US forces storm Iranian consulate

I should think so. A very serious provocation. Let's see how Iran will respond to that.

I'm fairly sure the answer is "badly."

Consulates and Embassies are not the same thing. Consul's generally do not have diplomatic immunity as they are not actually diplomats. I couldn't find anything more specific, other than to say that Consulates are Subordinate to Embassies. I just don't think they have the same protections. One would think, given the actions, that this is the case.

Bush has chosen to escalate the conflict with Iran. Instinct tells me his goals are either of two or both;

1. Provoke an Iranian military response that would justify war.

2. Conduct a series of small-scale actions against Iranian interests around Iraq with a bid to forcing Shiite Militias to respond in Iran's defence and therefore create a military mission for US troops in Iraq where none exists now. The reasoning of this is that then he will get ALL support to surge fully, send many more military assets to Iraq.

Paul William, I think that's not accurate. Consulates are subordinate to Embassies but they are part of a country's diplomatic missions. ALL diplomatic missions, under the principle of extraterritoriality, are regarded as the territory of the home country, in this case Iran.

Well That was an extremely silly move by the Bush Junta, WW3 is Declared, Two continents Africa and Asia And Three Fronts at least, Yep its a world War, by the standard definition.

Well That was an extremely silly move by the Bush Junta, WW3 is Declared, Two continents Africa and Asia And Three Fronts at least, Yep its a world War, by the standard definition.

Not even close.

Paul William, nothing definite has happened yet so I am with you on that. On the other hand what ISpY ways is exactly what will happen. Even countries like Ethiopia and Somalia will be drawn into any full scale war with Iran. It will be a real world war. This is no Iraq which had fought three hard wars and been contained and sanctioned for years. This is a country that is less isolated than we think, that could be supported by Russia and China, that would have its Syrian allies fight, not to talk of many other ramifications for oil, energy, regional stability, the war in Iraq.

What happened today is very significant. It's no joke.

AFP news agency quoted Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman as saying he did not know the nationality of the six but said they were "suspected of being closely tied to activities targeting Iraq and coalition forces".

"I can confirm for you through our forces there that this is not a consulate or a government building," he said.

It's not only Iran that we have to worry about, it is also the reaction of the rest of the world. Our credibility has been battered by the past few years. This will just heighten anti-American sentiment around the world. I hope there was really good reason for this.

A government shrouded in secrecy with a "just trust us" attitude does not inspire confidence and will be perceived as a threat by foes and friends alike. Governments, all governments, have proven themselves to be a beacon for abuse and incompetence.

This doesn't have to spread beyond the middle-east to become a world-wide disaster. Eliminate most of the oil supply coming from Iran and Saudia Arabia alone and world prices will go up a factor of 5. World wide recession. All the trouble spots around the globe go from smoldering to wildfires.

This is very serious, whether or not it's a consulate. We have kidnapped Iranian citizens. When Hizbollah did that, Israel launched a major military attack on Lebanon in response. Think Iran might feel justified in doing the same?

And, coincidentally, it came to light over the course of the last week that Bush had another carrier group move into the region, has set up coordinated air defense capabilites with the Arab Emirates, and, as a reward for being good little air bases, handing out patriot missiles.

If you were Iran, what would you think?

What I think is this President has a unique talent for choosing to do the worst possible thing available every time.

Well Denis if you are really lucky it will fizzle out into another Iranian Hostage situation, thats what they did last time, Seized US embassy staff, although the Americans Dont have an Iranian embassy do they, No wonder they have no idea what is going on inside these States.

Not to be alarmist, Dennis, but I think you should at least figure out where the exit is and how long it will take you to clear it. If this gets out of hand, it will happen very fast, and the Turks won't want to be left out of the Party.

Dennis - Just stay away from the American Embassy if you're in Greece. :)

Wear an "I love Canada" shirt on and end your sentences with "ehy"...

Ohh.. I kidd the Canadians.

Does that mean I can start bringing in the hookers?

Or by the same token if it is discovered through arrests like this that Iran is providing aid and arms to shiia forces in an attempt to destabilize Iraq and wage a proxy war with the US, it could turn the people against Ahmadinajad

I don't doubt that we have evidence to that effect, Deh Ehn. But it had better be more bulletproof than Superman. Or at least a whole lot more credible than those three letters that we've all gotten so familiar with.

Even if we have evidence, I don't think that will mean much to the Iranians. I could make a case for them, myself. And no one's going to hear what we have to say anyway. Most of the mideast has stopped listening.

If that is the case, Kai. More likely it is a provocation to prompt Iran to respond and initiate a cycle of hostility that can provide casus belli or "legitimate" excuse for war.

I agree its somewhat stupid, but still, why should they be exempt from any sort of scrutiny or laws and be able to do whatever they please while we're handicapped to do anything about it?

If someone throws a rock at me from inside a nursing home, i'm still freakin goin in there and beatin them down. Even if it is "wrong"

If someone throws a rock at me from inside a nursing home, i'm still freakin goin in there and beatin them down. Even if it is "wrong"

And you will be punished for doing so. Are you still sure you like your analogy?

I think: If it was, indeed, stupid, the officer in charge of the operation should and would be punished. I do not think this was a military operation. It was obviously premeditated. You do not violate territory without attention to the chain of command, and in this case it leads all the way to the White House. No matter what moral legitimacy may or may not be for US forces to act in this manner, it is undoubtedly the result of a political decision.

Nice observation Claus; another factor that prevents this from ever blowing over is the timing - directly following a speech announcing el Presidente's wish to send more troops and put more pressure on Iran, an Iranian consulate is raided.

Even if you happen to believe in coincidences, it would be an incredibly hard one to swallow.

expel those people from the country.

Kai... you have no respect for the law.

If the Iranians were using this government building in illegal arms dealings with Iraqi militias or in someway supporting anti-US forces, then wouldn't that be an act of war by Iran? And from the sounds of the explanation the US forces went in because it was part of an investigation or they most likely had some evidence that these employees were up to no good.

Kai... you have no respect for the law.

Who does have respect for the law in Iraq? The militias? The Death Squads? Al Qaeda? Al Sadr? The Kurds? The Shia? The Sunni? Iran? Syria? If the US were the only ones following international standards and conventions it would put them at a distinct disadvantage to pretty much all of their enemies and allies in this war.

It's important to defend the moral high ground but sometimes you have to step off of it to protect it.

But if you step off it it's no longer yours to protect.

Winsomecowboy, that has to be the most succint summary of everything wrong with this war right from the beginning.

That's an economy of prose style I find frighteningly awesome!

Kai, that's a pretty bad analogy. That's like saying if a young child hits me in my "danger zone" I'm going to beat him senseless.

It's a consulate. It has a front door, telephones, and walls. If we have a problem with what it's doing let us blockade it until the Iranians close it themselves.

If we break down the front door and invade it, we're invading yet another sovereign nation and committing yet another international crime. Unless Bush apologizes to the Iranians, which will happen right after hell turns blue, this will only help "our guys" by immersing them in an even bigger meat grinder than the one they're already in.

Consulates are used for all kinds of illegal and hostile activities. Doesn't matter. Attacking one is an act of war under International Law. Even if Iranians were supply weapons to the militia that you could prove were being used to shoot specifically at us, it's still not an act of war. It's downright unneighborly, and also actionable under International Law, but it isn't an attack on our sovereign territory.

You might make the case that it's an act of War on Iraq, but I think that would be a tough sell. If that were true, all the arms we've been providing "liberation" movements all these years would have at least been called the same way by our enemies.

But if you step off it it's no longer yours to protect.

So is anyone on the high ground anymore? Everyone seems to be rhetorically on the high ground, but when you look at their actions the high ground seems to be pretty empty.

Kai, that's a pretty bad analogy. That's like saying if a young child hits me in my "danger zone" I'm going to beat him senseless.

How about if that "child" is a 28 year old radical muslim who is plotting to murder your family and our troops, while at the same time giving money and weapons to more of his friends to do the same? Different ring to it altogether, no?

That's a whole load of how-about there.

How-about if that "child" is just trying to bait you into starting an international incident as an excuse for lighting the whole middle east powder keg and sending America into an oil-starved depression?

How-about if that "child" is a conscientious diplomat trying to work against a wider conflagration but used as an excuse by Halliburton conmen to bilk the American public of another half-trillion dollars?

How-about if that "child" is a 28 year old radical muslim, as you say, but not plotting to murder your family - a sunni plotting to murder the families of shia, or a shia plotting to murder the families of sunni?

How-about if that "child" has relatives that read what you write, decide you and the Americans you represent are dangerous to all muslims, and use your prejudice as a pretext for terrorism that takes the lives of those you love?

Our fear and hatred feed their fear and hatred. This is the essential nature of all violence. When you have a child you soon find that you cannot control them through by violence. You can only do it by teaching them self-control. And in order to teach it, you must first practice it.

Peter, very good points, overall. International law is mostly observed in the breach. This game is all about power and national interests, not some notion of justice or equity.

That said, I don't think the Iranians are self-destructive enough to want to send the US into an oil-starved depression just yet. Subtract our demand from the market and the price of oil would plummet and the Iranian gross domestic product right along with it. This is why OPEC has not been able to just raise prices anytime they want; they found screaming inflation in our country and the rest of the industrialized world (remember the 70's oil crisis) comes back around in the form of reduced demand, so that their overall income ultimately declines.

That won't hold true in the long run, as China and India rapidly develop their demand will dominate the market, and to the extent that Iran and other OPEC countries can target the US specifically, oil will become a more powerful political weapon -- such as what Russia is doing to it's former client states right now.

Thanks Moon, but I don't think this particular Great Game is driven by the Iranians now. Nor, rationally, by anyone.

We talk about leaders and nations and organizations as if they were causes rather than effects of the game. Maybe there really are great men leading great nations to fulfill great ends now. But most history teaches that there are only great fools trying to lead great numbers of lesser fools to fulfill goals of such tiny significance that science has not invented an instrument that can register 'em.

So to OPEC and Iran, their actions are likely governed by the imminent exhaustion of Saudi and perhaps Iranian oil fields as described by Matt Simmons & co's Peak Oil arguments. US actions are likely governed by vast debt vulnerabilities - "Peak Debt" if you like - with Saud, China and India holding the whip hand. Then China and India are hoist by their water dependence and the feedback loops on same their industrial development will induce via global warming ... and indubitably there are dozens of other factors influencing all these folk that no newsviner can gauge due to national security issues, unpublished science, vast nebulous conspiracies, and so on and so forth.

Unsurprisingly we're reduced to personal remedies. Offer kindness in return for hate. Invention for poverty. Harmony for war. Keep offering these things until they are accepted. Hate, poverty and war will come back over and again - and responsibility for healing them always rests personally in our own hands.

Calm down friend, you have a lot of stuff mixed up in there. Hezbollah formally announced they will not attack American targets any more. Giving arms to the enemy has never been an act of aggression. If that were the case Saudi Arabia will be invaded for aiding the Sunnis.

You are also probably aware that the US has supported a terror organisation working inside Iran for a while now.

All that is NOT the same as attacking the sovereign space of a nation. Remember Hezbollah going into Israel to take Israeli soldiers? This is the equivalent of that. Probably worse since those were soldiers and these appear to have been civilians who should have diplomatic immunity.

Consulars do not usually have diplomatic immunity and, even if they did, the United States is not the host country in this case. Diplomatic Immunity has very little to do with this.

If we were talking about Iraqi forces that would be a little different, but even then the inviolability of the consulate is far more important than the hypothetical immunity of the consulate staff. Generally speaking only select individuals at the actual embassy have diplomatic immunity though individual arrangements may apply that exceed the Vienna Convention.

Hetep and Respect, If I were an American in Iran or in any embassy, consulate or local bar, I would put on my helmet, flack jacket and duck.

Remember the Iranian hostage "crisis" of the past and Nixon's illegal bombing of Cambodia. The King is going to make the criminal Nixon and Ronald Reagan look like boy scouts.

P.S. if your manager has requested that you attend a meeting outside the USA in a country were any of the one Billion members of Islam live, I suggest you call in sick.

Aunk you're right. But think about this: the one billion members of Islam live in every country, including the US. Bush [NB I have trouble not calling him names but I must resist the urge - so "Bush"] is acting like someone who wants to make war on one sixth of humanity, but so far very nearly all that one sixth of us have avoided the temptation of making war back on him. I sure hope it stays that way.

so far very nearly all that one sixth of us have avoided the temptation of making war back on him.

Yes, they've been the very model of restraint. If every nation were like Iran, the world would be just peachy keen.

The last country Iran attacked was Iraq - at which time we were supporting the despot we recently got rid of. So should Iran have made that attack? Well should we have done? Compare answers.

Now, if every nation was a model of restraint like the US we'd be in real trouble. Supporting tin pot dicators around the world, arming insurgencies, destabilising every country we don't like the look of. I'm not saying Iran is any kind of angel cos they're not, but if the choice was a world full of US's or a world full of Irans, then I know which one would be at least possible.

Anyway, as I'm sure you realise, you're not exactly disputing my point, pseudo.

Iraq attacked Iran actually.

Iran has been feeding the insurgents. They declared war on us long ago.

So when we supported rebel groups against the Soviet Union we were declaring war on them? Uhh...that is a very simplistic view of a very complex situation. Violating international law only insures that someone else will do the same to us and American lives will be lost as a result.

If the President wants to insitigate a war with Iran I would rather it be a first strike by stealth airctaft against their nuclear facilities. Not that I am condoning either response. Attacking a consulate to apprehend several Iranians is stupid. Unless Osama bin Laden was in the consulate (and he wouldn't be) nothing in there could be worth risking war with Iran.

Our concern over comments in the media and world opinion has gotten our soldiers killed.

If the administration cared at all about world opinion they never would have gone to war in Iraq in the first place. You're way off on this point.

The liberal media has driven this.

How so?

War is ugly.

Time to see it. Time to do the job right.

I'm sure that there is an elistment office near your house. You should call them and make an appointment. You'll get a chance to see just how ugly war is in about six months when you are done with boot and infantry school.

Violating international law only insures that someone else will do the same to us and American lives will be lost as a result.

I'm pretty sure the militias and insurgents in Iraq don't really give a $#!7 about international law, or national law, and American lives are already being lost. But not nearly as many as civilian lives lost. And just who is killing all these civilians in direct refutation of international law? I don't seem to remember the US using suicide bombers in markets or IEDs on highways.

That post was bizarre. It was like a condensation of all the most fringe right wing attitudes over the last five years.

I agree that this guy should get down to a recruitment office.

I'm pretty sure that's what he meant by "lets roll." Means he's on his way down to the recruiters office, right NeoCon?

If Bush manages to start WWIII, It wont really matter. Many of you fine young men will will get a letter in the mail....

Greeting from the Selective Service Administration. This letter is to inform you that you have been drafted. you are hereby ordered to report within the next 30 days to your nearest Induction Station for processing.........

It's been 30+ years since I saw one, but I think that's pretty close to how the introduction went....

Silly me... I forgot to update the letter with a little Lakoff didn't I... :-D Thanks for the help Dennis.

I don't think Shrub intends to start WWIII. He probably thinks Iran will back down. He's just reacting on his gut feel, without a clue as to what might happen next. This is brinksmanship to a level of insanity.

Actually Consulates aren't considered part of the motherland, and consuls are not automatically granted diplomatic immunity. They are not ambassadors.

Doesn't change the fact that this was collosally stupid, but it looks like it might just have enouth legaliness to keep it from automatically being a causus belli.

Still stupid.

Actually Consulates aren't considered part of the motherland

kill's comment above (#3) seems to indicate that they are sovereign territory.

They are sovereign by practice, not law. Inviolate doesn't mean the same thing as sovereign. Even though the host country is supposed to leave the consulate alone, an attack on a consulate is not the same thing as an invasion under the Vienna Convention.

That said, the Iranians aren't likely to take this well and it won't be looked upon with favor in the international community.

Neither Iran nor Iraq are signatories of the Vienna Convention from the list I was able to pull off of Human Rights Watch. (Damn PDFs). If this is the case, Kill might as well be citing the New York City Traffic Code.

It is also hard for a country responsible for one of the most glaring violations of diplomatic immunity in the past 50 years to complain too much as well.

Those countries are: Albania, Antigua, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Brunei, Bulgaria, China (People's Republic of), Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, The Dominican Republic, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Hungary, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Moldova, Mongolia, Nigeria, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, St. Kitts/Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent/Grenadines, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovak Republic, South Korea, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad/Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, USSR (all USSR successor states are covered by this agreement; they are: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan), and Zambia. Ibid.

Seems you got to the key issue Adipic Acid. It does seem ike they are not signatories. Finding it hard to determine if there are other conventions that would bind this action. I think there might be given the Pentagon's denying it was a consulate that suggests that action againt a Consulate will be inappropriate

I didn't read the treaty in its entirety, but a quick scan of it didn't turn up any language that would suggest that a signatory may ignore the treaty when dealing with a non-signatory.

If you're aware of language that may suggest that please let me know.

The treaty grants bilateral rights amongst the signatories as far as I can tell. I see no language extending its privileges to non-signatories. We need a good international lawyer for this I think.

And to reiterate, if it was a consulate, it was still a stupid thing to do. Of course so was seizing the US Embassy in Tehran back in the day. The Iranians really can't complain too loudly, because that is still a sore spot. It would be farcical for them to insist on reparations, for instance.

Slight difference: As you know, It was Iranian civilians (students) who seized the US Embassy. It was supported by Khomeini the Iranian leader afterward but it was not a mission ordered by the Iranian government, nor was it military.

Your point is still somewhat valid; the US Embassy in Iran has been seied before and that has resonance with Americans at the least.

Considering that Khomeni became the government and did not simply order the hijackers (who, let's face it would pretty much do anything he ordered) to release the hostages to the Swiss or something, and considering that that government has refused to acknowledge that it owes reparations for the act under international law, it would be just a wee bit hypocritical of them to demand the same in this case, don't you think?

Hm, I wonder if this is the same guy who used to act like stephen colbert. He is essentially saying that it's okay to take iranians who may or may not have done anything wrong because Iran would do the same. So is that wat you want? America to be Iran? And you say I don't love my country.

Titan... the right wing in the US amount to the maturity level of elementary school kids: "he hit me so I am going to hit him back"

Titan... the right wing in the US amount to the maturity level of elementary school kids:

Absolutely. Of course, so the Iraqis, Somalis, Afghans, Irish, Basques, Israelis, Palestinians, Timorese, Laotians, Chinese, Russians, Chechens, Armenians, Turks, Egyptians, British, French, Germans, ...

Titan, might I suggest reading my comments more carefully? I was suggesting that this was "technically legal" but incredibly stupid and shouldn't have been done. I also pointed out a bit of hypocrisy in the Iranians being offended that diplomatic status was breached, as they are prior offenders. When someone points out that the US is being hypocritical, they get scads of votes. Why do the Iranians get a pass?

Agreed, AdipicAcid. The same thought occurred to me. The Iranians have some hutzpah (good yiddish word) to get their dress up over their heads considering that they took over our entire Embassy and held -- what, 300 people or something? -- hostage for a year.

Yeah, that would seem almost ironic if it weren't for the way the US and UK had toppled Iran's democratically elected government in 1953. I don't mean to be sarcastic, but I do mean to point out that the US has a long history of trampling international law and national sovereignty to protect its oil interests.

Yup. Agree with you, too, Djehuty. Nobody in this pissing match has a lot of grounds for indignant ire, but they'll all find the highest horse they can climb on, even if it's only a lame shetland pony, and pretend to ride that high road to moral ground.

Indeed. I don't see the point of arguing international law - but I do see it as a provocative act, in a situation where the US might want to be careful of being provocative... unless they're trying to stir up trouble. I'm hoping against the current evidence that they're *not* trying to anger Iran and provoke retaliation.

considering that they took over our entire Embassy and held -- what, 300 people or something? -- hostage for a year

Well, that is some time ago, and as Djehuty points out it is an occurrence that writes itself into a particular historical context of political meddling and mutual hostility. About time to come out and paint the houses, if you know what I saying...

a situation where the US might want to be careful of being provocative.

I don't think Shrub is all that concerned about international law or provocation. He sees an Iran as sponsoring terrorism generally, and supporting warring militias, especially Al Sadr, with weapons and technical support in Iraq. This little episode, along with moving a second carrier group over toward the Hormuz Strait is just a signal to them to knock it off, I expect. It's also possible that, as they claimed earlier, the Iranians captured are provocatuers; the defense department statement was oddly worded, something like "Iraq officials confirmed that [they] were members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard" which is an elite fighting force, akin to our Special Forces.

It's a bit of a red herring, the "Iran's Revolutionary Guard" idea. In actual practice it may well indicate something about what they were up to (I presume channeling weapons rather than actually fighting) but none of that is the point. Imagine if a Lt. in the Marines was working at a Consulate office in Tasmania - would I think this indicated hostile intent? I might expect her to be providing security rather than bureaucratic support but so what?

The crime if there was one is what they were doing, which requires proof. In fact the presumption of innocence would preclude attack or arrest, which is why countries (Iraq not the US in this case) would normally *ask* that suspect diplomatic staff be sent home, not arrest them. And btw they didn't "knock on the door" - eyewitness reports with no reason to make anything up said teargas was used, by my memory.

It has never been an act of war. If it were Bush would have declared war. Invading the sovereign space of another nation can be seen as an act of war on the other hand. As I said before it is same as the Hezbollah affair to which Israel responded with fire and brimstone and which this administration supported.

It is not about trusting what they say. You said that Iran is supporting Hezbollah and have tried to make that justification for attacking it. If Hezbollah renounced violence against America and have kept to that your justification fall flat.

1. Bush can't declare war, only Congress can.
2. This action falls within the bounds of the existing Iraq conflict as defined by the Congressional resolution in 03.

the Iranian support for the mahdi army goes beyond a simple arms shipment. They are actively aiding with logistical and intelligence support. They are in fact helping to kill Americans, this would be an act of war as far as I'm concerned.

Do you have any evidence to support this?

moon... are you sure it does? Sadam is dead, there are no weapons of mass destruction. What parts of the existing resolution are left for this to fall under? Terrorism was not one of them.

Yes, it could be construed to. The resolution states that Saddam and WMD are the objective, but includes a reference to terrorism in general, leaves the methods and requirements up to the President. We are still there under the rationale that part of what is required is to set up another government to prevent it from becoming a haven for terrorists. While one could argue that that is outside the scope of the authorization, one could also argue that it is within scope because of the ambiguity of the wording.

In addition, we are acting in accordance with agreements with the existing Iraqi government which might also be construed to include this raid.

Finally, if #9.2 is true (which I think is derived from a Pentagon statement which asserted much the same), and the raid was against a facility that is part of such an effort, it won't matter whether it is a consulate or not. Diplomatic immunity does not apply to acts of espionage or the support of violence against the host government.

You're expressing what you want to be true now.

Diplomatic immunity holds in any case, whether there is espionage or not. Iran does not support violence against the host government. Al Maliki is in the overall shiite coalition that Iran is accused of supporting. The shiite militias are meting out violence primarilly at Sunnis, and US soldiers are being hit by Shiites because Bush put them there to referee a civil war. Which is not to argue of US soldiers being killed, just to correctly define the situation.

The terrorism in Iraq is being perpetrated by Sunni Al Qaeda. There have been reports of Hezbollah presence in Iraq but I am not aware of any attacks that have been attributed to them.

Now AFP reports Pentagon as saying that the building was not "consulate or goverment building".

Now AFP reports Pentagon as saying that the building was not "consulate or goverment building".

I sincerely hope that this is true, and that it was not a consular building.

I am partially inclined to believe that it was not a consular building given the lack of response by Iran.

Edit: Apparently they have responded and claimed that it was a consulate. I stand corrected.

That consulate may very well be out Poland.

out == our

Here's an official statement:

The Presidency and the Kurdistan Regional Government express their dismay and condemnation of the American action against the official consulate of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Erbil, capital of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. The consulate was opened by agreement between the governments of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Iran, and enjoys immunity and protection under the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

And a harsh follow-up from Dr. Rice:

Speaking hours after US troops raided Iran's consulate in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil and arrested five employees, Rice said Washington was determined to crack down on Iran's "regional aggression".

Well, who's the aggressor here?

We'll have to wait for all the evidence, won't we?

I want security forces to be aggressive against foreign instigators who are agents of the insurgency.

uhh... So basically kooz... you are for the government doing anything they want with out evidence to show they were in the right to do so.

I mean... The only way that you would denounce the Bush administrations actions in any action is if they show you the evidence that proves they were in the wrong.... Like that will happen.

Why don't you stop pretending to be a critical thinker and admit to yourself that you are a close minded sheeple of the Bush flock.

So, basically, whoever you are, you're guessing.

About the whole story.

And what I think.

Why don't you stop pretending your wild guesses mean squat and quit spouting canned insults we've all heard on the internet a thousand times before?

You get insulted that much?

Absolutely. I only see insults flung directly at me. I've never, ever read these same tired taunts thrown at anyone else in favor of talking about the topic.

Which, at this point, is this:

The liaison office that was raided issues travel permits for Iraqis traveling to Iran and other consular tasks and is on a waiting list to be officially declared a consulate. Technically, according to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, the Iranians working in the liaison are not diplomats.

Gee thats a real shame because you do have a point.

I always have a point.

Glad that you at least think so.

It's right up there, staring you squarely in the face while you pick at me.

Kooz... you seem to think that your words are meaningless. Unless you do not think what you say my deductions about you are spot on.

when you said:

We'll have to wait for all the evidence, won't we?

in response to people saying this attack was wrong, you told everyone very succinctly how you decide when Bush has done something bad.... that is to say... you will only accept Bush being bad in this war when you are shown the proof. Since Bush holds all the cards on the proof in this war you are saying you will never see bush as being in the wrong.

Perhaps that is too meta for you, or perhaps you are not thoughtful enough to consider the implications of your reasoning... but there is no way you can tell me or anyone else here that I am wrong in my analysis... unless you are lying when you write something.

Still ignoring the topic in favor of spreading straw and gossip about people who disagree, eh?

Again, talk about this instead of other posters. Thanks.

The liaison office that was raided issues travel permits for Iraqis traveling to Iran and other consular tasks and is on a waiting list to be officially declared a consulate. Technically, according to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, the Iranians working in the liaison are not diplomats.

Dude. Come on.

The Iranians arrested were diplomats recognised as such by Iraq.

The Iraqi foreign minister said Friday that the five Iranians detained by U.S.-led forces in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq were working in a liaison office that had government approval and was in the process of being approved as a consulate.

That link says exactly what my statement says. It was not yet a consulate as widely reported.

There is nothing mentioned in your article about these Iranians having diplomatic immunity. Iraqi approval of their presence and their official tasks does not prove that they had any immunity or were not supporting the insurgency.

We don't have all the information on that.

Kooz... are you intentionally dense?

Iraq, by Lord Bush's decree is sovereign... thus if Iraq says they were diplomats, then thy have diplomatic immunity.

Are you intentionally course, rude and unpleasant to hold a conversation with?

Here, let me show you this one more time:

Technically, according to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, the Iranians working in the liaison are not diplomats.

They are not diplomats. There is nothing that indicates they are granted immunity or were working in a consulate, despite the initial claims.

Koozebane is not dense. He just has violent aversion for reality.

The Iraqi government issued a statement saying they were recognised as working for Iran. It means they were accredited. Accredited means the building they were in, which flew the Iranian flag, was an Iranian diplomatic mission.

This piece of news was miles more accurate than the block of text you've been posting which is just an interpretation someone made. This is the Iraqi government saying these guys were recognised as members of the Iranian diplomatic mission.

By the way, many reports I have seen says that that building has been in use by Iraq for several years now and has been known as an Iranian diplomatic building.

Dude believe what you want. Reality marches un unscathed.

This journalist visited that consulate a year ago and it was a consulate then. Everyone was calling it a consulate until pressure was applied to say "in the process of being..."

I don't see any sensible reason to believe it isn't a consulate.

YOUR reality remains unscathed.

Although the Iraqi Foreign Minister says these Iranians are legit, the truth of the matter is that these workers were NOT in a consulate or carrying diplomatic passports.

The 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations says consular premises are "inviolable," but it was not clear how that would apply as the building was not a consulate.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the detained Iranians were not carrying diplomatic passports and the building "was not a consulate. This was not an officially accredited diplomatic facility."

Pressed to describe the office, McCormack said it was a "building that the Iranians were using, occupying, that was Iraqi territory."

You may reach any hasty conclusions you want, but please, don't expect everyone else to see details that aren't really there.

Thank you.

How does one write a snort?

S-N-O-R-T?

We're all convinced Koozebane, thanks for breaking through minds with reality...

My advice to you and your band of recklessies is that they don't do that to a Russian consulate or government building or liason office, or we'll see the end of life on the planet.

Mr. McCormack won't have any chance to make silly statements 10 year olds can call BS on before hell breaks loose.

One just has to recognise the coolness of the Iranians so far

One thing you don't know Mr Koozy is that the Vienna Convention does not split hairs about consulates or embassies. It says that consular posts must be recognised by the host country. In this case it was. The convention also says that the persons of consular staff are inviolable. Iraq recognises those people to be consular staff of Iran and has asked that they be released.

Capisci?

No I didn't think you would.

I didn't think you could really refute what the article says.

Bluster all you want.

Kooz... you have circular logic.

Iraq and Iran are the ones who decide who has diplomatic immunity in their borders. What the US sate department has to say on the topic is irrelevant.

so, why don't you stop repeating yourself hoping for a different outcome.

Our government is not right just because it says it is.

I'm actually posting portions of news articles.

So far, the responses have either been spelled out bodily noises in capital letters or just plain old fashioned jeering.

Post a source that specifically proves this was a consulate, and these workers actually have immunity.

The US government is not wrong just because a couple of jeering intarweb trolls made some taunting declarations on what is relevant.

I think Kooze may have the right side of this one.

Yes, Iraq and Iran can determine what is a consulate or not and who has immunity or not, but this need only be recognized as such by anyone else if it occurs procedurally within the framework of International Laws on the subject (not that that usually troubles this administration). The word "technically" in his quotation is suspicious. It sound to me like they are intentionally exploiting some loophole, or what they believe could be argued as one -- the old "plausible deniability" idea.

It might actually explain the awkward timing of the assault, if they thought there was valuable intel in the building (remember the computers and disks taken) that would be inaccessible once it officially became a consulate. The people might simply have been an afterthought or an added bonus, rather than the object of the raid.

What I find suspicious is the report that one escaped to the airport.

I'm not sure if this has been entirely confirmed or not, but if one of them ran and tried to get out of the country, it raises a red flag with me concerning legitimacy.

Law abiding workers who are fulfilling their duties with local approval do not make a break for the border when authorities come knocking.

Whether you were guilty or not, if those authorities were American in Iraq, [or even here come to think of it] and you had the opportunity to escape, I'd take it.
So how would someone evade a cordon and knock anyway?

Yeah, given the state of chaos in Iraq right now, and some of the inevitable incidents involving US troops, like Haditha, plus the likely indoctrination on the baby-eating habits of the Evil Empire (us, that is -- from Iran's point of view) even an Iranian pure as the driven snow might think a fast exit was the better part of survival.

There is a distinct difference between eluding arrest and fleeing the country.

If these workers were legit, there were any number of options open to them.

I'm very curious about what was found in that raid.

Yes, there were options open to them if they managed to survive long enough to pursue them. In the context, I don't think flight can be equated with guilt the way one might if it happened here in the US. Doesn't mean they were innocent, either, of course.

Personally I don't think there's much difference at all.
That Iran has a hand in the Iraqi situation is certainly a given. That there could well have been objectives having nothing to do with brinkmanship is very plausible. That information contained within the building will be useful to some elements and possibly embarrassing to others is a distinct possibility.
That evidence found within could be used to further the case for the invasion of Iran is a possibility. That that evidence is actual or not is immaterial.
There's a lot happening and we only have our wits, our perceptions and limited data from sources that uniformly have a stake in the proceedings.
Our speculations are next to useless. But it passes the time and makes us feel involved.
Which is the degree away from useless we're used to.

Yes, there were options open to them if they managed to survive long enough to pursue them. In the context, I don't think flight can be equated with guilt the way one might if it happened here in the US. Doesn't mean they were innocent, either, of course.

When you wrote that the significance of this incidence depends on what was found in the documents I thought you meant in terms of local US politics but it seems you really do think this action can be justified by what was found there.

Brinksmanship towards starting a war with Iran, a major world war perhaps, is not justified by what will be found. I know it has been said on this thread that it was reckless and acknowledged as such by just every thinking person, but I'll say that after such a war in which say 2 million people die, what was found in the consulate will be damn near irrelevant.

Winsome has a huge point when he says that all the sources are giving info sparingly and they all have a stake in doing so and putting their own spin on the data.

But here's a question? If Teheran assasinated the US Ambassador as he was on his way to present his accreditation documents to Lebanon, what would the appropriate US response be?

It is known that Majority-shia Iran is aiding its Shia kin in Iraq. But that has never been grounds for attacking a nation and violating its sovereignty. Even if it was not technically a diplomatic mission, which it was from evidence available to us so far, just having the permission to fly the flag of another nation is enough, symbolically and by the spirit of international conventions, means invading it by force was a definite act of aggression to which the US would respond with military action if meted out to it.

It's amazing that anyone, after having seen how Bush conjured up his shining legacy of the Iraq War, can be anything but alarmed as he sets the conditions for an infinitely more disastrous course of action viz a vis Iran.

The Neocon mind has boundless kooks.

The Neocon mind has boundless kooks.

At least the Neocons I know argue fact rather than gossip like old hens.

It's obvious the cubical monkey action committee doesn't care about the possibility of spies undermining US policy as long as they can gripe about some politician and his supporters.

They're rather side with Iran before all the facts are in.

To me, that's the definition of kooky.

*** They'd rather side with Iran......

Caffeine. I need more CAFFEINE.

Some would side with any evil perpetrated by their side. The millions who cheered China's Mao or Germany's Hitler comes to mind.

Some would demand that their side do what is just and not lead the world to endless senseless wars but hey moralty is dispensable to the Neocon mind.

I am no supporter of NeoCon philosophy, but this is unfair and untrue. The NeoCon adherents I have listened to and have otherwise some reason to know are people of high moral purpose. I don't agree with all the tenants of their moral code, and I believe their self-righteousness has lead to hubris and an inability to see or willingness to ignore and dismiss real circumstances in the world and real and potential consequencs of their policies. They generally adhere and live up to the principals they espouse, however.

Well the Neocons believe that moralty is subordinate to a strong America. Strong America for them means an America trampling through the fields of the world unmindful of what gets tramped underfoot.

as to saying they live up to their principles is debatable beacuse those principles are by definition self-serving and amorphous. The principles can literally be anything.

How is it just to go kill 600k civilians so that the Neocons can take out Saddam in a war that has proven to not be in the US interest and still be unapologetic about it? I never hear the Neocons show remorse or sympathy for these people

Your argument is kinda like saying Osama has a high moral purpose because he stands up to his principles. Their moralty is immoralty indeed.

The NeoCon adherents I have listened to and have otherwise some reason to know are people of high moral purpose.

This is true, and which is why they are as bullheaded as the Communists in the early 20th century. They know they are right, facts (and atrocities) be damned.

Ditto, AdipicAcid (what is the derivation of that handle, btw?)

Oluseye, if I say I believe in killing all deformed children because the take away resources from the rest of society without any ability to return an equivalent value, that is not immoral, it is a different set of morals -- one to which I do not ascribe, anymore than I do the precepts of NeoCons. It is not a self-interested position, per se, and if I follow it with my actions consistently I am not being immoral. I am immoral if I exclude my own child, I am immoral if I personally profit from the means by which I implement this, or if I espouse the principle because I stand to gain from it. As a practical matter, it may be unconstructive, as a moral matter it may not conform to your ethical code, but that does not make me immoral. Accusing me of such would be nothing but an insult. You can argue that the moral principle is ineffective or repugnant or just wrong, but you cannot accuse me of being immoral simply because you disagree with my morals.

It is not a self-interested position, per se, and if I follow it with my actions consistently I am not being immoral.

I think you're spectacularly wrong on this. Self-interest does not negate moralty.

Being consistent is not what makes you moral. I see your point about them having a separate moral code but they are part of society in general and by the moral codes of Western civilisation they are immoral.

The Neocons believe that American power must end "human suffering" but do not consider 600k lives of other people a high price to pay. They will however not surrender 600k American or Israeli or Western lives.

They wantsus all to believe in "useful myths" that they create, while they only know the truth. How do you separate truth from morality?

I created this debate mess by using the word "morality". I mean ethics. For me ethics represents making choices between right and wrong incorporating self-preservation, sustainability (if 1% of population steals all the money that's not sustainable for example like in countries like Nigeria), law and societal codes.

It's in this context that the Neocons are extremely unethical. I consider them immoral too by the way because in the moral contexts within which they operate (they as a subset of society), they are very immoral.

Hmm...I tend to view all of this not so much in terms of morals and ethics, so much as in terms of competing long range visions. Everyone, ultimately, has their own interests at heart, if only on an instinctive level or in an abstract sense. When contemplating sweeping political agendas, it does no good to let your sympathy guide your reason, as there are always too many sides with too many people suffering for you to choose which to support.

My problem with the neocon agenda, then, is not a moral or ethical one. My problem is that I believe they are pursuing an end goal which rests too close in the future, but which in the long terms will destroy the nation they are ostensibly trying to protect.

I smell patchouli...

Incense and Peppermints...

Look Koozebane, every single medium that reported this story said it was a Consulate. The AP story you linked to again said it was a "diplomatic mission".

The story remains the same on virtually every news source out there despite the Pentagon denial.

storm, n.
6. A violent, sudden attack on a fortified place.

v.tr.
To assault, capture, or captivate

Seems appropriate.

Look Koozebane, every single medium that reported this story said it was a Consulate. The AP story you linked to again said it was a "diplomatic mission".

That wouldn't be 'every single medium' then, would it?

The Iranians are making a claim that it was a consolate. I see no reason to take their word as FACT.

Our forces were actually THERE.

One migth assume that the Kurds were there, too, since it is their home:

The Kurdish regional government in northern Iraq - normally a staunch supporter of US policy in the region - also condemned the raid and demanded the immediate release of all prisoners taken.

"The presidency and the government of the Kurdish region of Iraq express their disapproval of the operation against the Iranian consulate," said a statement from regional president Massud Barzani's office.

It depends on how this plays out.

We have conflicting reports. I believe taking both sides into consideration is necessary until this is confirmed by the Iraqi government and the US government.

The Iranians will say anything.......and if the Kurds are playing footsie with Iranian spies, then they're going to want them to have diplomacy to cover their asses.

This needs to go to a higher level of confirmation.

I'm sorry......that must have been a brain fart.

***then they're going to want them to have diplomatic immunity to cover their asses.

Koozebane, the Iraqis already confirmed it. The news came from Iraqi state media.

It gets even better (or worse): U.S. Troops Stage Second Secret Raid at Iraq Airport:

In the second raid, staged later in the day, U.S. troops attempted to abduct more people from inside the perimeter of Irbil airport, but were surrounded by Kurdish peshmerga troops.

ABC give a different account:

U.S. troops staged two secret raids in northern Iraq today, ABC News has learned, capturing as many as six Iranians and only narrowly avoiding a gun battle with local security forces, according to the Iraqi foreign ministry and local officials in northern Iraq's Kurdish region.

From page two, on the "consulate":

The liaison office that was raided issues travel permits for Iraqis traveling to Iran and other consular tasks and is on a waiting list to be officially declared a consulate. Technically, according to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, the Iranians working in the liaison are not diplomats.

Wonderful, so now we can get the Kurds to hate our guts and fire on us, too. Aren't they the one group who isn't generally against us at this point?

If there area few Kurds who are dirty, I don't really care what they think.

I'm not under the impression that all Kurds have a central hive mind that enables them to act as one single collective.

I'm not under the impression that anyone has a hive mind that causes them to act as a single collective. This was the exact point being made about Muslims in another thread, as I recall.

Kooz is great... you know....

We are always int eh right and he assumes everyone else is in the wrong... he claims Kurdish Security Forces (as reported by ABC) is not the same as Kurdish Peshmerga (which they are) and he says "we should consider both sides" (which he is not.

all in all Kooz talks the talk of a thoughtful person, but then falls flat on his face as he trys to walk the walk.

Everyone on this entire site argues their own points. Stop acting as if it's some big frickin' deal.

Here, talk about this instead of trolling people who won't jump to conclusions and automatically declare the US a big evil meanie:

The liaison office that was raided issues travel permits for Iraqis traveling to Iran and other consular tasks and is on a waiting list to be officially declared a consulate. Technically, according to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, the Iranians working in the liaison are not diplomats.

Thank you, Irma, for #16.7.

The more interesting question is: is that a good thing?

A lot of heat and light over the consulate/not consulate point, when the larger issue is what it's impact will be, something only partly determined by it's diplomatic status. For example, what if this provides proof of the Iranians sending money, arms or whatever to factions inside Iraq? Or shows an Al Qaida-Iran connection? Or the people involved turn out to be Hizbollah from Lebanon? How does it fit into the larger framework of US actions, like moving another carrier group to the East Indian Ocean in striking distance of Tehran? How will the Iranians view it all, both out loud in the press, and privately in the diplomatic arena?

We didn't just go in there for the heck of it, after all. There was a purpose and it may have been a good one, maybe not, and it may have been worth the consequences diplomatically or not. That's what's important. Whether or not it's a consulate just changes how much blowback there will be.

You still see it as merely as a diplomatic incidence. I think you're misjudging this one.

It was not for the heck of it but it seems the goal was to get Iran to react militarily or get its Shiite allies to react.

In the first, we risk a serious world war, in the second it's an escalation of the Iraq war and a cynical attempt to create a military mission that military assets can be deployed to fight. It's creating a war out of nothing but a lego set and a devious mind.

it seems the goal was to get Iran to react militarily

This may be obvious to you, but it isn't to me. My previous post posited a different, I think equally plausible secenario: there was thought to be valueable intel in the computers and disks captured.

It may be that Shrub is trying to get a rise out of Iran, but I would expect, given our limited ability to fight them, that it is unlikely. More likely would be sending a message that we know what they're up to in Iraq and if they don't knock it off, the consequences they are visiting on Iraqis will be brought back home to their own populace.

Note that I don't agree with this approach; it is brinksmanship, not diplomacy, and therefore a high-risk strategy with severe down-side. My only point is we don't really know what the objective was, so it's difficult to evaluate whether the action taken was warranted.

That's why I said it seems. Every thing that's going on now points to that fact. Most poignantly the sending of Patriot missiles and aircraft carriers. Other pointers to that fact include this inc

I think your scenario is very much less likely because it is an incidence which, if it engenders a military reaction from Iran will lead to war. If your scenario is correct how do you explain the Bush Executive order, his statement in the speech and the movement of carriers and patriot missiles to allies in the gulf? How do you explain the circulation of intel to Washington Thinktanks which have in turn started talking up the Iranian threat?

Where I do agree with you is that it's a play to his base and to anti-Iran hawks who are not a few people. That's what is in it for him.

He just created conditions wherein even if he doesn't invade Iran the next President almost certainly will. If you want to chat about this (Newsvine chat feature) I can extensively show the basis of my judgement.

you hate america! america-hater!

nah but I sold (gave away) my USA #1 tee-shirt

why give it away? i sold mine to goreporter for a hundred bucks. told her that it "had santorum all over it."

Bonus points to anyone who gets firsty's disgusting joke :-)

there is nothing disgusting about love, sweet love.

there is something disgusting about what can be left on the floor after such love :-)

Depends on what the overall point of this war actually is -- that is why Bush went after Saddam in the first place. Killfile floated the notion of it being intended to be a perpetual war, which might be true and could have a twisted kind of logic for a Machiavellian mind like Cheney.

Killfile floated the notion of it being intended to be a perpetual war, which might be true and could have a twisted kind of logic for a Machiavellian mind like Cheney.

I did? Where?

(Seriously, I think that was someone else)

Thought you did, on one of your articles a few days ago. If not -- hey, I'll take credit for it.

On a related note, the NYT reports that Bush authorized the attack.

I would assume so, given that it's diplomatic status was at least an issue, if not a fact. Thanks for the link.

Iran says it was.. Iraq says it was... since it is agreed between the two sovereign nations who have a concern in the case of setting up diplomatic missions in this situation, it does not matter what the US government says... for all intense and purposes for international treaties, it WAS a diplomatic mission and the US has just violated one of the longest standing international relation taboos.

The only way the US would be right in this case that the building was not a consulate woudl be if Iraq is not a sovereign nation... but then... that would not be what Bush has told us.

Which is it righties... has Bush been lying to us or has Bush just committed an act of unprovoked aggression?

I wouldn't say the aggression was unprovoked. Doesn't matter either way. Consulates are used for nefarious purposes all the time. There's a way to deal with that under International Law, which does not include attacking it. Not that that would trouble Shrub any at this point.

No, Celestina has it right. We're now playing chicken with regional, if not even wider war, at stake. We will have supporters, despite our actions. The Saudis, Egypt, probably Syria, too. But so will Iran. Turkey will side with them to keep the Kurds at bay, as well as all Russias newly re-cowed client states.

Hopefully, Russia, China, India and Pakistan will stay out, otherwise we're off to the races, folks.

The Saudis, Egypt and Jordan may not side with US. Jordan and Egypt already STRONGLY condemned the new Bush direction.

A war against Iran started by US intemperate provocation would break off a bit of US support.

If it all blows up, Egypt and Jordan and Syria will all side against Iran, not with us, but that will still put them on our side. Turkey will side against the Kurds, not with Iran, but that will still put them with Iran. Kind of like the independent voters voting against Republicans not for Democrats, if you see what I mean.

Know much about how WWI started? Look at the relationships, pre-war, among the parties on either side. Many were not friends, they just shared common enemies. As states moved to support one side, their enemies moved to the other. That's how it became the first World War, almost by accident.

my god, thats the best post i've read in 3 months! good work.

yes. pity modern economic realities don't match this vision. I wonder if they can conquer enough quickly enough to balance the trade deficit caused by the spending required to finance this adventure?

good point Djehuty. another economic factor that is troubling is the continual decline of the dollar; the crazier the u.s. gets the more divestment occurs. part of the of whole iranian neo-con concern is that iran has planned on opening an oil bourse based on the euro, not the dollar. once oil is widely traded in euros the u.s. economy is sunk.

part of the of whole iranian neo-con concern is that iran has planned on opening an oil bourse based on the euro, not the dollar

At first I rather discounted this idea, but it seems to be the real root of Iran's "sins" - other than pissing off AIPAC, that is.

That stems of course from my belief that Iran is less likely (or at worst no more likely) to use nukes (should they eventually develop them, which over the next 20 years is probably inevitable) than Israel, Pakistan or India.

No kidding. I have told four well-educated people about this event in the last day and a half, and they were all more than a little amazed. They had no idea this had happened. Why do I get the feeling that, two months from now, this event is going to become fodder for "conspiracy theory" dismissals, when Iran is "misbehaving" and people say "yeah...but remember when we attacked the consulate?"

Consulate? What consulate? What crazy, left-wing news outlets have you been reading?

I had the same experience at a dinner party tonight. A good friend, who is hip enough to odd foreign affairs news that he knows the name of the pilot of the Enola Gay (which dropped the bomb on Hiroshima) (and by the way, it's Paul Tibbetts), had no idea.

Of course, just 'cause it's on Newsvine doesn't mean that it's the real thing, either. We also discussed over dinner the (ultimately false) reports of a nuclear explosion in/near an Iranian nuke testing site. The official explanation ultimately was that it was dynamite used during road construction...

Synthesis here's exactly what is going on. The case for invasion of Iran is being made right now. The plans are at an advanced stage. In the last two weeks, the Bushies distributed dossiers on Iran to Thinktanks in Washington playing up its connection to terrorism. The Bushies are counter-intuitively linking Iran directly with Sunni terrorism in Iraq. The President issued a secret executive order to attack Iranian targets in Iraq but there are indications that action can be done within Iran itself. The new Bush plan for Iran seeks to use the media to demonise Iran for its role in terrorism, and that's being done right now. US allies are being mobilised against Iran right now.

Most people long thought Iran was the real threat to the US at the time Saddam was taken out. The sentiment against Iran is strong. The Iran threat though definitely existent has been distorted and exaggerated just like Iraq was at the time.

A lot of people think that the US can not attack Iran the military being stretched but they are wrong. If Bush succeeds in his goal of getting Iranian forces to react militarily or if when they go after Iran's Shiite allies in Iraq and Iranian interests with Shiite militias reacting, the war will be escalated and the American public will be right behind it.

If there's a major war against Iran, people will enlist in droves most probably.

Synthesis, what's going on now is something very significant. The silence about it should show you what's going on and the direction in which things are moving.

The info about it is out there too. Chances are that if you underrate what is going on , you are not seeking out news about it. I spent yesterday researching what's going on and was amazed.

172 comments on a thread about a possible slide to a major war is nothing since those liberals are sick, I am leaving Newsvine stories routinely get many more comments.