Would Iran be unjustified in setting off bombs in NYC if attacked by Bush first?

[Postman]

I'm just asking....

on edit: because I'm sure they would use conventional weapons to counterattack if they had the capabililty.....

I heard that kind of response somewhere but I just can't place it...why do you use suicide bombers or terrorist tactics? ...Answer- we'd gladly switch weapons with you...

[angstlessk]

1. Depends on the carnage in Iran...

[Drum]

2. I live in NYC,

and really don't like that hypothetical. In other words, no...no one is justified in setting off bombs in NYC.
:(
Where are you sitting as you post this? Would they be "unjustified" (as you put it) in setting off bombs there?

[PuraVidaDreamin]

5. no one is justified setting off bombs any where

.

[Postman]

7. You're missing the point.

It doesn't have to be NYC. I'm just using an example.

[aquart]

9. Try using your home and not ours.

We gave at the office.

[Postman]

13. Jesus Christ.

Okay. My home....

And my answer would be more chickens coming home to roost.

At what point does the madness stop?

[Cooley Hurd]

3. If we go the (tactical) nuke route, and kill Iranian civilians...

...well, hmm.

[spanone]

4. what if they followed the bu$h* doctrine and made a pre-emptive strike?

that's the sickness in the bu$h* doctrine....it can work both ways

[The Stranger]

6. "Unjustified" or "justified" in what sense? Morally? Legally? And to whom?

[Postman]

8. Does an attack on Iran give the Iranians any legal ground to stand on to couterattack the US?

how about moral grounds?

Do they have a defensive responsibility to counterattack?

[dysfunctional press]

10. according to the dogma of pre-emptiveness established under cheneyco...

they'd be justified in doing it NOW, seeing as they've already been threatened by an aggressor nation capable of carrying out it's threats.

[L. Coyote]

11. OR, was 9/11 justified because Reagan bombed refugee camps. It is easier to start a war than to end

one. The 9/11 lesson is, "Those who unilaterally start wars do not get to unilaterally decide when they end."

If we do not understand that Wash DC or NYC could be nuked because of our foreign policy and military actions, we are truly stupid and our leaders' sanity needs assessment. Moving towards peace is the only sane path we have.

[Postman]

14. Amen.

eom

[dipsydoodle]

18. ditto

.

[Lerkfish]

12. actually, if they use the Bush administration preemptive model, they don't have to wait

they can do it right now.

but that's if the rest of the world acted as if they were Bush.

[PATRICK]

15. Movie "Fail Safe"

Russia could demand a sacrifice which Bush could cheerily grant of also destroying an American city. Beside the fact that Iran has no such capability. If anything happened it would not be Iran even if Iran were blamed. As for justification. Morally no. Understandably yes, but then our guys would have been riddled by moral equivalency weapons by now if such were the case. Wars are uglier than mere retaliation exchanges and more likely variations of suicide pacts where the winner at least loses the best part of its soul in the victory part of the aftermath.

Such speculation merely fuels the fear necessary to demonize the adversary and rationalize our aggressive victimization of someone who would neither inclined nor self-justified in attacking us at all.

More interesting what would Bush do instead of waiting to be arrested by the law? He would use the crime to reward himself with self-protection and more power to kill and oppress. The shot would a signal of his
war on the world. If the world muses about what it should do or could do in response there is no debate in Bush's mind at all.

[Ganja Ninja]

16. Oh no certainly not.

They're just suppose to sit there and take whatever we decide to dish out. Hitting us back wouldn't be fair.

[Beer Snob-50]

17. so we attacked iran first

although i feel that it is possibly justified based on the fact that they are attacking our troops (i also blame this entire mess on chimp boy). do they then have the right to defend their country by attacking us?

[kestrel91316]

19. If Bush attacks Iran first, that's an act of war. Iran would have every right

to respond in kind.

Can't take the heat, stay out of the goddamned kitchen in the first place.

My parents always taught me as a child that you NEVER EVER hit first. But if you ARE hit by someone, you are free to let them have it.

[krispos42]

20. Depends on what they hit

Some things are legitimate military targets, most aren't. If Iranian agents start setting off IEDs, blowing up military and National Guard convoys, then that's legitimate. If they start bombing church picnics, then that's not legitimate.

If we start bombing their infrastructure because it's "supporing the Iranian military", they can legitimately return the favor. Gas and oil pipelines, telephone exchanges, whatever. Maybe try to drop the Verrazan Bridge into the water and block off New York Harbor, or the Golden Gate to block off San Francisco Harbor.

Or blow up a natural-gas supertanker in a harbor. Sabotage our air-traffic control system. Tons of stuff.

Read "The Enemy Within" by Larry Bond for some good examples.

[tkmorris]

22. One thing you left out

Such decision making about what targets are "legitimate" and which are not is something that can only be undertaken by nations that actually have the power to make such choices effectively. The United States possesses the military capability to engage a war in this manner and expect to win. No other nation can make the same claim, not when the enemy they face is us.

If the United States ever found itself in a position where they were at war and outgunned, you'd better believe that our government would attack whatever targets they could effectively hit, without regard to their "legitimate" status.

Wars are fought to win. Period. You do it however you can. The only concern military brass has about collateral or intentional civilian casualties is how it will play back home. Believe me, if you are on the weaker side it plays just fine.

You get an odd perspective when you are both a veteran AND someone who believes that war is NEVER the right answer to any problem.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. Of course. If a country goes to war against another, retaliation is expected