What if Iran attacks up PREEMPTIVELY

[southernleftylady]

hmm... what would we do?
we would be totally screwed wouldnt we?

[brainshrub]

1. Nope.

Iran would become the largest piece of glass on the planet. What few rules the Bush Administration puts on themselves in wartime would be thrown out the window.

[mopaul]

2. if we can do it, why shouldn't they?

israel does it too, so pre emptive strikes are okey dokey. if a nation threatened us the way we are now threatening Iran, we'd sure as hell take action. but according to president cheney and his toady kkkondi, all it takes are rumors and innuendos.

[7th_Sephiroth]

3. they would attack israel and iraq

the U.S. is too far outta range

[FloridaPat]

17. But most of our military isn't.

[Walt Starr]

4. We'd only be screwed if they pre-emptively struck us in Iraq

The pooch would be screwed, then.

[spunky]

5. They'd be nuked off the map. n/t.

[TR Fan]

6. How?

Obviously, Iran does not have the capability to launch an attack on U.S. soil (other than a covert, 9/11 sort of attack, which I don't think you're talking about). So, what can they do? Attack the troops in Iraq. If so, with the US armament already in the region, they would be the ones totally screwed. The US could and probably would respond with enough B52s, F16s, and cruise missles to destroy Tehran within a couple of days. The other alternative would be to attack Isreal. Again, not a smart move, resulting in probably the same consequences.

The US is one of the very few countries that can rapidly project force in the modern world, thanks in part due to its extensive network of foreign bases. It does make a difference. Other countries, even those with impressive militaries, are hamstrung by this and more akin to the force from Ruritania (?) in "The Mouse that Roared."

edit: spelling

[jayfish]

7. They Would Have Early Success,...

to the point of, maybe, even ejecting US forces form Iraq. Once the US war-machine re-grouped and re-enforced however, it would be a pretty grim scenario for the Iranians. They just don't have the production capability to match the US. Nuclear weapons would not be used as it would assuredly lead to full-scale GTW. This scenario only includes US and Iranian combatants. If others were to join in the fray, who knows.

Flame away.

Jay

[K-W]

12. If Iran attacked us, we would nuke them.

I dont think it would start a world war at all. What nation wants to lose its cities to protect Iran? Especially if Iran attacked the US, even if we baited them.

[jayfish]

18. IMO,The Doctrine Of MAD...

dictates this. The worlds nuclear powers could not sit idly by while a rouge nation uses it's own arsenal without discretion. The defeat of our forces in a conventional battle, on foreign soil, is not a justification for using nuclear weapons. If the US were allowed to get away with using a nuclear weapon, without provocation, the world would be doomed to slavery. I don't think the world would let this stand lest they be enslaved themselves or worse, become the next target. But I might be totally wrong. The world may be that far gone.

Jay

[K-W]

19. I have no idea where you are coming from.

Rogue nation? We have a permanant seat on the security council.

We are talking about Iran here. We could invade them 10 times in a row and nobody would do anything to stop us. And we could drop as many nukes as we wanted on them and nobody would committ suicide and attack us.

You seem to be laboring under the entirely false impression that other world powers like Iran alot.

The US would face large diplomatic objections and punishments. Nobody is going to war with the US to avenge Iran.

[jayfish]

21. It Doesn't Have Anything To Do With Iran.

And yes, if we used nuclear weapons, period, we would be labeled a rouge nation. The use of nuclear weapons would make the recent Tsunmai look like a birthday party and the world would respond.

Jay

[K-W]

27. That would be like the british empire attacking the spanish empire

For committing war crimes against the aztecs. Thats not how it works friend.

Countries care about their own self preservation. No nation with nuclear weapons is going on a crusade against the US because of thier moral objection to our use of nuclear weapons. The simple fact of the matter is that if the US gets into a dustup with Iran and we nuke them not a single nation capable of hurting us will see it as a threat to thier security anymore than they saw Iraq as a threat to thier security.

Nations arent going to take on the US nuclear arsenal because the US using nukes worries them. Nations arent going to start a thermonuclear war because they are afraid of thermonuclear war.

You have completely messed up mutually assured destruction. MAD is what would keep any nation from doing anything to us about this hypothetical attack on Iran. MAD means that the US will NEVER attack Russia, GB, France, China, etc and they will NEVER attack us. It means as long as MAD is intact, we never have to worry about anyone stopping us, because no nation is going to committ suicide to do so.

The only people that can attack us are organizations with no geigraphical footprint, and we can attack anyone we want as long as they cant nuke us back before our missles land. That is what MAD means.

[jayfish]

33. I Think You Are Wrong...

but we aren't going to find out because it's not going to happen. Yes, I did play with MAD a bit, but I think it is a logical extension and not one that would be immediate. I'm sorry but I think the world would spin out of control if the US used nukes without justification and the end result would be full-out nuclear war. Thanks for changing the original title of your response. We can debate in a civil manner without the insults. ...Well, most of the time anyway :evilgrin:

Jay

[K-W]

36. THat just doesnt make sense.

You are arguing that if the US nuked Iran. Another nation with nuclear weapons would nuke us, thus causing both them and the US to be completely annihilated.

Why would any nation do a mutually assured murder suicide because we bombed Iran?

How can an act that directly counters the entire point of Mutually Assured Destruction (ie a nuclear nation attacking another nuclear nation) be considered a logical extension of M.A.D?

You somehow have it in your head that the rest of the world thinks that any use of a nuke should be punished by nukes. They simply dont think that, and I urge you to go try to find evidence that they do. They think that the ONLY situation that would justify mutual nuclear war is inevitable attack on THEM. Us bombing Iran would not give a single nuclear nation motivation to attack us. That is reality.

The biggest fear we would have if we used nukes is suffering sanctions of some sort, and having our Iraqi position overrun with angry members of the muslim world. We then might be in a position to war with a series of other middle eastern nations. In this case im sure the world would step in, but they wouldnt attack us, they would just use thier combined economic and military sway to influence us.

You have to remember that Russia, England, China, France, etc have all committed more than thier fair share of atrocities to benefit their economy. Nations are self interested actors. You need to prove that an atomic nation would see a US attack on Iran as a threat to thier security.

So tell me which nation is this that would suffer nuclear armageddon out of desperation becaues they thought a bomb dropped on tehran threatned them?

[jayfish]

42. Why Are You Looking At This As If...

it needs to make any sense? Does the concept of MAD itself make any sense? Does the concept of "winning" a nuclear conflict make any sense? You only have to look back a few years to see people take nonsensical action in response to a crisis. If, five-years ago, I asked you what would happen if 19 Saudis piloted aircraft into the WTC and Pentagon, would you have responded that we would attack and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq because it made the most sense? I hope the answer is no. I don't think it would be as B&W as you are looking at it. It wouldn't lead to a nuke Iran = nuke US tit for tat game like that. It might lead to the US using even more nukes to preempt sanctions, conventional attack or what-ever the US dreamed up with the Neo-Cons in charge. The end result, in my opinion would be the same.

Jay

[K-W]

45. If you understand it, it makes perfect sense.

The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction is very simple and completely rational. If country A and country B both have overpowering nuclear arsenals and the capability to detect an attack and launch before an attack lands, then any attack by either country on the other will result in both nations being completely annhilated.

Thus neither country will attack the other, because it would be suicide.

Now you are pushing a scenario that the US would nuke Iran, be put under sanctions and nuke other nations. I have seen no evidence that anyone in the Bush administration is going to get thier faces melted off in washington just to try and get sanctions lifted.

Nuclear nations wont fight each other, they just wont. Nobody wants to die. Thats why we are occupying the middle east. We can control other major nations economically. We cant do it militarily because that would be suicide.

Unless of course we had a working missle shield. If we could stop a significant number of ballistic missiles, we would then have removed the assured destruction of the US from the equation and we could project nuclear power freely. This would change everything. And thats exactly why the neo cons want it.

[jayfish]

46. But They Would Nuke Iran To...

stop a conventional attack? I understand MAD very well sir. I lived under it during my formative years in a first-strike city. MAD, if realized, is an absurd doctrine and it doesn't make any sense. You are actually staring to come around to my position, which is that the US would not nuke Iran.

Jay

[K-W]

53. Not quite.

Would we nuke Iran in response to a conventional attack. That depends on the shape of the exact situation, but it is very possible. The US would view such an attack as an attack on the United States. We would probably get UN approval to attack IRan in response, it would be a clear act of aggression on Iran's part. ANd our provoking them would be largely ignored.

You still dont get it. Mutually Assured Destruction ONLY APPLIES TO NUCLEAR NATIONS.

The reason we couldnt nuke anyone in the cold war was that Russia said it would respond to any attack on nations in its sphere. And we told Russia we would respond to any attack on nations in our sphere.

THat is not the case today. No nuclear nation has Iran's back. Mutually assured destruction has absolutely nothing to do with the US and Iran because Iran doesnt have the capability of destroying us.

I dont think we would nuke Iran because I dont think Iran is going to attack us. I dont think we would attack Iran until we have freed up forces in Iraq(if we were to do it), and thus would not need to use a more severe option.

But in the unlikely chance that IRan attacked our position in Iraq and succeeded in hurting us, i would certainly not be suprised to see a nuclear blow dealt to Iran. And if that happened, it would not start a world war because Iran has no friends.

Mutually assured destruction makes perfect sense and ive spelled it out to you in about as elementary a form as possible.

Prove me wrong, show where the argument is flawed. Also feel free to let me know which country exactly is going to go to the mat with the US in response to an Iranian nuke incident.

How about some backup to your assertations friend.

[jayfish]

58. Here Is The Flaw.

One errant ICBM = the destruction of all civilization. I'm glad we never got to test it. What do I have to prove? It's a hypothetical answer in response to a hypothetical question. I will say however that Russia and maybe even China, might have something to say about it right off the bat.

Russian Bear Makes Israel Jittery

<SNIP>
Russia, despite US pressure, is going ahead with cooperation in setting up nuclear power stations in Iran. China recently signed a major long-term agreement with Iran for energy purchases and development of the Iranian oil and gas sector. Energy-hungry China and India are aggressively bidding for investment and development of Yukos energy assets.
</SNIP>

IRAN REPORTS DEFENSE TIES WITH RUSSIA

<SNIP>
NICOSIA -- For the first time in years, Iran has reported defense and military relations with Russia.

Iran's ambassador to Russia reported defense and military cooperation between the two countries. It was the first time a senior Iranian official asserted that the two countries were engaged in defense and military projects.
</SNIP>


The Axis of Oil

<SNIP>
There are also signs that China is warming to the idea of a Russia–China–India axis, which, in cooperation with Iran, would turn the oil-rich Central Asian region into their domain. This proposal would put in place extensive military agreements and pipeline networks. Originally put forward by Russia’s Asia-centric ex-Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, the proposal seems to be gaining ground with all four nations. China and India have already signed multibillion-dollar gas and energy deals with Russia, which is the largest arms supplier to both countries, and with ex-Soviet Central Asian republics such as Kazakhstan.

What worries Western powers most are China’s and India’s growing ties with Iran, a country Washington is trying to isolate. Both Beijing and New Delhi have recently signed 25-year gas and oil deals with Iran that are collectively valued at between $150 and $200 billion, and both countries are also deepening their military cooperation with Tehran. Iran and India conducted their first-ever joint naval exercises last September, and India has agreed to modernize Iran’s aging Russian-built Kilo-class submarines and MiG fighters.
</SNIP>

"In their sights"

<SNIP>
The paper writes that the situation is aggravated by the fact that Russian military bases in Armenia are isolated from the Russian Federation because there is no agreement regarding the transit of soldiers and military materials between Russia and Georgia.
According to Gazeta SNG, such transport cannot take place through either Azerbaijan or Turkey. "Though, everything can be implemented though Iran, within the framework of a binding Soviet-Iranian agreement regarding friendship and cooperation, but this way is more hypothetical than practical given the long distance," the paper notes.
</SNIP>

Russia to launch spy satellites for Iran

<SNIP>
Russia will launch two spy and one telecommunications satellites for Iran in what may be a sign of strengthening strategic tie-up between the two countries.

The Russian military space forces this year will place two Iranian remote earth-probe (reconnaissance) satellites to geo-stationary orbits, a Russian business daily reported today. The satellites, Italian-built Mesbah and indigenous Sinah-1 will be lifted by the Russian Kosmos-3M booster from the Russian military space port, Plisetsk, in the second quarter of 2005, the Kommersant daily reported.
</SNIP>


Russia renews its old role in Middle East

<SNIP>Over the last few weeks, Russia has made clear that it plans to continue supporting Iran's controversial nuclear power program, is determined to remain an active partner in the Arab-Israeli peace process, and may renew its cold war-era role of arming Israel's Arab neighbors as a means of assuring military 'balance' in the volatile region.
</SNIP>



<SNIP>

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia is preparing to sign a deal with Iran this month to start atomic fuel shipments for a Moscow-built nuclear reactor there, a Russian nuclear source said on Monday.

The move is certain to enrage the United States which says Iran can use Russian fuel to secretly make a nuclear bomb. Washington has long called on Russia to drop the plans.
</SNIP>


Jay


EDIT: Added Reuters Story From LBN (Thanks To Rainscents)

[catmandu57]

29. We are a rouge nation now

and have been since the neocons brought deception in government to a polish. We are the bullyboy of the world carrying a large chip on our shoulder, someone is going to knock it off.

[K-W]

31. Whether you think so or not is irrelevent.

If you believe the other major nations are going to treat the US like a rogue nation you are dreaming. Rogue nation is what they call the nations that are marginalized from the international community, it has nothing to do with actually being an upstanding nation.

So yes, to you, me and anyone who cares about truth, we are a rogue nation, but that doesnt mean that we wont still get treated like a member of the world leaders club if we continue to make war on marginalized nations like Iraq.

[davekriss]

67. Other nations WOULD do something...

...and that is work diligently to undermine U.S. economic hegemony by nibbling away through non-cooperation and by throwing up indirect interference whenever it could. The goal would be to see the collapse of the means to support massive mad investment in military might.

[RPM]

50. i would like to believe that we have elasticity in our production capacity

but i don't think we have much heavy (i.e. weapons producing) capacity left. perhaps some missles, but i cant see tank/shipbuilding spike.

[jayfish]

52. Good Point.

I hadn't even thought about that. Can you imagine sanctions against the US that would stop us from importing our own weapons and parts? Oh the irony.

Jay

[seabeyond]

8. asked repug hubby the other nite, can iran preemptive

strike, .....didnt finish asking question and he said, yup. all countries can with all countries. he is seeing china preemptive striking against tiawan

[Cleita]

9. Even if they had the military might they would need, it would

only give ShrubCo the legitimacy they need to conquer the Middle East.

[Pharaoh]

11. how about this scenario

if we strike Irans nuclear facilitys.............

They take out the saudi oil fields and the whole world economy collapses......:nuke:

[K-W]

10. They would hurt us bad in Iraq and we would drop a nuke in Teheran.

Aint gonna happen.

[candle_bright]

13. Or another question:

What would be "preferable"?

a) Iran pre-emptively striking us.

b) Us pre-emptively striking Iran.

Think about that one.

[K-W]

16. Preferable for who?

If you hold US lives as paramount, certainly us attacking them.

[candle_bright]

32. "Preferable" to anyone who chooses to answer

the question, choosing between a) and b).

[K-W]

37. I think its impossible to know which would result in the least suffering.

So I guess I opt out from my prospective.

Im sure most americans would prefer a US started war, as it shift the burden of suffering on Iranians.

[candle_bright]

39. Interesting

that you opt out of answering for yourself, yet answer for most Americans.

[K-W]

40. I dont value American lives over other lives.

My impression is that most Americans do.

[newportdadde]

14. Iran's best bet it to develope workable nukes ASAP. If so we will leave t

[Just Me]

15. It would legitimize the neoCONspirators' desire for a world war.

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

The neoCONspirators want a world war to impose their "new world order" with the U.S. utilizing superior WMDs to become THE one and only leader. A preemptive strike by Iran would simply legitimize what the neoCONspirators seek and would save the neoCONspirators from being blamed.

It's the imperialist way, doncha' know.

[catmandu57]

20. They could attack our forces in the region

and probably be quite successful in killing large numbers of Americans and crippling the forces their for a time, but that's not an option I look for.

They would be better served if they played the victim to the US bully and baited jr.* into getting cocky. Whatever pain would be inflicted on them we would have the black eye, and the label of aggressor no matter how much the chimp* and it's concubine tried to spin things.

I think these guys aren't as smart as they get credit for, each day that passes takes more of whatever shred of credibility they once had, just because the people here at home have had the wool pulled over their eyes doesn't mean the rest of the world will stand by while we swagger and play bullyboy.
Some platitudes:
Pride goeth before a fall
The bigger they are the harder they fall
A word to the wise use both your eyes....

[murray hill farm]

25. Yes..so true!

Remember, this is all about oil! Presently, Iran is developing oil coalitions with China,Venezuela, Russia..and more! And we are dumping all of our resources into Iraq. Osama said at one point that the USA would bury its ownself in Iraq..he was, of course, speaking of economics..so far the usa is doing just that...and yet, they still rattle their swords like it was the good old days of being the most powerful country...those days are gone.

[K-W]

41. US still has complete Air Dominance

How would Iran strike us in Iraq? We control the skies. Are they going to march an army towards us that we can bring down massive air power on?

[jayfish]

43. Ballistic Missiles And Boots On The Ground.

And since this is a hypothetical, if they were going to attack, that is the only way they would be able to do it. The US has moved most of it's wartime air-power out of the region.

Jay

[tralfaz]

61. Keep in mind

that the Iran/Iraq war lasted numerous years and we wasted Iraq's military in a matter of days. Iran could possibly hurt us, but we would have the last laugh, even with just conventional weapons.

[jayfish]

65. Keep In Mind That What Was...

left of Iraqs' military walked off the field of battle. You are correct that we would have the "last laugh" but the cost would be enormous, in blood and treasure.

Jay

[Ready4Change]

22. Consider: Iran gathers coalition to free Iraq from US tyranny.

If the elections are seen as illegitimate, if the insurgents continue to operate so openly, if our motives continue to be focused on oil deliveries an little else, how long before Iran or some other anti-USA nation in that region can unite others and attempt to oust us from Iraq?

At what point will our actions have alientated enough ME nations that this would be a possibility?

[jayfish]

23. That Would Definitely Be A Bad Idea.

It would tip off our forces and allow them to ramp-up to meet the threat.

Jay

[TR Fan]

24. A coalition of whom?

Syria, Egypt, who? I think the Egyptians have tried that before against Isreal and gotten their asses whipped by Isreal alone. Not enough power concentrated there for an attack of the conventional nature. Their option is primarily what they're doing now. Funding and sponsoring insurgency attacks within Iraq.

[Ready4Change]

54. Syria at least.

Firstly, understand, I don't WANT to USA to fail in Iraq now. This quagmire is one reason I didn't support attacking Iraq in the first place. However, now we are stuck, and need to consider the means of extricating ourselves as best we possibly can. So I'm not saying "I hope they kick the USA's ass." I'm saying "this is something they might do. How can we counter it?"

Syria has no great love for us. And the goal would not be a direct ousting of US forces. It would be an attempt the be the final straw which breaks the USA's back.

Faced with a growing Iraqi insurgency and conventional (non-nuclear) attacks on two fronts by Iran and Syria, what could/would this administration and our overextended military do?

[TR Fan]

57. Use our uncontested air power

to destroy Damascus and Tehran and every city of over 500K in the first week.

[theboss]

30. First of all, Iran does not get along with the rest of the Middle East

There is that Persian/Arabic divide. So any coalition would be difficult at the outset.

Secondly, the Arab states tried this once before and lost disastrously to Israel. I can't imagine that attacking the US would work any better.

[tralfaz]

64. We can fight

all of the ME armies to a stalemate, Israel has done just that by itself.

[jayfish]

69. Well By All Means, Bombs...

away then. What could be better for the US than to fight all the the countries in the Middle-East to a stalemate? How long ago was that war, again?

Jay

[tralfaz]

70. I didn't ask

the original question, I was just answering it. I believe that today we could take on the combined armies of the ME and fight them to a standstill and yes, Israel has done just that and continues to do it to this day.

[mmonk]

26. No. they would be screwed

Such a move would be suicide. I don't think they're that stupid. They are bent on creating a deterrent.

[theboss]

28. That would be really really stupid

Our air power renders any conventional warfare suicidal. If Iran crossed the Iraq border, they would probably kill a few thousands troops but in the response, they would lose a few hundred thousand, I imagine.

[ArkDem]

34. How do you attack up?

[Sir Jeffrey]

35. Preemptive attacks are against the Shariah...won't happen n/t

[pocket]

38. Iran has fuck-all

while the US has a finely-honed killing machine parked next door.

This would be like Poland preemptively attacking Germany in the late 30s. Maybe it would be a suprise, but it would still be horses against panzers.

[Minstrel Boy]

49. Wake up and smell the hubris.

Prepare to get Sunburn'd.

[K-W]

55. We wouldnt have reason to be scared if our military weren't

indeed powerful enough to crush any organized army in the middle east easily.

Fighting Guerrilla resistance forces and an organized military are two very different things. In the latter few nations on this world could stand up to us and Iran isnt one of them.

It is the fact that we can defeat these nations easily that makes it so tempting for the administration.

[Minstrel Boy]

56. Iran may not be standing alone.

Russia is launching Iranian spy satellites in a few months, and both China and Russia are arming Iran with advanced weapons systems.

The line is going to be drawn in the sand somewhere against the neocon's encirclement of Russia and China.

[jayfish]

59. See #58 For A Story About The Satellite Deal.

I didn't know about this until I read that story. Why hasn't it been covered here ANYWHERE? Oh well, at least we know there weren't any "wardrobe malfunctions" during the SB last-night.

Jay

[Truebrit71sbruv]

44. The Power of Nightmares

To answer this it might possibly be better to post something from the BBC microsite;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

--------------------------------------------------

"In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares.

The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares.

In a new series, the Power of Nightmares explores how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion.

It is a myth that has spread unquestioned through politics, the security services and the international media.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

----------------------------------------------

Basically, the actual risk of another nation attacking the US does not exist, what is important for Washington is the fact that the people FEAR that it is both possible and practically imminent. Both patently not being the case. Don't buy into the propaganda.

[Moderator]

60. Truebrit71sbruv

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.


Thank you.


DU Moderator

[rman]

47. Any nation has the right to "preemptive" attack...

"Preemptive" strike / attack is well defined in international law: any nation has the right to "preemptive" attack if there is an imminent threat, where imminent threat is for instance when enemy bomber planes are crossing the national border of the 'victim'.
So Bush's war in Iraq isn't preemptive, the neocons know this so at some point they stopped calling it preemptive and started calling it "preventative". "Preventative" war is not defined in international law, but Bush's war amounts to a "war of aggression", which is a war crime under international law. Rumsfeld is in fact wanted in Germany for war crimes.

So Iran could only attack preemptively if US missiles are under way to targets in Iran. Iran would then have the right to not only take out those missiles but could also attack for instance US war ships in the region.

[Sir Jeffrey]

62. If Iraq had attacked our troops prior to the start of either war...

it would have been legal under international law, since troops amassing on your border and "sabre-rattling" qualify as imminent threat. Preventative law was what the Nazi's argued at Nuremburg. These things make you wonder...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. It would be a fulfillment of the PNAC crowd's wildest dreams

It would enable them to say, "See? We told you they were dangerous."

I just hope the Iranians aren't stupid enough to take the bait.

[Balbus]

51. That would be Bush's wet dream I imagine.

Right now, Bush has world's public opinion against him regarding a preemptive attack on Iran. Yeah, I know he had the world's public opinion against him in regards to a preemptive attack on Iraq, also, but at least in that scenario when the WMD thing was exposed as a fallacy he always had the "But Saddam is a bad guy" thing to fall back on. I don't think he has anything to fall back on in Iran if/when the WMD thing proves to be a fallacy. At least I haven't heard of any huge civil rights horrors in Iran like we heard about Iraq all over the news.

Just my opinion.

[bemildred]

63. That woud be stupid, that is what the Bushites want. nt

[davekriss]

66. HoHoHo!

Some might say that 9-11 was a "pre-emptive" attack: We threatened Afghanistan (the Taliban) to accept the Unocal pipeline deal at our terms, saying (purportedly) that they can choose "carpets of gold or carpet bombing!". The next thing that happened was (purportedly) their secret weapon, Osama Bin Laden, attacked America, perhaps to impede imperial progress by catalyzing an Islamist uprising against the west. If so, it was wrong, immoral, a crime. Just as it would be wrong, immoral, a crime for us, the U.S., to engage in "pre-emptive" attack. Now we wouldn't do that, would we?

[BikeWriter]

68. Pretty much, yes.