It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Hillary Clinton 2008 : "If I'm the president, we will attack Iran"

page: 1
22
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+9 more 
posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 08:39 AM
link   
A little gentle reminder of words spoken by the warmonger:



As if Amerika hasn't stirred enough horse manure in the Middle East already? Leaving nothing but death destruction, and mayhem. But that's still not enough. She wants more. I say let's make her have to go fight it herself. I am no fan of Iran, but enough is enough. Another country full of dead children is not what I want done in my name, thank you. No thank you.





Except now, it's not even Iran anymore. She wants a piece of the Bear. Which I sincerely hope will swipe her head off with its paw.




posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

She said that to appeal the majority American people who dislike IRAN. Mainly republicans!


+2 more 
posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   
But But... that was in 2008, she changed!

Wait, Trump said something mean and vulgar in 1996??!? We can't elect him!



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: mekhanics

I don't care if she said it to a bunch of pizza-eating pedophiles. The point is, she gets elected we are going to war. Somewhere, with someone. And chances are high right now it's with a grizzly.
edit on Tue Nov 8th 2016 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 08:44 AM
link   
this is this few months ago, both are batting for the same team - MIC/Saudi/Petro Dollar..





edit on 8-11-2016 by VimanaExplorer because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Has she been talking about attacking Iran now? The idiot crying we need a stronger military is the one to watch for because they usually start wars. Btw can you include a link showing Clinton supporting war with Russia?



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: VimanaExplorer

"I would want to protect Saudi Arabia"
"But Saudi Arabia is going to have to help us economically"
- Trump


Huh, I missed the part where there is something wrong with that. It sounds a lot better than a war with Iran. But whats another $1 trillion in debt for a losing war to create more terrorists while destroying our economy to enrich the oil execs and military industry execs?



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: VimanaExplorer
this is this few months ago, both are batting for the same team - MIC/Saudi/Petro Dollar..






That is not Saudi. That pic is in UAE. Totally not Saudi.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: mekhanics
a reply to: TrueAmerican

She said that to appeal the majority American people who dislike IRAN.



Bloody Iranians, the ones I know get really offended if you do not come over to dinner, eat all their food and drink tea, to then get even more pissed if you do not stay the night and let the man of the house do a quick oil change for you before you head home....



RA



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   
He is bending over to the 'real king' - watch and weep

Trump: 'I would want to protect Saudi Arabia' - The hill


edit on 8-11-2016 by VimanaExplorer because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
Has she been talking about attacking Iran now? The idiot crying we need a stronger military is the one to watch for because they usually start wars. Btw can you include a link showing Clinton supporting war with Russia?



Instituting Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s no-fly zone in Syria would require going to war, according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.


dailycaller.com...

www.washingtontimes.com...

www.zerohedge.com...

And that's just a little primer. She wouldn't care at all to impose that no fly zone in Syria, no matter the consequences.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Although the main stream hasn't mentioned Iran lately, they still head the 'axis of evil' hit list.

Just that Syria is turning out to be a tougher nut to crack than the real axis of evil, (US, EU, NATO) thought it would be.

But first, sometime after election, will be a renewed drive to topple Syria.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   
I am curious as to the conversation before this statement.

Was it a response to a what if or something similar.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   
This seems pertinent:

Trump: Look, nuclear should be off the table. But would there be a time when it could be used, possibly, possibly?

Matthews: OK. The trouble is, when you said that, the whole world heard it. David Cameron in Britain heard it. The Japanese, where we bombed them in ’45, heard it. They’re hearing a guy running for president of the United States talking of maybe using nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to hear that about an American president.

Trump: Then why are we making them? Why do we make them?

Matthews: Because of the old mutual assured destruction, which Reagan hated and tried to get rid of.

Trump: I was against Iraq. I’d be the last one to use the nuclear weapon.

Matthews: So can you take it off the table now?

Trump: Because that’s sort of like the end of the ballgame.

Matthews: Can you tell the Middle East we’re not using a nuclear weapon on anybody?

Trump: I would never say that. I would never take any of my cards off the table.

Matthews: How about Europe? We won’t use it in Europe?

Trump: I — I’m not going to take it off the table.

Matthews: You might use it in Europe?

Trump: No, I don’t think so. But I’m not taking …

Matthews: Well, just say it. “I will never use a nuclear weapon in Europe.”

Trump: I am not — I am not taking cards off the table.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel



It was regarding if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel. But even so, it's almost as if no further consideration is given. And this is what worries me about the parallel of this and what is going on now in Syria.

My guess is that Putin is watching intently, has prepared his people for nuclear war, already sensing, a potential Hillary victory for whatever reason. The reason doesn't matter at this point. What matters is he is not going to just sit there and let us keep encircling him with no fly zones, missiles, and American "projected power". He is fed up.

And I will not be surprised one bit if tonight or over the next week after (or if) she wins, if there is a tactical nuclear attack on the contingent of troops overseas in the middle east. Or possibly worse. Could be much worse. Corner a bear and you better be ready to die. They have stated it over and over again. Threaten them and they will not be bothered with conventional weapons. That is why they have invested so heavily in nukes.

He is not a fool to sit there and let NATO get those 300,000 troops ready. No, me thinks this could escalate much further and faster than even the historians could ever fathom.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   


Oh look the full unedited question that paints it in a very different light! Oh why would you lie!?



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
The bottom line here is we need warmongers out of the White House. Just because Trump wants a strong military, by no means indicates he is ready to use it as some kind of attacking mob to incite WW3. I think he'll find very quickly that we need a good portion of that on our southern border to stop the invasion and secure our borders- for a change.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: mekhanics
a reply to: TrueAmerican

She said that to appeal the majority American people who dislike IRAN. Mainly republicans!

Huh?

She said it during the Democratic primary. For what reason was she trying to appeal to Republicans?



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Hillary listens to her handlers and "experts". Like every single word. No real insight to anything just does whatever they tell her is right other than picking out colors of pant suits but even that she likely voices little dissent.

She said it herself during the hearings, all decisions were made by career folks. All of them. She took no responsibility for any of it.

Now, going off of that what do you think the military experts are going to tell her to do? They are going to tell her to unleash the Kraken. She will listen to them unlike Obama. His plan obviously failed so they are going to sell the sizzle to her to make a name for herself instead of going down the same failed policy road.

We are going to war. Republicans will egg her on as well. They know she will fail so they are going to seduce her into it.



posted on Nov, 8 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

I had thought it was something along that line.

It see your point, careful consideration is needed in that type of event. I pretty sure if that happened, every president would be thinking it might be done. There are others involved in the discussion on use.

But then we don't need internet propaganda to make these issues even more foggy. Both sides are planting (trying at least) so much false information in people's minds.

edit:

It's taking the hard stance. What would people think if it was said, "an ally is attacked and we might fold or maybe we don't". Sends a bit of a bad message also.
edit on 11/8/2016 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
22
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join