Will Iran defend themselves against Bush's acts of war?

Question

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016414.html

Answer 1

And what acts of war might those be?

Economic sanctions? Nasty letters from the Democrats in Congress? Scoldings and cries of "naughty, naughty" from the United Nations?

Please, stop being such a tool of the disinformation bloggers.

Answer 2

i became no longer taught to defend myself and ended up being bullied as a effect so can not advise that as a direction of action. i became raised to understand human beings and became surprised when I stumbled on in college that some human beings interestingly advance their young ones to be violent little shits ! although this regrettably a reality of existence and you're perfect to be pondering how applicable to coach your baby against it. From my attitude, given what occurred to me, i would be telling my toddlers to stand up to the bullies yet to accomplish that in a non violent way, in any different case they could be no greater suitable than the guy doing the bullying. incredibly how they might desire to flow approximately that is something I even have not labored out yet. yet i've got faith that purely status as much as somebody verbally would often be adequate. or perhaps i'm purely naive.

Answer 3

Only if Iran still exists after the attack.

Answer 4

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=103717


Robert Fisk: Hypocrisy, hatred and the war on terror
'If the US attacks were an assault on "civilisation", why shouldn't Muslims
regard the Afganistan attack as a war on Islam?'

08 November 2001

"Air campaign"? "Coalition forces"? "War on terror"? How much longer must we go
on enduring these lies? There is no "campaign" ? merely an air bombardment of
the poorest and most broken country in the world by the world's richest and most
sophisticated nation. No MiGs have taken to the skies to do battle with the
American B-52s or F-18s. The only ammunition soaring into the air over Kabul
comes from Russian anti-aircraft guns manufactured around 1943.


Coalition? Hands up who's seen the Luftwaffe in the skies over Kandahar, or the
Italian air force or the French air force over Herat. Or even the Pakistani air
force. The Americans are bombing Afghanistan with a few British missiles thrown
in. "Coalition" indeed.


Then there's the "war on terror". When are we moving on to bomb the Jaffna
peninsula? Or Chechnya ? which we have already left in Vladimir Putin's bloody
hands? I even seem to recall a massive terrorist car bomb that exploded in
Beirut in 1985 ? targeting Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, the spiritual inspiration to
the Hezbollah, who now appears to be back on Washington's hit list ? and which
missed Nasrallah but slaughtered 85 innocent Lebanese civilians. Years later,
Carl Bernstein revealed in his book, Veil, that the CIA was behind the bomb
after the Saudis agreed to fund the operation. So will the US President George
Bush be hunting down the CIA murderers involved? The hell he will.


So why on earth are all my chums on CNN and Sky and the BBC rabbiting on about
the "air campaign", "coalition forces" and the "war on terror"? Do they think
their viewers believe this twaddle?


Certainly Muslims don't. In fact, you don't have to spend long in Pakistan to
realise that the Pakistani press gives an infinitely more truthful and balanced
account of the "war" ? publishing work by local intellectuals, historians and
opposition writers along with Taliban comments and pro-government statements as
well as syndicated Western analyses ? than The New York Times; and all this,
remember, in a military dictatorship.


You only have to spend a few weeks in the Middle East and the subcontinent to
realise why Tony Blair's interviews on al-Jazeera and Larry King Live don't
amount to a hill of beans. The Beirut daily As-Safir ran a widely-praised
editorial asking why an Arab who wanted to express the anger and humiliation of
millions of other Arabs was forced to do so from a cave in a non-Arab country.
The implication, of course, was that this ? rather than the crimes against
humanity on 11 September ? was the reason for America's determination to
liquidate Osama bin Laden. Far more persuasive has been a series of articles in
the Pakistani press on the outrageous treatment of Muslims arrested in the
United States in the aftermath of the September atrocities.


One such article should suffice. Headlined "Hate crime victim's diary", in The
News of Lahore, it outlined the suffering of Hasnain Javed, who was arrested in
Alabama on 19 September with an expired visa. In prison in Mississippi, he was
beaten up by a prisoner who also broke his tooth. Then, long after he had
sounded the warden's alarm bell, more men beat him against a wall with the
words: "Hey bin Laden, this is the first round. There are going to be 10 rounds
like this." There are dozens of other such stories in the Pakistani press and
most of them appear to be true.


Again, Muslims have been outraged by the hypocrisy of the West's supposed
"respect" for Islam. We are not, so we have informed the world, going to suspend
military operations in Afghanistan during the holy fasting month of Ramadan.
After all, the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq conflict continued during Ramadan. So have
Arab-Israeli conflicts. True enough. But why, then, did we make such a show of
suspending bombing on the first Friday of the bombardment last month out of our
"respect" for Islam? Because we were more respectful then than now? Or because ?
the Taliban remaining unbroken ? we've decided to forget about all that
"respect"?


"I can see why you want to separate bin Laden from our religion," a Peshawar
journalist said to me a few days ago. "Of course you want to tell us that this
isn't a religious war, but Mr Robert, please, please stop telling us how much
you respect Islam."


There is another disturbing argument I hear in Pakistan. If, as Mr Bush claims,
the attacks on New York and Washington were an assault on "civilisation", why
shouldn't Muslims regard an attack on Afghanistan as a war on Islam?


The Pakistanis swiftly spotted the hypocrisy of the Australians. While itching
to get into the fight against Mr bin Laden, the Australians have sent armed
troops to force destitute Afghan refugees out of their territorial waters. The
Aussies want to bomb Afghanistan ? but they don't want to save the Afghans.
Pakistan, it should be added, hosts 2.5 million Afghan refugees. Needless to
say, this discrepancy doesn't get much of an airing on our satellite channels.
Indeed, I have never heard so much fury directed at journalists as I have in
Pakistan these past few weeks. Nor am I surprised.


What, after all, are we supposed to make of the so-called "liberal" American
television journalist Geraldo Rivera who is just moving to Fox TV, a Murdoch
channel? "I'm feeling more patriotic than at any time in my life, itching for
justice, or maybe just revenge," he announced this week. "And this catharsis
I've gone through has caused me to reassess what I do for a living." This is
truly chilling stuff. Here is an American journalist actually revealing that
he's possibly "itching for revenge".


Infinitely more shameful ? and unethical ? were the disgraceful words of Walter
Isaacson, the chairman of CNN, to his staff. Showing the misery of Afghanistan
ran the risk of promoting enemy propaganda, he said. "It seems perverse to focus
too much on the casualties or hardship in Afghanistan ... we must talk about how
the Taliban are using civilian shields and how the Taliban have harboured the
terrorists responsible for killing close up to 5,000 innocent people."


Mr Isaacson was an unimaginative boss of Time magazine but these latest words
will do more to damage the supposed impartiality of CNN than anything on the air
in recent years. Perverse? Why perverse? Why are Afghan casualties so far down
Mr Isaacson's compassion? Or is Mr Isaacson just following the lead set down for
him a few days earlier by the White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, who
portentously announced to the Washington press corps that in times like these
"people have to watch what they say and watch what they do".


Needless to say, CNN has caved in to the US government's demand not to broadcast
Mr bin Laden's words in toto lest they contain "coded messages". But the coded
messages go out on television every hour. They are "air campaign", "coalition
forces" and "war on terror".

Answer 5

if US attack their site, and they will certainely.

iran will bomb isreal, then USA will bomb again iran.

russia will back up and will help iran against a US invasion in Iran.

it will be messy, probably a worldwide war and many people will die on both side....on all sides!

Answer 6

only the ones in his military,the youth already has an underground wanting to overthrow the government