FBI stops Iran assasination attempt on Saudi Amb. to US

[Samuel]

So did the USA invade Chile when Pinochet's ilk blew up Orlando Letelier?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Le ... assination

No, it didn't. The USA has no right to brag about "invading people for blowing up people".

All nations are hypocrites. With great power comes the ability to massively abuse it. That is no reason the US can't be pissed that some did the same thing to us. Especially since if you don't respond other people know they can do anything they want without fear of consequence.

Anyway, given the fact the US is currently in two wars occupations this would be a bad idea. I also think any offensive action would play into the hands of the Iranian government. They just had people protesting because of rigged elections and are probably looking for a way to unite people behind the government. What better way then to force people to choose between supporting their country or the enemy?

Given the... skills of American intelligence agencies, I'm not sure they can pull of something subtle so the best bet is a public trial to humiliate the Iranian government.

I'd go with the Clinton approach. Blow up the headquarters of their version of the CIA and /or whatever branch of the military they used to plan this little dumbshit maneuver like Bubba did after the Iraqis tried to kill HW Bush and hope to shit they don't decide "fuck it" and cross the Iraqi border.

I'm sure throwing missiles at Tehran could have no negative effects. I mean, what are the odds, they might miss the headquarters and hit other buildings?

[Col. Crackpot]

So did the USA invade Chile when Pinochet's ilk blew up Orlando Letelier?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Le ... assination

No, it didn't. The USA has no right to brag about "invading people for blowing up people".

Thats a poor analogy. Letelier was killed by agents of his own government.

Not really, since it was an operation planned and actually executed by the Chilean government which killed an American on American soil and we did fuckall except prosecute the offenders.

And this was a plot to blow up dozens of bystanders and to do so by design. The ex CIA fellow who died with Letelier was an unintended casualty. Big difference. And please don't for a moment mistake this as apologising for that nutjob Pinochet and his band of butchers. Just illustrating a much darker shade of gray.

[Flagg]

I'd go with the Clinton approach. Blow up the headquarters of their version of the CIA and /or whatever branch of the military they used to plan this little dumbshit maneuver like Bubba did after the Iraqis tried to kill HW Bush and hope to shit they don't decide "fuck it" and cross the Iraqi border.

I'm sure throwing missiles at Tehran could have no negative effects. I mean, what are the odds, they might miss the headquarters and hit other buildings?

There are always risks. I'd rather just do what we're doing, but that's risky too.

[TheHammer]

We have plots to invade and occupy countries, are those acts of war too, or does it get a pass because it's just "military preparedness"?

By that logic everyone who studies martial arts should be charged with assault. Bit of a leap in logic don't you think?

Meh, conceded.

However, I don't believe plotting to kill another countries ambassador, even on our own soil, rises to the level of "lulz we needs to sink half their naviez and blowz up they're airforze!!!"

Its called hyperbole. The point I was making is that sanctions don't send a strong enough message. This is beyond an assassination attempt on an abassador, this plot would have undoubtedly also claimed American lives. You can't look at it from the standpoint that "it failed so no harm done". You have to look at it from the standpoint of what if it had succeeded. Apparently they seem to think that we wouldn't do anything about it. That is a misconception we need to correct, both for them and for any other nation with the notion to try anything like it.

As you suggested, I'd support a cruise missile attack to level the HQ of whatever agency was behind this... and maybe sink that flotilla of ships they are were recently planning to send "near U.S. waters".

[Broomstick]

No, I think "nyah-nyah, we stopped you" might be enough here. It would piss off the Iranians and make them look foolish, but given them no grounds to announce warfare. In this case, publicly mocking them might be worse, for them, than a retaliatory attack on them.

As for letting them get away with this - the US has a long history of NOT retaliating with war even when provoked, as various barracks, building, embassy, and ship bombings that actually succeeded in killing people over the years have shown. As a matter of fact, no, we don't have to retaliate, blow anything up, or react in a violent manner. We should carefully consider the matter, act if at all only after thoughtful deliberation, and only in a manner which will truly be in our self-interest.

Of course, politicians being what they are, it wouldn't surprise me if this is used an excuse for further violence...

The odd thing is, despite many criticisms and faults of the Obama administration, they actually do seem to have something of a handle on the War on Terror (or whatever we're calling it this month). He actually delivered bin Laden's head on a pike (so to speak) and they've taken down various other people in Al Qaeda. Now they've stopped an assassination. Seems they can be effective at least in that area. Why can't he deal this effectively with the economy and the job situation?

[Block]

No, I think "nyah-nyah, we stopped you" might be enough here. It would piss off the Iranians and make them look foolish, but given them no grounds to announce warfare. In this case, publicly mocking them might be worse, for them, than a retaliatory attack on them.

As for letting them get away with this - the US has a long history of NOT retaliating with war even when provoked, as various barracks, building, embassy, and ship bombings that actually succeeded in killing people over the years have shown. As a matter of fact, no, we don't have to retaliate, blow anything up, or react in a violent manner. We should carefully consider the matter, act if at all only after thoughtful deliberation, and only in a manner which will truly be in our self-interest.

Of course, politicians being what they are, it wouldn't surprise me if this is used an excuse for further violence...

Reagan had an atrocious record with terrorism, his response isn't a good example. The other three were responded to with missile strikes, a plan to put SF on the ground in Afghanistan, and various other warlike activites.

[PeZook]

I'd like to see you guys commenting on the Gary Powers shootdown back in the day

Perhaps using this thing as justification to spend billions upon billions of dollaroids on an air campaign that will also draw assets from Iraqistan and throw the oil market into another crisis might not be the optimal course of action?

[TheHammer]

No, I think "nyah-nyah, we stopped you" might be enough here. It would piss off the Iranians and make them look foolish, but given them no grounds to announce warfare. In this case, publicly mocking them might be worse, for them, than a retaliatory attack on them.

As for letting them get away with this - the US has a long history of NOT retaliating with war even when provoked, as various barracks, building, embassy, and ship bombings that actually succeeded in killing people over the years have shown. As a matter of fact, no, we don't have to retaliate, blow anything up, or react in a violent manner. We should carefully consider the matter, act if at all only after thoughtful deliberation, and only in a manner which will truly be in our self-interest.

Of course, politicians being what they are, it wouldn't surprise me if this is used an excuse for further violence...

The odd thing is, despite many criticisms and faults of the Obama administration, they actually do seem to have something of a handle on the War on Terror (or whatever we're calling it this month). He actually delivered bin Laden's head on a pike (so to speak) and they've taken down various other people in Al Qaeda. Now they've stopped an assassination. Seems they can be effective at least in that area. Why can't he deal this effectively with the economy and the job situation?

Key difference in the examples you cited Broomstick, is that they weren't perpetrated by a sitting national government. Even if they were, it has been argued that our failure to respond to those incidents is actually what encouraged terrorists to attack on 9/11, the assumption being we would not retaliate just as we haven't retaliated before.

If we have hard evidence the government of Iran was behind this, then sanctions aren't strong enough. Clearly they weren't afraid of sanctions when they came up with the plot. Quite frankly, this is above and beyond the "war on terror" which is essentially defined as a battle against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. This is not part of that conflict.

I'd like to see you guys commenting on the Gary Powers shootdown back in the day

Perhaps using this thing as justification to spend billions upon billions of dollaroids on an air campaign that will also draw assets from Iraqistan and throw the oil market into another crisis might not be the optimal course of action?

There is a difference between spying on another nation and plotting attacks against it. A very big difference. If they had succeeded in setting off a bomb on American soil would be far far worse than what I'm proposing now.

[PeZook]

There is a difference between spying on another nation and plotting attacks against it. A very big difference. If they had succeeded in setting off a bomb on American soil would be far far worse than what I'm proposing now.

Okay. The KGB murdered several defectors on US soil. Some of them received asylum and were thus under US protection.

Should you have gone to war over it?

[Col. Crackpot]

There is a difference between spying on another nation and plotting attacks against it. A very big difference. If they had succeeded in setting off a bomb on American soil would be far far worse than what I'm proposing now.

Okay. The KGB murdered several defectors on US soil. Some of them received asylum and were thus under US protection.

Should you have gone to war over it?

The difference there is that particular war would have ended human civilization. So, no.

[Broomstick]

Well, forgive me for not being eager to see another war started, however justified it may be.

We are not compelled to act, we choose to act - including choosing NOT to act. ALL alternatives to war should be looked at. Going to war might still be the rational outcome, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing, only arguably the lesser evil.

I realize, of course, that since 2001 the US has charged into war. Going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan as the party sheltering those directly responsible for an actual attack on American soil didn't take place on September 12, it was some time later, and there was significant world support. By support I don't mean necessarily glee over the matter but recognition of the US had a right to defend itself from any party launching an actual attack resulting in actual death and destruction. Then there is the matter of Iraq, which was a mistake. Nonetheless, how many have died or been maimed for the ego and glory of old men in Washington?

In this case, no one died, no one was harmed. The plan was stopped before that. I'm not convinced that a blocked assassination attempt/attack on US territory is sufficient justification to launch a retaliation, even if in the past similar things had been done in response. I am also aware of the argument that failure to react in the past lead to 9/11 (and you can't blame it solely on Reagan - some of that was also during the Clinton years). Even if it is justified to react in that manner, that doesn't mean it is necessarily in our best interests to do so.

But, by all means, seek to convince me that this is sufficiently provocative to be worth more young men and women coming home in boxes, or missing body parts or their sight or with severe brain damage. Nevermind the death and maiming that would occur on the other end of a US retaliatory attack, which recent experience has shown will likely be at least an order of magnitude greater than whatever losses the US takes.

Explain to me why this incident is worth killing and maiming people, because in the end that's what you're talking about.

[mr friendly guy]

I am no fan of US foreign policy in recent years, but if true the US should respond. However I remain unconvinced (assuming Iran did plan it) that a military assault would necessary be the best option. Actually given what some people are proposing for a plot that failed, it seems excessive. Moreover the cost to the US would not exactly be little. Considering you guys are currently in two wars at the moment, your economy is sort of recovering, a war with oil spike would be devastating.

IIRC previous threads those SDN members with military experience explain just how costly a war with Iran will be.

[Crateria]

Explain to me why this incident is worth killing and maiming people, because in the end that's what you're talking about.

The response will probably involve something like standing up to Iran or doing it to make USA look tough to countries like Iran. Never mind the failing economy or flagging reputation of USA, or the fact that an attack on Iran would likely be very bloody due to Iran having a much better military than Saddam's Iraq or Omar's Afghanistan.

Although it does make sense why the US might fight Iran (to preserve SA as a puppet as well as honor its international commitments, ie going to war if Saudi Arabia is attacked, right?)

[Block]

I am also aware of the argument that failure to react in the past lead to 9/11 (and you can't blame it solely on Reagan - some of that was also during the Clinton years).

Erm, you can pin it completely on Reagan. Every Islamist terrorist attack in the Clinton years that wasn't stopped (though many were), had a reprisal. The response to the Cole for example was to task Richard Clarke with planning a lighter more surgical version of what happened after 9/11, in Afghanistan. Clinton took terrorism VERY seriously, the new Republicans under Gingrich blocked it at every turn, and yet he still managed to do more than either Bush or Reagan did about terrorism until it was too late.

[Crateria]

I am also aware of the argument that failure to react in the past lead to 9/11 (and you can't blame it solely on Reagan - some of that was also during the Clinton years).

Erm, you can pin it completely on Reagan. Every Islamist terrorist attack in the Clinton years that wasn't stopped (though many were), had a reprisal. The response to the Cole for example was to task Richard Clarke with planning a lighter more surgical version of what happened after 9/11, in Afghanistan. Clinton took terrorism VERY seriously, the new Republicans under Gingrich blocked it at every turn, and yet he still managed to do more than either Bush or Reagan did about terrorism until it was too late.

Although Reagan could at the very least not wanted another Vietnam on his hands in Lebanon, right? Otherwise I'm not sure what terrorist incidents you're talking about.

[The Romulan Republic]

No, I think "nyah-nyah, we stopped you" might be enough here. It would piss off the Iranians and make them look foolish, but given them no grounds to announce warfare. In this case, publicly mocking them might be worse, for them, than a retaliatory attack on them.

As for letting them get away with this - the US has a long history of NOT retaliating with war even when provoked, as various barracks, building, embassy, and ship bombings that actually succeeded in killing people over the years have shown. As a matter of fact, no, we don't have to retaliate, blow anything up, or react in a violent manner. We should carefully consider the matter, act if at all only after thoughtful deliberation, and only in a manner which will truly be in our self-interest.

Of course, politicians being what they are, it wouldn't surprise me if this is used an excuse for further violence...

The odd thing is, despite many criticisms and faults of the Obama administration, they actually do seem to have something of a handle on the War on Terror (or whatever we're calling it this month). He actually delivered bin Laden's head on a pike (so to speak) and they've taken down various other people in Al Qaeda. Now they've stopped an assassination. Seems they can be effective at least in that area. Why can't he deal this effectively with the economy and the job situation?

I find it interesting that you seem to think the Iranians want a war. I tend to think they are not completely suicidal.

[Lord of the Abyss]

The odd thing is, despite many criticisms and faults of the Obama administration, they actually do seem to have something of a handle on the War on Terror (or whatever we're calling it this month). He actually delivered bin Laden's head on a pike (so to speak) and they've taken down various other people in Al Qaeda. Now they've stopped an assassination. Seems they can be effective at least in that area. Why can't he deal this effectively with the economy and the job situation?

For one thing, the Republicans couldn't stop him from sending the military after bin Laden; they didn't even know it was happening after all. They can on the other hand block any attempts by him to do anything about jobs or the economy.

[Block]

I am also aware of the argument that failure to react in the past lead to 9/11 (and you can't blame it solely on Reagan - some of that was also during the Clinton years).

Erm, you can pin it completely on Reagan. Every Islamist terrorist attack in the Clinton years that wasn't stopped (though many were), had a reprisal. The response to the Cole for example was to task Richard Clarke with planning a lighter more surgical version of what happened after 9/11, in Afghanistan. Clinton took terrorism VERY seriously, the new Republicans under Gingrich blocked it at every turn, and yet he still managed to do more than either Bush or Reagan did about terrorism until it was too late.

Although Reagan could at the very least not wanted another Vietnam on his hands in Lebanon, right? Otherwise I'm not sure what terrorist incidents you're talking about.

It would've created another Vietnam to give any sort of response at all? To enhance the abilities of the FBI and CIA to track terrorists? Between the three attacks in Lebanon the US lost somewhere close to 300 people. The other incident off the top of my head is the Lockerbie bombing. The response to this was a single bombing run against Libya, and no real increase in the focus on counter-terror.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

I think dropping cement bombs in open areas around their military and intelligence compounds at night would be a solid means of retaliation. The US would minimize casualties and property damage while at the same time, show that the US can retaliate at anytime and place. This is of course assuming that we have concrete evidence that the assassination attempt was back by the Iranian government. The pun was intended.

[Samuel]

I find it interesting that you seem to think the Iranians want a war. I tend to think they are not completely suicidal.

I personally think they would welcome something minor (like cruise missile lobbing) because it gives them an external threat to rally around. Than you can have BushAhmadinejad stand in the rubble of ruined buildings with Giuliani Ghalibaf and declare that the they were attacked because America hates their freedoms and that you are either with the regime or against it. Then the republicansAbadgaran will attack the democrats ECP for being soft on terror and take control of the organs of government.

Of course the American government doesn't round up domestic political opposition or have citizens "accidentally" killed by rogue elements of the CIA, so imagine things being bloodier.

[The Romulan Republic]

Maybe, but they'd have to be insane to want it to go to full-scale war. Which is a risk with this kind of provocative behavior, so if that's their game its a really stupid one.

[Shroom Man 777]

I personally think it would be great for America to go into another war.

[Block]

I personally think it would be great for America to go into another war.

I personally think it would be great if you got Super Herpes and died from it. Go fuck yourself for wishing ill on my country.

[PeZook]

The difference there is that particular war would have ended human civilization. So, no.

My point exactly. The US is not obliged or forced to go to war with Iran ; It should probably do a cost-benefit analysis before comitting to a large aerial campaign that would cost money, time, aircraft, munitions and above all people. Turns out you can let such things slide (for given values of "slide") without your interests becoming existentially threatened.

[Aleria]

I personally think it would be great for America to go into another war.

Are you stupid or just hate the US?

The US isn't in the financial shape to fight another war.