Hillary Clinton: Iran's pursuit of nukes 'futile'

[newinnm]

Source: Politco

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that Iran will never achieve its goal of obtaining a nuclear weapon, declaring to Tehran: "Your pursuit is futile."

"What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these decisions, that if you're pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we're not going to let that happen," Clinton said.

"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."





Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25426.html

---

IMHO Iran is a sovereign nation and we have no right to tell them what they can and cannot do!

[shadowknows69]

1. So when are we telling Israel to give up theirs again?

[Interloper]

2. exactly!

Why is the media so silent about Israels nukes?

[WriteDown]

3. Has Israel been threatening to wipe out "Persia"

recently? When they do, I'll be more worried about Israel's nukes.

[shadowknows69]

23. They threaten to preemptively attack them for nukes that DON'T exist.

What's the difference?

[totodeinhere]

33. There is a big difference.

Israel threatens to try to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, which I oppose BTW. But if they do the country of Iran would not be destroyed. They would just have a few damaged nuclear facilities, and regrettably, some Iranians would probably be killed in the raid, but it probably would not be very many.

On the other hand, Ahmadinejad has threatened to destroy the entire nation of Israel. Destroying the whole country is a lot worse than taking out a few nuclear facilities.

[and-justice-for-all]

51. If Israel was to take any military action against Iran...

Iran has the right to retaliate as it sees fit. Ahmadinejad can make threats all he likes, but he does not make the decisions, of any kind, for Iran on any front.

It maybe a couple of sites, but it is a military strike nonetheless and Iran will respond. Iran has no nuclear capabilities, but Israel does have nukes as provided by the USA.

[Wilms]

4. And here I thought we voted out that BS.

Clinton's a tool.

[WriteDown]

5. Yep...

a tool of the POTUS.

[Wilms]

6. Who may well be looking forward to her resigning to spend more time elsewhere.

Don't really care who the source is...Bush, Rice, Obama, or Clinton, or even further back. US "leadership" has done little to improve the situation, in fact has made it worse.

[EFerrari]

7. But empire rocks! My recent personal favorite is Clinton chastising Zelaya

while the coupsters disappear people, shut down the press and kill off their opposition.

Go, Hil! :sarcasm:

[Wilms]

9. Noted.

She called him "reckless". What are the coup plotters called?

[WriteDown]

8. Anyone who believes...

that the SOS just freewheels it and shoots from the hip is delusional. B is a remarkably smart man. Its likely he uses her to enact the policies of his choice. If there is too much blowback then he is free to distance himself from those policies or make adjustments. This is actually quite clever.

[Wilms]

11. That bordered on impolite.

I'll just consider it a write-off.

[WriteDown]

12. My apologies....

It really wasn't meant that way.

[JTFrog]

24. Right, because her PAST quote of "totally obliterate them" shows she'd never say it on her own.

Real fucking clever.

[No Elephants]

39. How is that different from any other President again?

Dummya? Clinton? Poppy? Reagan?

[No Elephants]

38. As opposed to a POTUS who IS a tool?

[Autumn]

14. That's President Obama's tool. n/t

[BOG PERSON]

48. You voted out Republicans...

you didn't vote the Islamic Republic of Iran into the Western "family of nations". Even if they became the most pathetic bunch of US boot-lickers overnight, their "right" to self-determination and self-defense would never be recognized. The most they could aspire to be is... another Egypt.

[Wilms]

50. Enlightened.

:sarcasm:

[conturnedpro09]

10. Good for HRC.

Who in thier right mind, seriously, thinks it would be fine and dandy if Iran got nuclear weapons? Nobody, really. No sane person at all.

[Fumesucker]

15. When was the last time Iran invaded another country?

And how many countries has the US invaded in that time?

Keep in mind that Iran had a democratically elected leader in 1953 and he was overthrown in favor of a despot by the American CIA.

I don't blame them for wanting nukes.

And I have never claimed to be sane either.

[totodeinhere]

16. I blame them for wanting nukes.

Violence is never the answer. Yes, the United States did all of those things, but nothing justifies the possession of nuclear weapons. We need to work on getting rid of all nukes possed by the US, Russia, and others. But it won't help matters to have one more nuclear power to worry about. So I support HRC on this.

[Fumesucker]

22. Perhaps if the US government had been overthrown by an Iranian intelligence service..

You would feel a little differently.

Unfortunately violence is often the answer, you might ask the city fathers of Carthage about that.

Carthago delenda est -Cato the elder

It is perfectly clear that the only nations that are truly safe from US aggression are those that possess nuclear weapons, I would suggest asking the Iraqis about that.

I wish it were not so but unfortunately we live in the world which we have and not the world we might wish for.

[Regret My New Name]

26. So are you saying that if some country attempted a coup

on any other nation, would support the target nation using nuclear weapons on the nation that supported the coup? Or if a nation attacks one nation with conventional weapons, you support that nation being able to go nuclear against the attackers? Say, if the US ever did attack for some reason, you would support Iran using nuclear weapons? Or how about if Syria or a coalition of Arabs states decided to take back the Arab land from Israel, would you support Israel using nuclear weapons?

[Fumesucker]

28. I'm reporting reality..

I don't like it but that is the way things are.

No leader that thinks there is the slightest chance he might be vaporized is going to risk attacking a nuclear armed nation, it seems to be the only thing that brings that bullshit to a screeching halt.

And keep in mind that it is our own holier than thou government that is the only one ever to have used nukes in anger.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. Maybe they'd be a little less interested in them if they didn't have

hostile, belligerant neighbors that DO have them.

[totodeinhere]

32. And you really think that it will help matters if one more country in the area also gets nukes?

I don't. Why do you think it is that almost all countries including our European allies and Japan and Russia and China oppose Iranian acquisition of nukes? They must have some good reasons. It's only the North Koreans and Chavez in Venezuela and a very few others who support Iran's ambition to obtain nukes.

If HRC were not to oppose Iran's nuclear ambitions she would be out of the mainstream of international thought on this issue.

[Fumesucker]

35. Strange, the US doesn't mind "being out of the mainstream of international thought"

On a great many other subjects.

Of course, the US would *never* think of applying pressure to other countries in order to get them to support US positions on things like nukes for Iran.

And let us not forget what a grave, grave threat Iraq was to America also, so grave we were literally forced to invade.

Oh, wait...

[totodeinhere]

42. Why are you bringing up Iraq?

This has nothing to do with Iraq. It is a nuclear nonproliferation issue.

[Fumesucker]

43. You don't remember the aluminum tubes and uranium?

It was something of an issue here on DU at the time..

Perhaps you recall bushie looking under the desk in the Oval Office for Weapons of Mass Destruction? "Nope, not here either"..

[bemildred]

46. "Yellow cake! yellow cake!". nt

[totodeinhere]

47. Of course I remember that.

But just because the Bush Administration deceived us about Iraq so they could have an excuse to go to war, that doesn't mean that Iran therefore has license to obtain nuclear weapons. I repeat, we need to be working to eliminate all nuclear weapons and a good way to start is to try to stop other countries from obtaining them.

I have trouble understanding why some posters at DU actually support the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I thought that progressives stood for peace and nonviolence.

[Fumesucker]

49. But you told me that Iraq had nothing to do with nuclear proliferation..

And now you remember that it most certainly did..

I'm not in favor of nuclear weapons but, from the point of view of the weaker nations, they seem to be the only means of keeping the stronger nations (specifically the USA) at bay.

Iran has very good reasons to be completely suspicious of American intentions. I remember speaking with an Iranian about fifteen years ago and he was utterly shocked that I knew of the overthrow of the Mossadegh government in 1953 by the CIA, he had never before met an American who was aware of that but virtually every American he ever met knew of the Embassy takeover..

[troubledamerican]

20. When was the last time Iran invaded another country?

The greatest population of Jews living in the Middle East, outside of Israel, is IRAN.

This is about oil pipelines through Central Asia & heroin trafficking routes. Period.

[Fumesucker]

29. I know.. n/t

[troubledamerican]

34. DU censored me. I wanted to agree with you more empahtically.

My subject line was written "<" + "<" + "<" + WHAT HE SAID!

Apparently using certain punctuation is forbidden or not read by the system.

[TheWatcher]

36. That line of reasoning would probably influence a sane, independently, critically thinking person

Who had a grasp and knowledge of history.

Sadly, I don't think the person you were responding to likely has the mental capacity to grasp such a line of reasoning. The event in 1953 you mentioned will simply provoke nothing more than a blank stare, and then claims that it doesn't exist.

Just another Sheep in the herd of Cathode Comatose Creatures.

They are not reachable.

Their God (The God Of Corporate Sound byte Propaganda) is a lot more powerful than yours (The Truth).

At least in their eyes.

Waste of time, really.

[No Elephants]

40. True, but I never tthought it was fine and dandy for Israel, Pakistan or India to have them either.

Or America, or Korea or...well no one.

[dipsydoodle]

13. That is a direct contradiction

of Joe Biden saying the USA should not impose its will on other sovereign nations.

[totodeinhere]

17. Of course Biden meant only Israel. His comments didn't apply to Iran. n/t

[tocqueville]

18. except Russia of course nt

[The abyss]

21. LOL, great call!

Is the SOS actually employed by the US taxpayers?

[bemildred]

19. This is embarrassing to watch.

Not merely the spouting of mindless propaganda, but the inarticulate way it is being done. If N. Korea made nukes, then Iran can make nukes, and there is nothing much we can do about it. The countries that have not made nukes are mainly the countries that figured out that nukes are not good for much.

[TheWatcher]

37. They can be inarticulate because most of our population has been reduced to cowed, nodding lambs who

will simply bob their heads to the Music, or simply not be bothered or ignore it all completely.

They can be very boldly overt without too much fear of consequence or accountability these days.

They can stick it in our faces, with complete assurances We The People not call them on it, and will do nothing. Their Arrogance is placated by the inaction of the people to pose any kind of a threat to those in Power, or their complete death grip on it.

Look, there are Pennant Races to keep up with. You know, important stuff. Another Iconic Celebrity could die any minute, and be in desperate need of being canonized. We can't afford to divert our attention away from the critical issues.

We have to feel good and protect our false paradigms and perceptions at all costs. Dare we wake up and face reality.

But just in case I have no doubt some kind of Crisis will conveniently occur, any Crisis will do, to get most of us back in line, anyway.

It worked 8 years ago.

Like a CHARM.

Of course it doesn't HAVE to be that way.....

[bhikkhu]

25. Iran has pursued a civil nuclear power program

Not that that's a good idea, but they have a right to it, according to international law. Everyone seems to think they have promised to build nuclear weapons because that's what we heard from * for so many years.

It is embarrassing to hear the same crap repeated (sans even a single scrap of evidence) by Obama's secretary of state. How about we see a dossier or something first?

[shadowknows69]

31. Colin Powell had a dossier

Yes, I officially don't trust anyone anymore.

[defendandprotect]

27. And what do we do with our nukes? "purpose of intimidating, of projecting power" --????

[LeFleur1]

41. Confusing

This thread is confusing. I thought most people on DU did not want nuclear weapon proliferation.

I guess some DO want certain countries to have nukes. OR maybe their hatred of Hillary Clinton, one of the most rational speakers of all in the Obama administration, by the way, just won't allow them to agree with anything she says. Even if it's in total agreement with Obama's long range plans for the world.

Her interview on Meet the Press was a lesson in how to...
She gave praise to every country, not taking cudos for the USA. She talked of China's positive steps in dealing with North Korea,which is a rogue nation if there ever was one. She even discussed the bravery, of the people of Iran and her desire for them to prevail. She mentioned those countries in the middle east who are working for peace in the area. She discussed her hope for a working relationship with Russia to make the world a safer place.

AND instead of making condescending remarks about our Vice President she told of his knowledge and hard work.

The hatred for Hillary by some posters on this site is a stunner. You may not like her, but she's doing very well in the position she's in and that is good for our country and for the world. I thought it was only right wing Republicans that were so filled with hate that they couldn't recognize what is good for the country.

[David__77]

44. No war against Iran!

That's the main point.

Iran has the right to nuclear energy - that's the second point.

[captain jack]

45. I think the world is over American threats, regardless of any legitimacy.

Is this what Hillary defines as doing her job? Making threats?