"Carl" <crothman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:4821d117$0$25033$607ed4bc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
>>
I have never seen an attackee say a response is pro****tional. And the
other
international criticisms are either from from neighboring Arab countries
or
from countries who have a vested interest in seeing the conflict
continued.
>>> 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.
I would suprised if Iran had 2 nuclear weapons let alone 1. I would also
be
surprised that Israel has not planned for this contigency by assuring a
response before the weapons detonated.
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.
>
>
I would be surprised if Clinton's sabre-rattling would have much play in
Iran.
|
