now being polarized through Hillary Clinton.
     
  2. YaosDirtyStache

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,433
    Likes Received:
    656
    RTSY? Is this you?
     
  3. Mr. Brightside

    Mr. Brightside Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Messages:
    18,953
    Likes Received:
    2,138
    Do people still take Clinton seriously after the Wikileaks fiasco?
     
  4. GlenRice

    GlenRice Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,990
    Likes Received:
    239
    Did Israel threaten to wipe a country off the map?
     
  5. Mathloom

    Mathloom Shameless Optimist
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    18,535
    Likes Received:
    18,750
    If I hold 2 pistols to your head, and don't say a word, am I or am I not threatning wiping you off the face of the earth? Israel have threatened to attack Iran and have even carried out millitary exercises to that effect.
    So in that respect, yes, Israel is continuously a threat to the security of Iranians - and that's where my concern lies > for Iranians, rather than the Iranian government.

    The point here is for no one to have nuclear weapons.
    If the threshold for allowing nuclear weapons was stupid remarks by illegitimately elected presidents (notice, I specifically don't consider him a leader) of countries with rogue governments, then we need to re-think this whole thing.

    As StupidMoniker pointed out in a previous thread, (paraphrasing) Israel's stance on the two-state solution is that it won't concede or sacrifice anything and will only settle for a deal that is heavily in its favor because it is otherwise happy for things to carry on as they are... These are signs of the type of country which you don't want posessing nuclear weapons. The lives of Palestinians are cheap to them, and all because of some mythical level of security they are trying to attain.

    The current Iranian government should not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, but given the same reasoning, there should be a serious and active attempt to disarm Israel of its nuclear weapons. They have been gifted more than enough weapons technology to defend themselves against regional threats without the need for ~100 nuclear weapons.

    But more to the point: The US is not truly interested in a nuclear free Middle East, and Hillary Clinton is a liar. These lies are also fuelling the conspiracy theorists and the extremists because they are propogating the idea that the US wants only Israel to have nuclear/hi-tech weapons and for the US to have bases all over the Middle East but for no Middle Eastern country to have the kind of weapons to defend itself.
     
  6. CrazyDave

    CrazyDave Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,027
    Likes Received:
    439
    I agree with this statement.

    Questions:

    Are you suggesting the US should support the idea that Iran should be allowed to have half as many undeclared nukes as Israel, based on your equation? Do you think that the US should see Iran as equal/the same (or half as trustworthy, as per equation) in regards to respectable nuclear capability/responsibility/threat? Your perspective is interesting. You yourself say "My concern is for the Iranians."

    Not sure if serious on the outrage. I mean, I understand, but I think you do too. So why the outrage, aside from her gaffe... I get that, but then what did you expect her to say?

    I would also argue that it is exactly what she's doing trying to employ the help/sympathy/fear of the surrounding nations to help disarm Iraq. One might argue she/they/we are doing a bad job of it, but the difference in "Fanning the flames" and "employing the neighbors" here is a bit grey, depending on your perspective. Whether she is being disingenuous or not, she IS suggesting what you're suggesting... a nuke free middle east. Maybe a step towards that is not so unrealistic as you think? Maybe it is.

    I think your idea of what demonstrates an attitude of a country that should or should not have nuclear weapons is also debatable. Not wrong, debatable. Especially from US perspective. Not that it is right or wrong, but it is the US who is doing the talking that's got you riled up.
     
  7. Depressio

    Depressio Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Messages:
    6,416
    Likes Received:
    366
    It's really too bad. The sentence you bolded is great and is my opinion as well, but unfortunately our government does the exact opposite in attempting to achieve it.
     
  8. trustme

    trustme Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,882
    Likes Received:
    196
    I don't see why the UAE doesn't get nuclear weapons. It seems to be arguably the most neutral country in the region. I feel like as long as israel has nukes, someone in the Middle East should, too. Just to keep some sort of balance of power. And if Mahmoud is too crazy of a president to be in possession of nukes, I think it's only fair to let a country like the UAE have them.
     
  9. Mathloom

    Mathloom Shameless Optimist
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    18,535
    Likes Received:
    18,750
    I think the US needs to be consistent. It needs to take a fair approach. We all know that this Iranian government should not have nukes. The US seems to agree with that.

    My issue is that the US seems to be ignoring the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons, which pose a threat to this region. If Iran is a 100% threat level, then Israel is not 0%. The US needs to decide what that threat level is and act accordingly. Now we can argue forever about whether Israel's threat level for destablizing the region and consequently the world is 50% or 1% or 20% or whatever. But the one thing we can agree on is that, given the same methodology, Israel is not a 0% threat, and if that threat level is 1% then it is silly to allow Israel to keep ~100 undeclared nukes.

    It's also important to distinguish the 4 parties: Israeli people, Israeli government, Iranian people, Iranian government. There is a clear disconnect between the people and the government in these countries, and that speaks to the heart of the threat level I'm talking about here. We must not let the people of these countries suffer due to their governments going rogue on them in sham democracies. Once again, there are degrees of difference, and Israel's democracy is healthier than the Iranian democracy, but nevertheless they have both acted with varying degrees of irresponsibility.

    She is now here because the wikileaks documents brought her here. They showed the Israeli/Iranian neighbours are seriously concerned about conflict and that they are pissed that they weren't included in the process. Her appearance in the region is merely to give the illusion that they are now included in the process when the reality is that if they were included in the process, there would be significantly higher pressure on Israel to behave responsibly.

    I'm interested to hear your thoughts on what qualifies as suitable to hold nuclear weapons. Let me also distinguish another few concepts:

    My belief: either no one should have nuclear weapons or everyone should be allowed to have them. The situation where only "responsible" countries are allowed to have them, whereby those very same countries have given themselves the right to define "responsible" due to their millitary power, is completely unacceptable.

    What seems to be US official belief: Some countries act in a responsible way and if they don't pose a danger then they will probably be allowed to pursue nuclear technology independently.

    What do you think is an acceptable methodology for who gets to develop nuclear technology?
     
  10. Mathloom

    Mathloom Shameless Optimist
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    18,535
    Likes Received:
    18,750
    If it were up to me, I would avoid nukes like the plague. I would much rather the UAE become a US-backed voice for disarmment of Israel than to create this counter balance of nukes.

    This would also allow the UAE to become a key negotiatior with Iran since it was (before sanctions) one of its top trading partners.

    Then again, it may be best to sit out these kind of things because neutrality is what has really ensured that the UAE remains free of attacks from all sides except the Israeli mossad.
     
  11. pippendagimp

    pippendagimp Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2000
    Messages:
    27,082
    Likes Received:
    21,359
    i'm laughing more at the other part of her response: "nuclear free world"

    that's the hypocritical part :grin:
     
  12. Deji McGever

    Deji McGever יליד טקסני

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 1999
    Messages:
    4,012
    Likes Received:
    950
    There should be a rule that any state attempting a nuclear weapons program should force everyone in the state to watch Threads nonstop for 24 hours on all television stations.

    That **** still gives me nightmares.
     
    1 person likes this.
  13. pippendagimp

    pippendagimp Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2000
    Messages:
    27,082
    Likes Received:
    21,359
    thanks for posting that vid
     
  14. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
    Yikes. US policy is so obviously absurd it's rather hard to stomach.
     
  15. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,823
    Likes Received:
    3,415
    Well, yeah. It has threatened to nuke Iran pretty frequently. What do you call that?
     
  16. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,823
    Likes Received:
    3,415
    Oh, so she is saying she wants to get rid of US nukes, too?
     
  17. RedRedemption

    RedRedemption Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    32,474
    Likes Received:
    7,655
    Sad how diplomacy has been whittled down to nothing more than a dick-measuring contest these days.
     
  18. MoonDogg

    MoonDogg Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 1999
    Messages:
    5,167
    Likes Received:
    495
    Diplomacy has always been a dick-measuring contest...always will be. It's the nature of the species
     
  19. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    34,316
    Likes Received:
    13,838
    Yeah, that's hilarious and ridiculous. I don't see how anyone can take her seriously when she represents the nukes-leader. Even if we somehow managed to make some kind of worldwide agreement that everyone would destroy their stockpiles, I'm pretty positive the US (and many others) would cheat and have them anyway. Given that, expecting Israel or Iran to give up nukes is also a bit absurd.

    I think Iran should have nukes. My only hesitation is that they don't seem to have a government that reflects the will of their people. I would like them to, but it would be somewhat harder to help Iranians get a representative government if the current regime has nukes. But, if they had their house in order, I think nukes make sense for them.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now