Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If anyone can bring the possibility of WWIII closer, it is Hillary. It was the Clintons who turned the newly friendly relations with Russia that Reagan and Bush41 had built into the current adversarial relations we have today by breaking the promise Bush41 had made that if Gorbachev liberated the Soviet satellite states the US would not allow them to join NATO, an organization formed specifically to fight Russia. The world cannot risk making this tension with Russia worse by putting Hillary in the WH."Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.
On the day of a crucial vote in her nomination battle against fellow Democrat Barack Obama, the New York senator said she wanted to make clear to Tehran what she was prepared to do as president in hopes that this warning would deter any Iranian nuclear attack against the Jewish state.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.
Clinton says U.S. could
Clearly, this is not some one we can risk giving the nuclear codes to.
We already know that WWIII is a certainty.
There is no way Russia is going to let the US controlled Iran.
.
Yes the Right Wing Nut jobs are certain that WW3 is going to be any day now........so sad.....
". . . she was prepared to do as president in hopes that this warning would deter any Iranian nuclear attack against the Jewish state.""Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.
On the day of a crucial vote in her nomination battle against fellow Democrat Barack Obama, the New York senator said she wanted to make clear to Tehran what she was prepared to do as president in hopes that this warning would deter any Iranian nuclear attack against the Jewish state.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.
Clinton says U.S. could
Clearly, this is not some one we can risk giving the nuclear codes to.
"Could" is the operative word. WOULD Clinton let it happen?
Clearly, it is a threat to nuke Iran, and no other president has ever threatened to nuke any other specific country. This is just Hillary being characteristically stupid, irresponsible and greedy for votes. Clearly, she cannot be trusted to formulate US foreign policy or to decide if nuclear weapons should be used.Threatening a nuclear attack on Iran is a stupid, irresponsible thing to do. Clearly, the US should not have a president who so casually threatens to kill, obliterate, 80,000,000 people, more people than died in all of WWII. It is a mark of her mental instability that she would so casually make such a threat."Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.
On the day of a crucial vote in her nomination battle against fellow Democrat Barack Obama, the New York senator said she wanted to make clear to Tehran what she was prepared to do as president in hopes that this warning would deter any Iranian nuclear attack against the Jewish state.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.
Clinton says U.S. could
Clearly, this is not some one we can risk giving the nuclear codes to.
Factually correct.
8 years old
And yes- warning Iran is a good thing.
Clinton didn't threaten an attack on Iran.
She said that IF Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, the United States would respond with a nuclear attack on Iran.
It was a warning to Iran- a warning that American Presidents have been giving to anyone who would launch a nuclear attack on the United States or our allies for decades- and consistent with U.S. policy.
Nobody trusts Hillary, either her character or her judgement. Recall that it was the Clintons who broke the US promise to Gorbachev not to allow the former Soviet satellite states to join NATO if Gorbachev liberated them, and it was the Clintons that pressured Russia to privatize so quickly that it led to economic and political chaos from which Putin rescued the country. Putin is a national hero in Russia because he rescued Russia from the humiliation and political and economic chaos the perfidious and incompetent Clintons helped to create.If anyone can bring the possibility of WWIII closer, it is Hillary. It was the Clintons who turned the newly friendly relations with Russia that Reagan and Bush41 had built into the current adversarial relations we have today by breaking the promise Bush41 had made that if Gorbachev liberated the Soviet satellite states the US would not allow them to join NATO, an organization formed specifically to fight Russia. The world cannot risk making this tension with Russia worse by putting Hillary in the WH."Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.
On the day of a crucial vote in her nomination battle against fellow Democrat Barack Obama, the New York senator said she wanted to make clear to Tehran what she was prepared to do as president in hopes that this warning would deter any Iranian nuclear attack against the Jewish state.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.
Clinton says U.S. could
Clearly, this is not some one we can risk giving the nuclear codes to.
We already know that WWIII is a certainty.
There is no way Russia is going to let the US controlled Iran.
.
Yes the Right Wing Nut jobs are certain that WW3 is going to be any day now........so sad.....
Yeah- because President Trump loves him some Putin.
The world surely can't afford to risk offending Putin- you know the oligarch who kills or imprisons his political opponents and journalists
So are you in favor of Iran attacking Israel with nuclear weapons?
Other than that- what reason do you have for opposing Clinton's warning to Iran that the United States would stand with Israel?
Clearly, it is a threat to nuke Iran, and no other president has ever threatened to nuke any other specific country. This is just Hillary being characteristically stupid, irresponsible and greedy for votes. Clearly, she cannot be trusted to formulate US foreign policy or to decide if nuclear weapons should be used.Threatening a nuclear attack on Iran is a stupid, irresponsible thing to do. Clearly, the US should not have a president who so casually threatens to kill, obliterate, 80,000,000 people, more people than died in all of WWII. It is a mark of her mental instability that she would so casually make such a threat."Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.
On the day of a crucial vote in her nomination battle against fellow Democrat Barack Obama, the New York senator said she wanted to make clear to Tehran what she was prepared to do as president in hopes that this warning would deter any Iranian nuclear attack against the Jewish state.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.
Clinton says U.S. could
Clearly, this is not some one we can risk giving the nuclear codes to.
Factually correct.
8 years old
And yes- warning Iran is a good thing.
Clinton didn't threaten an attack on Iran.
She said that IF Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, the United States would respond with a nuclear attack on Iran.
It was a warning to Iran- a warning that American Presidents have been giving to anyone who would launch a nuclear attack on the United States or our allies for decades- and consistent with U.S. policy.
Nobody trusts Hillary, either her character or her judgement.y.If anyone can bring the possibility of WWIII closer, it is Hillary. It was the Clintons who turned the newly friendly relations with Russia that Reagan and Bush41 had built into the current adversarial relations we have today by breaking the promise Bush41 had made that if Gorbachev liberated the Soviet satellite states the US would not allow them to join NATO, an organization formed specifically to fight Russia. The world cannot risk making this tension with Russia worse by putting Hillary in the WH."Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.
On the day of a crucial vote in her nomination battle against fellow Democrat Barack Obama, the New York senator said she wanted to make clear to Tehran what she was prepared to do as president in hopes that this warning would deter any Iranian nuclear attack against the Jewish state.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.
Clinton says U.S. could
Clearly, this is not some one we can risk giving the nuclear codes to.
We already know that WWIII is a certainty.
There is no way Russia is going to let the US controlled Iran.
.
Yes the Right Wing Nut jobs are certain that WW3 is going to be any day now........so sad.....
Yeah- because President Trump loves him some Putin.
The world surely can't afford to risk offending Putin- you know the oligarch who kills or imprisons his political opponents and journalists
So are you in favor of Iran attacking Israel with nuclear weapons?
Other than that- what reason do you have for opposing Clinton's warning to Iran that the United States would stand with Israel?
[Q Putin is a national hero in Russia because he rescued Russia from the humiliation and political and economic chaos the perfidious and incompetent Clintons helped to create..
Clearly, it is a threat to nuke Iran and no president has ever threatened to nuke any specific country.Clearly, it is a threat to nuke Iran, and no other president has ever threatened to nuke any other specific country. This is just Hillary being characteristically stupid, irresponsible and greedy for votes. Clearly, she cannot be trusted to formulate US foreign policy or to decide if nuclear weapons should be used.Threatening a nuclear attack on Iran is a stupid, irresponsible thing to do. Clearly, the US should not have a president who so casually threatens to kill, obliterate, 80,000,000 people, more people than died in all of WWII. It is a mark of her mental instability that she would so casually make such a threat."Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.
On the day of a crucial vote in her nomination battle against fellow Democrat Barack Obama, the New York senator said she wanted to make clear to Tehran what she was prepared to do as president in hopes that this warning would deter any Iranian nuclear attack against the Jewish state.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.
Clinton says U.S. could
Clearly, this is not some one we can risk giving the nuclear codes to.
Factually correct.
8 years old
And yes- warning Iran is a good thing.
Clinton didn't threaten an attack on Iran.
She said that IF Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, the United States would respond with a nuclear attack on Iran.
It was a warning to Iran- a warning that American Presidents have been giving to anyone who would launch a nuclear attack on the United States or our allies for decades- and consistent with U.S. policy.
Clearly you don't want Iran to be discouraged from attacking Israel- why is that?
Clinton didn't threaten an attack on Iran.
She said that IF Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, the United States would respond with a nuclear attack on Iran.
It was a warning to Iran- a warning that American Presidents have been giving to anyone who would launch a nuclear attack on the United States or our allies for decades- and consistent with U.S. policy.
Nobody trusts her but she is ahead in the polls because some people haven't bothered to learn about her and some people, like you, are partisan loyalists who don't care what the facts are.Nobody trusts Hillary, either her character or her judgement.y.If anyone can bring the possibility of WWIII closer, it is Hillary. It was the Clintons who turned the newly friendly relations with Russia that Reagan and Bush41 had built into the current adversarial relations we have today by breaking the promise Bush41 had made that if Gorbachev liberated the Soviet satellite states the US would not allow them to join NATO, an organization formed specifically to fight Russia. The world cannot risk making this tension with Russia worse by putting Hillary in the WH.We already know that WWIII is a certainty.
There is no way Russia is going to let the US controlled Iran.
.
Yes the Right Wing Nut jobs are certain that WW3 is going to be any day now........so sad.....
Yeah- because President Trump loves him some Putin.
The world surely can't afford to risk offending Putin- you know the oligarch who kills or imprisons his political opponents and journalists
So are you in favor of Iran attacking Israel with nuclear weapons?
Other than that- what reason do you have for opposing Clinton's warning to Iran that the United States would stand with Israel?
Nobody?
Clinton is currently the leader in the polls for the election- and is considered by far more voters to have a temperment suited to be President than Putin loving Trump
So explain why the fucking "persians" are still treating their women like slaves?Iran is the most modern, best educated and developed nation in the region The written history of the Persian civilization stretches back to a time Europeans were still wearing furs, head hunting and worshiping trees.We wouldn't need nukes to do that. A squadron of B-52s with large payloads would send them back to the Stone Age, which for them was about 70 years ago.
He is a nasty guy who was made necessary by the Clintons deceitful and incompetent actions that destroyed the period of relative friendliness and trust between the US and Russia fostered by Reagan and Bush41.[Q Putin is a national hero in Russia because he rescued Russia from the humiliation and political and economic chaos the perfidious and incompetent Clintons helped to create..
And Putin is also an oligarch who jails or kills his opposition and journalists, and has invaded the Ukraine.
Please don't blame the Clinton's for Putin's beloved KGB being abolished.
Nobody trusts her but she is ahead in the polls because some people haven't bothered to learn about her and some people, like you, are partisan loyalists who don't care what the facts are.Nobody trusts Hillary, either her character or her judgement.y.If anyone can bring the possibility of WWIII closer, it is Hillary. It was the Clintons who turned the newly friendly relations with Russia that Reagan and Bush41 had built into the current adversarial relations we have today by breaking the promise Bush41 had made that if Gorbachev liberated the Soviet satellite states the US would not allow them to join NATO, an organization formed specifically to fight Russia. The world cannot risk making this tension with Russia worse by putting Hillary in the WH.Yes the Right Wing Nut jobs are certain that WW3 is going to be any day now........so sad.....
Yeah- because President Trump loves him some Putin.
The world surely can't afford to risk offending Putin- you know the oligarch who kills or imprisons his political opponents and journalists
So are you in favor of Iran attacking Israel with nuclear weapons?
Other than that- what reason do you have for opposing Clinton's warning to Iran that the United States would stand with Israel?
Nobody?
Clinton is currently the leader in the polls for the election- and is considered by far more voters to have a temperment suited to be President than Putin loving Trump
Islamic fighters "streaming into Iran"?They are not the pushover you think they would be. Remember when you all thought Iraq was going to be a quick little walk in the park? It's like that only a whole lot worse. For one there is not a big sectarian divide to exploit like Iraq and they have been preparing for a US invasion for many years. Deciding to bomb Iran into regime change would go down as the most futile war effort in our history. It's all hypothetical though, Iran is not going to attack Israel unless we open hostilities against them. That too has always been part of the balance of terror we have with them.Iran is the most modern, best educated and developed nation in the region The written history of the Persian civilization stretches back to a time Europeans were still wearing furs, head hunting and worshiping trees.We wouldn't need nukes to do that. A squadron of B-52s with large payloads would send them back to the Stone Age, which for them was about 70 years ago.
A squadron of fully loaded B-52s will change that right quick.
Yes they are.
In an eight year war with Iraq they fought to a draw.
We took out Iraq's Military in just days, and we'd do the same with Iran's.
What is true is that Islamic fighters would indeed stream into Iran by the thousands and we'd find ourselves bogged down as we are right now in Iraq.
Fuck you! I've visited Iran a few times and if you go outside the city centers the people are living like they were 500 years ago.No they wouldn't because they have not done it after all this time, their threats against Israel are a sort of ultimatum of where their counter attack will be IF we attack them for no good reason like Iraq. You should really learn more about Iran, it's not like you think. Their people enjoy greater freedoms than our so-called ally Saudi Arabia and all those big threats against the west are mostly for domestic consumption for their own hardliner conservatives. It is clear you picture some dusty primitive place like Afghanistan but they look more like one of the southern European countries.Yeah, they have a word for that and it's harder to wash off than a tattoo. Mass killing of a civilian population is sort of frowned upon.They are not the pushover you think they would be. Remember when you all thought Iraq was going to be a quick little walk in the park? It's like that only a whole lot worse. For one there is not a big sectarian divide to exploit like Iraq and they have been preparing for a US invasion for many years. Deciding to bomb Iran into regime change would go down as the most futile war effort in our history. It's all hypothetical though, Iran is not going to attack Israel unless we open hostilities against them. That too has always been part of the balance of terror we have with them.A squadron of fully loaded B-52s will change that right quick.
Who's talking about regime change? I'm talking about obliterating them, like Hillary supposedly said. What I'm talking about isn't the stupid idea of winning the hearts and minds of the people, like in Iraq, I'm talking about splattering their hearts and minds all over the ground.
Cry me a fucking river. They would do it to Israel and then make it a national holiday. I've not a bit of sympathy.
If Iran starts a war with Israel then Iran's civilian population is going to die.It is the standing policy of the pentagon to take all reasonable precautions to avoid civilian deaths to maintain the moral superiority of our mission. Carpet bombing the civilian population is not an option under any circumstances.They are not the pushover you think they would be. Remember when you all thought Iraq was going to be a quick little walk in the park? It's like that only a whole lot worse. For one there is not a big sectarian divide to exploit like Iraq and they have been preparing for a US invasion for many years. Deciding to bomb Iran into regime change would go down as the most futile war effort in our history. It's all hypothetical though, Iran is not going to attack Israel unless we open hostilities against them. That too has always been part of the balance of terror we have with them.Iran is the most modern, best educated and developed nation in the region The written history of the Persian civilization stretches back to a time Europeans were still wearing furs, head hunting and worshiping trees.
A squadron of fully loaded B-52s will change that right quick.
Yes they are.
In an eight year war with Iraq they fought to a draw.
We took out Iraq's Military in just days, and we'd do the same with Iran's.
What is true is that Islamic fighters would indeed stream into Iran by the thousands and we'd find ourselves bogged down as we are right now in Iraq.
Squadron of loaded B-52s....just sayin' we COULD obliterate them.
Nope. No money to be made for the Clintons.Hillary wants WWIII, honestly.
Guilt by association - just like what happened to Germany in the mid-20th - don't want to be associated with your government? Get rid of it. Otherwise, No Sale.Now you think it's primitive like Afghanistan but it's not, it is a modern, advanced even westernized country that hates the west more because we have fucked them over a bunch of times .That was then....The written history of the Persian civilization stretches back to a time Europeans were still wearing furs, head hunting and worshiping trees.
Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away.
This is now.
Iran is a modernized country- and frankly from what i have seen, Iranians don't hate the west- Iran's government is an ideological theology- and they do hate the west.
Do you in your right fucking mind really believe Iran would give a shit about killing tens of thousands of civilians? After all. That's what the Mullahs have been promising they would do to Israel for decades.
The fucking japanese military never gave a shit about killing as many 'westerners' as they could. Then when the 'West' retaliated the Japanese whinned about it.
Islamic fighters "streaming into Iran"?They are not the pushover you think they would be. Remember when you all thought Iraq was going to be a quick little walk in the park? It's like that only a whole lot worse. For one there is not a big sectarian divide to exploit like Iraq and they have been preparing for a US invasion for many years. Deciding to bomb Iran into regime change would go down as the most futile war effort in our history. It's all hypothetical though, Iran is not going to attack Israel unless we open hostilities against them. That too has always been part of the balance of terror we have with them.Iran is the most modern, best educated and developed nation in the region The written history of the Persian civilization stretches back to a time Europeans were still wearing furs, head hunting and worshiping trees.We wouldn't need nukes to do that. A squadron of B-52s with large payloads would send them back to the Stone Age, which for them was about 70 years ago.
A squadron of fully loaded B-52s will change that right quick.
Yes they are.
In an eight year war with Iraq they fought to a draw.
We took out Iraq's Military in just days, and we'd do the same with Iran's.
What is true is that Islamic fighters would indeed stream into Iran by the thousands and we'd find ourselves bogged down as we are right now in Iraq.
That there is funny.
Not unless they all have a death wish.
This is one my of favorite Youtubes!
Enjoy!
