A country (not the United States) with an actual military might actual attack another country.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/iaf-plans-for-iran-attack/

Idiots.

Doesn't bombing another country justify their responding by nuking yours?  Yes, idiots.

Well, "nuking" is usually a bit of an over-reaction, as the history of the Cold War dramatically demonstrates.

"Justify an invasion, or at the very least an attack" is more accurate.  Like Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, for instance.

What about a dirty "little" nuke?

Hasn't happened so far, so what's your point?

On the other hand, doesn't "sabre rattling" by calling for the destruction of a soverign nation, then building up weapons to do so, justify something more than harsh language?

Sure. That's why there are sanctions imposed on Iran. They were ejected from SWIFT settlement mechanism, for example. Must be pretty painful for Iranian institutions.

My point is that pre-emptive attacks justify the attack they are trying to pre-empt.

Depends how much data you have. I wouldn't mind a pre-emptive attack on Germany in 1939.

With what army?

I'm not saying it was possible, just that I wouldn't mind it.

Personally, I'm not complaining one iota about all the shit that happened back before I was born.

If it hadn't happened, there's a big chance I wouldn't be here today.

So, shit happens, and hard luck on the Jews that got gassed and so forth, but actually, the way history panned out, is the reason I'm typing this shit here. So no, no preemptive strike on Germany please.

Now, the Iran thing on the other hand!! Once again, shame on the US, and its client state Israel. Shame.

"My point is that pre-emptive attacks justify the attack they are trying to pre-empt."

This is a very good, and very dangerous point.  When the US pre-emptively attacked Iraq, based on the existence of WMD's (which, it turned out, did not exist), then the US was (and is) guilty of war crimes.

When Israel attacked pre-emptively in 1967 for the 6-day war, THAT was in response to Egypt's massive build-up along the Israeli border.

So my response to your point is: Yes, it's critically important to keep track of who did what, and when, if you're going to determine when a "pre-emptive attack" is actually justified.

It's all too common to get into a situation where somebody pre-emptively attacks someone on false pretenses.

Pre-emptive strikes have worked very well for Israel (mostly) in the past. A pre-emptive strike on Iran, now, would be beyond stupid.

Bottom-line, Israeli pre-emptive strikes were never advertized before-hand. Odds are very high that it won't happen.

>When Israel attacked pre-emptively in 1967 for the 6-day war,
>THAT was in response to Egypt's massive build-up along the
>Israeli border.

Which was pre-empted by Israeli saber-rattling.

"Bottom-line, Israeli pre-emptive strikes were never advertized before-hand. Odds are very high that it won't happen."

Quite true.

"So my response to your point is: Yes, it's critically important to keep track of who did what, and when"

In Middle East, "who started first" is the most naive question you can ask. Very quickly you start talking about Middle Ages, or even earlier history.

That's why you keep track, so you never have to ask.

Keep track of what? You can't keep track of every who-killed-who, who-bombed-whose-village, who-massacred-whose-children.

It ain't easy, tallying the books of the dead.

See?  You've clearly lost track.

I didn't even try to track, there's simply no point.