grinder@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> "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.
>
I agree. I don't think they have any right now. But given the day they do,
ol' Israel will then once again be accused of being the 'aggressor' due to
its pre-emptive strike. Some people just can't win.
>
> 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.
>
Agreed again. Though when she said it, she still had some hope of being
President. Though you'd still be right. Well, it made for interesting
press
here anyway.
|
