HorizonForumsone horizon
Log inSign up

[ms] · Est. May 2002

Music madethis place,we just kept itgoing...

One durable person. One social graph. Many communities—and every way people speak, share, listen, write, gather and remember.

Forums / Politics

The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

26 durable postsStarted 2006-04-20Latest 2006-04-25
#26901Post 1 of 26

May 7 2009 will surely go down in history alongside September 11 2001. "5/7", as it inevitably became known, saw massive suicide bombings in Tel Aviv, London and New York, as well as simultaneous attacks on the remaining western troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Total casualties were estimated at around 10,000 dead and many more wounded. The attacks, which included the explosion of a so-called dirty bomb in London, were orchestrated by a Tehran-based organisation for "martyrdom-seeking operations" established in 2004. "5/7" was the Islamic Republic of Iran's response to the bombing of its nuclear facilities, which President Hillary Clinton had ordered in March 2009.

Despite massive protests across the Islamic world, and in many European capitals, the US-led military operation had initially appeared to be successful. The US, supported by British and Israeli special forces, had bombed 37 sites, including underground facilities in which Iran was said to be on the verge of making a nuclear weapon using its own version of P-2 centrifuges. The model for these had been originally supplied by AQ Khan, the rogue Pakistani nuclear scientist. US forces had taken down Iran's air defences and destroyed much of its air force. Inevitably, there were civilian casualties - estimated by the Iranian government at 197 dead and 533 injured. A Pentagon spokesman insisted that "collateral damage" had been confined to "an acceptable level". He claimed Iran's nuclear weapons programme had been "knocked back to first base".

The US navy had also successfully broken an attempted Iranian naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the main arteries of the world's oil supplies. A US gunship had been damaged by an Iranian underwater missile attack, but with no loss of American lives. In panic on the oil markets, the price of crude oil had soared to more than $100 a barrel, but the Bush administration had built up America's strategic oil reserves and the new Clinton administration was able to draw on these. European economies were worse hit.

As experts had predicted, however, the biggest challenge for the west was Iran's ability to wage asymmetric warfare through Hizbullah, Hamas and its own suicide-bombing brigades. The Islamic Republic had for years been openly recruiting suicide bombers through an organisation described as the Committee to Commemorate Martyrs of the Global Islamic Movement. As early as April 2006, it had held a recruitment fair in the grounds of the former US embassy in Tehran, claiming it already had more than 50,000 volunteers for operations against "the al-Quds occupiers" (that is, Israel), "the occupiers of Islamic lands", especially the US and Britain, and the British writer Salman Rushdie. Recruits could also sign up through the internet ([URL="http://www.esteshhad.com/"][COLOR=#0000ff]www.esteshhad.com[/COLOR][/URL]) While Hizbullah and Hamas provided the infrastructure for the Tel Aviv bombings, the key to the attacks on London and New York was the recruitment of British and American Muslims through this group. The man who detonated the dirty bomb at Euston station, Bradford-born Muhammad Hussein, had been secretly trained by the Committee to Commemorate Martyrs at a camp in northern Iran.

With hindsight, it appears that the turning point may have come in the spring of 2006. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, having proclaimed his intention to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, announced that his country had already successfully enriched uranium and hinted that it had the superior P-2 centrifuge technology. Whether true or not, these claims effectively destroyed the last hopes of achieving a diplomatic solution through negotiations led by the so-called E3 - France, Germany and Britain. A long, tortuous diplomatic dance followed, with China and Russia eventually agreeing to minimal UN sanctions on Iran, including visa bans on selected members of the regime. These had little perceptible impact on the Iranian nuclear programme, but were successfully exploited by the regime to stoke up an always strong national sense of victimisation. Meanwhile, the exposure of the clumsy channelling of US government financial support through a California-based monarchist exile organisation to a student group in Isfahan was used as a pretext for a brutal clampdown on all potentially dissident groups. Several show trials for "treason" were staged despite international protests. This produced a further hardening of US policy in the last years of the Bush administration. In the 2008 US presidential campaign, the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, felt compelled - perhaps against her own better judgment - to use the Iran issue to demonstrate that she could be tougher than John McCain on national security issues.

When she came into office, she was already committed to preventing Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, by military means if necessary. Meanwhile, the Iranian regime had abandoned all restraint in its pursuit of that objective, calculating that its own best chances of survival lay in the swiftest possible acquisition of a nuclear deterrent. In February 2009, an alarming intelligence report reached Washington, suggesting that Tehran - using a secret cascade of its version of the P-2 centrifuge - was much closer to obtaining a bomb than had been thought. In a series of crisis meetings, President Clinton, her new secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, and her new secretary of defence, Joe Biden, decided that they could afford to wait no longer. Operation Gulf Peace, for which the Pentagon had long made detailed contingency plans, started on March 6 2009.

Washington claimed that it had legal authorisation under earlier UN security council resolutions sanctioning Iran for its non-compliance on the nuclear issue, but these claims were disputed by China and Russia. Most European countries did not back the operation either, producing another big transatlantic rift. However, under enormous pressure from his close friends among US Democrats, the British prime minister, Gordon Brown, reluctantly decided to give it his approval, and allowed the token deployment of a small number of British special forces in a supporting role. This provoked a revolt from the Labour backbenches - led by the former foreign secretary, Jack Straw - and a demonstration of more than 1 million people in London. Even the Conservative leader, David Cameron, mindful that a general election was expected soon, criticised Brown's support for the American action. Brown therefore postponed the British election, which had been provisionally scheduled for May 2009. Instead of an election, the country experienced a tragedy.

Meanwhile, President Ahmadinejad faced a presidential election in June 2009. Unlike Brown, he was riding high on a wave of national solidarity. Even the many millions of Iranians disappointed by his failure to deliver on his material promises, and those who despaired of their country's international isolation, felt impelled to rally round the leader in time of war. Many prominent Americans criticised the US military action. Some claimed to know that the presidential spouse, Bill Clinton, was privately among those critics, although in public he was loyalty itself. But Dr Patrick Smith of the Washington-based Committee for a Better World, which had long advocated bombing Iran, demanded of the critics: "What was your alternative?"

#615492Post 2 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

euhm... a brief outline, please? someone? :mrgreen:

#616382Post 3 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

The power of mushrooms displayed here no doubt They'll be civil war in the states if Hillary Clinton becomes president so maybe the axis of evil should start funneling money into her (highly unlikely) 2008 presidential campaign.

#616843Post 4 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

Hillary Clinton has no chance of winning the presidency.

#616863Post 5 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

Sono, why is all of you're story in past tense if you are talking of the year 2009? also, is there a credible source for this story? or is this your opinion for the future?

#616935Post 6 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

[quote=lilsensa]Sono, why is all of you're story in past tense if you are talking of the year 2009? also, is there a credible source for this story? or is this your opinion for the future?[/quote]

oh dear :shock: :roll:

#616936Post 7 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

[quote=Jenks]Hillary Clinton has no chance of winning the presidency.[/quote]

you wanna bet your house on it? :lol:

#616938Post 8 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

^See Michael Dukakis.

#617019Post 9 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

that's a lot of reading for something made up

#617053Post 10 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

Im just saying that he gives no credit to the author of that story...where did it come from?

#617059Post 11 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

fairly entertaining read. if you are the type who watches the news all day to get your terror fix. it seems that the entire story has a negative spin on every decision made by everyone. what moral is to be taken away from reading this? seems like your damned if you do and your damned if you don't.

and yes, hillary doesn't stand a chance. if she wins the last shred of election and voters credibiltiy flies out the window.

#617063Post 12 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

this gem hit my email this weekend, gave me a good laugh. PS this in no way reflects any opinions i have upon any religion or society. but my sadistic humor finds it funny.

MODERATORS, feel free to take it down. second thought, i will

[URL="http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/6775/untitled0xt1.png"][URL="http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/6775/untitled0xt1.png"][/URL][U][COLOR=#d2d2d2][URL=http://imageshack.us]http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/6775/untitled0xt1.pngURL][/COLOR][/U][URL="http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/6775/untitled0xt1.png"][/URL][/URL]

#617123Post 13 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

so none of you yanks are prepared to vote for her if she stood up for election? We hear she's very popular.

#617133Post 14 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

[QUOTE=sono]so none of you yanks are prepared to vote for her if she stood up for election? We hear she's very popular.[/QUOTE]

The thing is this: she's got a group of really rabid followers, and she is very popular in those circles. The problem with Hillary, and the reason she probably can't win, is that there is a large, large group of people that actively hate her, and that includes a large chunk of the democratic party. I am not personally a fan of hers, but I don't share the same vitriolic hatred that someone like sightless does.

It will really depend upon who runs against her. If it's a guy like McCain, she's going to get [B]clobbered[/B]. If it's someone like Frist or Santorum -- both of whom are looking to run -- she might have a chance on the "lesser of two evils" theory.

That's a long ways from now, though. She has a massive war chest already, and lots can change between now and 2008. I have a hard time ever seeing myself voting for Hillary, but I never would have seen myself voting for John Kerry, either, and I actually campaigned for the guy because the alternative was so horrible.

#617165Post 15 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

[quote=sono]so none of you yanks are prepared to vote for her if she stood up for election? We hear she's very popular.[/quote]

That would greatly hinder on who the other candidate is.

#617318Post 16 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

hillary clinton is about as desireable as the vaginal infection she carries.

essentially what is going to doom her is she is the definition of partisan politics. she only goes the party line, she wouldnt vote for clean tap water if a republican put it forth and frankly, she never once has given a ""idea"" and i mean just that. not once has she come up with a solution, just badmouths the solutions others, including her own party moderates, put forth.

#617361Post 17 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

[quote=toasty]The thing is this: she's got a group of really rabid followers, and she is very popular in those circles. The problem with Hillary, and the reason she probably can't win, is that there is a large, large group of people that actively hate her, and that includes a large chunk of the democratic party. I am not personally a fan of hers, but I don't share the same vitriolic hatred that someone like sightless does.

It will really depend upon who runs against her. If it's a guy like McCain, she's going to get [B]clobbered[/B]. If it's someone like Frist or Santorum -- both of whom are looking to run -- she might have a chance on the "lesser of two evils" theory.

That's a long ways from now, though. She has a massive war chest already, and lots can change between now and 2008. I have a hard time ever seeing myself voting for Hillary, but I never would have seen myself voting for John Kerry, either, and I actually campaigned for the guy because the alternative was so horrible.[/quote]

who are people talking up to be the next republican leader?

#617491Post 18 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

Little remark on the side: the US has a population of almost 298,500,000 and only two political parties (in comparison, Belgium has a population of 10,380,000 and give or take 10 parties that make it into the parliament). And still they can only present douchebag candidates...

If you guys want to lease some of our politicians, PM me. I'll make ya a bargain :mrgreen:

#617681Post 19 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

[quote=sono]who are people talking up to be the next republican leader?[/quote]

John McCain

#617690Post 20 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

or rudy guiliani

#617698Post 21 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

Go Evan Bayh!!!!

Edit: for the democratic ticket.

#617731Post 22 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

sadly, and even more reason why we need to abolish the 2 US parties, is the fact the democratic party has nothing to offer, no viable candidates at all, and frankly, a used tampon looks more appealling.

the republican party knows they have a monster hill to climb though because the current group in the white house have fucked things up beyond repair.

basically it comes down to a guy like mccain who fully knows what he has to do to reclaim the people, without being the asshole someone like hillary would be. she would come in, and point out everything that went wrong for bush, stop what he did, but not do anything positive. i can see mccain pulling out of iraq rather quickly actually.

who knows the next election is like electing to your right or left nut chopped off. either way you are gonna bleed from that side.

#617784Post 23 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

[QUOTE=Jenks]John McCain[/QUOTE]

I think most people in the center, and the moderates in the party, would agree with this and are hoping he'll get the nod. The question is, will the folks on the far right of the party that are currently in control push someone like McCain that won't necessarily tow the party line?

These same clowns swiftboated his ass in 2000 when he was running against W. If they were smart, they'd go with McCain just because he'd be so much more likely to win than another Bushie. Then again, I've never accused the Neo-cons of being smart.

#617790Post 24 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

[quote=toasty]I think most people in the center, and the moderates in the party, would agree with this and are hoping he'll get the nod. The question is, will the folks on the far right of the party that are currently in control push someone like McCain that won't necessarily tow the party line?.[/quote]

they need to hold power, bush made them look terrible with this war and his defense, but they will not give in. so now it will either be a moderate from your party, or thier party.

[quote=toasty]These same clowns swiftboated his ass in 2000 when he was running against W. If they were smart, they'd go with McCain just because he'd be so much more likely to win than another Bushie. Then again, I've never accused the Neo-cons of being smart.[/quote]

bush was ""controllable"" by those on the extreme far left (rummy, etc)

simple. after 8 years of defining the word is and pussy footing around problems like billy boy did, they tried to get an aggressive pres. they got an aggressive pres who cant speak, think on the fly well, and stood hard line against his opposition. now we have what we have today. a debate on whether we want to elect the biggest cunt on the planet or a possible muppet of the right. in my head, it comes down to how mccain can hold himself against his own party lines on the normal things. if he can explain and show reason and influence, he should win. and hopefully bring the parties back together like we were b4 9.11./ remember then? bush and the democrats werent just getting along, they were doing positive things.

#617809Post 25 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

[QUOTE=thesightless] so now it will either be a moderate from your party[/QUOTE]

My party? Contrary to popular belief, I am not a democrat, and don't want to be lumped in with that group of pussies. I just believed during the last election cycle that what Bush and his pals were going to do was so cataclysmic that it warranted actively supporting any mother fucker that had the opportunity to bounce his ass from office.

I don't feel like I moved left, I feel like the republican party moved right, way right. If they should ever feel like once again supporting such core republican values as small government and the protection of civil liberties, I might go back. For now, though, I'm a pissed off independent, and if relieving Bush of some of his power means I have to advocate voting out every single republican in Congress, so be it. That means we'd lose some good people, of course, but except for those few that have stood up to Bush, their willingness to vote lock-step with whatever Bush and the far right leadership wants to do makes them complicit in the fucked up situation in which we currently find ourselves, IMO, and unworthy of re-election.

Incidently, I've always thought it was a bad idea to have the executive branch and both houses of Congress controlled by the same party -- regardless of which party that is. Too much potential for abuse and corruption, as we've seen recently.

#617811Post 26 of 26

Re: The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

i didnt mean it like that i was talking about the republicans dealing with the fact that they absolutly have to deal with a moderate from THEIR party or someone from the democrats simply because the Neo con, far right approach took us no where nice.

one day im gonna go back and try to trace the steps from his first election as a down to earth simple guy who had support from both parties and had govt working somewhat well to now where he has the lowest approval ratings, the parties are split like a jew-islamic wedding celebration in gaza, and all the foreign relations are strained.

Log in to reply