Re: Obliterate Iran

"grinder@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <nobody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:8tGdnfCoi7FwIbzVnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "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?

Start with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.


>
> >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.

Not a straw man at all.  Israel *is* under attack by terrorist groups
publicly vowing to destroy Israel.  The only people who think Israel is
"belligerant" for daring to fight back are those who already sup****t the
Hamas "destroy Israel" agenda.

>
> > 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."


Actually, you're wrong yet again.  Whatever her unfortunate phrasing, she
was presented with a scenario where Iran launched a *nuclear* missile at
Israel.

That's not a mere "attack."  And it's not an "excuse for the US to go to
war
for Israel."  It's realizing that at that stage Iran has become a cancer
that must be cut out because it endangers the entire civilized world.