So what happened to the Coalition...

Parent Cafe
61

<p>Iran set up a “diplomatic” mission in Kurdistan in Irbil in 1996, at the height of Clinton’s genocide against Iraqi children - a million dead, half of them children under the age of five. The Iranian Shiites and the Kurdish Sunnis got on rather well - after all, each had lost hundreds of thousands of their citizens to chemical weapons under the aegis of the Rumsfeld handshake. And each were under continuing threat, and both needed trade outlets.</p>

<p>“Diplomatic” in quotes because, obviously, Kurdistan was not an independent nation - the United States was (and is) not going to allow that, and risk its relations with Turkey, and Saddam Hussein (who had an alliance with the U.S.) was not going to allow it, for obvious reasons. And so the diplomatic relationship, well recognized by everyone, had to remain informal.</p>

<p>After the U.S. invasion and occupation, the occupier was not going to allow a formal relationship to develop and, of course, still won’t allow for an independent Kurdistan to make decisions about its own diplomatic relations. With the election of a new government in Iraq, theoretically that is out of U.S. hands. Almost immediately following the elections, steps were taken to begin to formalize the Iranian diplomatic presence in Kurdistan. In practice, as Madame Secretary Mendaciousness noted yesterday, the U.S. Pres decided “months ago” to prevent this from happening, regardless of what the freely elected Iraqis were to decide.</p>

<p>So, three days ago, heavily armed U.S. terrorists, without permission or even informing either the government of Iraq or of Kurdistan - our supposed allies, invaded the “diplomatic” mission, kidnapped the workers, and continue to hold them hostage. Maliki cancelled his press conference planned to show support for Bush’s new initiative, knowing full well he might be asked what action he would be called on to take to control U.S. terrorist activity.</p>

62

<p>So, Mini, you are saying that these men in a non-consular office with no immunity or diplomatic passports were actually diplomats?</p>

<p>How would I go about responding to the charge that in a war zone these Iranians were possibly helping Iran export terror against Iraqis and Americans?</p>

<p>The thing is, I want to find wrong in America and take Iran’s side because of America’s past injustice against Iran, but I just don’t know what to say when faced with the opinion that these men were alledgedly involved in terror. Faced with the analogy of a foreigner in America committing crimes and being arrested, I was not sure how to respond.</p>

<p>Any ideas on how to articulate fault in America in this situation. Should I just deny that these men were involved in terror?</p>

63

<p>

</p>

<p>In the context of a multi-dimensional civil war in which we can’t even tell who the enemy is, how would you define “exporting terror”?</p>

<p>Are Iranian nationals funnelling support to factions in Iraq and generally stirring up trouble? Yes. </p>

<p>Are Saudi nationals funnelling support to factions in Iraq and generally stirring up trouble? Yes. In fact, the bulk of the suicide bombers in Iraq have been from Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab Gulf states. Just as the bulk of funding for Al Queda has come from Saudi Arabia and other gulf states. But, Saudi Arabia is not “Axis of Evil”.</p>

<p>The reason our position in Iraq is not only untenable, but counterproductive is that we have inserted ourselves into sectarian civil warfare with dynamics that we don’t even understand. For all intents and purposes NONE of the Iraqi military and police forces are loyal to the Green Zone goverment. They are ALL loyal to various and sundry regional and sectarian factions.</p>

<p>At the very least in Iraq today, you have:</p>

<p>Sunnis killing Sunnis
Shiites killing Shiites
Sunnies killing Shiites
Shiites killing Sunnis
Sunni Arabs killing anybody that will escalate tension.
Regional strongmen consolidating power in a geographic locale.</p>

<p>The panel of Iraq experts testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the other day (available on c-span.org) understand the situtation as well as anyone. They all agreed that there will be no political stability in Iraq until the Iraqi people are finished killing each other. And, they won’t be finished killing each other until they have more to lose from the killing than they have to gain – basically not until both fighters are staggering, bloody around the ring unable to muster the strength for another punch. They all spoke of a timeframe measured in years and probably a decade or more. There is no government in Iraq right now. That’s why the population is turning to militias.</p>

<p>I don’t think Mini is trying to paint the Iranians as purer than the driven snow. Iran does a lot of bad things in the region and supports a lot of bad groups. That’s not even really in doubt. The question is how do we deal with it in a way that best serves our national interests.</p>

<p>There is certainly a place for the “stick” in foreign policy. But, to rely on the stick to the exclusion of seeking common interests (as we have done with Iran for 25 years) doesn’t make any sense.</p>

64

<p>“I don’t think Mini is trying to paint the Iranians as purer than the driven snow. Iran does a lot of bad things in the region and supports a lot of bad groups. That’s not even really in doubt. The question is how do we deal with it in a way that best serves our national interests.”</p>

<p>The Iranians are like people of any other nation. They care lots about their national sovereignty, their common defense, their children and their families, a say in their own government. All of these have been made a challenge over the past 60+ years by forces that have tortured, murdered, and gassed them, with numbers reaching into the hundreds of thousands. So they tend not to trust the forces of the nation that has rained terror down on them for so very long amassed on their border. </p>

<p>Let’s remember where, for them, the source of the terror has been. These are highly intelligent, very educated folks; they know their history, they all have dead relatives, friends, children, and parents. It doesn’t make it any easier for them that the capital of this terrorism lies 7,000 miles away. So when they choose to defend themselves - sometimes rationally and sometimes less so - they tend to choose targets a little closer. </p>

<p>“So, Mini, you are saying that these men in a non-consular office with no immunity or diplomatic passports were actually diplomats?”</p>

<p>I am saying exactly what I said. They had no immunity or diplomatic passports because the U.S. refused to honor the democratic rights of the Kurdish people. But both the Iraqis in Baghdad and the Kurds in Kurdistan considered them diplomats, and the U.S. decided to kidnap them because Iraq was firmly on the path to fully recognizing them for what they were.</p>

<p>How would I go about responding to the charge that in a war zone these Iranians were possibly helping Iran export terror against Iraqis and Americans?</p>

<p>Where did you get the strange notion that Irbil is in a war zone? Irbil is the capital of Kurdistan, and there hasn’t been any war there for more than a decade! Irbil is the capital of Kurdistan. As noted before, the Kurds and Iranians have been friends for a long time, united in both having lost hundreds of thousands of people who were gassed under the aegis of the Rumsfeld handshake. Iran “export terror” through Kurdistan? (By arranging the early execution of Saddam Hussein, the United States arranged that the Rumsfeld Handshake - and its role in the gassing of the Kurds - would never be heard at trial.)</p>

<p>In case you’d like to know what the government of Kurdistan feels about the U.S. terrorist kidnapping and hostage-taking, try this:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.krg.org/articles/article_detail.asp?ArticleNr=15703&LangNr=12&LNNr=28&RNNr=70[/url]”>http://www.krg.org/articles/article_detail.asp?ArticleNr=15703&LangNr=12&LNNr=28&RNNr=70&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>"<br>
KRG.org , 11 Jan 2007
Official statement: US raid on consulate of Iran</p>

<p>Statement by the Presidency of the Kurdistan Region and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) regarding the American raid at dawn today on the consulate of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Erbil.</p>

<p>11 January 2007</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Unlike other parts of Iraq, the Kurdistan Region enjoys safety, security, stability and the rule of law. The US action does not conform to the policy of attempting to spread security and stability throughout all of Iraq. No military action should be taken in the Kurdistan Region without consultations with security authorities here.</p>

<p>The people of the Kurdistan Region protest against and reject this action which violates our internal sovereignty. We do not accept that disputes with our neighbouring countries should be brought onto our soil. We call for the immediate release of those arrested. "</p>

<p>Of course, you’ll never see this in your newspaper. The kidnapping and hostage-taking iis frontpage news throughout the Middle East, but here it is barely a footnote.</p>

<p>Again, the only reason this consulate, considered a consulate and recognized as such by the government of Kurdistan under the Vienna Convention is not a consulate is because the U.S. refuses to acknowledge the Kurds’ claim to nationhood. The rest of what we get here is simply U.S. propaganda to prop up American terrorist actions.</p>

65

<p>Mini, what is the “test” for a country’s independance? I have never heard of the vienna convention, but must America recognize a country for it to be a country? </p>

<p>And back to those unofficial diplomats, what about charges of them involved in terror? Should we just deny that? And what if it comes out that they were involved in terrorist activities. How would Iran, Iraq, and America respond? Or would the best thing to do be to still deny that they had any link with terror because by doing that you are rejecting the premise of their arrest and thu “proping” up iran.</p>

<p>I read somewhere, and again dont take my word for it because I do not no really anything about the Middle East, that Iraq and Afghanistan were both Iran’s enemies and both countries border Iran. By this supposed War on Terror, America has taken out Afghanistan and Iraq, two Iranian enemies. This in a way probably had to make Iran happy? Does that matter at all, how should I find fault in America for that?</p>

66

<p>Point of clarity:</p>

<p>America has really NOT “taken out Afganistan and Iraq”.</p>

67

<p>Well, again I am probably wrong, but Saddam and the Taliban were taken out and that was the major threat to iran, and not the hsiite controlled govt in iraq</p>

68

<p>'And back to those unofficial diplomats, what about charges of them involved in terror? Should we just deny that?"</p>

<p>They may have, or they may not. But why would you believe the U.S. Government terrorists’ word for it? Haven’t they lied to you enough? What did you expect them to say - “we invaded a consulate of a foreign nation, kidnapped the workers at gunpoint, held them hostage, and determined that they worked for Bloomingdales”?</p>

69

<p>So you feel the best way to respond to such carges is to simply deny? I think that can work too, considering America’s track record of lying. But how would I explain incentive. What is America’s incentive for capturing Iranian bloomingdale workers when there are real Iranian terrorists out there?</p>

<p>If I use the word consulate or office, as a tool of language, would that help me pain America in the wrong? Even though officially it was not a consulate if I keep using it do you think it will help Irans and hurt America’s case?</p>

70

<p>Personally, I am more pessimistic than, mini. We have madmen steering the course of nations. I feel real lucky if we make it to Jan 20, 2009. The philosophy has been better to have a certain few die now, rather than have possible billions die later. The Strangelove Option.</p>

71

<p>I am confused by what you mean, itstoomuch. Do you think you can make a prediction of what will the situation lok like by 2009?</p>

72

<p>As good as any prediction made by Rice and Family.</p>

73

<p>Some things that won’t go away just because you find them troubling:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>All WMDs will only get easier to make as time goes on, not harder to make.</p></li>
<li><p>Delivering WMDs will always be easier to accomplish than defending against them.</p></li>
<li><p>The spread of Islam seems to have quite a bit of momentum around the world, aided by suicidally open immigration policies in Europe and North America.</p></li>
<li><p>Get used to American soldiers dying trying to stomp out upstart regimes who hate the US and have the capability of making WMDs (which is a lot of countries now, and will only grow with time [see #1, above]).</p></li>
<li><p>WMDs provide unprecedented “leverage” by which the small powers can hassle the huge powers, so the days of a large army deterring attacks are OVER.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Add this all up, and the conclusion I come to is that if it wasn’t Iraq, it would have been someone else whom we suspected had the WMDs and a chip on their shoulder. GET USED TO IT…you can’t un-invent WMDs.</p>

74

<p>“So you feel the best way to respond to such carges is to simply deny? I think that can work too, considering America’s track record of lying. But how would I explain incentive. What is America’s incentive for capturing Iranian bloomingdale workers when there are real Iranian terrorists out there?”</p>

<p>Day Five of the kidnapping/hostage crisis. The Kurdish foreign minister (Sunni) says it was a diplomatic mission. The Iraqi foreign minister (Kurd) says it was a diplomatic mission. The Prime Minister of Iraq (a Shiite) boycotts his own press conference to support the Bush plan because of the kidnapping. The Iranian foreign minister (Shiite) says it is a diplomatic mission, and notes, like the others, that it has been open for 10 years, long before the Occupation.</p>

<p>The only party that says it is NOT a diplomatic mission are the U.S. armed terrorist kidnappers, with a long track record for lying. There may be a reason for believing them, but I can’t imagine what it is. </p>

<p>Incentive? Simple. (talked about earlier on the thread). The U.S. terrorists need to bait the Iranians into a military response, to take the domestic heat off their own lying, deceit, cheating, and occupation.</p>

<p>Does Iran support anti-U.S. elements in Iraq? You bet! Though I think it might be better to look at them as supporting pro-Iranian elements, as they don’t support the Taliban in Afghanistan, and never have. Given the history of the occupying power toward them, and the use of chemical weapons under their aegis against Iran, it would be rather shocking if they didn’t.</p>

75

<p>Was not Iran pleased thatt two enemies-Saddam and Taliban-were taken out</p>

<p>If America wanted to bait Iran why go after bloomingdales workers though…whats wrong wth going after the real deal, especially since it exists and it will help Americas case. Think of the propoganda it will make if it is found out that ‘America Captures Iranians behind Car Bombing Last Week’ Now America kills three birds with one stone…bait Iran and help Americas image in Iraq, and capture a crimminal.</p>

<p>Mini what still confounds me is the diplomtic mission and consulate stuff…officially it was not, unofficially it was.</p>

<p>So, give your extensive expertise, do you think you will be able to give me a direct answer on the following: Do we as American citizens believe our Army on that these men were aid and abbetting terrorism and thus terrorsts themselves or do we believe Iranian government that hese were just innocent unffocial diplomats? And why did you choose what you did, Mini?</p>

<p>What I am having trouble coming to grips with is America and Iran do not have a great track record…</p>

<p>On one hand America, France, Germany, Egypt, Israel, Britain, and the United Nations flat out lied about Iraq having nuclear weapons, America spies illegaly on terrorists, merica illegaly froze the bank accounts of terrorists, America does not spare terrorists who are not going to spare 100’s of people (see tortuing terrorists). This all works against America’s credibiilty.</p>

<p>On the other hand Iran has been exporting terrorism to US, Israel, and the West long before the invasion of Iraq, which incidentally took out an Iranian enemy, Iran has been calling for the destruction of a country, Iranian government has denied a holocaust, Iranians try to build a a-bomb after every reassurance of their security and help w/ a peaceful nuke program. None of that works for Irans credibility. </p>

<p>So I really do not know who to believe. I want to think America is not telling the truth and hat the Iranians are but I cant think of a good way to justify that.</p>

76

<p>You know that America (at least our “illustrious” administration) is not telling the truth. You made reference to just a few of the lies in your own post.</p>

77

<p>So you feel thaat is better to trust the Iranians than the Americans. Why? The list I mentioned, what outweighed the other in makig that decision?</p>

<p>I personally agree with you. What drew the line for me was not Iranian terror, calls for another country to not exist, the building of nuke to use on other country but the fact that America, France, Britain, Germany, Egypt, Israel, and the UN got together and cnspired to lie about WMD. Coupled with the fact that our government dunks terrorists in water, listens in on their conversations, illegaly freezers their own money, regardless of its destination, and imprisons them for indefinte periods of time, make me trust Iran more than America.</p>

78

<p>I don’t belittle the danger of Iran or Syria, Whistler. I think Ahmadinejad with MWD is a very scary thought. On the other hand, America has propped up so many dangerous dictators in the past (including Saddam, before we “took him out”) that we look very scary and hostile ourselves, to a country like Iran.</p>

79

<p>Hmm so then you don’t know who to trust. You rather wait and see the outcome of th Iranian terrorist diplomats before saying I believe Iran or I believe America?</p>

80

<p>

</p>

<p>Mini,</p>

<p>I’m really getting tired of pointing this out - but can you please stop incorrectly citing the 500,000 death number? It is wrong and you know it. Even UNICEF, the organization that came up with the original number DID NOT DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTE THOSE DEATHS TO SANCTIONS.</p>

<p>"UNICEF was annoyed enough with the frequent misinterpretations to send out regular corrective press releases, saying things like: “The surveys were never intended to provide an absolute figure of how many children have died in Iraq as a result of sanctions.” Rather, they “show that if the substantial reductions in child mortality in Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s – in other words if there hadn’t been two wars, if sanctions hadn’t been introduced and if investment in social services had been maintained – there would have been 500,000 fewer deaths of children under five.”</p>

<p>Furtermore, it should be noted that in areas not under Saddam’s control (the Kurdish north) infant mortality rates went DOWN during the sanctions period, indicating that Saddam himself was responsible for the missapropriation of resources that contributed to infant mortality.</p>

<p>Finally, the current Iraqi Ministry of Health, in conjunction with the World Health Organization published a report in 2005 that refuted the saddam-era claims (remember that the UNICEF data was gathered from state doctors, who it was concluded, were pressured to exaggerate death rates in order to score publicity points for Saddam). Under the latest report it is estimated that the death rtate for children under-5 was actully on 40 per 1,000 from 1983 to 2003, not the 59 per 1,000 (1984-1989) and 131 (1994-1999) an average of 93 per 1,000.</p>