Carl wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> 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.
> Where is it bull****? That is frquently at the core of international
> criticism from my point of view.
Then it shouldn't be hard for you to provide concrete examples of it,
right? In fact, you can't provide *any* example of the UN stating, or
"feeling", that Israel doesn't have a right of self-defense. That's why
the claim is bull****.
We're not interested in your "point of view", when the claim is about
the UN (???) not recognizing Israel's entitlement to defend itself.
What we'd like to see, if you're going to make or stand by such a claim,
is verifiable evidence.
>> You are merely making excuses for Israel's regular *lack* of
>> pro****tionality in response, as well as its frequent "pre-emptive"
>> aggressive strikes.
>>
> In stating this you are actually acknowledging that Israel has to
frequently
> respond to attacks on it (ie. when you say "regular lack of
> pro****tionality").
Israel bombing a Syrian nuclear installation was not in response to an
attack on Israel. Israel launching an all-out war of aggression against
Lebanon, in response to relative pin-prick Hezbollah rocket attacks on
Israel, was indeed a grotesque lack of pro****tionality.
> That by itself is absurd enough. Instead of speaking to
> its attackers and saying, "You make Israel regularly defend itself", you
> criticize it for its "regular lack of pro****tionality". And you don't
see
> Dan's point about Israel not being entitled to defend itself?
Kimmel's "point" is bull****; a complete straw man.
> Geez. You ARE
> part of the problem, the reason he feels that way.
Kimmel feels the way he does because he is a fanatical Zionist Jew who
sup****ts Israel at the expense of America's legitimate interests.
> Pre-emptive strikes are often the only way to defend a territory as
small as
> Israel.
Israel launches pre-emptive strikes without having demonstrated a
legitimate threat.
> If armies mass on her borders,
There have been no armies massed on Israel's borders in 35 years, but
there frequently have been outrageous Israeli attacks outside its
borders, aimed at civilian populations.
I don't have any reason to care about Arab or Iranian antipathy toward
Israel any more than I care about Kurdish or Armenian antipathy toward
Turkey. But ardent Zionist Jews like Lieberman and Kimmel demand that
America pay special attention to Israel; that we accept all Israeli
claims about "threats" at face value; and that we champion Israeli
interests even when those interests conflict with America's own interest.
|
