Re: Obliterate Iran

"grinder@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <nobody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:jY-dnfRpc_K_F73VnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:j-2dnXpb-MZJC4LVnZ2dnUVZ_rninZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "Carl" <crothman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > news:481f7b13$0$25042$607ed4bc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> grinder@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> >> > So lets gets this straight.  If Iran attacks Israel with a nuclear
> >> > bomb (forget that Israel will retaliate with numerous A-bombs
> >> > themselves), Clinton will obliterate Iran.
> >> >
> >> > That means either she is willing to kill every man, woman, child
and
> >> > dog in Iran or she thinks she can "nuc" Tehran and the nuclear
> >> > explosion would only kill the bad guys.  Either way she is nuts.
> >> >
> >> While I cringed at her use of the word 'obliterate', and I don't
sup****t
> >> sabre-rattling, the logic in your post is getting by me. Are you
> >> promoting
> >> what has apparently become the modern politically correct way to look
at
> >> war, that is, the West can only strike "surgically" and
> >> "pro****tionately",
> >> while everyone else has no rules to abide by?
> >
> > I agree with your entirely sensible response.
> >
> > The only time "pro****tional" responses are required is when Israel is
> > attacked.  According to this theory, our only response to Pearl Harbor
> > should have been to attack one of Japan's naval bases.
> >
> >
>
> Wrong analogy.
>
> Japan attacked the U.S. and not an ally that has more than sufficient
> capabilities to defend itself given the money and arms the U.S. pumps
into
> them every year.  You will note the U.S. did not declare war against
Germany
> when it attacked England nor did we declare war against Japan when they
> attacked China.
>
> I also believe there is no NATO type mutual agreement between the U.S.
and
> Israel to come to each others aid when attacked.

Actually an entirely appropriate analogy.  No one would have suggested
that
the US hold back in response to being attacked by Japan, but when Israel
is
attacked, the hypocrites and fools insist that Israel's response must be
"pro****tional."  It is the only country in the world that the UN feels is
not entitled to defend itself from ongoing war and terrorist attacks.

You seemed to have missed the point in thinking the example was an excuse
for the US to go to war for Israel, which -- hysterics and hatemongers to
the contrary notwithstanding -- it has never done.