TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- US storms 'Iran consulate' in Arbil
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »

US storms 'Iran consulate' in Arbil

quote:

US forces, backed by helicopters, have raided the Iranian consulate's offices in Arbil, the Kurdish capital in northern Iraq, Iranian officials said. A number of arrests were made and computers and documents seized during Thursday's operation. A Pentagon spokesman denied that the building raided was an Iranian consulate. An Iranian foreign ministry official said US troops arrested five staff members, including diplomats and staff. ...

US storms 'Iran consulate' in Arbil

Re: US storms 'Iran consulate' in Arbil

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller US storms 'Iran consulate' in Arbil

Isn't this akin to a declaration of war? I think the US is too spread out for a conflict with Iran. It's making the mistake many empires have made in the past, opening to many fronts at the same time.

By nearly all contexts, this is a Declaration of War to storm another country's consolate, threaten to kill them if they resist surrendering, and detain consolate officers.

Bush also stated this last night:

quote:

(accusing the Iranian gov't of) �providing material support for attacks on American troops� (vowed to)�seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies.�

The latter quote is interesting in context, considering those networks are located INSIDE Iran itself. He also stated last night:

quote:

�I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.�

And one of his key tactical shifts include:

quote:

increase operations against Iranian actors http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/iraq/...ategy011007.pdf

As the NYTimes notes:

quote:

�One senior administration official said this evening that the omission of the usual wording about seeking a diplomatic solution [to the Iranian nuclear stand-off] �was not accidental.�� http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/w...agewanted=print

Glenn Greenwald notes this pattern is not new:

quote:

But these were merely the latest in a series of plainly significant events over the last several weeks that, taken alone, are each noteworthy themselves, but when viewed as a whole unmistakably signal a deliberate escalation of tensions with Iran by both the U.S. and Israel: * Israel's Prime Minister "accidentally" ending decades of nuclear ambiguity by unambiguously acknowledging Israel's nuclear arsenal; * New Defense Secretary Robert Gates's extraordinary departure -- the very same week -- from long-standing protocol by explicitly describing Israel as a nuclear power; * The arrest by the U.S. military of senior Iranian military officials in Iraq; * The announced build-up of forces in the Persian Gulf back in December, the purpose of which -- according to Bush officials -- "is to make clear that the focus on ground troops in Iraq has not made it impossible for the United States and its allies to maintain a military watch on Iran" (UPDATE: As well as this incident revealing the placement of a nuclear-powered submarine in the Straits of Hormuz); * The leaking by the Israeli military that Israel was developing plans for an attack on Iran using small-grade, limited tactical nuclear weapons. Though the leak was done in such a way as to create plausible deniability as to its significance -- the leak was to a discredited newspaper and leaks that a country has "planned" for a certain type of attack are commonplace and do not mean they are actually going to attack -- the leak was nonetheless deliberate and caused the phrases "Israeli nuclear attack" and "Iran" to be placed into the public dialogue, at exactly the time that tensions have been deliberately heightened between the U.S./Israel and Iran -- the purpose of which is almost certainly not a planned nuclear attack by Israel on Iran, but a ratchering up of the war rhetoric; * Increasingly explicit advocacy by neoconservatives in the U.S. for a war with Iran, as reflected by the recent Washington Post Op-Ed by Joe Lieberman in which he really did declare that the U.S. is already at war with Iran ("While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran"); * in the later stages of 2006, the President's most prominent neoconservative supporters becoming increasingly explicit about their advocacy of war with Iran; * The transparent and deliberate use by the President throughout the last several months of 2006 of highly threatening and accusatory language towards Iran that is identical in content and tone to the language he used towards Iraq in the months immediately preceding the U.S. invasion -- often verbatim identical. http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/...wards-iran.html

I think the point Glenn makes next cannot be stressed enough:

quote:

More importantly, a war with Iran can happen in many ways other than by some grand announcement by the President that he wants to start a war, followed by a debate in Congress as to whether such a war should be authorized. That is the least likely way for such a confrontation to occur. We have 140,000 troops (soon to be 20,000 more) sitting in a country that borders Iran and where Iran is operating, with an announced military build-up in the Persian Gulf imminent, increased war rhetoric from all sides, the beginning of actual skirmishes already, a reduction (if not elimination) on the existing constraints with which our military operates in Iraq, and a declaration by the President that Iran is our enemy in the current war. That makes unplanned -- or seemingly unplanned -- confrontations highly likely, whether through miscalculation, miscommunication, misperception, or affirmative deceit. Whatever else is true, given the stakes involved -- the unimaginable, impossible-to-overstate stakes -- and the fact that we are unquestionably moving forward on this confrontational path quite deliberately, this issue is receiving nowhere near the attention in our political discussions and media reports that it so urgently demands. For all the pious talk about the need to be "seriously concerned" and give "thoughtful consideration" to what will happen if we leave Iraq, there is a very compelling -- and neglected -- need to ponder what will happen if we stay and if we escalate. And the need for "serious concern" and "thoughtful consideration" extends to consequences not just in Iraq but beyond.

This is beyond alarming. It's as if Bush is deliberately putting us in harm's way of an accidental fight and THEN declare ensuing war. I'm so fucking sick of his bullshit. The extremism that's driving this nutbag by now is more than frightening - he's going to fucking take us off the cliff all at once.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 This is beyond alarming. It's as if Bush is deliberately putting us in harm's way of an accidental fight and THEN declare ensuing war. I'm so fucking sick of his bullshit. The extremism that's driving this nutbag by now is more than frightening - he's going to fucking take us off the cliff all at once.

Well, way I figure it he's committed the US to Iraq for at least 4-5years there (the following repurcussions will last a generation regardless) and even... please, if he's voted out of office you'll be picking up the crap from that regardless.
It was very unfunny yesterday to hear him refer to things... I'll dig up the quote.

quote:

In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.

Scary stuff! 'Scary' enough for people to vote him in for another term? Especially when 'disaster' is left so open ended for a brief... what kind of 'disaster' are we talking about?

quote:

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.

Hmm. So, looks like youre in for some more spending on internal security as well, jez, this guys bleeding cash quicker than Ronnie Raygun and his space lasers!
But, given that people are less inclined to vote people out of office when theres some kind of conflict going on, its a fair enough threat to possibly frighten people into voting him back in. After all, the foreign invaders make such a better target than the local invaders running amok in the backyard and even if you do vote him out.

The mess will still be there, a big mess that the current opposition party is going to have to find a solution for in any case. What might get them out of trouble is to have a huge reworking of foreign diplomacy to the degree that the likes of which the US hasnt seen in well over 60years.

To add to your solid points, Lilith, does anyone think he'll make a surprise pitch for an emergency 3rd term? Especially if he stumbles into a war with Iran? He's arrogant enough to push for that-->"I'm the war president! I'm the decider!"

I think its all bullshit, especially the posturing for the war with Iran. This guy is nuts, and as VenomX put it, he's exposed on too many fronts and doesn't have enough troops or money to do it right (right being a figure of seepch of course).

It's anybody's guess at this point when it's all gonna go down with Iran. I'm guessing 6-8 months if not sooner.

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse ... I think its all bullshit, especially the posturing for the war with Iran. This guy is nuts, and as VenomX put it, he's exposed on too many fronts and doesn't have enough troops or money to do it right (right being a figure of seepch of course). ...

Well, he has a nuclear arsenal ready.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 This is beyond alarming. It's as if Bush is deliberately putting us in harm's way of an accidental fight and THEN declare ensuing war. I'm so fucking sick of his bullshit. The extremism that's driving this nutbag by now is more than frightening - he's going to fucking take us off the cliff all at once.

I expect that this plan has been in the works for years now, but it occurs to me that it has a remarkably un-Bush-like feel. Oh, he's certainly quite the inveigler, but there is a subtlety and an insidiousness to this stratagem which is a marked departure from his usual blustering.

It may simply be that his unpopularity has prompted him to pursue his aims more discreetly, but I am not even certain that Bush himself has been entirely complicit with regards to this plan. We all know he's easy enough to manipulate.

he putting Iran on notice knowing full well what Iran is capable of and knowing what Iran isn't capable of. last night's speech was to Iran as much as it was to the American people.

instead of playing defence on what Iran is capable of, ie exported terror and the deliberate undermining of soveriegn moderate governments, making nukes, he is holding Iran accountable in the big Greater Middle East picture and he has quiet backing of every single moderate Arab government in the region. we all know what Iran isnt capable of militarily, and nothing is more resolute than a carrier battle group sitting off your coast much less two.

you can call me a liar if you want, but i believe he is now at his zenith politically in the Middle East and is on firm ground with regard to Iran and Iraq.

here, it's a different story and it is a reflection of the media and self serving political climate that dictate what we think foreign policy should or shouldn't be.

rebut?

This is fuckin disturbing.Serioulsy what is the U.S trying to accomplish by this?are they trying to force Iran to go to war with them? Are they trying to make some lame excuse once again to convince the world for another war?

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer This is fuckin disturbing.Serioulsy what is the U.S trying to accomplish by this?are they trying to force Iran to go to war with them? Are they trying to make some lame excuse once again to convince the world for another war?

Simple answer, yes.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Simple answer, yes.

Messed up, IMO. I'm tired of being of war. Like 1984, we will be at war with any one nation at all times.

Unless we stop it.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer This is fuckin disturbing.Serioulsy what is the U.S trying to accomplish by this?are they trying to force Iran to go to war with them? Are they trying to make some lame excuse once again to convince the world for another war?

how can you force Iran to go to war with America? do you think they are that gullible?

Iran has taken it upon themselves to not be ignored. somebody has to answer.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo how can you force Iran to go to war with America? do you think they are that gullible? Iran has taken it upon themselves to not be ignored. somebody has to answer.

Certainly no one else has the balls to do it...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Iran has taken it upon themselves to not be ignored. somebody has to answer.

ya how can we forget??they kill and torture and terrorise the whole world,they must be punished.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Certainly no one else has the balls to do it...

God bless America for having balls to go and destroy other countries

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer God bless America for having balls to go and destroy other countries

What?
Unlike your buddy Saddam and Iraq?
Or Iran and their underhandedness?

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer God bless America for having balls to go and destroy other countries

LOL .

DEATH TO IRAN!!!!



there i said it, lets go out and burn little pictures of the Ayatolla. Lets burn the Iranian Flag and chant death to Iran....

Rahhh!
[Fires gun in the air!]


Crap!
[realises still inside]

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Rahhh! [Fires gun in the air!] Crap! [realises still inside]

That's where that bullet came from. * stomps on the floor *

Maybe there really are more things in common between Bush and Hitler than I was originally willing to admit. Opening up another front against a country that looks weak and is ideologically "wrong", but obviously has the drive to fight to the death(or more accurately has people in charge that are willing to sacrifice the lives of their people until they win) was what destroyed pretty much any chance the Third Reich had of actually winning.

Oh no dont go there, aren't you aware of 'Godwin's Law' of internet arguments?

It is sad that the US hasn't learned it's lesson on how the culture of these countries work. Attacking Iran won't divide them more, or weaken them, it will only create more ammunition for the extremists and drive the people of Iran to the arms of those extremists. I wonder if they really think that attacking them is going to drive the moderates to say 'hey maybe we should bend over and take it up the ass some more, yeah!'. I mean it certainly worked in Lebanon right? Wasn't Hezbollah disarmed recently?! I guess americans have it right, ignorance is bliss.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r What? Unlike your buddy Saddam and Iraq? Or Iran and their underhandedness?

what did removing and killing Saddam do to make the world safer you moron?

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Oh no dont go there, aren't you aware of 'Godwin's Law' of internet arguments?

LOL.
Here endth the thread...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.