is it an act of war to attack an embassy?

simple question...Do the marines defending the embassy have to abide with some code or rules of engagement or do they simply extract the diplomats and kill anyone getting in the way of doing that?


i put this in politics because of the ultimate political implications

Update 2:

embassies ARE American soil...dipstick

Update 3:

this last salvo directed to Martin xo

Update 4:

so ypou all think that the Marines should just die happily and the politicians just make excuses

10 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    For a country to attack another country's embassy within their own borders is the diplomatic equivalent of a gang-rape. There is no acceptable reason for it. It is most certainly an act of war.

    As for the marines defending an embassy. They do have certain rules of engagement. They can't randomly and indiscriminately kill everyone in their path. Of course, the host nation won't consider any violence on their part acceptable, but that's just too bad. But US marines, if ever faced with that situation, would hold the perimeter while waiting for an extraction team... assuming one was on the way. Anyone trying to breach their perimeter would be in grave danger.

  • 3 years ago

    warfare is political action by different potential. Libyan Embassy attack is an act of warfare. the Embassy is US Sovereign soil an attack on an embassy is an attack on the united states itself.. Obama will do not some thing, he's in marketing campaign mode and the re-election is more effective substantial.

  • BruceN
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    At least. It is a clear violation of the Vienna Convention.

    Ghengis Kahn is said to have executed people who harmed his ambassors by pouring molten silver into their eyes and ears.

    Whether it leads to war is another matter. Carter didn't go into Iran in 1985 and Clinton bombed the Chinese Embassy in Serbia and got only harsh words.

    I imagine the marines had different rules of engagements when our embassies in Saigon, Beirut and Teheran were seized. It is US territory and they have a right to defend it, but they are in the middle of a foreign land, so the Ambassador has the final say.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Since an embassy is sovereign soil, it is an act of war. The Marines' job though is to defend the personnel in the embassy.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • NiJo
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Hell yes. It is an act of war. Embassies may be on foreign soil, but they are considered to be part of the nation that runs them. The Jimmy Carter example above is dead on!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Technically it is. An embassy is de facto territory of that embassy's country. Of course, a country may not choose to go to war over it, as in Carter's decisioin to just let the Iranians walk all over us.

  • 1 decade ago

    apparently not because an american embassy was bombed under the carter administration and the clinton administration and neither did anything.

  • 1 decade ago

    It is not an act of war ,but a step to full blown war.

  • 1 decade ago

    No. First of all, an embassy is just a silly office that doesn't accomplish anything. Second of all, it's on foreign soil.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    jimma carter, aka the hostage abandoner, did punt on that one and

    leave it to reagan to clean the slate!!!

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.