Hillary Clinton Would Use Violence Against Iran

Hillary Clinton Would Use Violence Against Iran

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Ms Clinton, a fav reptilian shapeshifter around these parts, went
on to say this, "If Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons programme, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilising Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives,"

Which basically means the US will attack if you don't surrender your oil weath and state to us. She was looking more haggard then usual.

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Which is different from the current Washington regime how? They aren't repitilian shapeshifters? Or you won't misconstrue the meaning of their quote with your translation for the ATS membership? Dou you have bias that it might be helpful to disclose?

See a bunch of news pieces lately that the presentation is oh... I don't know, pehaps "not-so-fair-and-balanced" in the accompanying poster's analysis? Not a big deal. Hill-Billary is as dangerous as anyone with a nuke I suppose. Iran, Israel, UK, France, CIS, China, India, Pakistan... maybe when everyone has nukes... Nah couldn't be.

So it does make the offer sound diplo-technic tough... who writes "that" stuff for her? The American public?

Cheers,

Vic

EDIT: For spelling.

[edit on 17-10-2007 by V Kaminski]

People don't seem to understand -- a fair report is giving both sides
of the tale -- isn't it?! Which is why I report stuff like this -- I'm not into
Hillary (rumored lesbian as well, check "The Truth About Hillary" book)
or the cabal, whatever the hate-club she runs w/. We're in for more of
these drug addict/pushers?! Come on, enough is enough of these two
"families" -- if you'd even call them that.

Also, the "presenter" of news: why does this person have to 'side' w/ the
news piece? No thanks, I report the story as is, then, there's that
comments field that ATS makes you fill out -- should I pat Hil on the
back in that field for being a violent you-know-what? Heck no, she's
as bad as this supposed prez who lies, cheats and steals.

reply to post by V Kaminski

---

She's not just as dangerous because she has money from common lobbying groups that the current regime has. While other countries have nukes for defense, we have nukes backed by endless ulterior motives. These secretive motives are exactly why she IS more dangerous than your average nuke wielding country.

So it's just throw it up on the wall and see what sticks? And spice it with repitilan Komodo spit? Mmmm-kay.

It is only entertainment anyway right? I mean who cares that you push the limits of credibility and maybe the intent of news; to inform rather the inveigle and insinuate that which may not in fact be there by any reasonable estimation of reality. Mmmm-kay.

And that it is done here makes it OK? Mmmm-kay.

So is she a repitilian? Are you? Do you post many repitilian posts? I may just want to catch up on those? That'd be entertaining wouldn't it? M-kay?

I'm not sure you have a concept of fair that I would consider fair? Fai enough? I leave you to your news reporting...

Have a pleasant day anhinga... I shall read with interest, and thank you for your contribution and double post (although that must've been an accident I'm sure).

Cheers, fair well, anhinga,

Vic

[edit on 17-10-2007 by V Kaminski]

reply to post by V Kaminski

---

I want 14 seconds of my life back. We're looking for constructive discussion, not some awkward, nonsensical babble. Hillary, just as the majority of men running for presidency have the equal amount of motive to do something irrational with our nuclear weaponry. That's the sheer reality of the America we now live in.


And the reptilian thing was a joke. Sarcasm didn't die why I was gone, did it?

Your not going to get any time back from me. I can't grant that. So are you pro-reptile Clinton-beast or pro-reptile-undecided? I really am having difficulty taking you seriously... and I don't really like any Ameican with a nuke not to mention anyone else. But hey it's entertainment right?

I'm finding the discussion enlightening. I like to learn the views of concerned folks every where. Shall we continue? I can spare this about 6 hours today as I've already finished most of my work and don't have to interview anyone till about 3PM Eastern.

Please tell me more about why you feel Senator Clinton is so "dangerous" as you put it. I want to be informed about the short comings (as you may or may not see them) from the Junior Senator from the Empire State right across the border from Ontario Canada - which BTW is not in the United States.

I want to actively listen to your analysis of Senator Clinton's so-called "offer". Your views are important and could lead me to an enhanced understanding of the nuances of your position which could enhance international relations and the spirit of good will that exists in the minds of some between our two great nations. Do you have any bias that you might which to disclose?

Please tell the membership, if it's important shouldn't everyone be made aware?

Thank you,

Vic


[edit on 17-10-2007 by V Kaminski]

Here is another thread where you can talk about the chane of Hillery beacomeing president.

will hillery clinton be the next president

reply to post by V Kaminski

---

What in gods name are you talking about?

Seriously.

I don't mean to judge the Lady(?)on her appearance,but her eyes look wild and feral,always darting around madly to me.
She reminds me of a girl I once knew-who turned out to be a crazy neurotic violent type.
I think Hilary may be even more war hungry that GW.Its the eyes.

reply to post by Silcone Synapse

---

I really hope your wrong on that Silcone. However I do have to agree on some things. Like any one who seeks the office is just power hungry to begin with. War hungry may not be completely correct. It may be she is just kissing the $$$ of the industrial complex. If either is correct though it still means bad news.

Whats the difference between what she said there and what Bush said about Iraq?

Iraq didn't comply, thus was bombed. We went in and oh look.. no WMD's to comply with anyways..

So Clinton supports bombing Iran, we do it, we go in, oh look.. no nukes either.

This should be hardcore evidence that no, the two parties are not different, not a bit. They have an agenda, what it is I don't know, they play the two side bit to create mistrust and confusion amongst the populace.

Something else i found odd was the story about Cheney and Obama being distant cousins. .. what are the odds? We all knew about Bush and Kerry's relations, their mothers being good friends, they belonged to the same fraternity from the same school and roughly the same time.....

I think I am about to give up on the American political beast, and just move away to somewhere isolated. Isolated until they find out there is a piece of land not covered by a highway, mcdonalds and super walmart.

I think keeping this topic active we can build some resistance to Hillary and Rudy -- who will, continue on war-footing.

But the adv polls aren't good -- already over 40% for Hill and Rudy has a couple of point advantage on Thompson from a poll yesterday.

Ron Paul wasn't even mentioned. And get used to that sentence, he's only
popular around these alt-news venues.

Shocking, I saw a Ron Paul sticker in a pretty progressive city. Skimmed thru the mainstream news tv and Billary looks the shoe-in.... look up "drug cartel" and Hillary somehow, I was trying and some of these small sties I visited almost two years ago are not there anymore, they used to complain about funding to keep their server active, they had receipts of strange dealing w/ Billary and some Denver kingpins as well as terror masterminds. Not a friendly person, this Hill, don't see anyway out of the Diebold rigging.

Indeed. I just hope when this rabid feral beast is backed into a corner she doesn't crap all over everything before going crazy and attacking anything that moves.