Whenever the people I attack refuse to accept freedom, I feel threatened.

Freedom's just another word for no one left to attack.

Chomsky's covered this at some length:

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/dd/dd-c09-s03.html

A quote: 'It was also understood throughout that the aging MiGs that Nicaragua was accused of trying to sneak into its territory could have only one purpose: to protect Nicaraguan airspace from the CIA supply flights that were required to keep the U.S. proxy forces in the field and the regular surveillance flights that provide them with up-to-the-minute information on the disposition of Nicaraguan troops, so that they can safely attack civilian targets in accordance with their instructions and training. Understood, but scarcely mentioned. A search of the liberal Boston Globe, perhaps the least antagonistic to the Sandinistas among major U.S. journals, revealed one editorial reference to the fact that Nicaragua needs air power "to repel attacks by the CIA-run contras, and to stop or deter supply flights" (Nov. 9, 1986). Again, the conclusion is clear and unmistakeable: no one has the right of self-defense against U.S. attack.'

Blame the French.
Goes back to 1940: "France threatened to surrender if attacked."
Confusion ever since then, as manifested in French critical theory. Words don't mean what they mean. Really.

Did they change the article? Currently reads: "Tehran scoffs at threats by the West, has pledged to press on with its nuclear progamme and defend itself if attacked."

never mind. helps to read the whole thing.

"...57 per cent of Americans favoured military intervention to stop Iran building a bomb." So how many favor enlisting in the military to participate in the intervention?