|
I agree, so many so called leaders ready to take us all to you know where in
a hand bag. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Yeah the US "could", but it WOULDN'T, simply because Iran have the military capability to fight
back, and most likely do a hell of a lot of damage to US soil.
China anyone?
But yes, her comments do make her seem a little foolish. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Hillary Clinton simply stated what most people already know--if Iran were to attack Israel, the US
could, indeed, obliterate Iran, as America remains a far superior military force. The only factor
that would likely hold the US back from an unrestrained attack would be international public
opinion, at least if the Democrats win the White House. Additionally, one would assume that early on
in a Clinton presidency, US troops would start to pull out of Iraq, which would give the president
more room in which to maneuver.
Clinton simply affirmed America's traditional commitment to Israel. More importantly, however,
Hillary made these statements just before the Pennsylvania primary, where it pays to be seen as a
hawk. Hillary, after all, wanted to secure the rural, conservative working-class vote, and language
associated with a dove is unlikely to do the trick. In a sense, many of the people who support
Clinton are the types who would be nearly as inclined to vote for McCain. As such, on a foreign
policy level, the two are actually quite similar. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
I'm no so sure that this statement makes her "unfit" to be president. I think it shows that she is
way more aggressive than Barack. Barack also mentioned that if Iran decides to bomb Isreal there
would be action in return. Both candidates would take action but one more is expressing in a more
aggressive and open terms. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Well i am not sure if that would make her unfit. Perhaps to those of a greater pacifistic nature,
then yes, i guess so. However, keep in mind that Obama made a similar statement about Pakistan not
long ago. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|