Dan Kimmel wrote:
> "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.
*YOU* give us a verifiable citation, liar.
>
>>> 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.
Yes, it is a straw man. "The UN" has never said, nor given any evidence
of a "feeling", that Israel does not have a right to defend itself. You
fabricated the charge out of thin air.
> 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.
No, that's another straw man - a form of lying.
>>> 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.
No, he isn't.
> 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.
No, that's merely how you want to spin it.
|
