Average Rating

5 Star
0%
4 Star
0%
3 Star
0%
2 Star
0%
1 Star
0%

41 thoughts on “US forces storm Iranian consulate

  1. I will put out a question here. Let’s say U.S. gets it on with Iran as well. So they have a two front fight. One in Iran, trying to topple the government. One in Iraq, trying to stabilize the government. Later on down the road they get it on with Syria. So where are all the troops going to come from?

    If they want to completely wipe the countries face of the earth they can do it. But everybody keeps mentioning that’s not the plan. Set up democracy and turn into mini-U.S. is the goal. How is this possible? They can’t do it in one country, How are they going to do it in possibly 4 countries. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria?

    If you can give me a good explanation. I wil from now on be your biggest supporter. Looking for some concrete answer here.

  2. Iran is in a position to send weapons and militants to Iraq; and to try to exert control through its political proxies there. That is a large part of the problem. If Iran’s government is toppled, I don’t know of any outside force with the power, the will, and the geographic placement to do the same in Iran. In other words, three might actually be easier than two.

    (But if there is another, better way to get Iran to stop what it’s doing in Iraq, and to stop supporting terrorism, I’m all for it!)

    I don’t accept that Syria has to get the same treatment – without Iran to support their efforts in Iraq, and with the examples of Iraq and Iran (each of which was much stronger than Syria), Syria might well stop. I also don’t accept that “mini-U.S.’s” are the goal – “Reasonably consensual governments that have no incentive to support terrorism” is the goal. Ambitious and difficult, and I wish it were faster, but not impossible. Just a thought or two, not the excellent answer you want.

  3. Troops used in Iran can come from Iraq, because with Iran worrying about it’s own survival will pull shiite thugs out of Iraq.

    Besides, the people of Iran are not as divided as in Iraq. They are almost all Shia, and for the most part, pro us and anti- mullah.

  4. Don’t compare the embassy hostage crisis to a raid on a consulate. Embassies are part of the visiting country and invading them is an act of war. Consulates remain part of the host country, and are inviolate only by way of a UN consular treay that the US withdrew from a couple years ago. The host country in Irbil is Iraq, and I’ve heard nothing about the Iraqi government’s position on the raid.

  5. Sandmonkey,

    So, like, is this, like, a declaration of war? Or is this just a thing that Iran and the US like to do to each other every 30 years or so?

    We have no diplomatic relations with Iran. Therefore, Iran has no diplomatic immunity re: the US.

    If it happened every single day, I for one would be happy. Maybe that would teach the IRI why it’s important to respect the Vienna Conventions. We ought to toss Ahmadinejad in a cell next time he flies to NY for a UN meeting, too.

    Dave,

    They can’t do it in one country, How are they going to do it in possibly 4 countries. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria?

    Have you ever heard of WW II, Dave? We were at war with a hell of a lot more than 4 countries – it was two EMPIRES and dozens of countries! And a lot more capable opponents than what we face now.

  6. The Iranians have been fighting a proxy war against the U.S. since 1979. From the original embassy attack, the 1983 Hizballah truck bombing in Lebanon, to Al Quds, IRGC, Basij troops in Iraq. Not to mention the shaped charges they provide. The question has always been: when will the U.S. acknowledge the war Iran has declared on us? “Now” appears to be the answer.

    Put another way, if people chant “Death to (you)” the same way we chant “It’s great to be a Florida Gator,” there’s a good chance you’re in a war. Ahmadinejad told Bush and Americans generally to convert to Islam. As if we needed any more hints. That’s what Mohammed always did before invasion.

  7. Other Brother Larry,

    Embassies are part of the visiting country and invading them is an act of war. Consulates remain part of the host country, and are inviolate only by way of a UN consular treay that the US withdrew from a couple years ago.

    I’m pretty sure this is incorrect. The Vienna Conventions (which are the UN’s treaties on international diplomacy) state that all diplomatic missions of any size are inviolate. The persons, grounds, documents, vehicles, etc are considered to be under the sovereignty of the sending country, although there is no actual “ownership” of the premises. It is always the responsibility of the host country to protect a diplomatic mission.

    But that’s not the issue. Iran violated the Vienna Conventions in every detail, in 1979. A broken treaty is invalid. I think that’s a matter of settled law. The Vienna Conventions no longer apply to Iran except as a matter of courtesy. A courtesy that the US has *not* extended. Although most other countries have. Iran should have had it’s membership in the UN suspended back in 1979, and every member state should have broken diplomatic relations with Iran. That’s not what happened, but it’s what SHOULD have happened.

    US ignoring Iranian diplomatic immunity is completely justified, because the IRI has no diplomatic immunity. They broke the treaty that guarantees such immunity, so it no longer applies to them. However, this may (and probably does) put the Iraqi government in a precarious position.

    Regardless of diplomatic immunity, it’s still an act of war. It will be interesting to see how Iran responds. Perhaps they will send Republican Guard officers into Iraq to train Shia militias? Or maybe they will engage in international terrorism? 😮

    Maybe they’ll even invade. How cool would that be? For the US to have a chance at decapitating the Iranian military, in Iraq, and also (at the same time) having the perfect just cause to invade Iran as a defensive measure?

    We need more of this. Much more. More provocation of Iran. Iran has had the initiative far too long.

  8. Craig

    Have you ever heard of WW II, Dave? We were at war with a hell of a lot more than 4 countries – it was two EMPIRES and dozens of countries! And a lot more capable opponents than what we face now.

    your missing, they were no muslins, and fought in a traditional way ; since the seventies, seems the tactics changed into guerillas; and US had a better money situation, no debts

  9. Hi Nomad,

    your missing, they were no muslins, and fought in a traditional way ;
    since the seventies, seems the tactics changed into guerillas;

    Yes, I know. My superiors (and instructors) when I joined the Marines were mostly Vietnam vets.

    Insurgency is only a problem during occupation. An insurgency cannot stop an invasion. And there is no “rule” that states an invader must become an occupier. Invading and then withdrawing is quite likely to result in a failed state, which is bad. But is it worse than the status quo? It’s debatable, in my opinion. I was just pointing out that’s it’s not as far far-fetched for the US to be militarily involved with 4 or 5 relatively small and weak countries at the same time. People who make the argument that the US can’t do this, or can’t do that, because of Iraq are ignorant of history…. or maybe they are just engaged in wishful thinking, imposing non-existent limitations on US capabilities.

    and US had a better money situation, no debts

    No debts, it’s true… but we also controlled much less of the global economy in WW II. We weer not a super-power then, Nomad. We weer only one of half a dozen global powers, and not even the strongest of those.

  10. But everybody keeps mentioning that’s not the plan. Set up democracy and turn into mini-U.S. is the goal.

    After what the US has been through with Iraq, it’s unlikely we’ll be trying the same thing in an Islamic country again any time soon. If there were a full scale conflict that went beyond airstrikes (and I don’t see this happening), it would likely only serve to topple the current government, cripple their military and destroy their nuclear weapon manufacturing capability.

    Even in Iraq the goal was never to turn it into a “mini-U.S.”; the Bush administration simply overestimated the Iraqi people’s ability to put sectarian tensions aside in a desire to live in a democratic, more free country. I think it’s obvious that the people there just aren’t ready for a free, secular government yet. I doubt Iran would be any better, no matter how much we hear how much the average Iranian says they want freedom.

    I would expect any military conflict with Iran to be mostly in the form of airstrikes on their nuclear manufacturing facilities and government, while working with opposition groups to stage a rebellion in the aftermath.

  11. Turns out it wasn’t a consulate at all. The Iranians said it was, and the MSM took their word for it.

    I hope this will result in a smoking gun that justifies turning Iran into a giant parking lot.

  12. #18
    ‘I hope this will result in a smoking gun that justifies turning Iran into a giant parking lot’

    Aren’t there enough giant parking lots over the world already?

  13. nomad,

    The Saudis have poured (billions?) of dollars into higher education. MESA is a wholly-owned subdivision of the Saud family. I saw a BU prof going on and on about the wonders of Wahhabism the other day. That’s the tip of the iceberg. It’s one thing to fight an enemy on the battlefield. It’s more dangerous when the enemy recruits at the local JUCO or university. It’s funny that colleges don’t allow U.S. military recruiters, because they sure don’t have any problems with jihadi recruiters.

  14. Chip,

    But the Germans didn’t have Nazi study centers in all the major universities. Think about it.

    The Nazis did have support from the KKK though, and there were American versions of the Hitler youth in US Universities. Although I agree, nothing as pervasive and subtle as what the Saudis have been able to do by way of co-opting American academics.

  15. Craig,

    The Nazis had the support of the German-American Bund, not the KKK. The Bund held a rally at MSG not long before Pearl Harbor. You’d think only the Japanese had problems from the federal government during WWII. Hardly. The Bund was *rightly* hounded and shut down by the FBI. Some Germans and Italians were interned as well.

    But today it’s peachy for professors to openly support people who commit mass murder. How… “progressive.”

  16. I’m not in disagreement with you, Chip. But I’ve seen film footage of Klan rallies that supported the Nazis before the US entered WW II, so they did also support the Third Reich, in addition to whatever other groups did.

  17. Hey Sandmonkey. You haven’t lost your touch. That was really funny.

    On a more serious note, I guess a few folks might want to take note that kidnapping diplomats and holding them hostage for long periods of time is bad karma. I remember when the Canadian Ambassador, Ken Taylor, helped several Americans escape during the hostage crisis. With the Karma thing at work, though, I don’t think Iran can count on the same assistance during this round.

    Valerie, I can well imagine what they will have found in that building. More damning evidence, I’m sure. Iran must be shitting bricks right about now. Should be enough to cause the old goat Khamenei a second and final stroke.

  18. Chip,

    ok, I think I guess now

    different by us : our educational system is very hard pro-laïc

    the only ways the Wahhabits can recruit : is in basements mosquees, but as we now construct official places for muslin cult, and creating an university cursus for becoming imams, in a decade, we’ll have our proper french islam, therefore controlled by our state

  19. I guess no one was listening carefully to what the President said in his speach on Wednsday night:

    “Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

    — President Bush, Address To The Nation – 01/10/07

    What exactly did you all think that meant?

    BTW, it seems like there are an awful lot of you who are buying the propaganda that the MSM is selling you. 3000 troops are not that many it was common in prior war to lose that many in a day. The Army isn’t out of troops nor are any of the other branches. I hear less than 20% of our troops are involved in the ME no matter what the media is telling you. Grow up! If this isn’t done now what exactly do you think the world will look like in 20 years? Got a pattern for a burqua?

  20. That should’ve been plural as in “prior wars”. Yes I remember Somilia and the mistake Clinton made. From what I’m reading it is being corrected as we speak with air stikes and Ethiopian troops on the ground.

  21. Islamism (like lots of “isims”) will implode on itself. Just like Communisim did. Confronting and figting isms with force only cultivates, incites and indirectly supports it. Most times the best strategy is to be quite and give it a long rope and watch it self destruct.

    That way you are not the target, you do not enhance them with the gift of an enemy and they (whatever ism is odious) destroys themselves most thoroughly and from within.

  22. I love it when a Frenchie tell us about our chances of winning a war. That’s like Hillary Clinton telling us how to keep a man happy. A recent statement from the French President: “War always ends in defeat”. He thinks he was speaking metaphysically, but it was really a Freudian slip.

  23. The US (for dilopmatic reasons that I can not understand) will not attack Iran directly. But they can definetly go after Syria. You break Syria, you break Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran is standing alone in front of S. Arabia, Jordan, and the rest of the Sunnis. For chess game political reasons we are CLOSING OUR EYES to the Sunni insurgency the same we closed our eyes to Sadr’s power grab in Iraq…. Chaos…………..one of the most used and abused word in the diplomatic-political game……………

  24. anon,

    That way you are not the target, you do not enhance them with the gift of an enemy and they (whatever ism is odious) destroys themselves most thoroughly and from within.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

en_USEnglish