Elie member for 52 weeks 17 hours Send a message

During a debate between the Democratic Candidates for President in Philadelphia, Hillary Clinton stated she would commit the United States to a retaliatory attack against Iran (with nuclear weapons no less!) if Iran launched a bombing raid on the United Arab Emirates or Kuwait. Sen. Clinton emphatically stated "it should be U.S. policy to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack against the United States". Clinton further responded that she would have no qualms of using nuclear weapons, not just to defend Israel, our strategic ally, but also other neighboring states as the U.A.E., Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from an Iranian nuclear attack.

Sen. Barack Obama's response to the question was far more sensible. Sen. Obama's response was "we would simply commit to definitively and aggressively extend or deterrence that goes much further than just Israel".

Hillary fired back with "we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel".

No U.S. President has ever made such a sweeping commitment in the Middle Eastern Region - but Hillary appears very eager to break ground.

Soon, Iran will be developing the ballistic missile system to attack Europe and eventually, the United States, just like North Korea. Sen. Clinton seems very willing to mortgage America's cities to protect nations such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the U.A.E., which includes Dubai. Dubai has paid Bill and Hillary Clinton almost $15 million in the past several years. Indeed, is it a coincidence that all three countries Hillary mentioned during the Philadelphia Democratic Debate were generous donors and benefactors to the Bill Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas? While the donors are confidential, it's well known the Saudi monarchy gave $10 million.

Many liberal politicians have often said they will not exchange blood for oil. My question is, how much more blood could there be to guarantee a nuclear war over an attack on these nations?... and are they worth it? Good question, currently waiting for a good answer.

Remember, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, U.A.E., Dubai, are not a democracy, they all boycott Israel. Dubai has been cited by our State Department for numerous human rights violations for its deplorable treatment of Pakistani and Indian workers.

The emir of Dubai has been sued by parents of children his agents have alleged to have abducted to serve as undernourished and uneducated jockeys for his camel races. The class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court of Miami, Florida, was dismissed by the emir's lobbyists, firms with close Clinton ties, got the State Department to have the court dismiss the lawsuit as "a matter of interest for the United States Government".

Question: What criterion does Sen. Clinton use to decide to protect these dictatorships? What? Iran may hit them with nuclear weapons and bombs? That certainly can apply to any country in the world. Is the United States nuclear retaliatory capacity now available to anyone....with the risks the entails for a possible global nuclear war? Wasn't this the long time threat of the former Soviet Union (U.S.S.R.)?

The conclusion drawn from the Philadelphia debate is clear: Sen. Clinton, if elected President, is now willing to risk our cities to save some of the most repressive regimes in the Middle East. I find this to be very disturbing, and this is the same woman that touted she is "ready to answer those 3 a.m. phone calls. Hmmmm....