FBI stops Iran assasination attempt on Saudi Amb. to US

[MarshalPurnell]

I can dig that the whole affair was more complicated and nuanced than "Bush lied, people died", a mess that ended up causing a war that in turn led to the deaths of countless of people would most certainly be all sorts of convoluted.

Doesn't change the fact that they fucked up and went to war due to shit intelligence, and a whole load of people ended up dead because of that. Okay, the US fucked up in a more nuanced way, and all those poor shmucks are all more sophisticatedly dead.

Yeah.

If we go back to 2002, the overwhelming consensus of all intelligence agencies was that Saddam Hussein was not complying with the UN Disarmament regime because he was trying to retain a capability to produce WMD. There were differing degrees of belief as to what exactly the capabilities where. As it turns out, Hussein was not complying with the regime to bluff the Iranians that he still had unconventional weapons and to buttress Iraqi pride, and most of the unaccounted-for material actually had been destroyed, but without documentation by UN inspectors as called for by the 1991 cease-fire provisions and Security Council resolutions. There was no debate that Iraq was not in compliance with UN resolutions about its WMD because Iraq was not in compliance with the resolutions; the debate was essentially over what to do about it, and just how much of a threat it represented.

As it turns out the US overstated the intelligence it had. CIA Director George Tenant infamously proclaimed it a "slam dunk" in conversations with the President and the National Security Council. That does not mean the intelligence did not exist. Much of the worst intelligence came from Iraqi dissidents like Achmed Chalabi, who later openly admitted to lying about it. The forged yellowcake memo came to the US through the Italian intelligence services, and allegedly at the behest of the DGSE. The CIA failed miserably in vetting the intelligence, no doubt because it was reinforcing a preconceived narrative that there was substantial political pressure to verify. That was a mistake, a failure, and it was clear the Administration was looking for an excuse to take action- but that does not mean they made up the excuse from whole cloth, that Iraq was an innocent victim completely above suspicion, much less that it was a process of deliberate deception to foist a war on America for oil. That entire line of argument is asinine and fails a fundamental plausibility check, that such a vile, ruthless conspiracy would fail to plant the evidence necessary to reinforce their lies.

Obviously the Administration was convinced they would find WMD and just as obviously were bewildered that they did not. Cockup before Conspiracy. And there is certainly a substantial moral difference between overstating a case you sincerely believe is real, and making shit up wholesale to justify a war to further your own corruption. One is incompetence and the usual failings of human rationalization, the other is cartoon-villain evil.

And for what it's worth Iraq has not turned out anything like the worst case scenario. The costs may not have been worth. Certainly were not worth it on the American side. But then the Iraqi government is now vastly more representative of its people. Saddam Hussein is out of power and Iraq no longer lingers over as a dangerous threat to its neighbors. In the long term some kind of bloody overthrow of the Ba'ath regime was probably inevitable, after Saddam's death, and that might have been worse. The situation in Iraq is decidedly mixed rather than being a complete Vietnam-scale clusterfuck, and trending toward stabilization at a mediocre level of government effectiveness and sustainable level of disaffection between the ethnic communities.

Though of course this is also a massive digression from the topic at hand, except in so far as people are arguing "the US made up the case against Iraq, they're just making this up too." Which is about par for the course here but still pretty stupid.

[Shroom Man 777]

Purnell:

I think the general consensus here is not "the US made everything up in the case of Iraq out of nowhere" but more like "the US making mountains out of peanuts" or "the US misinterpreting or exaggerating or acting on premature conclusions when not properly checking it out to be sure, due to stupidity/just-not-thinking-about-it/whatever". Which could easily be the case with a whole load of things that the US, and salivating war-happy jingoists, wants people to pounce at.

As far as I know, people's general conception of how the whole WMD fiasco happened is basically that a lot of guys in the US really wanted to go to war or really thought that Iraq had WMDs, and so when they received all those shoddy intelligence, they ended up seeing what they wanted to see rather than seeing that it was shit intelligence (as you said, overstating the intelligence it had, misinterpreting Saddam's blustering, shitty Italian intelligence, shitty lying intelligence source). At least, to me it was.

But you can see how eager they were to act on it, and how they kind of developed tunnel vision due to that. And you saw how they riled up the media to support their bid at war. They themselves honestly thought there really were WMDs. They believed what they said, even though the intelligence was shit, and garnered support from the public and from other nations. I guess you can say that it wasn't a conspiracy in the Truther/Moon Hoaxer/tinfoil hatter sense. But it was something. Gross systemic institutional incompetence would be a better word for it? The only difference would be, they themselves thought it was true too rather than deliberately lying about it. But that's really not much to all the dead guys there.

Yes, this is a big digression from the topic at hand.

[Broomstick]

See, there is a key difference between "military adventurism" and responding to an attack on your nation. Your failure to see the difference tells me I'm wasting my time with most of this.

It is you who can't see the difference between an attack and a plan.

People make plans all the time. Very few come to pass.

This was a plan in motion Broomstick. Simply because the attack was foiled doesn't mean it wasn't an attack. If the bombs had been planted or failed to go off, or went off prematurely when no one was in the building. Poor execution doesn't excuse the act in the first place.

OMG! Who did we bomb in retaliation for the Underwear Bomber? What, we didn't? OMG! We look weak!

There are probably dozens of plots against the US in one form or another going on right now, even as we speak, we just don't know about them. A kneejerk reflex of "bombs!" does not serve our interest. It certainly won't stop people from plotting against us. Done indiscriminately, it may in fact give incentive to take down the perceived bully.

And quite frankly our failure to mount an appropriate response likely lead to the audacity of planning and executing the 9/11 attacks.

What would you consider an "appropriate response" to 20 years of Al Qaeba poking the sleeping giant with a sharp pointy stick? Some times we tried going through courts (as after the USS Cole bombing) and sometimes we dropped bombs (like after the African embassy attacks). We still had 9/11. Even after bombing the shit out of parts of Afghanistan Al Qaeda continued to plot against us. Gee, I'm beginning to think they don't like us, and not only that, nothing is really going to stop them short of eliminating the planners/organizers... which apparently is now being attempted via drones and the US is still getting criticized for that as well.

I'm not sure either courts or militaries are the ideal means to handle the "rogue terrorist organization" that multi-national and well funded.

It is that thought that needs to be expressed now and again to let other nations know the consequences of orchaestrating attacks on the United States.

If anyone had forgotten, or not been informed of, the US response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the state of Japan by mid August 1945, I would think the consequences of September 11, 2001 would have either refreshed their memories or enlightened them. I don't think anyone really doubts that the US can rain down death from the skies on any target anywhere in the world and on rather short notice. The death of bin Laden 10 years after 9/11 shows that even if we go for a more subtle approach than a bomb from above we can be persistent even as our government leaders change. The consequences of a successful hit on US soil are well known at this point. Even if you escape immediate bombing youll never be safe. Waiting out a regime change won't change the fact that the US will still be after your ass. I wonder if the rest of the world finds it reassuring that it takes that much to lead to such a response, or frightening to think some little cabal of troublemakers can provoke that response.

You are correct. Most nations would see how we responded to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 and realize that provoking us to conflict is not a smart thing to do. On the other hand, its clear that it does still happen on occaision. As you well know, the most recent precedent is the one that will stick in peoples minds. We let this slide then other countries that previously had been deterred might start to think they could get away with it too.

"Bomb them" doesn't have to be the only deterrent, though. Parading the "secret agents" publicly in a public trial is also a deterrent, as it airs the dirty laundry of our enemies. Demonstrating that we can and will capture such agents before they can carry out their plans is also a deterrent. We need a variety of creative solutions.

So ask yourself - IF some nutballs in Iran wanted to provoke sort of response... why? Do they think they would gain something by it? And if so, should we give them what they want... or withhold their "prize"?

Well obviously we should withhold their "prize" of getting an asskicking from the U.S. military. Let them try to come over and bomb all the restaurants and kill all the ambassadors they want! We'll just keep slapping on sanctions that don't work. Rather than make them feel any real pain we'll "Embarass them". That'll show em.

I would think repeatedly stopping planned attacks would show that we don't need to bomb people, we can neutralize them without violence. We would also gain considerable good will by demonstrating our willingness to use non-violent means and might therefore secure more cooperation from other nations, who may fear us less the more they see us exercise restraint even as they know we are still quite dangerous under some circumstances.

We shouldn't do what our enemies want merely because such action makes us feel tough or whatever, we should do what is in our own best interests - which might, in fact, mean do nothing in this instance because the alternatives might lead to unpleasent consequences out of proportion to what actually occurred.

Its not about feeling tough. Its about providing an appropriate deterent to future endeavors of this nature.

But would bombing shit in Iran actually deter anything under these circumstances? What is the cost/benefit equation for your proposed course of action?

Say they had succeeded. My personal standpoint is that it doesn't matter if they "succeeded or not", but for the sake of argument lets say they had succeeded in blowing up a restaurant, killing oh say 40-50 Americans, the Saudi ambassador and his security detail. What would have been the appropriate response?

If they had succeeded in their plans and blown up 40-50 Americans then a possible bombing run is back on the table. IF we can pinpoint the actual guilty parties, simply killing random Iranians in retaliation would not help at all, that would just escalate the situation. The problem with the "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" concept of justice is that the logical outcome is a world where everyone is blind and toothless.

We prosecute planning to murder someone differently than actually murdering someone. I see no reason this wouldn't scale up. A planned attack is not the same as a successful attack.

[MKSheppard]

hum. Apparently it's not just assassinating the Saudi Ambassador by blowing up a popular restauraunt in DC favored by the powerful.

They also plotted to attack the Israeli and Saudi embassies in DC and Buenos Aires Argentina.

[CrateriaA]

They also plotted to attack the Israeli and Saudi embassies in DC and Buenos Aires Argentina.

If that's true, they'd probably use Hezbollah in Argentina like they did when they bombed Jewish areas.

[MKSheppard]

I'd also like to point out that Clinton, when he learned of a foiled Iraqi plot to kill George HW Bush, sent TOMAHAWKS into Iraq to blow up some buildings belonging to the Iraqi intelligence agencies.

[TheHammer]

This was a plan in motion Broomstick. Simply because the attack was foiled doesn't mean it wasn't an attack. If the bombs had been planted or failed to go off, or went off prematurely when no one was in the building. Poor execution doesn't excuse the act in the first place.

OMG! Who did we bomb in retaliation for the Underwear Bomber? What, we didn't? OMG! We look weak!

Actually, Anwar Awlaki's smoking corpse would tend to disagree with you... As well as the other AQAP members - the group behind the attack - that we've killed.

There are probably dozens of plots against the US in one form or another going on right now, even as we speak, we just don't know about them. A kneejerk reflex of "bombs!" does not serve our interest. It certainly won't stop people from plotting against us. Done indiscriminately, it may in fact give incentive to take down the perceived bully.

If the retalation for a nation plotting attacks on our soil are "bombs" then yes that will serve as a detterrent. This is not indiscriminant retaliation, it is very specific retalation against a specific nation. Sure it woudn't stop rogue groups like Al Qaeda, but the Pakistan and Syrian governments won't be so bold as to emulate Iran.

And quite frankly our failure to mount an appropriate response likely lead to the audacity of planning and executing the 9/11 attacks.

What would you consider an "appropriate response" to 20 years of Al Qaeba poking the sleeping giant with a sharp pointy stick? Some times we tried going through courts (as after the USS Cole bombing) and sometimes we dropped bombs (like after the African embassy attacks). We still had 9/11. Even after bombing the shit out of parts of Afghanistan Al Qaeda continued to plot against us. Gee, I'm beginning to think they don't like us, and not only that, nothing is really going to stop them short of eliminating the planners/organizers... which apparently is now being attempted via drones and the US is still getting criticized for that as well.

Allowing them to poke us with a stick while doing nothing only encouraged more poking. Our past behavior of withdrawing from foreign conflicts, mogadishu, beirut in the wake of terrorist attacks served as an example of how to accomplish their goals. Al Qaeda may continue to "plot" but they've suffered serious setbacks in recent years. Such that they have yet to produce any major terrorist attack on U.S. soil even though they undoubtedly would love to do so now more than ever.

I'm not sure either courts or militaries are the ideal means to handle the "rogue terrorist organization" that multi-national and well funded.

I'm not sure they are either, but then we aren't talking about a "rogue terrorist organization here". All that being said, drones and seal teams seem to be doing a very good job of taking out the leadership of rogue terrorist organizations...

You are correct. Most nations would see how we responded to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 and realize that provoking us to conflict is not a smart thing to do. On the other hand, its clear that it does still happen on occaision. As you well know, the most recent precedent is the one that will stick in peoples minds. We let this slide then other countries that previously had been deterred might start to think they could get away with it too.

"Bomb them" doesn't have to be the only deterrent, though. Parading the "secret agents" publicly in a public trial is also a deterrent, as it airs the dirty laundry of our enemies. Demonstrating that we can and will capture such agents before they can carry out their plans is also a deterrent. We need a variety of creative solutions.

Shame and scorn have done fuck all to deter Iran from its activities in the past. The idea that agents "might get caught" is only a deterrent in so far as there will be repurcussions for the nation sending those agents. If wagging our finger is all we are willing to do, then there is no reason for them to stop sending more agents.

Well obviously we should withhold their "prize" of getting an asskicking from the U.S. military. Let them try to come over and bomb all the restaurants and kill all the ambassadors they want! We'll just keep slapping on sanctions that don't work. Rather than make them feel any real pain we'll "Embarass them". That'll show em.

I would think repeatedly stopping planned attacks would show that we don't need to bomb people, we can neutralize them without violence. We would also gain considerable good will by demonstrating our willingness to use non-violent means and might therefore secure more cooperation from other nations, who may fear us less the more they see us exercise restraint even as they know we are still quite dangerous under some circumstances.

The problem is you can't expect us to succeed in stopping every attack. And quite frankly, I don't want nations to "fear us less" to the point that they think they can execute terrorist attacks on our soil with no significant repurcussions. I don't want them to think they have a grace period of "you can kill X number of Americans before we will retaliate with miltiary force".

We shouldn't do what our enemies want merely because such action makes us feel tough or whatever, we should do what is in our own best interests - which might, in fact, mean do nothing in this instance because the alternatives might lead to unpleasent consequences out of proportion to what actually occurred.

Its not about feeling tough. Its about providing an appropriate deterent to future endeavors of this nature.

But would bombing shit in Iran actually deter anything under these circumstances? What is the cost/benefit equation for your proposed course of action?

We don't need to "bomb the shit out of them" in this case. A simple demonstration of what we are willing to do to them for even trying to mount an attack like this is all that is neccessary... Along with the implication that had they actually succeeded it would have been ten times worse.

Say they had succeeded. My personal standpoint is that it doesn't matter if they "succeeded or not", but for the sake of argument lets say they had succeeded in blowing up a restaurant, killing oh say 40-50 Americans, the Saudi ambassador and his security detail. What would have been the appropriate response?

If they had succeeded in their plans and blown up 40-50 Americans then a possible bombing run is back on the table. IF we can pinpoint the actual guilty parties, simply killing random Iranians in retaliation would not help at all, that would just escalate the situation. The problem with the "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" concept of justice is that the logical outcome is a world where everyone is blind and toothless.

We prosecute planning to murder someone differently than actually murdering someone. I see no reason this wouldn't scale up. A planned attack is not the same as a successful attack.

Well of course conspiracy to commit murder is not prosecuted as harshly as murder. But its still prosecuted pretty damned harshly. I'm not advocating a "random killing of Iranians". But a destruction of Iranian national military assets.

And you are right. "Eye for an Eye, tooth for a tooth" DOES leave eveyone blind and toothless. Seems like a rather dumb course of action to me. Thats why I'm advocating The Chicago Way.

[CrateriaA]

And you are right. "Eye for an Eye, tooth for a tooth" DOES leave eveyone blind and toothless. Seems like a rather dumb course of action to me. Thats why I'm advocating The Chicago Way.

That's not the best example for your cause. But at least you can see how this shit happens. USA propaganda don't get by TheHammer!

[Siege]

The only repercussions Iran has experienced for its activities are "sanctions".

Gotta love how you put that word in quotation marks right there, as if the banning of investments in oil, gas and petrochemicals, limits to exports of refined petroleum products, freezes of banking assets, limits on insurance transactions and sanctions against Iranian shipping somehow aren't really real things with real impact on the lives of people in Iran.

Which they have flaunted with impunity.

Given that you actually wrote this sentence, I'm forced to conclude that you probably don't know what sanctions are.

One must assume that they calculated that all we would be willing to do is sanctions in return for these actions. Or they thought that they wouldn't get caught. Failing to do anything of significance about this would only confirm their calculations and encourage them to make further attempts.

You don't even know why they tried to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the first place! Or who 'they' are to begin with! How can you possibly conclude they'll make "further attempts" (to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the USA) without knowing who 'they' are and why 'they' tried to kill him in the first place?

Here we see that preposterous Bond villain thinking again. We foiled 'em in the planning stages, but surely SPECTRE the evil Iranians will try again, regardless of their motive... uh, because they're evil! But let's get real for a moment: five guys talking to a self-professed member of a Mexican cartel doesn't lend credence to this implicit theory of a massive Iranian government plot to whack Mr. Al-Jubeir. Well either that or it is, which case this is all the Iranian government can muster and you can just laugh at them for their silliness.

See, there is a key difference between "military adventurism" and responding to an attack on your nation. Your failure to see the difference tells me I'm wasting my time with most of this.

You call this miserable failure to do anything of note an "attack on your nation"? You'd spend billions of dollars, dollars that I daresay the USA could spend to more constructive purposes, bombing random targets and killing random people in some country half the world away, because some idiots failed to even come close to blowing up one guy? How pathetically frightened and insecure are you really?

[CrateriaA]

You call this miserable failure to do anything of note an "attack on your nation"? You'd spend billions of dollars, dollars that I daresay the USA could spend to more constructive purposes, bombing random targets and killing random people in some country half the world away, because some idiots failed to even come close to blowing up one guy? How pathetically frightened and insecure are you really?

I think he might have a hard-on for killing brown people half-way around the world. Not much there in the first place, so he has to do better and bigger. Risk so much over one bombing (that didn't work) as well as see an upsurge in Anti-American terrorism and add pro-Mullah feelings and intense conflict to the mix and you'll see a spermsplosion that'll make the White House white again! They won't need to buy paint again with Hammer in charge!



But seriously, Hammer. Your strategies won't work in teaching Iran a lesson. All it will do is increase condemnation and hate of the US as well as make Iranians declare that be their day of infamy and that they must take the fight to America via deadly terror attacks as well as support their regime.

[TheHammer]

The only repercussions Iran has experienced for its activities are "sanctions".

Gotta love how you put that word in quotation marks right there, as if the banning of investments in oil, gas and petrochemicals, limits to exports of refined petroleum products, freezes of banking assets, limits on insurance transactions and sanctions against Iranian shipping somehow aren't really real things with real impact on the lives of people in Iran.

Sanctions have gotten Iran to change its behavior in what way? Sure the people might be inconvenienced in some fashion, but the reality is they have continued to do whatever they've wanted to. But I'm supposed to believet hat more sanctions is FINALLY the answer.

One must assume that they calculated that all we would be willing to do is sanctions in return for these actions. Or they thought that they wouldn't get caught. Failing to do anything of significance about this would only confirm their calculations and encourage them to make further attempts.

You don't even know why they tried to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the first place! Or who 'they' are to begin with! How can you possibly conclude they'll make "further attempts" (to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the USA) without knowing why they tried to kill him in the first place?

Everything I've said in this thread is with the assumption that "They" are members of the Iranian government. I've not made any conclusions other than if those facts are indeed true then we need to act accordingly. I don't give a fuck "why" they tried to do it, only that they would make an attempt to do it on U.S. soil and take as many Americans as would be neccessary with him.

Here we see that preposterous Bond villain thinking again. We foiled 'em in the planning stages, but surely SPECTRE the evil Iranians will try again, regardless of their motive... uh, because they're evil! But let's get real for a moment: five guys talking to a self-professed member of a Mexican cartel doesn't lend credence to this implicit theory of massive Iranian government plot to whack Mr. Al-Jubeir. Well eitehr that or it is, which case this is all the Iranian government can muster and you can just laugh at them for their silliness.

Yes terrorist attacks are just silly things to laugh at

As I noted at the very begining of this thread, my contention for a retaliatory strike is dependant upon hard evidence that Iran was behind this.

See, there is a key difference between "military adventurism" and responding to an attack on your nation. Your failure to see the difference tells me I'm wasting my time with most of this.

You call this miserable failure to do anything of note an "attack on your nation"? You'd spend billions of dollars, dollars that I daresay the USA could spend to more constructive purposes, bombing random targets and killing random people in some country half the world away, because some idiots failed to even come close to blowing up one guy? How pathetically frightened and insecure are you really?

A failed attack is still an attack. Obviously the people planning it hoped it would succeed. They need to be shown that there are severe consequences for those errors in judgement. To do otherwise invites further attempts in the future. I'm sorry you are too fucking stupid to see that.

[TheHammer]

You call this miserable failure to do anything of note an "attack on your nation"? You'd spend billions of dollars, dollars that I daresay the USA could spend to more constructive purposes, bombing random targets and killing random people in some country half the world away, because some idiots failed to even come close to blowing up one guy? How pathetically frightened and insecure are you really?

I think he might have a hard-on for killing brown people half-way around the world. Not much there in the first place, so he has to do better and bigger. Risk so much over one bombing (that didn't work) as well as see an upsurge in Anti-American terrorism and add pro-Mullah feelings and intense conflict to the mix and you'll see a spermsplosion that'll make the White House white again! They won't need to buy paint again with Hammer in charge!



But seriously, Hammer. Your strategies won't work in teaching Iran a lesson. All it will do is increase condemnation and hate of the US as well as make Iranians declare that be their day of infamy and that they must take the fight to America via deadly terror attacks as well as support their regime.

Fuck off you worthless piece of shit. My position doesn't have a God damn thing to do with the color of the people involved. Your posts essentially consist of ass kissing and trying to garner suck up points. Maybe you could come up with something that is a bit more worthwhile in future posts.

[MarshalPurnell]

Sanctions by the United States will have no impact on Iran because we effectively have no trade to cut off. Using the incident to help strengthen the case for sanctions in Europe may well affect their behavior, because the threat of concerted economic and politiocal action by the EU has changed Iranian behavior in the past. And working with the Saudis to array the Arab governments of the Middle East against the Iranians would be a significant price for Iran to pay over this plot. Since it seems the Obama administration is working on exactly this line of approach, we should see if it works. Even if it doesn't, we will still have put Iran in a much worse position when they inevitably provoke another crisis.

[CrateriaA]

Fuck off you worthless piece of shit. My position doesn't have a God damn thing to do with the color of the people involved.

It's called sarcasm. Maybe you should try it.

Your posts essentially consist of ass kissing and trying to garner suck up points. Maybe you could come up with something that is a bit more worthwhile in future posts.

[/quote]

Maybe you could advocate for something other than a airstrike or a war that will only make the Iranian people unite behind their leaders and reverse decades long changes in attitude towards America as well as continue to destroy America's prestige, tie down our military as well as drain even more money away from where it should be going. But since you seem to self identify in foreign policy with the Neoconservatives then you don't have a fucking clue what's at stake here. If only you would be on the front lines with the Western armies when they inevitably have some of their soldiers die due to your tit-for-tat actions. Perhaps then you understand just what the hell attacking an independent country with a decent military entails. Such is fate.

And Marshal, sanctions don't work because they hurt the populance, not the rulers. Did you forget Iraq, Cuba or North Korea? But a military confrontation will change little except perhaps the Iranian army will be speeding into A-Stan and VietRaq? Maybe they'll lose, but even so the odds aren't in our favor in the long run. Now you have an Iranian people who wants American blood more than ever, as well as others who are sympathetic to the Iranian cause.

[MKSheppard]

Maybe you could advocate for something other than a airstrike or a war that will only make the Iranian people unite behind their leaders and reverse decades long changes in attitude towards America

You know, I've been hearing this line of thought for quite a while now, even before Khatamani was replaced by the Mad Jester Ahmadinnerjacket; so color me suspicious of the line that inside each Iranian, there's a little American waiting to get out.

But a military confrontation will change little except perhaps the Iranian army will be speeding into A-Stan and VietRaq? Maybe they'll lose, but even so the odds aren't in our favor in the long run.

An Iranian military invasion of Iraq? Oh goody; that's tailor made for the USAF to show off it's Global Dominance™

[Samuel]

You know, I've been hearing this line of thought for quite a while now, even before Khatamani was replaced by the Mad Jester Ahmadinnerjacket; so color me suspicious of the line that inside each Iranian, there's a little American waiting to get out.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352969,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80 ... n_protests

The Iranian government does not represent the people- the most recent election was rigged and protesters were quashed with force. Also, Iranians like western imports such as Barbie, Harry Potter, computer games and Batman. They are the third largest importer of toys in the world.

[Stark]

If only the only alternative to 'Evil Iran' was 'just like America'? For $200 what is a false dilemma?

[CrateriaA]

Maybe you could advocate for something other than a airstrike or a war that will only make the Iranian people unite behind their leaders and reverse decades long changes in attitude towards America

You know, I've been hearing this line of thought for quite a while now, even before Khatamani was replaced by the Mad Jester Ahmadinnerjacket; so color me suspicious of the line that inside each Iranian, there's a little American waiting to get out.

You know, invading Iraq probably had something to do with electing Ahmadididijinadiaoe[wvjvaepowaej;fjfjgbdsjgkvje what's his name. With the fellow shias now living under Murrican domination. Also what Samuel said.

But a military confrontation will change little except perhaps the Iranian army will be speeding into A-Stan and VietRaq? Maybe they'll lose, but even so the odds aren't in our favor in the long run.

An Iranian military invasion of Iraq? Oh goody; that's tailor made for the USAF to show off it's Global Dominance™

I'm talking about changes in the geopolitical atmosphere. I think it'll become like Iraq after the first gulf war, with the US trying to contain Iran this time while also trying to keep A-Stan and VietRaq under control. Don't be suprised if Iran encourages the Hazari and the Shiites in Iraq to revolt, taking many lives with them before the rebellions are crushed. And we all know what happens when we move to crush a weakened, encircled "this will be a cakewalk" Iraqn.

[Siege]

Sanctions have gotten Iran to change its behavior in what way? Sure the people might be inconvenienced in some fashion, but the reality is they have continued to do whatever they've wanted to. But I'm supposed to believet hat more sanctions is FINALLY the answer.

I expect you to believe very little indeed. I just wish the things you advocate made sense but alas, they don't. Like here, where you say that sanctions have not (according to you) changed Iran's behaviour so... What? The only reasonable response then becomes "wiping a major airbase off the map"? You just acknowledged that Iran doesn't care about its people being inconvenienced, what makes you think the powers that be will give a damn about your military actions? What are your goals here and how does blowing random shit up further those goals? Do you even have any goals beyond RARGH UNCLE SAM SMASH?

Everything I've said in this thread is with the assumption that "They" are members of the Iranian government. I've not made any conclusions other than if those facts are indeed true then we need to act accordingly. I don't give a fuck "why" they tried to do it, only that they would make an attempt to do it on U.S. soil and take as many Americans as would be neccessary with him.

So you don't feel it necessary to understand the motives of your adversaries. Okay, well, I suppose that's nothing new to anybody who's read two or three of your posts, but it's good to have it out in the open regardless.

Yes terrorist attacks are just silly things to laugh at

And why shouldn't they be? This whole plot, if you can even call it that, begun and ended when the guys behind it ran smack dab into your country's ubiquitous security services. I find that pretty funny. Though, I admit, not as funny as your Pavlovian hysterics at reading the word 'terrorism'.

A failed attack is still an attack. Obviously the people planning it hoped it would succeed. They need to be shown that there are severe consequences for those errors in judgement. To do otherwise invites further attempts in the future. I'm sorry you are too fucking stupid to see that.

If 'they' were hoping it would succeed, and it didn't, and their peons end up in jail in the USA, then that's "severe consequences" right there. Given that these are folks who need to farm out their assassinations to Los Zetas they don't strike me as people with a lot of experienced muscle at their beck and call. So you could just let the courts do their work, smile a little at the patheticness of the plot in question, and go about your business.

Or I suppose you could waste another couple billion dollars on a stupid air war to level a few air bases or sink a bunch of Iranian corvettes and in the end not accomplish anything but the deaths of more random innocent people. Three for three! Gotta show those nasty Iranians who's boss!

[TheHammer]

Sanctions have gotten Iran to change its behavior in what way? Sure the people might be inconvenienced in some fashion, but the reality is they have continued to do whatever they've wanted to. But I'm supposed to believet hat more sanctions is FINALLY the answer.

I expect you to believe very little indeed. I just wish the things you advocate made sense but alas, they don't. Like here, where you say that sanctions have not (according to you) changed Iran's behaviour so... What? The only reasonable response then becomes "wiping a major airbase off the map"? You just acknowledged that Iran doesn't care about its people being inconvenienced, what makes you think the powers that be will give a damn about your military actions? What are your goals here and how does blowing random shit up further those goals? Do you even have any goals beyond RARGH UNCLE SAM SMASH?

They won't care about their people being inconvenienced. But they would care about their military being weakened. Its that same military that is the only thing keeping them from their own "arab spring" event.

Everything I've said in this thread is with the assumption that "They" are members of the Iranian government. I've not made any conclusions other than if those facts are indeed true then we need to act accordingly. I don't give a fuck "why" they tried to do it, only that they would make an attempt to do it on U.S. soil and take as many Americans as would be neccessary with him.

So you don't feel it necessary to understand the motives of your adversaries. Okay, well, I suppose that's nothing new to anybody who's read two or three of your posts, but it's good to have it out in the open regardless.

There is a difference between understanding their motives and "giving a fuck" about them. I understand they don't like the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Israel for a myriad of reasons. Whatever misguided reason they chose to attempt an assassination doesn't change my stance that they should be responded to with force.

Yes terrorist attacks are just silly things to laugh at

And why shouldn't they be? This whole plot, if you can even call it that, begun and ended when the guys behind it ran smack dab into your country's ubiquitous security services. I find that pretty funny. Though, I admit, not as funny as your Pavlovian hysterics at reading the word 'terrorism'.

Yeah its a good thing that our war on drugs managed to nab us an informant to help fight the war on terror. Look at the stupid incompetant Iranians. They can't even blow up a restaurant right. Lets just laugh at them and tell them not to do it again.

A failed attack is still an attack. Obviously the people planning it hoped it would succeed. They need to be shown that there are severe consequences for those errors in judgement. To do otherwise invites further attempts in the future. I'm sorry you are too fucking stupid to see that.

If 'they' were hoping it would succeed, and it didn't, and their peons end up in jail in the USA, then that's "severe consequences" right there. Given that these are folks who need to farm out their assassinations to Los Zetas they don't strike me as people with a lot of experienced muscle at their beck and call. So you could just let the courts do their work, smile a little at the patheticness of the plot in question, and go about your business.

You think they give a fuck about the peons? They tried to use the Zetas because they thought that it wouldn't be traced back to them. That much should be clear. Maybe next time they'll try to hire more experienced professionals. Maybe they'll learn from their mistakes and succeed on their next attempt. Just another round of sanctions that they've weathered before. Hell, it didn't really cost them anything of consequence this time right? The people might suffer a bit under sanctions, but the folks in power won't pay any price.

Or I suppose you could waste another couple billion dollars on a stupid air war to level a few air bases or sink a bunch of Iranian corvettes and in the end not accomplish anything but the deaths of more random innocent people. Three for three! Gotta show those nasty Iranians who's boss!

If you don't make them feel any pain for this then whats to stop them from doing it again and again until they succeed? You show them that you are ready and willing to retaliate and next time they'll think twice before signing off on plans of that nature.

[MarshalPurnell]

The ultimate end of pacifism is Gandhi encouraging the Jews of Europe to walk into the ovens. Civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance only work when there is an underlying social conscience to appeal to. By bringing out the brutality inherent in the system it makes ordinary people question whatever you are protesting. It does not work when one side is perfectly willing to keep using whatever level of violence is necessary to accomplish its aims, or is above being held accountable by the larger civil society. Its applicability to International Relations is even more suspect and certainly inferior to, say, Game Theory.

That said it is not apparent that the plot went any higher than a particular faction of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps. Military retaliation on Iran would throw away a golden opportunity to weaken them diplomatically. If we blow up the Iranian Navy, well, so what, Iran doesn't actually need a navy, can weather the assault, and will gain international sympathy for doing so. Whereas if we systematically isolate Iran now, using this new incident to push Europe into a tougher line and to line up the Arab states behind a solid anti-Persian front, we greatly weaken their long-term position. If they do change their behavior, as they did temporarily when the EU finally decided to punish them for the blatant assassinations on European soil, then we have won. If they do not, then we can blow up their navy at the next provocation while still keeping Iran in a much weaker diplomatic and strategic position than before.

[Broomstick]

This was a plan in motion Broomstick. Simply because the attack was foiled doesn't mean it wasn't an attack. If the bombs had been planted or failed to go off, or went off prematurely when no one was in the building. Poor execution doesn't excuse the act in the first place.

OMG! Who did we bomb in retaliation for the Underwear Bomber? What, we didn't? OMG! We look weak!

Actually, Anwar Awlaki's smoking corpse would tend to disagree with you... As well as the other AQAP members - the group behind the attack - that we've killed.

Awlaki was a target before some idiot was talked into setting his own testicles on fire while sitting on an airplane. Awlaki has also been tried and found guilty in a Yemeni court of law, gaining the distinction of two governments wanting him "dead or alive". The drone attack that killed him wasn't in retaliation for the Underwear Idiot specifically, but for several crimes, some of which he had been found guilty of in the Yemeni legal system.

Targeting a specific criminal is different than simply lobbing a bomb at a building without regard to who might be inside, and their possible innocence in the offending matter.

Now, if you want to argue we should determined the guilty parties to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt then target them specifically in a manner least likely to result in collateral damage I might be able to go along with that, but your BOMB! BOMB! BOMB! refrain is getting rather old.

There are probably dozens of plots against the US in one form or another going on right now, even as we speak, we just don't know about them. A kneejerk reflex of "bombs!" does not serve our interest. It certainly won't stop people from plotting against us. Done indiscriminately, it may in fact give incentive to take down the perceived bully.

If the retalation for a nation plotting attacks on our soil are "bombs" then yes that will serve as a detterrent.

Or a factor motivating others to stand up to the US bully. History shows bombardment from above by itself does not win conflicts. There is much more involved to a true victory than simply blowing shit up.

This is not indiscriminant retaliation, it is very specific retalation against a specific nation.

^ This sounds like you'd be perfectly fine with rounding up any 100 random Iranians, putting up against the wall, and executing them. I really hope that is not what you meant.

It's not enough to target a specific country for something like this because the guilty parties will simply go to a safe "undisclosed location" and let the peasants take the hit for them. If you discover who is guilty then go after those individuals specifically, if you take the violent route at all. It's not enough to bomb Iran, if you really want to "teach them a lesson" you have to make the decision makers and planners fear for their own personal safety.

Sure it woudn't stop rogue groups like Al Qaeda, but the Pakistan and Syrian governments won't be so bold as to emulate Iran.

Funny - what happened to Afghanistan doesn't seem to have deterred Iran
Funny - what happened to Iraq doesn't seem to have deterred Iran.

This notion that bombing a nation for an offense is somehow going to convince other nations not to try to cause trouble does not seem to hold up under scrutiny.

Allowing them to poke us with a stick while doing nothing only encouraged more poking.

We're a big nation. We can stand a little poking of that sort.

We can't afford to turn into the Incredible Hulk at every provocation, though. We'll just exhaust ourselves and piss off our allies.

Our past behavior of withdrawing from foreign conflicts, mogadishu, beirut in the wake of terrorist attacks served as an example of how to accomplish their goals.

Al Qaeda didn't want us to withdraw, they wanted us to attack. They wanted a holy war with them as the winners to bring back the glory of days of the past. If all they wanted was withdrawal there would have been no need to attack us at home, just abroad, but they were hellbent on killing Americans in the US.

Al Qaeda may continue to "plot" but they've suffered serious setbacks in recent years. Such that they have yet to produce any major terrorist attack on U.S. soil even though they undoubtedly would love to do so now more than ever.

Funny thing, though - Al Qaeda has a higher US bodycount than Iran does, even though the current hostile to the US regime in Iraq predates Al Qaeda.

I'm not sure either courts or militaries are the ideal means to handle the "rogue terrorist organization" that multi-national and well funded.

I'm not sure they are either, but then we aren't talking about a "rogue terrorist organization here". All that being said, drones and seal teams seem to be doing a very good job of taking out the leadership of rogue terrorist organizations...

That may, in fact, be the most effective means of dealing with them, but there are some serious problems with utilizing them, like oversight and possible corruption and mis-use.

Shame and scorn have done fuck all to deter Iran from its activities in the past. The idea that agents "might get caught" is only a deterrent in so far as there will be repurcussions for the nation sending those agents. If wagging our finger is all we are willing to do, then there is no reason for them to stop sending more agents.

But if we keep collecting their agents before they can actually do anything it makes the Iranian government look laughably ineffective.

The problem is you can't expect us to succeed in stopping every attack.

No, we can't. And if we reduced Iran to a parking lot there's no guarantee someone else won't succeed in attacking us after that. Look at your examples - we've been killing Al Qaeda guys and whoops, now it seems the Iranians were plotting against us. If we kill the Iranians what guarantee is that no one else would be plotting?

And quite frankly, I don't want nations to "fear us less" to the point that they think they can execute terrorist attacks on our soil with no significant repurcussions.

Starting a foreign war is a time honored way of distracting the population from domestic problems. I don't want other nations to think they can get a predictable results from a particular poke.

I want other nations to respect us. They can love us or hate us, but I want that respect. Part of that is fearing our military sufficiently that provoking us is an extremely unattractive idea, but we also need to be seen as reasonable, not prone to kneejerk reactions and excessive force. We don't want to be so feared other nations will unite against us. This is not 1946 with Europe and Japan in ruins, only the US with an intact infrastructure and The Bomb. Back then, we were the last man standing so to speak and for some time after we could do whatever the hell we wanted without real fear of retaliation. In a sense, the USSR getting atomic weapons was a good thing, without their counterbalance who knows what sort of "adventures" the US might have embarked on? That, and the world was fortunate the US just wanted to go home rather than attempt a conquering spree at that point.

Now, though - sure, we have a huge military but the truth is if the world was against us we couldn't take on everybody, so we have to consider our standing in the eyes of other nations. There are times when they're OK with us kicking ass, there are other times when they are not. I do not think this is a situation where killing Iranians is going to benefit us as far as our social standing in the community of nations.

I don't want them to think they have a grace period of "you can kill X number of Americans before we will retaliate with miltiary force".

I remind you again, no one has died.

Seriously, you want to turn the US into the sort of bully that will throw a punch merely because someone merely looked at him.

We don't need to "bomb the shit out of them" in this case. A simple demonstration of what we are willing to do to them for even trying to mount an attack like this is all that is neccessary... Along with the implication that had they actually succeeded it would have been ten times worse.

So... there's a plot, but no one's hurt, and you think it's OK to kill people over that? That's like saying making a verbal threat that you're going to kill someone calls for the death penalty.

Nothing has happened that justifies killing even one Iranian.

They already KNOW what we are capable of doing. The US is capable of burning entire cities to the ground. We've done that. I don't think general US military capabilities are a secret to anyone and they're scary enough, nevermind whatever secret shit there might be that's even worse. The only question is what we're going to do, which is certainly much less than what we could do. The response should be what serves our purposes, not theirs, nor should non-military options be discounted.

Well of course conspiracy to commit murder is not prosecuted as harshly as murder. But its still prosecuted pretty damned harshly. I'm not advocating a "random killing of Iranians". But a destruction of Iranian national military assets.

You won't be able to take out "national military assets" without killing Iranians, even in today's world of highly targeted missiles. Almost certainly any Iranian military people guarding such assets will be totally unconnected with this plot. You will not be hitting the instigators of the attack, nor will you be hitting the sort of weapons such a covert operation would use. Hell, anything they'd need to set off a bomb on US soil is available in the Western hemisphere, they don't have to obtain it until they are actually in the US - which would greatly simplify crossing international borders.

And you are right. "Eye for an Eye, tooth for a tooth" DOES leave eveyone blind and toothless. Seems like a rather dumb course of action to me. Thats why I'm advocating The Chicago Way.

That's called escalation. Iran does have a nuclear program. They may not be able to build a fission bomb (I hope they can't) but they certainly have the means to build a dirty bomb, a poor man's nuke. And YOU'RE suggesting escalating a conflict with a near-nuclear or actual nuclear power? Are you out of your fucking mind?

The "Chicago Way" works for both sides: they bring a fist, we bring a knife, they bring a gun, we bring automatic weaponry, they bring dynamite... Do you know where the fuck that ends? It ends with corpses piled like firewood in the streets of destroyed cities.

It may comfort your ego to think Iran is a backwater of some sort but they're just as smart as we are, just as clever, and unlike us they have a real boogey-man to fear - US! The worst, the very worst, that Iran can do is hurt us, kill in the thousands. We can obliterate their country entirely. I can list a lot of reasons we won't do that, but the fact remains, we could do that, destroy every city and village in Iran, kill and maim nearly everyone (I'm assuming there will be some survivors, even if only those who happened to be aboard when the shit hits the fan), and destroy the enviroment for centuries to come. They actually do have a reason to fear us. That sort of fear is a major reason why the anti-American types in the Mid-East so desperately want a nuke, they know better than to bring a knife to a gunfight, they understand the "Chicago Way" but the end point to that strategy is not merely blind and toothless but rather everyone being dead. Mutually Assured Destruction, good old MAD. That only worked between the US and the USSR because neither nation really wanted to go to war. Well, the world got through that once, do we really want to gamble on that again?

If you're dealing with multiple parties and one of them actually does want to start a war and damn the consequences MAD will not work. You need a different strategy.

[K. A. Pital]

The ultimate end of pacifism is Gandhi encouraging the Jews of Europe to walk into the ovens.

The ultimate end of violence is violence. The goal of power is power. The goal of torture - torture. You might drive any position to a logical extreme where the position would turn into a caricature of itself (like nonviolence or violence) and be destroyed by its own inapplicability. What one would rather say is that nonviolence is preferrable to violence to accomplish a certain goal. If there's no goal that can be accomplished by blowing up things in Iran, you shouldn't blow up things in Iran. Which is pretty much what you said.

[CrateriaA]

Seriously, you want to turn the US into the sort of bully that will throw a punch merely because someone merely looked at him.

In other words, turn the US into a gangsta. Really, that about sums it up. I've been on the receiving end of such malicious behavior and I didn't even look at the guy with any intent of harming him.

[Stark]

Sometimes it really sound like people are saying 'if we can't have exactly what we want right now, we'll do something dumb that won't work and will create problems for us down the line'.

Why? Because 'influence in positive dire tion' isn't macho enough.