Do you blame Iran if they retaliate for a US attack?

[Postman]

What do you expect them to do if they are attacked?

Would it be okay for Iran to pre-emptively attack the US because the US has nuclear weapons that could be used against Iran?

Why is there always a double-standard in regards to US foreign policy?

Yeah, the President of Iran is over the top with some of his rhetoric. But it's okay for Bush to label them an "axis of evil" (before Ahmadenijhad was elected) and not expect hostility in return? Weren't Bush's words "hostile"?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FloridaPat]

2. We ran into this in the 60's - "my country right or wrong". Patriotism

is blind. Even if we're the bad guys, we're the strongest, there always the good guys.

[stevietheman]

9. Here's a new-old response to that kind of "patriotism"

"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right." — Senator Carl Schurz (R), 29 February 1872

[laylah]

3. Sadly,

no I would not. The freak(s) at the helm of this country don't give a shit, though. :mad:

Jenn

[Katherine Brengle]

4. the way i look at it is, "what would america do?"-------

We are no more entitled to the use of military force than any other nation on this earth.

(Of course, I don't think anyone is entitled to it, but that's semantics...)

[Road Scholar]

5. If they try to defend themselves or don't want our occupation

then that makes them terrorists, automatically.

[stevietheman]

6. No, and I'm openly taking Iran's side if Bush attacks. n/t

n/t

[LynnTheDem]

7. Of course not. Any nation will retaliate if they're attacked.

Nations have the right to do so.

[Terran1212]

8. Killing and violence is inherently immoral, but...

I'm not going to deny them the right of self-defense. It would be very sad if it did happened but just cruel if it didn't.

[LisaL]

10. What is so funny is that we decided we can attack

any country if they have nukes, or trying to get nukes, all the while we ourselves have more nukes than anyone else in the world. And we are actually the only country that used nukes on another country. Pretty hysterical, if you ask me.

[Greyhound]

11. That's the problem isn't it? There are no 'good guys' in any of the

situations we face over there. There is no right, only wrong. That's why we must get out, and I don't mean out of Iraq, but out of the region.

[rucky]

12. Nor will I blame their ALLIES.

this is so much bigger than Iran.

[Pavulon]

13. got crack?

to save nasty responses: Below written in case of IRANIAN first strike. do not support strike on any country unless war is eminent. (EDIT)

Jesus guys. What do you thing the rest of the armored divisions sitting in germany and the navy which is flying a few sorties a day would do?

They have been a problem for 20 years. This was us foreign policy before bush was in office.

I would almost feel sorry for them if they made a first strike of any kind. They would be met with a level of violence unheard of in modern war. No shock and awe just bullshit, letting the military run an open war would be horrible for Iran.

the us can label them what ever we want. call our mommies fat, using force is a different thing.

God help them if they made any kind of nbc strike. Do you think for a second the US would hesitate for one second to pour nuclear weapons into iran in the event of a first strike by Iran?

separating US foreign policy and interests from the executive branch is essential.

[LynnTheDem]

14. We're discussing Iran fighting BACK, after a US attack

Not Iran attacking us first.

Put the crack down.

[Pavulon]

15. op's quote states otherwise

"Would it be okay for Iran to pre-emptively attack the US because the US has nuclear weapons that could be used against Iran?"

Again not unless they want an open war. I do not support US attacking iran unless war is eminent. IE massing of troops on borders, etc.

edit grammar

[LynnTheDem]

24. But you're ok with US attacking Iran first?

OP is talking about US hypocrisy.

[Solly Mack]

16. How could I?

You attack someone - they attack back. That's how "war" works. If people don't understand that, perhaps they should avoid making war...

You embrace a policy of "pre-emption", don't cry "foul" when others do the same

Why is there always a double-standard?

Because of the level of hypocrisy in America is high enough to reach galaxies far far away

[truth2power]

17. No!! eom

[Pavulon]

18. Postman?

Can you clarify?

Are you asking about a response to a US first strike or an Iranian first strike?

Both?

Thanks.

[fujiyama]

19. Any nation that is attacked

is definitely permitted to defend itself.

But there is really only so much they can do. They can slow the US military down, but they cannot win the actual military battle. Iran is simply no match for US military hardware. That may sound like hubris, but at this point we still have the largest military machine in human history. Just because this country can fight though, doesn't mean it's either wise or prudent. Also as wee saw with Iraq, because we can win the war, doesn't mean we can win the peace.

That said, an attack would be disastrous and catastrophic for the region and I dread the worst from this administration.

[Rex]

20. We will officially start WW III

Just in time for the Olympics. If that happens then all bets are off the table. Retaliation becomes a global reaction. Very scary shit.

[stevietheman]

21. Bush attacking Iran == Hitler invading Poland. n/t

n/t

[leftchick]

22. logical consequences

of a horrible decision. Unfortunately if bushco makes the choice to strike Iran the worst should be expected to happen. I can't say as I blame them, the US would do the same.

[ZombieGak]

23. there's no double standard

US policies can be seen as consistent if you just look at those making those policies. Since Bush believes the US is uniquely righteous among the world's nations, then even if we do what we condemn others for... our reasons are always inherently just.

[Deja Q]

25. The instant they get attacked, I'd reckon they'd fight the closest US ally

Which be Israel or India, I should think.

Whatever. Whatever happens happens, I can't do jack about it.

[DemInDistress]

26. dont forget our soldiers in Iraq..

remember their are millions of shia...would they attack en masse our bases?

[alarcojon]

27. If attacked, I would expect them to retaliate

as we would retaliate against an attack on us. We are not special, more human than anyone else.

Since, as has been pointed out, we have the far stronger military, I would expect a retaliation aimed to strike at our psychological heart rather than our military one. I think we can all imagine what that might be.

[pinto]

28. Locking.

Way too much vitriol all around. Thanks for your consideration.