Can Iran justify an attack against us as a pre-emptive strike?

[skjpm]

It would seem that Iran sees us as preparing to attack her. Iran also knows that we have WMDs which we could use. Iran has also seen us invade Iraq. Using the same justifications that the US did in invading Iraq, couldn't Iran justify attacking us?

This is the problem with the preemptive strike ideology. It makes America less safe because, to some countries, America is the enemy.

[Maple]

1. Yes

but why would they need to 'justify' it.

Bush has never 'justified' his pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

[skjpm]

4. And didn't Bush, then, make us less safe

by giving the world an example of a pre-emptive strike? Now that the option is on the table, maybe other countries will use it against us. Iran could easily claim to be in the same position as the US did--confronting an enemy who was obviously planning a future attack. If the US was justified in a pre-emptive strike against a future enemy, why not Iran?

[TrustingDog]

7. boosh wants a world unsafe... I truly believe that....

not that it has Ever been, but hey, there's something even uglier coming down on us soon.

[jumpstart33]

2. The US, Israel, and the UK: Iran would be justified by Bush's standards

I hope it doesn't happen.

[karlrschneider]

3. The "Bush Doctrine" certainly seems to support that idea.

:eyes: :grr:

[keepleft]

5. the people of America don't deserve that

But I sort of think that our administration does.

[eurolefty]

8. why not?

Not many Iraqi people supported Saddam. So, the neocon logic seems to be something like "If minority of your people support the evil leader, a random selection of your friends and neighbors deserves to die."

Millions of Americans support Bush. By the same logic that would mean...

(I'm not advocating any course of action. Just trying to figure out how the right wingers think.)

[keepleft]

10. I don't think any civilians deserve

to die for people they don't even support. Anywhere.

I know people who support Bush, and I don't think they deserve to die.

But yes, I know what you mean and I completely agree with your reasoning.

[TrustingDog]

9. the people of the world....

deserve raising their families in safety, that is what it's really all about - that Dangerous thunk. But the Cretin UltarCapitalist pustules dislike those dangerous simple things. They go for confuseration of the fold to make them more BulletsForProfit.

Way more money in war than peace. Fuck you all, fuck you to damnation around the block by a googleplex. You are totally in charge of ripping my flesh but you will never have my soul.

[spanone]

6. Following the 'bush* doctrine' I'd have to say yes.

What's good for the goose...

[Minstrel Boy]

11. Imagine China invading Mexico,

occupying and expropriating its wealth, massing its army along the northern border and demanding that the US military standdown its nuclear forces, or else.

Just imagine the, uh, restraint with which those actions would be met.

[Djinn]

12. FAR more reason to under the Bush doctrine

Iraq had made NO threats re attacking the US and had no ability to do so. Iran has heard repeated threats and knows fine well the US has the capability, Iran is also bordered by two nations that are already occupied by US forces.

If the Bush doctrine - which btw is NOT pre-emption but preventative, pre-emption according to the Defense Dept's own terms means " "an attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent." is acceptable then the Iranians have more reason to use it than the US ever did.

Hopefully the Iranians aren't suicidal.

[stavka]

13. Not really sure how they could do that....

Suitcase nuke in the Persian Gulf maybe near our fleet?

Stop selling us pistachios?