Liberal free for all coming to an end

[TracyCoxx]

What should the Obama administration's response to Iran's attempted act of war be?

A Sr. US defense official (unnamed in the article) says "The act is already done," the official said, noting the plot purportedly has been disrupted and calling it "much more of a law enforcement matter" than a military one.

"One of the people involved is still at large, but the other principal is in custody. So what does changing military posture do?"

He is deliberately trying to portray this as an act by two guys, rather than the terrorist act that it is supported by at least the Iranian military, if not higher. I hope this is just some lone misguided official and not the position of the Obama administration.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

What should the Obama administration's response to Iran's attempted act of war be?

A Sr. US defense official (unnamed in the article) says "The act is already done," the official said, noting the plot purportedly has been disrupted and calling it "much more of a law enforcement matter" than a military one.

"One of the people involved is still at large, but the other principal is in custody. So what does changing military posture do?"

He is deliberately trying to portray this as an act by two guys, rather than the terrorist act that it is supported by at least the Iranian military, if not higher. I hope this is just some lone misguided official and not the position of the Obama administration.

Given that this was posted only 54 minutes ago as I write, it must be characterized either as disingenuous or simply ill-informed. The Obama administration is taking all sorts of steps, but has not engaged in a specific retaliatory military strike. There is no question that it is being portrayed as a state-sponsored terrorist act by the Iranian government.

C'mon, Tracy, you're better than this. We can have a serious discussion about what the response ought to be, but let's start with being real about what's going on instead of trying to score points by implying (rather ham-handedly) that the Obama administration is, on this issue, "soft" on terrorism.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

C'mon, Tracy, you're better than this. We can have a serious discussion about what the response ought to be, but let's start with being real about what's going on instead of trying to score points by implying (rather ham-handedly) that the Obama administration is, on this issue, "soft" on terrorism.

After Bin Laden was killed as well as Anwar al-Awlaki, I will not call the Obama administration soft on terrorism. I have been swamped at work, so forgive me if I'm not up on everything. The quote I posted above was from CNN, so I'm not trying to score any "points". What is the Obama administration going to do about this?

[ila]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

What should the Obama administration's response to Iran's attempted act of war be?...

An assassination attempt (plot) does not an act of war make.

[ucmeat]

at a US official or citizen.

Either way politics is full of rotten apples on both sides don't fall for the Dem this or Rep that the real issue is US and Them, and Them ain't representing US.

Take back our government and kick out ALL incumbents, this was never meant to be a career but a civic duty. When a government dictates laws to its populous that DON'T apply to them we have tyranny plain and simple. Remove their pensions and put them on social security and social security will be fixed. Take them off of gov healthcare and put them in obamacare and they will fix healthcare. Stop allowing them to live by do as I say but not as I do!

[MayDay]

The problem with "kick out all incumbents" is that it's a bit self-defeating.

If you go to Washington, it takes time to figure how to write bills, get support, get them through congress. If you continually cycle through people in government, it will get worse. The bigger problem is that the civility that we saw maybe 20 years ago has deteriorated. Although there was certainly partisanship then, it was nothing like today.

If I were to suggest an answer, it would target extremists in both parties and send a message that it won't be tolerated.

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by MayDay

The problem with "kick out all incumbents" is that it's a bit self-defeating.

If you go to Washington, it takes time to figure how to write bills, get support, get them through congress. If you continually cycle through people in government, it will get worse. The bigger problem is that the civility that we saw maybe 20 years ago has deteriorated. Although there was certainly partisanship then, it was nothing like today.

If I were to suggest an answer, it would target extremists in both parties and send a message that it won't be tolerated.

Agreed. And if we kick out the incumbents then our government is run by the entrenched bureaucrats. The T-party emerged because reasonable people are fed up with the pettiness and silly rules that congress chooses to use and operate.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by ila

An assassination attempt (plot) does not an act of war make.

A bomb in a crowded restaurant with 150 people, including senators in Washington DC (as far as the Iranian backers knew) does not an assassination attempt make either.

[ila]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

A bomb in a crowded restaurant with 150 people, including senators in Washington DC (as far as the Iranian backers knew) does not an assassination attempt make either.

That would be an act of terrorism and hardly the same as an act of war.

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by ila

That would be an act of terrorism and hardly the same as an act of war.

And if the bomb were delivered by a military plane, that would be an act of war.
So does it make any difference HOW the bomb is delivered?
If the "delivery" is sanctioned by a government, isn't that an act of war?

[ila]

Originally Posted by franalexes

And if the bomb were delivered by a military plane, that would be an act of war.
So does it make any difference HOW the bomb is delivered?
If the "delivery" is sanctioned by a government, isn't that an act of war?

By your analogy then your federal government has committed several acts of war.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by ila

That would be an act of terrorism and hardly the same as an act of war.

It's an attack sanctioned by Iran. Not just some terrorist group. And the collateral damage includes US senators. Our government has rightly viewed terrorist attacks against us as an act of war in the past. You treat something like this as an act of terror and slap Iran's wrist and they'll do it again. We need a zero tolerance policy on terrorism. And I still think this qualifies as an act of war anyway, rather than a terrorist act.

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

It's an attack sanctioned by Iran. Not just some terrorist group. And the collateral damage includes US senators. Our government has rightly viewed terrorist attacks against us as an act of war in the past. You treat something like this as an act of terror and slap Iran's wrist and they'll do it again. We need a zero tolerance policy on terrorism. And I still think this qualifies as an act of war anyway, rather than a terrorist act.

I don't think we can afford any more wars...we can't afford the two or three we got going on, now.

Shit, if we go by text book terrorism, we'd better go to war with our own federal government....which I'd support right from the start.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

I don't think we can afford any more wars...we can't afford the two or three we got going on, now.

Shit, if we go by text book terrorism, we'd better go to war with our own federal government....which I'd support right from the start.

Call me a bore, but treason really isn't my thing.

[ila]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

It's an attack sanctioned by Iran. Not just some terrorist group. And the collateral damage includes US senators. Our government has rightly viewed terrorist attacks against us as an act of war in the past. You treat something like this as an act of terror and slap Iran's wrist and they'll do it again. We need a zero tolerance policy on terrorism. And I still think this qualifies as an act of war anyway, rather than a terrorist act.

Is your view from the fact that Iran sanctioned the plan, that it was going to be an attack on an ambassador to the US, or that collateral damage includes US politicians?

How is this planned attack worse than what your country has attempted or done to other countries such as Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, Grenada, and other Central and South American countries?

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by ila

Is your view from the fact that Iran sanctioned the plan, that it was going to be an attack on an ambassador to the US, or that collateral damage includes US politicians?

How is this planned attack worse than what your country has attempted or done to other countries such as Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, Grenada, and other Central and South American countries?

I think they call it "pre-emptive strike".

Ila, you can dis-agree,,,,,if you want to be sleeping on the couch.