Dubya's Diplomatic Efforts With The Iranians

More proof of Iraq's "sovereignty"! Its government invites a neighbouring nation to send a diplomatic mission, and members of that mission are arrested by the armed forces of a remote country on the other side of the world... and the government is powerless to rescue its own guests!

"Sovereignty" as in "slavery", it seems... and "independent government" as in "bunch of Quislings".

what exactly is the STRATEGIC INTEREST of the United States? Too late to keep a lid on nuclear tech since Israel has it, and has consistently misused their power. If I spoke for Iran, I would take the position it has taken.

The real STRATEGIC INTEREST of the US lies in joining the world body and doing what contributes to a global, not US community. Furthermore, the neocon/fundamentalist sector has become a problem even to the republican party, why should THEY determine what is our "strategic interest"?

I love the bit about deploying Patriot missiles to reassure allies. As far as I'm aware that's all it's good for being designed primarily as a SAM system to shoot planes, and there being precious little evidence it's EVER shot down an incoming missile while on active service.

I love the bit about deploying Patriot missiles to reassure allies. As far as I'm aware that's all it's good for being designed primarily as a SAM system to shoot planes, and there being precious little evidence it's EVER shot down an incoming missile while on active service.

I agree: funnily enough I posted on the same topic this morning:
http://thedurruticolumn.blogspot.com/2007/01/iran.html

Couple this with the leaks about the Israelis training to nuke Iranian nuclear facilities and we are clearly being softened up for something nasty.

The Durruti Column
http://thedurruticolumn.blogspot.com/

She used to be quite good-looking but my Mom reckons evil people begin to look it in the end - thass Con-Dolor innit?

I think the theory that we are being prepared for more ideologically and financially inspired butchery is right on the money, what with Tony giving a speech about how Britain must become a 'Warrior Nation' and become involved in more international conflicts. I have seldom heard such certifiable lunacy even from him.

I'm Scottish, and by no means a nationalist, but I'll tell you something I firmly believe to be true. A large majority of Scots who otherwise support the Union will probably vote for independence this year, not through misplaced dreams of nationhood, xenophobia, or jingoism, but just to get away from Tony Blair and New Labour. That's a sad state of affairs.

Of course it does raise the question... were we to vote for nationhood and secede - would Tony ensure the Bushite definition of 'Democracy' is returned to Scotland down the barrel of a gun?

Well considering how Bush explain Sovereignty... One can gets a much clearer picture...

Over to Youtube

BATAVIA, IL–President Bush met with members of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory research team Monday to discuss a mathematical error he recently discovered in the famed laboratory's "Improved Determination Of Tau Lepton Paths From Inclusive Semileptonic B-Meson Decays" report.

1. It wasn't a Consulate. It was just a building that some Iranians were in. Doing what? I imagine assembling food parcels for starving Sunnis.

2. The Patriot missile system is very effective at shooting down incoming missile fire. It's not an offensive system, and you don't know much if you think otherwise.

3. Running away from Iraq is not an option. We have to stay and defeat the Islamists. Retreat would ignite a full-scale civil war, and probably result in one/two/three failed states with Al Qaeda in de facto control of at least one. You don't seem to understand that when Ahmadinejad says he wants to destroy America and Israel, he means it.

Retreat would ignite a full-scale civil war

While staying will do what, precisely? If pro-war advocates are reduced to arguing over the scale of the civil war, a bit more of a humble attitude and an apology would be welcome.

It's not an offensive system, and you don't know much if you think otherwise.

Who said it was? I'm more interested in precisely which states it's being deployed to and whether there's a genuine threat it can counter. I suspect it's a classic case of 'deploy a defensive weapons system to give the impression that you're scared some nutter will attack you and are taking responsible precautions'. The Egyptians did the same before starting the 1973 war with Israel, and succeeded in fooling everyone. I doubt the Iranians will be taken in - our planners aren't as bright as the Egyptians were back then.

We have to stay and defeat the Islamists.

Which ones? I count the following, for many of which the destruction of one or more of the others would be extremely good news. Pick which Islamists you want to destroy and I'll tell you which Islamists will be highly delighted. Unless of course you want to kill the lot of them, in which case you should see a psychologist.

a) al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia
b) Salafist indigenous factions
c) the Mahdi Army
d) the Badr Corps
e) the neo-Baathists
f) the Iranian Revolutionary Guard
h) SCIRI
g) Da'wa
h) Shi'ite warlords in the south

I've probably missed a few out, but that lot includes the majority of the 'secular' Iraqi Parliament, so it's reasonably comprehensive. All of them are pretty much entirely Muslim, so you can safely smear the tag 'Islamist' over them. Hopefully it will conceal the real, important differences long enough to make you feel better about the whole mess.

As for al-Qaeda being in charge of a rump Sunni state, get real. It's more likely to be controlled by whichever Iraqi faction (local tribes, local Salafis) comes out on top in the resulting Sunni civil war. My money's on some bunch of warlords and gangsters, personally - I don't think al-Qaeda has the staying power. Mind you, if we carry on blowing the crap out of it, who knows? The longer we stay the worse it gets, and the worse it gets, the better it is for al-Qaeda.

Martin,

It wasn't a Consulate. It was just a building that some Iranians were in.

Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a former Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense who is regarded as a "Legal Commentator, [and] Terrorism Expert", writes in the National Review's The Corner that it was a consulate that was raided:

So in neo-con circles (you know, the ones who think running away from Iraq is not an option) at least it is thought a consulate was raided. Other news sources are more circumspect. Whether or not it was a consulate, what is beyond doubt is that the Iraqi/Kurdish authorities authorised the Iranians to be there. Some news sources are saying some of those arrested were diplomats as happened in December, others are saying that those arrested were consular staff. Either way it's a serious provocation. The Washington Post says:

If it was "just a building that some Iranians were in" then why would Russian Foreign Ministry denounce the attack as "the crudest possible violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations."?

You don't seem to understand that when Ahmadinejad says he wants to destroy America and Israel, he means it.

When did Ahmadinejad say that exactly? If you're referring to the "Israel must be wiped off the map" line that every Western politician and news source seem to be quoting, well that has been debunked as propaganda:

When you look at the bellicose statements coming out of Washington, London and Tel-Aviv and what seems to be happening on the ground, it looks more those regimes want Iran eliminated from the pages of history.