Hillary Clinton: Iran's pursuit of nukes 'futile'
POLITICO / Mike Allen
26-Jul-2009 (6 comments)

"First, we're going to do everything we can to prevent you from ever getting a nuclear weapon. But your pursuit is futile, because we will never let Iran — nuclear-armed, not nuclear-armed — it is something that we view with great concern, and that's why we're doing everything we can to prevent that from ever happening. ... We believe, as a matter of policy, it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons."

As a security summit in Thailand earlier this week, Clinton raised the possibility of a "defense umbrella" over the Middle East to protect other nations from a nuclear-armed Iran, marking the first time a senior administration official has publicly broached the prospect of the Persian nation succeeding in building a nuclear weapon.

>>>
Ali Akbar

It's Official: NO NUKES FOR YOU

by Ali Akbar on Sun Jul 26, 2009 09:30 AM PDT

It'll be interesting to see if the Obama Administration can keep it's word....


Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

 
che khabar e

Ostaad

by che khabar e on Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:24 PM PDT

You're missing Ex's point.  You keep saying there is no proof that Iran is seeking nuclear WEAPONS.  First... does there being no proof mean it isn't so?  Not hardly.  Second, and exactly to the point Ex is trying to make.  IF it were proved that Iran is seeking nuclear WEAPONS, would you then consider Iran a threat, as Clinton very clearly does?  Would you then concede that the US and its allies DO have a viable concern?  Would Iran under the IRI having nukes not be the worst case scenario for the rest of the world.  Be fair.  Don't make this a "we have the right" issue.  Would a nuclear IRI be dangerous to the world.  or not?


  •  
ex programmer craig

Simple language for simple people

by ex programmer craig on Sun Jul 26, 2009 03:24 PM PDT

You are arguing for the sake of arguing.


  •  
Ostaad

ex programmer... forgive me for...

by Ostaad on Sun Jul 26, 2009 03:14 PM PDT

not having the foggiest what you're trying to say. Would you please try again when you're sober?


  •  
ex programmer craig

Ostaad

by ex programmer craig on Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:35 AM PDT

What is your obsession with proof? Are you claiming that if there was proof, you would support attacks on Iran? No. Proof or no proof, you oppose attacks on Iran. So it doesn't really matter to you in the slightest.


  •  
Ostaad

What's the big hoopla?

by Ostaad on Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:42 AM PDT

There has been absolutely no change in the US policy towards Iran regarding Iran having nukes since GW's second term. In fact there are NO concrete evidence that Iran is building nukes. All Iran's enemies have come up to have been innuendos, suspicions and accusations based on fake documents "found" on a stolen laptop!

More significant is Clinton's implicit admission that Iran does have the right to a peaceful nuclear program as a NPT signatory and IAEA member. The fact that Israel has thrown one its frequent and familiar tizzy fits, indicates that is a foregone conclusion.

This means there will be a peaceful and fruitful conclusion to Iran's nuclear dispute with the West to everyone's advantage, except the Zionist regime of course.


  •