Would Iran be justified in bombing the US?

"From Seymour Hersh's Annals Of National Security article, The New Yorker, June 2008:

Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.

As Chomsky says in this article, 'otherwise known as international terrorism'. Using the Bush administration's own logic against it, Iran would be well within it's rights to launch airstrikes against military/political targets in Washington D.C., and if ten, twenty, a hundred, a thousand civilians were killed in the process, well, that's unfortunate and tragic, but ultimately a price worth paying in the fight against international terrorists and those who support them.

Can you imagine anyone in the British or American media or political establishments reacting like that in the event of a such a thing happening? No, me neither. Rather, it would be painted as a crime and an atrocity of world-epic proportions, and anyone who even tried to conextualise or justify it for a second would be shouted down as an insane apologist for mass murder and aggression.

But when it's 'us' doing it to 'them' . . . "

This is a quote from a UK forum - what do people think?

On that assessment, so would Syria and Pakistan.

Having said that, I am deeply opposed to nationalist wars of any description. imo, people should make common cause across national barriers to oppose them. I guess that is what your OP was about, Aragon.

cactus flower wrote:

On that assessment, so would Syria and Pakistan.

Having said that, I am deeply opposed to nationalist wars of any description. imo, people should make common cause across national barriers to oppose them. I guess that is what your OP was about, Aragon.

nationalist or any other wars as far as I'm concerned. War was always bad, but since the 20th century it enetered the levels of insanity.
All war is mad.(well maybe theres self-defence)

no. they're brown and the US is mostly white.

that was easy; next question...

I think some links would be nice.

Does anyone know what these 'terrorists' are up to in Iran? I bet the Iranian government would be the last people to tell you. I suppose the Americans have described them as 'freedom fighters', which of course they are.

Does anyone know what the response in Afghanistan was to the American attacks? I don't, but if I use my imagination I can easily belive that it was as Aragon describes:

Quote :

it would be painted as a crime and an atrocity of world-epic proportions, and anyone who even tried to conextualise or justify it for a second would be shouted down as an insane apologist for mass murder and aggression.

The victim populace, no matter who they are or how much they deserve it, can generally be expected to react with horror and a sense of injustice at any such attack. Why would the Americans be any different?

905 wrote:

I think some links would be nice.

Does anyone know what these 'terrorists' are up to in Iran? I bet the Iranian government would be the last people to tell you. I suppose the Americans have described them as 'freedom fighters', which of course they are.

Does anyone know what the response in Afghanistan was to the American attacks? I don't, but if I use my imagination I can easily belive that it was as Aragon describes:

Quote :

it would be painted as a crime and an atrocity of world-epic proportions, and anyone who even tried to conextualise or justify it for a second would be shouted down as an insane apologist for mass murder and aggression.

The victim populace, no matter who they are or how much they deserve [/[b]b]it, can generally be expected to react with horror and a sense of injustice at any such attack. Why would the Americans be any different?

905, there are plenty of links on this thread. https://machinenation.forumakers.com/world-politics-and-events-f27/is-the-us-already-at-war-with-iran-t1035.htm?highlight=iran

What is a "freedom fighter" - is such a person obliged to abide by international law? Is it all right to break international law and kill civilians in military attacks if they "deserve it". How can small children blown to bits "deserve it"? Do you think there is a context that might justify US actions in Iran and Afghanistan ?





http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/iran-cia-appendix-a.pdf

cactus flower wrote:

On that assessment, so would Syria and Pakistan.

Having said that, I am deeply opposed to nationalist wars of any description. imo, people should make common cause across national barriers to oppose them. I guess that is what your OP was about, Aragon.

Absolutely - I'm a committed pacifist. It just seems so striking in these examples that the US is infinitely more guilty itself of the things it is using as justification for launching wars on its victim countries.

Ah, I meant a specific link to the forum Aragon cited.

As for 'freedom fighters', they are whoever you want them to be, no matter what they do. You know this. My deserving populace was a hypothetical one.