grinder@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:q_GdnQfdGLfiFbzVnZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "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."
>
> Straw man argument. Who has said the response should be pro****tional?
>
I'm surprised at you here. That is the focus of international criticism of
Israel in almost every conflict, as it was in the last one against
Hezbollah
in Lebanon.
>
>> It is the only country in the world that the UN feels is
>> not entitled to defend itself from ongoing war and terrorist attacks.
>>
>
> Another straw man argument. BTW, one country's defense will be
> viewed by others as belligerence. The Iraq war is an excellent
> example.
While your general statement has some validity, your analogy to Iraq is
not
valid. Iraq has a legitimately elected government with its own army, which
works along with U.S. troops. Insurgents, disparate groups who are not at
all on the same page as each other, are what is fighting against the U.S.,
as well as the recognized Iraqi army mind you. The insurgent's goals
appear
to be to further their personal religious agendas. If you're going to say
that the Iraqi governent is a 'puppet government' of the U.S., I would
consider THAT to be a 'straw man' argument.
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> You missed the point in that Clinton stated the U.S. will obliterate
> Iran if Iran attacks Israel which is "an excuse for the US to go to
> war for Israel."
>
Israel is about the size of New Jersey. I would be surprised if it could
sustain 2 or 3 modern-day nuclear explosions without being totally
destroyed. If the U.S. did attack Iran after it attacked Israel with
nuclear
weapons, it would no longer be to "go to war for Israel" which would
probably have already ceased to exist, but for its own long-term defense.
This is foolish talk. There can be no winner in such a scenario. The idea
of Clinton's sabre-rattling statement is clearly to try to prevent such an
occurrence by giving the Iranians something to consider.
|
