Re: Obliterate Iran

Dan Kimmel wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:yI-dnVN27KAaaLzVnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Dan Kimmel wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:TNqdnc0SdOEXVrzVnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> 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.  You are merely making excuses for Israel's regular *lack* of
>>>> pro****tionality in response, as well as its frequent "pre-emptive"
>>>> aggressive strikes.
>>> Your inane response proves my point.
>> Your bull**** evasion proves *my* point.
>>
>> You lied about the UN "feeling" that Israel is not entitled to defend
>> itself.  It's flat-out a lie.
> 
> As I demonsrated elsewhere in the thread,

Nope - as you bull****ed.


> it is the truth

It is not the truth.


> and one you can
> not refute 

I don't have to refute something that isn't the truth, kimmie.

It isn't the truth.  You lied.

> 
> Go back where you came from. 

YOU get your Zio-Nazi ass out of here.