Re: Obliterate Iran

Dan Kimmel wrote:
> "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."

The United States' response to the attack by Japan was entirely 
pro****tional.  Japan fully intended to launch a war to get the U.S. out 
of Asia entirely.  We responded appropriately.


> It is the only country in the world that the UN feels is
> not entitled to defend itself from ongoing war and terrorist attacks.

That is completely bull****.  There is no such "feeling", and you know 
it.  You are merely making excuses for Israel's regular *lack* of 
pro****tionality in response, as well as its frequent "pre-emptive" 
aggressive strikes.