Thursday, January 11, 2007

A Downpayment on 1979

According to the Washington Post, the US raided the Iranian consulate in Irbil, northern Iraq, hours after President Bush announced he would crack down on the Islamic Republic's role in Iraqi violence. Iran has protested. US forces were said to have seized computers, documents and detained five persons. The consulate in Irbil isn't the only Iranian consulate in the country. There's another one in Basra, which was recently beseiged by Iraqi Shi'ites upset at operations said to be run out of the Iranian diplomatic mission. This report was run by NewsGD in June of 2006.

Hundreds of followers of an Iraqi Shiite cleric Wednesday stormed the Iranian consulate in Basra, some 550 km south of Baghdad, throwing stones and setting fire at a building in the diplomatic complex. Followers of Ayatollah Mahmoud al-Hassani al-Sarkhi were protesting against the Iranian interference in Iraq's internal affairs and a program shown on Iranian television that accused their cleric leader of being an Israeli agent, media reports from Basra said.

According to the reports, the protesters, chanting slogans against the Iranian satellite channel, climbed the roof of the consulate and raised the Iraqi flag to replace the Iranian flag. The protesters also stoned the consulate complex and rushed into the buildings after a Shiite cleric read a statement before the crowd, demanding apology from the Iranian government.

The US raid was probably very restrained by comparison, as they apparently didn't set the place on fire, unlike the consulate which was stormed by a mob in Basra.


Blogger 49erDweet said...

"Ain't that a shame". Protested, you say. Too bad.

1/11/2007 06:24:00 AM  
Blogger Deuce ☂ said...

There is only one power that is benefiting from the mess in Iraq and that is Iran. Bush removed the natural enemy to Iran with the deposing of Saddam and the fragmentation of Iraq. Saddam went to the gallows refusing to believe that Bush could not have noticed that. Saddam's last words were, "Who is Muqtada?" He went out cursing the Iranians. Saddam knew the real enemy, but time ran out for him.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to kick off a four-day tour Saturday to Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

"Ahmadinejad will start his visit with a trip to Venezuela to hold official talks with his counterpart President Hugo Chavez," the Kayhan newspaper quoted a presidential statement as saying.

Bush could do something very daring. Why not arrest Ahmadinejad for his participation in the US embassy kidnapping of American diplomats in Teheran? It may be a usefullessons to some of the new crop of Fidel want-to-be's.
Here is all the proof he need to make the charge Link

1/11/2007 06:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, a war on 2 front isn't stupid enough. Let's open a 3rd one!

1/11/2007 08:59:00 AM  
Blogger Judge William said...

sirk.. Since you haven't noticed, the war is already on. The problem is there's only been one side shooting.

It's simply way past time we start fighting back.

1/11/2007 09:07:00 AM  
Blogger patrick neid said...

a repeat from yesterday:

...." the ultimate solution is always bottom up--long years of struggle changing hearts and minds etc while leaving the purveyors in position to continue spreading this cancer. is there really any difference between radical islam and malignant cancer cells?

is there any argument about who the principal leaders are these days? are they not the leaders of iran, syria, hamas, hezzbollah, al sadr brigades and saudi arabia to name a few? are they not the monsters that spew genocide at their podiums and sanction it at their mosques there and throughout europe and the US?

my question to all these esteemed writers and thinkers is: if radical islam is such a threat why are its political/spiritual leaders allowed to live? we know where they are. why do we have to contemplate bombing entire countries when we could start with the leaders first? would we not have attempted to kill hitler and his generals if we knew where they were?"

again, last night, bush spoke about the devastation that syria and iran are bringing to bear on iraq. for every jihadi we kill or capture they send two, while arm chair pundits here discuss tactics about troop levels. it's so pathetic. my question remains, Why do we let them kill us on a daily basis while we fete these leaders at the UN, our politicians kneel at their feet for TV primetime and these genocidal monsters jet about spewing their murderous ideology? on a positive note more and more pundits are at least now admitting that we should have shot al sadr on site several years ago. how long will it take to come to the same conclusion about the sudanese, iranian, syrian, hamas and hezzbollah leadership?

1/11/2007 09:41:00 AM  
Blogger loboinok said...

Blog Reaction Roundup

1/11/2007 09:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like "The Dunce" might just invade Iran and Syria while he's still in office...God help us.

1/11/2007 10:13:00 AM  
Blogger Herr Wu Wei said...

Looks like Bush sent a strong message. Our troops disarmed the Kurdish troops who were guarding the Iranian consulate.

Iranians Detained

IRNA also quoted an Iraqi Kurdish security official, whom it did not name, as saying that Kurdish forces were responsible for maintaining security in Erbil, including protecting the consulate. American forces “disarmed the Kurdish guards of the consulate and used force to enter the building,” IRNA quoted the Kurdish official as saying.

1/11/2007 10:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Minor-ripper... I'm with you, sorta. I don't want us to invade Iran and Syria. Much easier to just bomb the mo-fos into dust.

1/11/2007 11:51:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Guess you fellows were not in NYC when the "Swamp Gas" filtered through the high rise buildings.

Trouble is it was, most likely, not "swamp gas". Just as likely it was a practice run to send a message of restraint? Well at least to Mr Cheney's 1% Standard of Probability.

Only a few hundred thousand dead in NYC, in response to starting a war against Iran. If that stench had been a aerosoled nerve agent.

An event that dropped into the MSM memory hole, in just under an hour. Just a NJ swamp belching.

Why worry about nuclear devices that may or may not exist, when Japanese religous cults can manufacture basic nerve agents, without State support.

Take a deep wiff and smell the death. Oh wait, that was just a rotten egg.

1/11/2007 01:27:00 PM  
Blogger Herr Wu Wei said...

Looks like al-Sadr is out of the government for good. He left it in a "temporary" boycott in November, but now they say he isn't coming back. Maliki is moving ahead to replace the cabinet members who were from Sadr's party. That may explain why Maliki said it is ok to crack down on Sadr.

Article quotes in bold:

Maliki Sadr Breakup

Indeed, in November, Sadr ordered the 30 parliamentarians and four ranking government officials of his political bloc to end participation in the government in protest of Maliki's meeting with President Bush. Meanwhile, Sadr's Mahdi Army continues to ethnically cleanse districts in Baghdad. Says Rikabi about Maliki's problems with Sadr: "It's not only the boycott." But for starters, Rikabi said Maliki will move to fill the four cabinet posts left empty by officials loyal to Sadr.

When Sadr's supporters first withdrew from Maliki's coalition government, both sides downplayed the rift. Nasar al-Rubaie, the head of the Sadr bloc in parliament, described the boycott as a temporary protest, saying the move did not represent an indefinite withdrawal from the government. And politicians of Maliki's Dawa party said the Sadr faction was likely to return in a short time, perhaps a matter of days. But both sides seem to have lost interest in remaking an alliance since then. Sadr has made no meaningful move to rejoin the government, even as Maliki's office seemed to hold the door open for his return through November and December. Rikabi and others close to Maliki say Sadr is no longer considered a workable ally. "Sadr's people have their own political vision, and we definitely do not agree with them," says Kamal al-Sa'iday, a minister of parliament and longtime confidant to Maliki from the Prime Minister's Dawa party. "And Sadr's followers have decided themselves to leave the political process."

1/11/2007 02:04:00 PM  
Blogger Mike H. said...

DR is right. We don't want to piss off our betters, they might hurt us.
In the final analysis sharia is better than being in pain because we did something stupid. That's why our culture is wrong, women are only chattle (and impure) so an honor killing here or there is nothing. We should approach the members of the Religion of Peace with deference.
No blood for liberty! Has a ring to it doesn't it. It could make a nice chant?

1/11/2007 02:06:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

But mike h, it has nothing to do with pissing of your betters, it has to do with being a Boy Scout. US preparedness sucks.

Still crazy after all these years.

War with the Religion of Peace? Who is kidding who?

Mr Bush's allies in the US Senate promise to filibuster any attempt to stymie his Iraq Surge. A comforting thought, to be sure.

But to go to War with Iran, where would those Congressional votes come from?
To do it on his own, well, Mr Bush could start it. But the costs could be much higher than anyone wants to discuss.

Better Tel Aviv get nuked, than NYC struck with a viable nerve agent, at least from a successful "Over There" strategy perspective.

Or let US have the Congress Declare War on Iran.

1/11/2007 02:30:00 PM  
Blogger Herr Wu Wei said...

> But to go to War with Iran, where would those Congressional votes come from?

Actually one of the Democratic leaders already came out saying that he favors military action if necessary to stop Iran from getting nukes. The difference is threat to Israel, that not acting would be seen as being anti-Jewish, which would hurt in the election.

1/11/2007 02:35:00 PM  
Blogger Herr Wu Wei said...

> Mr Bush's allies in the US Senate promise to filibuster any attempt to stymie his Iraq Surge

And the Democrats say they've already got the votes to beat the filibuster. Assuming Lieberman supports the president, the dems only need 10 turncoat republicans, and at least 13 have already had some disagreement with the surge.

There's no doubt they'll vote to condemn the surge in a way that has no legal force. I don't know if they'll be able to stop the war though. Bush doesn't seem to care, cutting back his speech to 20 minutes from a planned 40 yesterday. Someone in the White House said something like "The speech doesn't matter, only the battle does". Absolutely insane, IMO, for Bush to risk that. Bob Novak said a couple of weeks ago that only 13 Republicans Senators would vote with the President, and the polls have gotten a lot worse since.

For years Bush has refused to answer his critics, only giving his pep talk speeches at army bases. Bush has always loved playing chicken, where he drives straight ahead and assumes that the other guy will blink. The result could be a catastrophy, with everyone turned off on the war on terror, and the Republican party crushed like after Vietnam.

1/11/2007 02:44:00 PM  
Blogger Herr Wu Wei said...

So what is the President going to do about this?

Al Qaeda in Pakistan

Al Qaeda's leaders are Holed up in a secure hide-out in Pakistan, from which they are revitalizing their bruised but resilient network, U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte said on Thursday.

In an unusually direct statement on the whereabouts of the militant group's top echelon, Negroponte told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that Pakistan is the center of a web of al Qaeda connections that stretches across the globe into Europe.

"Al Qaeda is the terrorist organization that poses the greatest threat to U.S. interests," the U.S. director of national intelligence said in his annual assessment of worldwide threats against the United States and its interests.

1/11/2007 04:09:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

If the raid on the Iranian "consulate" produces something equivalent to the Zimmermann telegram, even those most opposed to the Iraq war will have a hard time preventing Congressionally approved action against Iran. A comprehensive invasion isn't necessary, as the maps of Iran's hydrology, oil/gas deposits, and demography will show. Check out this thread and especially the links provided by "allen": EB

1/11/2007 04:11:00 PM  
Blogger Utopia Parkway said...

Better Tel Aviv get nuked, than NYC struck with a viable nerve agent, at least from a successful "Over There" strategy perspective.

Um, no. Allowing an ally to be annihilated doesn't count as a successful strategy of any kind.

A successful "Over There" strategy involves us killing our enemies, "Over There." Triaging our friends is not a good plan.

As Allen points out, the Iranians are vulnerable. Their economy is in a shambles. From what I read young people have no chance of being able to buy a place to live in Teheran because there aren't enough homes and their young women are mostly choosing the oldest profession as their career path. If we damage or destroy the regime's main source of income the govt is likely to fall.

If our govt had the cojones this could be done like the Cuban missile crisis. We blockade them, make demands regarding their nuclear program, and if they don't comply we destroy their source of income and their hidden nuke plants.

More likely the Israelis will realize that they can't destroy the nuke sites and will target the oil infrastructure instead. In the brouhaha lately about the supposed Israeli plan to use nukes on the Iranians there was mention of the Turks helping the Israelis. If this is true the game changes quite a bit. If the Israelis have a safe haven in Turkey from which to launch attacks against Iran they can do so for a period of weeks. Why did Bush mention Patriot missiles during his speech. Do the insurgents have ballistic missiles all of a sudden?

1/11/2007 09:39:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Exactly C4.
But what if we were to start the Campaign of Destruction, against one of those five, first.

The next strike against US being an obvious retaliatory strike. After a "preemptive" strike on Iran, for example.

If we were to start an Iranian War, the Mohammedans would claim justification in striking back.
The WMD aspect of nerve agents is as great a threat of mass casualties as nuclear devices, in as much as the "test" in NYC already indicated.
Colorless, odorless, with New Yorkers starting to drop like flies, bleeding from the eyes, there would be no where to run.

The answer being to increase the op tempo against the Iranians?

1/12/2007 08:01:00 AM  
Blogger Peter said...

At least we didn't burn it down like that mob in Basra? So our diplomatic standard is now a mob in Basra? Really? And storming diplomatic soil is fine when it's Iranian soil (as it is) , but we can be outraged when Iranians took our embassy in Teheran?

Here's my moral framework. We're the good guys. We play by long-understood rules, like respecting diplomatic niceties. That's what good countries do. Provoking war by invading consulates is not what good countries do.

One further comment: regardless of what intelligence this raid yields, this Administration's ability to wave ANYTHING around as evidence to go to war was compromised permanently four years ago. Nobody in the rest of the world, and MOST people here wouldn't believe it for a second, and if you would, it shows that you've learned nothing.

1/12/2007 09:58:00 AM  
Blogger Alexis said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1/12/2007 10:33:00 AM  
Blogger Alexis said...

It technically wasn't a consulate. It was a "liaison office" that would have been called a consulate once the proper paperwork was filed.

It's a hazy definition. That hasn't kept the Russians from condemning the American action, though. I wonder what Russia would have to say about a crazy mob of fanatics storming an American embassy and making a public show of torturing American diplomats? Oh yeah, the Russians are selling nuclear technology to them right now...

Russians condemn US raid

1/12/2007 10:57:00 AM  
Blogger Herr Wu Wei said...

I agree with those who say that it probably wasn't a consulate, and so the individuals there didn't have consular immunity. But even if they did, consular level people can be arrested for felonies.

Also, even if they had been full fledged diplomats, "Reasonable constraints, however, may be applied in emergency circumstances involving self-defense, public safety, or the prevention of serious criminal acts".

This is just another attempt to blame the US for something any country would do. The right of self-defense applies above all.

Diplomatic Immunity

1/12/2007 11:33:00 AM  
Blogger Cas said...

Someone mentioned earlier,"Yeah, a war on 2 front isn't stupid enough. Let's open a 3rd one!"
If you would glance at a map, you would see that troops in Afghanistan are already on the "eastern front," those in Iraq are on the "western front," and the troops in Kuwait and Qatar, not to mention the Navy Carrier Groups in the Gulf, comprise the "southern front" of the war that will be fought to deny Iran nuclear weapons. I think that the State Dept desperately needs to identify those student and union leaders who oppose President Ahmadinejad, so that we have some communication into Iran before any further "provocative statements" by the mullahs or president turn into the reason for the full scale invasion everyone anticipates...

1/12/2007 02:26:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger