Will Iran Launch a Cyberattack Against the U.S.? (msn.com) 174
"Iranian officials are likely considering a cyber-attack against the U.S. in the wake of an airstrike that killed one of its top military officials," reports Bloomberg:
In a tweet after the airstrike on Thursday, Christopher Krebs, director of the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, repeated a warning from the summer about Iranian malicious cyber-attacks, and urged the public to brush up on Iranian tactics and to pay attention to critical systems, particularly industrial control infrastructure... John Hultquist, director of intelligence analysis at the cybersecurity firm FireEye Inc., said Iran has largely resisted carrying out attacks in the U.S. so far. But "given the gravity of this event, we are concerned any restraint they may have demonstrated could be replaced by a resolve to strike closer to home."
Iranian cyber-attacks have included U.S. universities and companies, operators of industrial control systems and banks. Iranian hackers tried to infiltrate the Trump campaign, and they have launched attacks against current and former U.S. government officials and journalists. The U.S., meanwhile, has employed cyberweapons to attack Iran's nuclear capabilities and computer systems used to plot attacks against oil tankers, according to the New York Times....
James Lewis, senior vice president at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, said Iranian retaliation may include the use of force, but the government is also likely asking hackers for a list of options. "Cyber-attacks may be tempting if they can find the right American target," Lewis said. "The Iranians are pretty capable and our defenses are uneven, so they could successfully attack poorly defensed targets in the U.S. There are thousands, but they would want something dramatic."
Mother Jones shares another perspective: There's little reason to think that Iran could pull off a truly spectacular attack, such as disabling major electric grids or other big utilities, said Robert M. Lee, an expert in industrial control systems security and the CEO of Dragos. "People should not be worried about large scale attacks and impacts that they can largely think about in movies and books like an electric grid going down." Instead, Iran might choose targets that are less prominent and less secure.
"The average citizen should not be concerned," he said, "but security teams at [U.S.] companies should be on a heightened sense of awareness."
Iranian cyber-attacks have included U.S. universities and companies, operators of industrial control systems and banks. Iranian hackers tried to infiltrate the Trump campaign, and they have launched attacks against current and former U.S. government officials and journalists. The U.S., meanwhile, has employed cyberweapons to attack Iran's nuclear capabilities and computer systems used to plot attacks against oil tankers, according to the New York Times....
James Lewis, senior vice president at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, said Iranian retaliation may include the use of force, but the government is also likely asking hackers for a list of options. "Cyber-attacks may be tempting if they can find the right American target," Lewis said. "The Iranians are pretty capable and our defenses are uneven, so they could successfully attack poorly defensed targets in the U.S. There are thousands, but they would want something dramatic."
Mother Jones shares another perspective: There's little reason to think that Iran could pull off a truly spectacular attack, such as disabling major electric grids or other big utilities, said Robert M. Lee, an expert in industrial control systems security and the CEO of Dragos. "People should not be worried about large scale attacks and impacts that they can largely think about in movies and books like an electric grid going down." Instead, Iran might choose targets that are less prominent and less secure.
"The average citizen should not be concerned," he said, "but security teams at [U.S.] companies should be on a heightened sense of awareness."
The world should launch a war crimes trial (Score:3, Insightful)
Iran? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, there were a bunch of US operations in Iran. Here's a refresher on the most glorious:
The Neocon party currently in power in the US wanted to bomb I
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Having that person plan and finance the murder of a US ambassador [nypost.com] in Libya definitely warrants "special attention". He was in a foreign country, traveling with the Iraqi militia leaders who just attacked another US embassy [nytimes.com].
His mistake was assuming we'd respond as President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton did - with money and a "what difference does it make?" attitude.
Re:Iran? (Score:4, Insightful)
Having that person plan and finance the murder of a US ambassador [nypost.com] in Libya definitely warrants "special attention".
Great, you quote an article sourced as "My sources ... say" from the right-wing New York Post. This is not evidence that Suleymani was involved in Benghazi.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Iran? (Score:4, Insightful)
Proof that he wasn't part of the Benghazi attack? How about proof that he didn't kill Kennedy, do we need to find that too?
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Given that Iran is undergoing a lot of internal turmoil right now and there's a large populist uprising, I'm not exactly sure the powers that be are losing a lot of sleep against a w
Re:Iran? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: The world should launch a war crimes trial (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not much point trying to pose for US election eleven months early. The population has a political memory of about nine days before the next wave of the news cycle pushes it aside.
Re:The world should launch a war crimes trial (Score:5, Interesting)
Americans traditionally support their incumbent president in times of "war", especially when the war is far away and in its initial phase, before the costs of war are felt in full. So the motive to have one for the otherwise questionable incumbent is quite clear. It is also not a big secret that the incumbent has been thinking a lot about it: http://nymag.com/intelligencer... [nymag.com]
Now, a war, especially one with a large country like Iran, will not start without a major buildup and some creative effort to come up with a pretext, which requires time. The build-up for the Iraqi invasion perpetrated by the Bush administration took many months. A proper war against Iran will take more, and we've been in the preparatory phase for more than two years, the US withdrawing unilaterally and without a good reason from the nuclear agreement and stirring up shit in the middle east. So the time frame checks out.
This is why the current escalation is worrying everyone but the most reckless Neocon circles in Washington. Which are, incidentally, close to the sleaziest dregs of the 2003 PNAC.
Re:The world should launch a war crimes trial (Score:4, Insightful)
"...and stirring up shit in the middle east. "
Iran stirs up it's own shit just fine. No help needed.
Re: (Score:3)
Denial is gonna be written in chalk on some of the munitions, I'd reckon.
Don't try to pluck a feather from the eagle and then cry about the injustice of its claws.
I hate the current administration as much as anybody, but Iranian militias were firing on US bases, and killed an American. Pew-pew-pew! ka-BOOM! Bad general. No biscuit. They have no concept of scale, or military capabilities, and it shows by the adversaries that they select to antagonize.
If Iran stirs the pot hard enough in Iraq, they could end
Re: (Score:3)
Don't try to pluck a feather from the eagle
Which "eagle", the one that organizes a coup d'etat in your country so that foreigners can keep stealing your resources without paying? The "eagle" that trains a police force that brutally murders your political opponents? The "eagle" that shoots your civilian aircraft from the sky and then tells the world "we will honor this" act of barbarism? The "eagle" that directs your neighbor to start a bloody war with you, and supplies them with weapons for a decade? The "eagle" that sells advanced weaponry to the d
Re: (Score:2)
This is a valid argument. The timing is wrong and Trump would also have to believe he needed the boost. If he'd need it at all. The main challenger would be Sanders and the democrats will do anything to avoid that happening.
Re:The world should launch a war crimes trial (Score:5, Interesting)
Not much point trying to pose for US election eleven months early. The population has a political memory of about nine days before the next wave of the news cycle pushes it aside.
It's much worse than that.
The American people are not interested in statesmanship. Voters have made up their minds along party lines reminiscent of Romans vs Christians. Some feed the opposition to the lions and others counter with a messiah.
The division in the US is a symptom of a larger problem: Authoritarian leaders and followers are causing riots, protest, and conflict in many places.
Nationalism at the cost of global economics to the extreme of self-inflicted wounds is insane and we've been here before.
This recent move, bombing an Iranian and an Iraqi on Iraqi sovereign soil by an executive order kept secret from 50% of the legislature is not going to end well.
Recall that the current administration abandoned the agreement to denuclearize Iran simply because of Trump's hate for any legacy by a black president.
We've lost North Korea, Syria, the Kurds, Iran, Iraq (after trillions of dollars) and we have more to lose than anyone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't blame Trump entirely for abandoning the agreement. Yes, he gave the order - but even back when Trump was nothing but a joke candidate, withdrawing was already Republican policy. Right back in 2015 there was an open letter to Iran, signed by 47 Republican senators, informing Iran (And the US public) that any agreement they did not consider the agreement to be a lawfully binding treaty and it was their intent to invalidate it if their party gained power enough to do so. Trump was simply following th
Re: (Score:2)
My favored solution approach would involve solution-driven crowd funding for journalism.
What is the difference between "solution-driven" crowd funding and "normal" crowd funding?
Re: (Score:2)
My favored solution approach would involve solution-driven crowd funding for journalism.
What is the difference between "solution-driven" crowd funding and "normal" crowd funding?
Good question. I should have added one more qualification, though it is hard to describe it concisely: Accountability, rather than the lottery of all of the existing crowdfunding websites I've examined.
I have described the approach a number of times previously under the tag CSB (Charity Share Brokerage). The idea would be involve project proposals after articles or journalistic videos. The CSB would earn a percentage from the funded projects by making sure the projects are well planned (including success cr
Unrestricted <new tech> warfare? (Score:2)
I don't think the Iranians have that capability. They do have significant drone capabilities, but not with the kind of range we have.
I think the most optimistic we can be about a precision response would be if the Iranians seriously targeted our drones. Per my submission (https://slashdot.org/submission/10972860/ask-slashdot-whats-the-best-way-to-take-out-a-drone), I think there are a number of relatively inexpensive approaches that could end the era of increasingly unrestricted drone warfare.
After writing
Re: (Score:2)
your sig
He might just be way smarter than you.
I was as surprised as anyone.
If no, then what? Missiles and ...? (Score:2)
And now I see I should have looked a bit farther, but neither of us can edit our misdirected portions...
After searching more broadly, I'm surprised there is no citation of Betteridge yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
As it applies here, the obligatory "No" would seem to require explanation... I'm largely thinking of Cyber War by Richard Clarke. A bit dated, but good background. In summary, America has excellent offensive capability and Iran has limited defensive capability. However, even if Iran's off
Re: (Score:2)
Dang nab it. The word is "kinetic" as the opposite of "cyber" in this context. However, I still think it's headed towards boots on the ground.
It will be amusing if a disproportionate number of those boots turn out to be Trumpists'.
Cyberattack? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Cyberattack? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Cyberattack? (Score:5, Informative)
If they could, they would (Score:5, Insightful)
I think, it is naive to think, Iran can do anything, they haven't already tried.
It takes a serious propaganda effort to whip up "heroism" of someone in charge of military actions two countries over away from home and against a group not threatening your country either. In that regard he'd be something like general Petreus — complete with one-time Presidential aspirations — but has soon become General Betray Us [npr.org]...
A civilian — maybe, but that would be blatant terrorism. A government official — whether from a civil or military branch — unlikely, because, if they could they would've done it already. The Baghdad embassy siege was just such an attempt [express.co.uk].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not all government officials and military officers are under constant guard.
The prominent ones are. Killing an American gas-station attendant or even a tourist visiting, say, Gobekli Tepe or Sphinx will not avenge the death of such a "hero", will it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are no "good targets for revenge," because anybody prominent enough to even make the news would start a war that would see all Iranian leaders killed, except for ones with really deep spider holes.
Attempting revenge when you're powerless to affect it just leads to death and embarrassment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is just as unlikely as a cyber attack. The US government is hoping for a cyber attack, very forlorn hope. Most likely just supply RPGs into hot spots full of US troops and they are all over the planet and offer bitcoin bonuses for successful strikes. Completely random stuff, some will fail, some will succeed, they will be no pattern to analyse and the US government has created a target rich environment in all those countries they purposefully tipped into corruption and chaos so they could DOMINATE.
So
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen you writing a lot of stupid things over the years and hence should not be surprised, but citing the express is a new low even by your standards.
Cut the crap, please . . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"They" would be the same people who killed 1,500 demonstrators in the streets.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it would be naive to believe that Iran will ... respond with its own assassination of a prominent American.
Military leaders are legit military command and control targets in a conflict, and this air strike was in response to a military attack by Iranian forces under his command.
When a US base comes under military attack, and an American dies, it is not unusual, or an escalation, to respond with an air strike.
If Iran wants to have an open military conflict, there is no clear reason for the US to avoid that, in the context of them already attacking our bases repeatedly. The only reason they didn't attack more thin
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Military leaders are legit military command and control targets in a conflict
When did the war with Iran start - remind me?
response to a military attack by Iranian forces
Says the CIA, 50% of whom hate Trump and have actively tried to sabotage him several times now. Maybe it was the other 50% - the ones that swear Iraq had WMD's and the Vietnamese attacked the USS Maddox, etc... When the only assurances you have from the guy with the smoking gun is "he started it" when he points at the dead guy, you don't take his word for it - you look for witnesses.
I'll reserve judgement on exactly what's going on because frankly I have no mor
Re: (Score:3)
Not only that, Qassem Suleimani was one of Iran's top generals. There's an unwritten law between belligerents, that they don't target the officers. Trump has violated this, of which there are going to be severe consequences. Why now you may ask, well let Trump tell you in his own words:
“Our president will start a war with Iran, b
Cyberattack versus kinetic warfare (Score:2)
Interesting comment, though it seems short of insightful. I do agree that Iran's response will include kinetic components. I think that EditorDavid could have done a better job with the headline, since it does suggest Iran might focus on cyber-warfare as more than a secondary but high RoI tactic (since America is so vulnerable).
However my main reason for replying is to ask why this comment is first with the "Insightful" Comments Filter, but it does not appear first for All comments? Another peculiarity of t
Idiot (Score:2)
I'm not Democrat, but your not an intelligent American :-p
You should try learning American Government from a textbook, since you should have failed it in school. Impeachment by definition and intent undoes 1 official's election only in the most vague term of "undo." It also clearly says "misdemeanor" which is a minor crime then goes so far as to exempt the whole judicial system because it's in no way a criminal or civil case; it gets it's own classification. I'd suggest federalist papers but I suspect your
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, and I know the difference between your and you're; I should check my blood sugar before I insult somebody's intelligence...
Re: (Score:2)
If I were high-up in their government, I'd be directing all the resourced I could to the nuclear program. I'd be thinking "If Saddam had nuclear weapons, he'd still be in charge of Iraq right now. I don't want to be like Saddam. I need a deterrent."
Re: (Score:2)
And Israel ends that program 2 hours later. Next idea?
noise level (Score:3, Insightful)
Different strategy and targets (Score:3)
Any cyberattack from Iran is not going to be at all restrained. They are going to go for maximum disruption, damage and visibility. Whether this will be eff
Re:Different strategy and targets (Score:5, Interesting)
Iran has to exercise restraint. They need to retaliate, for the domestic audience - if they do not, their own people will see their government as weak and cowardly. But they can't retaliate too much, or they will risk the US striking back with full force. If that happens it will start a conflict that Iran cannot hope to win - though it may well be a phyrric victory for the US too, as the costs of a full-scale invasion would quickly reach into trillions of dollars. So Iran will have to play it carefully: Retaliate with just enough force to protect their national dignity, but not enough to start Gulf War III.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But they can't retaliate too much, or they will risk the US striking back with full force.
Really? My guess is that even the worst-case cyberattack is going to cause nothing but inconvenience and disruption so that might restrain a physical attack but I don't see it causing any such restraint on a cyber-attack. Would the US really launch a massive, full-scale invasion of Iran because they caused widespread disruption for a few days in the US? I could well imagine that Trump would but large scale invasions take time and planning and can't just be ordered at the drop of a hat like this assassinati
Re: (Score:2)
A cyberattack *is* restraint. It might cause plenty of economic damage, but it's not going to have the US public demanding blood be spilled in response.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone should get ready to change all passwords. Sigh.
We Come in Peace! (Score:2)
Well, Pompeo was close enough to 'Mars Attacks' , starting the bombing while exclaiming the US is committed to de-escalation.
The weird thing to the villain empires in movies is, they don't have any propaganda arm of significance. It's always so carefully calibrated not to fool anyone.
Killing your enemies advances peace (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to imply some contradiction here. But there is not: killing the enemies bent on killing you and/or your friends advances peace — and really does promote de-escalation...
Re: (Score:3)
Not if those enemies also have allies. Kill one person, and their death will inspire others. You have to kill a lot of people to end a war that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Allies of enemies are enemies too...
Will it inspire them, or will it scare them?
Not if your cause is just — and you manage to convince the potential enemies of the righteousness. Failing that — yes, you may need to kill those who both continue to disagree with you and attack you over the disagreements. Humanity's been doing this for eons...
Re: (Score:2)
Not if those enemies also have allies.
They don't. They have angry masses who were told who to blame for their poverty.
The ones who already knew who was to blame for their poverty, they were killed while protesting the week before.
Re: (Score:2)
We are making war for peace! I like it.
People can only believe the story of the US doing everything in self defence and for peace if they're been soaked in propaganda for decades. For others its not good enough for comedy programs.
There is no US war you would not support enthusiastically.
Re: (Score:2)
Shut up and give me your wallet, and don't try to resist because I really hate violence.
Oh God no, it does not (Score:2)
TL;DW, You don't kill people who want to kill you unless they're a) in leadership, b) competent, c) not useful for other purposes. The guy we kill fails test c) _spectacularly_. He was tremendously useful at keeping the region under control. Multiple presidents (Bush Jr & Obama both) avoiding killing the guy. The only reason to kill him was to start a war for election purposes.
For the Love of God don't fall for it. We'l
Re: (Score:3)
Who is bent on killing who here?
Iran has a lot of rhetoric but ultimately doesn't have to power to do much even if it wanted to. It's also shown that it is willing to work towards peace with the nuclear deal.
The US openly talks about attacking Iran and has the capability to do it. Iran is surrounded by US military bases. Trump is willing to kill Iranians to help his re-election campaign.
By your logic the best thing for peace would be to assassinate Trump.
Why ask the question? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously? Why are you asking such a repetitive question as this. Iran has been conducting attacks against the west and there is absolutely nothing new here.
Only the shallow minded people who only focus on headline news and ignorant of world events would actually believe that this one incident is going to cause the Iranian government to attack the U.S. and its allies in a more grievous manor.
Re:Why ask the question? (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously? Why are you asking such a repetitive question as this. Iran has been conducting attacks against the west and there is absolutely nothing new here.
Only the shallow minded people who only focus on headline news and ignorant of world events would actually believe that this one incident is going to cause the Iranian government to attack the U.S. and its allies in a more grievous manor.
Exactly. They launch cyberattacks against us every fucking day.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? Why are you asking such a repetitive question as this. Iran has been conducting attacks against the west and there is absolutely nothing new here.
Only the shallow minded people who only focus on headline news and ignorant of world events would actually believe that this one incident is going to cause the Iranian government to attack the U.S. and its allies in a more grievous manor.
Exactly. They launch cyberattacks against us every fucking day.
If they had another button, they'd have already mashed it into the panel.
They thought they found a new button to press inside the Green Zone, but when they pressed it a car at the airport blew up instead. Whoopseee.
Do nothing = anything will be an excuse (Score:2)
This guy wasn't news, they could have got him long ago. This is "wag the dog" type distraction. Done for political timing. Why people don't think the orange moron is capable of this when his job has been chaotic distractions?
Iran can do nothing or nothing out of the norm (and not unlike what the USA does itself) and an excuse will be found to wag the dog some more. No need to fake an event like the film "wag the dog" there are plenty of real excuses to exploit and exaggerate.
Hell, Trump could blame Iran fo
Plan was from Obama (Score:3)
I saw a former official who promoted this plan since the Obama Admin who was quite happy his position was finally carried out. The plan was old, the "bad" guy was old news too.
1) Iranian military officials carry out orders and plans by the state. They are easily replaced; although, talent is hard to find. A good military official carries out his orders successfully. To some degree, vilifying a soldier is like demonizing a scorpion; they are what they are.
2) Iranian military officials are not goatfuckers. T
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some time in your life you should watch the original Obama 50-some states video clip, so you can discover what a racist prickwad you show yourself to be when you pretend you can't hear the joke.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the modern Left, a joke is now a lie, and thus he lied. Sarcasm, jokes, obvious exaggerations for effects is a lie. Therefore, he lied. Racism has nothing to do with.
PS, I am married to an ethnic minority, and am in the process of adopting a child - a foster child who's been living with us for 2 years - who is yet a different minority. But when you only see the world through the prism of race, it's easy to shout racist. Isn't Aighearach...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://boards.straightdope.com... [straightdope.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given how insecure US Infrastructure is (Score:2)
This would be an easy target. They just need to be careful to not switch off the whole country, or there could be a desperate nuclear response to the attack.
Re: (Score:2)
They just need to be careful to not switch off the whole country, or there could be a desperate nuclear response to the attack.
If they could just picture their own emotions, and then picture feeling those same emotions but having access to US weapons, and they'd realize how moronic it is for them to try to lash out at us.
Re: (Score:2)
That does not work. The US cannot use most of its weapons. Currently, it appears more than weak, mostly due to its current "leadership" basically having done its best to offended everybody the US used to consider allies.
Trump Videos (Score:5, Insightful)
There must be showerloads of Trump videos out there that they could make publicly available...
Alternatively, they could release Trump's tax details and show what a bigly amount of money he has.
Two Countries Fighting in a Third (Score:3)
Cyber? (Score:2)
No, they should just announce that they have place sleeper agents in all McDonalds in Washington, with slow poisons to trickle on, thereby ruining some people's dinner plans for the next year.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they should just announce that they have place sleeper agents in all McDonalds in Washington, with slow poisons to trickle on, thereby ruining some people's dinner plans for the next year.
Those agents have been there from day one administering specific poisons - they're called salt and fat
The world is safer today because he's gone (Score:2)
Petraeus interview [pri.org]
Soleimani [twitter.com] was a terrorist leader responsible for killing hundreds of US troops and injuring many more. He was in a foreign country organizing more attacks against the US interests.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword.
You reap what you sow
Karma's a Bitch
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the world is safer without him. Though we don't know what the future would have been and will be.
But while his interests may not always have coinceded with US interests, he certainly made the middle east a better place in the past. He fought the Taliban. He had a key role in defeating IS. And IS was far worse than any of Soleimani's allies have ever been.
The middle east isn't a nice place, and to me, it seems among the main actors there, he and Iran were the lesser evil.
Re: (Score:2)
As distinct from the US being in a foreign country attacking the indigenous?
Re: (Score:2)
Scorched earth (Score:2)
To date, most cyber attacks have been carried out either for
- intelligence
- profit (ransomware, BEC, bitcoin mining, etc)
In the first case, you want to be stealthy.
In the second, you want the system to remain functional so you can make money from it.
Even ransomware needs the system to be recoverable, or else you can't make a credible offer to the victim.
If your goal is revenge, it's just slash and burn
for f in `find /dev -type b`; do dd if=/dev/zero of=$f; done
And it never stops.
You send your flying monkeys
Oh lord! (Score:2)
"but security teams at [U.S.] companies should be on a heightened sense of awareness."
The fewmets are about to hit the fan . . . hope they are wrong and China isn't all that tight on the cyber plane with Iran!
No. (Score:2)
We'll get the usual espionage crap every country does to us and that's it. No attack. No nothing. Iran's leadership knows they can't win a war with us and they know that we throw the current leadership to the wolves when we take over a country. We've done it 3 times in recent history (Iraq, Afghanistan & Libia). If a war breaks out they all die. Not if, when. If t
If Iran wanted to deliver a devastating blow... (Score:3)
...they'd find and publish Trump's tax returns.
Just stop with the theatrics (Score:2)
Look.
Iran has always hated the United States. Always. It's a fact of life and, to be honest, no one really cares any more.
Unless they shoot up a ship with some missiles or dump a bunch more mines in the water, Iran is pretty much irrelevant
on the world stage.
Now, instead of the chant of " Death to America " it'll become " DEATH to America ". That's it. That's all. They're Super Cereal about it now . . . .
The bottom line is Iran likes to stir shit up and when they get called out on it, they play the vi
Why now? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Beloved Iranian kitten raiser or man responsible for deaths of hundreds of thousands and displacement of millions?"
Said the citizen of the country that has racked up at least two "holocausts" worth of civilian murders since 1945.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you are NOT "already at war". When that happens you will be able to tell by the ruined cities, the famine and disease, the bodies stacked up in the streets... and, if you're really lucky, the big flashes in the sky.
Most Americans have no idea what war is like. Yet.
Brief history of drone-killings (Score:2, Insightful)
Not quite. Under Bush we were trying to capture such people — to drain them of any useful information and to reduce the number of irreversible mistakes.
It was not until Obama — the Nobel Peace Prize winner — that we turned to what's admiringly called an "Obama's Doctrine" [theguardian.com] of killing instead of detaining such folks, from the lowly foot-soldiers to Osama bin-Lad [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They're scared of dogs, kittens and camels are all they have for house pets.
Re: (Score:2)
If they could, they would assassinate Mike Pence. And not many Americans would complain.
Re: (Score:3)
we could bomb them back into the stone age too
They have so many AKs and T-series tanks to melt down for metal that there is no way you could bomb them back any further than the iron age.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. While unlikely to ecalate to nuclear levels, a full war between the US and Iran, would leave Iran and its allies, such as Hizbollah greatly weakened. The US, Israel and maybe Turkey and Saudi Arabia would soon celebrate their victory of having destroyed their adversary.
With the main force stabilizing the region gone, IS would rise again. Without Iran, there would be no one left willing and capable to put enough qualified boots on the ground to fight IS this time. Russia would pull out. There might be a