NationStates Jolt Archive

It would seem that the President has officially permitted the US Military to go after Iranians in Iraq. What sort of an escalation do you think that this is? Is this a step down the road to going after the Iranians? Hmmm?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/26/us.iran.reut/index.html

Should've been done long ago.

It would seem that the President has officially permitted the US Military to go after Iranians in Iraq. What sort of an escalation do you think that this is? Is this a step down the road to going after the Iranians? Hmmm?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/26/us.iran.reut/index.html

Yes, it's more of a political move to put preassure on the Iranians on the nuclear matter than anything about creating a safer environment in Iraq.

Going from "catch and release" to "authorized to kill" is an escalation, indeed. I wonder if the oversight they've created will work, or if they'll manage to kill innocent iranians though... That could place the US in a nasty pickle, if it happened.

See populations believe their governments, trather than "the evil other" :p

Quoting yourself to "prove" a point. How sad.

Yes, it's more of a political move to put preassure on the Iranians on the nuclear matter than anything about creating a safer environment in Iraq.

Going from "catch and release" to "authorized to kill" is an escalation, indeed. I wonder if the oversight they've created will work, or if they'll manage to kill innocent iranians though... That could place the US in a nasty pickle, if it happened.

It is impossible to prove that someone is innocent or guilty in these cases... Iran will always say the Iranian was innocent, while the US will always say that the killed iranian was guilty.

Their respective populations will believe this thereby allowing their respective governments to further escalate the conflict.... *sigh*

Their respective populations will believe this thereby allowing their respective governments to further escalate the conflict.... *sigh*

Should've been done long ago.

See populations believe their governments, trather than "the evil other" :p

It is impossible to prove that someone is innocent or guilty in these cases... Iran will always say the Iranian was innocent, while the US will always say that the killed iranian was guilty.

Their respective populations will believe this thereby allowing their respective governments to further escalate the conflict.... *sigh*

No, it's possible to prove. That's why secretary Rice wanted the overight that she got - to prevent unplanned escalation... If it will work is a different matter.

Senior administration officials said the policy is based on the theory that Tehran will back down from its nuclear ambitions if the United States hits it hard in Iraq and elsewhere, creating a sense of vulnerability among Iranian leaders. But if Iran responds with escalation, it has the means to put U.S. citizens and national interests at greater risk in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012502199.html)
Good thing the administration usually is right in matters of... oh wait! Bugger! :rolleyes:

Should've been done long ago.

Agreed. They were responsible for the Khobar tower bombing in Saudi Arabia where US sevicemen were killed. It's about time we did something about qods agents. Payback will be a bitch.

I thought that supporting Saddam and shooting down a civilian passenger plane was enough payback in advance ;)

No, that was payback for taking hostages back in the day.

It would seem that the President has officially permitted the US Military to go after Iranians in Iraq. What sort of an escalation do you think that this is? Is this a step down the road to going after the Iranians? Hmmm?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/26/us.iran.reut/index.html

None. Iranian agents are destablizing Iraq and instigating violence there. This is a wise move.

I thought that supporting Saddam and shooting down a civilian passenger plane was enough payback in advance ;)

Nah, some blood drinkers here won't be satisfied until every Iranian man, woman and child has been flayed, butchered and fed to the vultures. Never mind that they're human just like you and me.

Agreed. They were responsible for the Khobar tower bombing in Saudi Arabia where US sevicemen were killed. It's about time we did something about qods agents. Payback will be a bitch.

I thought that supporting Saddam and shooting down a civilian passenger plane was enough payback in advance ;)

Oh,

I thought that instigating the coup against the popular Prime Minister Mossadeq in favor of the repressive dictatorship of the Shah, through the US embassy, was payback in advance for the later occupation of the embassy :)

No, that was just for fun.

No, that was payback for taking hostages back in the day.

Oh,

I thought that instigating the coup against the popular Prime Minister Mossadeq in favor of the repressive dictatorship of the Shah, through the US embassy, was payback in advance for the later occupation of the embassy :)

Oh,

I thought that instigating the coup against the popular Prime Minister Mossadeq in favor of the repressive dictatorship of the Shah, through the US embassy, was payback in advance for the later occupation of the embassy :)

And holding those hostages at the embassy for 444 days was an acceptable response? Nice try. And your little smiley face only furthers my disgust. You probably aren't even old enough to remember it. Run along.

I see no problem with this policy. If Iranian agents are stirring up violence in Iraq then these people are enemies who can be targeted. They shouldn't be given some special protection. "Killing or capturing" Iranian agents seems to be an obvious response for our troops. I really don't see how any debate is neccessary.

No, that was payback for taking hostages back in the day.

Soo... Let me get this straight...

The targeting of Iranian agents in Iraq will be payback for the Khobar tower bombing in Saudi Arabia, which was payback for supporting Saddam and shooting down a civilian passenger plane which was payback for the hostage taking which was payback for the US supporting the Shah?

Sounds wonderful :rolleyes:

And holding those hostages at the embassy for 444 days was an acceptable response? Nice try. And your little smiley face only furthers my disgust. You probably aren't even old enough to remember it. Run along.

So, what is the proper response when a foreign government instigates a coup and places a repressive dictator into your government?

I am not arguing that taking hostages is the proper response, but I don't think you have any right to determine the morality or validity of the tactics used against such a regime unless you have lived under such a dictatorship.

As for the OP, I think this is an escalation. Iran is obviously trying to counteract US influence in the oil-rich Middle East. Regime change is in the air. If the US wasn't bogged down in Iraq, Iran would already have been attacked.

Soo... Let me get this straight...

The targeting of Iranian agents in Iraq will be payback for the Khobar tower bombing in Saudi Arabia, which was payback for supporting Saddam and shooting down a civilian passenger plane which was payback for the hostage taking which was payback for the US supporting the Shah?

Sounds wonderful :rolleyes:

Actually, it sounds like you fail at history.

Soo... Let me get this straight...

The targeting of Iranian agents in Iraq will be payback for the Khobar tower bombing in Saudi Arabia, which was payback for supporting Saddam and shooting down a civilian passenger plane which was payback for the hostage taking which was payback for the US supporting the Shah?

Sounds wonderful :rolleyes:

Complicated, isn't it?

If it gets too confusing, you can always believe 'they are evil Islamists who hate us for our freedoms!"

No thinking required.:)

Soo... Let me get this straight...

The targeting of Iranian agents in Iraq will be payback for the Khobar tower bombing in Saudi Arabia, which was payback for supporting Saddam and shooting down a civilian passenger plane which was payback for the hostage taking which was payback for the US supporting the Shah?

Sounds wonderful :rolleyes:

Look, they're my country's enemies. Whatever we do to their agents and military is fine by me. I don't care if we conduct airstrikes against all of their military targets today. They're the enemy and that's how enemies are dealt with. It may not be fair and it may not be pleasant, but that's how it is and how it will always be.

So, what is the proper response when a foreign government instigates a coup and places a repressive dictator into your government?

I am not arguing that taking hostages is the proper response, but I don't think you have any right to determine the morality or validity of the tactics used against such a regime unless you have lived under such a dictatorship.


I have every right. Those were US citizens that were held. They were part of a diplomatic mission. Hell, three of them were just random US civilians, not even part of the embassy staff. If that's an appropriate response, then why would any nation establish an embassy in a foreign country? I can't even believe I'm arguing with someone over this.

"The move, approved last fall, is aimed at weakening Iran's influence in the region and forcing Tehran to abandon its nuclear program that the West believes is for nuclear weapons and not energy, the newspaper said, citing the unidentified officials."

Apparently this plan isnt working yet.

Actually, it sounds like you fail at history.
Nope, sorry :)

I'm just using what's presented to me in this thread. Do try to see the context as well.

'course, you're welcome to come with the facts as they are lacking. Or should I rather just say "You fail at debating"? I could probably wriggle in something about reading comprehension as well, but I always feel that it's a petty arguement.
Complicated, isn't it?

If it gets too confusing, you can always believe 'they are evil Islamists who hate us for our freedoms!"

No thinking required.:)
The easy way... But alas, it would not show the whole picture.
Look, they're my country's enemies. Whatever we do to their agents and military is fine by me. I don't care if we conduct airstrikes against all of their military targets today. They're the enemy and that's how enemies are dealt with. It may not be fair and it may not be pleasant, but that's how it is and how it will always be.
Scary thoughts. But OK, as long as you are prepared to have Them think about You in the same way...

Though if I were you, I'd stay away from the "payback" rhetoric. As you can see that gets a little messy.

And holding those hostages at the embassy for 444 days was an acceptable response? Nice try. And your little smiley face only furthers my disgust. You probably aren't even old enough to remember it. Run along.

I will ignore the presumptions of age, and the implication that I would not know of what I speak.

Moreover, I never said that it was an acceptible response, but rather that you should take a less militant stance to another nation, that is more like your nation than you think. They speak of you as you speak of them; time after time restating past event, how helpful...

Recent events, regarding the arrast of iranians in a forming consulate, are not that different from past events.

I have every right. Those were US citizens that were held. They were part of a diplomatic mission. Hell, three of them were just random US civilians, not even part of the embassy staff. If that's an appropriate response, then why would any nation establish an embassy in a foreign country? I can't even believe I'm arguing with someone over this.

Perhaps it would clarify things if you read my post:
So, what is the proper response when a foreign government instigates a coup and places a repressive dictator into your government?

I am not arguing that taking hostages is the proper response, but I don't think you have any right to determine the morality or validity of the tactics used against such a regime unless you have lived under such a dictatorship.

As for the OP, I think this is an escalation. Iran is obviously trying to counteract US influence in the oil-rich Middle East. Regime change is in the air. If the US wasn't bogged down in Iraq, Iran would already have been attacked.

See, that bolded part means I am not arguing that it is the proper response.

So you are not arguing this with anybody.

The hostage crisis occured so long ago that it probabaly has no strategic or tactical bearing on this decision at all.

Iran is trying to limit US control over a resource rich area. The US government will do everything it can to stop Iran, including killing Iranians. The US government has shown its willingness to do just that in Iraq, so Iran should be no different.

The rest is details.

I will ignore the presumptions of age, and the implication that I would not know of what I speak.

Well, you clearly don't.

Moreover, I never said that it was an acceptible response, but rather that you should take a less militant stance to another nation, that is more like your nation than you think. They speak of you as you speak of them; time after time restating past event, how helpful...

No militance here. Read your post above again, though (or edit it :rolleyes: ). You said it was an acceptable response. End of story.

Recent events, regarding the arrast of iranians in a forming consulate, are not that different from past events.

Wow...you really don't have a clue, do you? There's a huge difference between official diplomats and random jackasses supporting insurgency and disgusting acts of terror, like the bombings of marketplaces that hace taken place lately. You probably don't get that, though, because your mind is too clouded by "US EVIL US EVIL" sorta thinking.

I see no problem with this policy. If Iranian agents are stirring up violence in Iraq then these people are enemies who can be targeted. They shouldn't be given some special protection. "Killing or capturing" Iranian agents seems to be an obvious response for our troops. I really don't see how any debate is neccessary.

That's simply because this is an escalation in actions taken against Iran. One step closer, albeit a small one, that can have potentially dangerous consequences.

And holding those hostages at the embassy for 444 days was an acceptable response? Nice try. And your little smiley face only furthers my disgust. You probably aren't even old enough to remember it. Run along.

So in your mind, holding hostages and killing no one his worse then helping launch a coup that killed many people, and lead to the horrible situation in Iran today that you people are always complaining about?

So in your mind, holding hostages and killing no one his worse then helping launch a coup that killed many people, and lead to the horrible situation in Iran today that you people are always complaining about?

"You people"?

I'll ignore that and again say that you, along with all the other US-haters who've posted in this thread, fail at history. The horrible situation in Iran today is due to the Islamic Revolution there, which led (note the spelling there, smart guy) to the ayatollahs taking power.

About damn time.

Hopefully it includes hot pursuit as well.

That's simply because this is an escalation in actions taken against Iran. One step closer, albeit a small one, that can have potentially dangerous consequences.

If we find out they have agents in Iraq we have every right to do what is neccessary to stop them. Sure it can be seen as an escalation but we can not let this slide. Foreign agents shouldn't be given some kind of protection in their actions. Capturing or killing them is a practical response. Once they cross the border to Iraq they have no right for protection. Iran has no basis to complain anyway if we take out their agitators. What are the Iranians going to say? Complain that we won't let them carry out their actions unmolested? Ridiculous really, if Iran made a single peep of protest.

About damn time.

Hopefully it includes hot pursuit as well.

It doesn't, at present.

Well, you clearly don't.

No militance here. Read your post above again, though (or edit it :rolleyes: ). You said it was an acceptable response. End of story.

Wow...you really don't have a clue, do you? There's a huge difference between official diplomats and random jackasses supporting insurgency and disgusting acts of terror, like the bombings of marketplaces that hace taken place lately. You probably don't get that, though, because your mind is too clouded by "US EVIL US EVIL" sorta thinking.

You may not agree with me, but your responses strike me as rather aggressive and counter productive. Note, that I did reread my post and that I consequently can not support your reading of my words.

As for the clue that I may or may not have, look at the manner in which you yourself describe the Iranian presence in Iraq. How is the current Iranian involvement in the Iraqi regime different from the US involvement in the Shahs regime? For, you should realize that the involvement of Iran is of a different kind than the market place bombings and the insurgents. If you were to read the Chatham house report on Iran you would see they are infiltrating the government, rather than feeding the insurgency.
The US army made the mistake of feeding the Sunni insurgency, by harsh measures in Faluja for example. This led to insurgent attacks on Shi’ite civilians and holy places, which in turn diminished the support for the relatively moderate Sistanti and allowed for more influence from the Iranians within the Shi’a dominated government of Iraq.

If we find out they have agents in Iraq we have every right to do what is neccessary to stop them. Sure it can be seen as an escalation but we can not let this slide. Foreign agents shouldn't be given some kind of protection in their actions. Capturing or killing them is a practical response. Iran has no basis to complain anyway if we take out their agitators. What are the Iranians going to say? Complain that we won't let them carry out their actions unmolested? Ridiculous really, if Iran made a single peep of protest.
Well, the "Catch and release" program was going, so capturing them is nothing new.

And the Iranians probably won't say anything, but they might start targetting US troops directly (which the apparently haven't yet) and kidnapp or kill US personnel.

And there is the possibilities of mistakes...

Oh and another reason for the debate:
A senior intelligence officer was more wary of the ambitions of the strategy.

"This has little to do with Iraq. It's all about pushing Iran's buttons. It is purely political," the official said. The official expressed similar views about other new efforts aimed at Iran, suggesting that the United States is escalating toward an unnecessary conflict to shift attention away from Iraq and to blame Iran for the United States' increasing inability to stanch the violence there.
If it puts US soldiers at risk, is it a smart move?

Well, the "Catch and release" program was going, so capturing them is nothing new.

And the Iranians probably won't say anything, but they might start targetting US troops directly (which the apparently haven't yet) and kidnapp or kill US personnel.

Well I'm sure when they say "capture" they mean to keep them of course. And I really don't see how we have Iran's response as our primary concern. They send agents into Iraq and then get angry because we stop them from carrying out their plans? Silly, really. And if Iran chooses to do the escalating by targeting our troops, then they are the ones courting disaster. I simply don't see how we can ignore the threat their agnts pose? If we are going to try to pacify Iraq so we can get the hell out, then we can't let their agents do what they wish now can we?

If it puts US soldiers at risk, is it a smart move?

As I said above, if Iran decides to start targeting our troops then it will be they who are doing the escalating. We will actually have a valid reason to go after Iran more firmly, certainly more than we ever had with Iraq. I'd have to hope that the Iranians have some sense of self-preservation and giving Bush a reason to attack them is hardly a smart move. It would almost certainly harm us more in the long run as we piss off even more of the Middle East but that won't do Iran's current government any good.

Capture them, feminize them and send them home.

If we find out they have agents in Iraq we have every right to do what is neccessary to stop them. Sure it can be seen as an escalation but we can not let this slide. Foreign agents shouldn't be given some kind of protection in their actions. Capturing or killing them is a practical response. Once they cross the border to Iraq they have no right for protection. Iran has no basis to complain anyway if we take out their agitators. What are the Iranians going to say? Complain that we won't let them carry out their actions unmolested? Ridiculous really, if Iran made a single peep of protest.

Iranians are going to cross the border with Iraq, for the holiest cities of the shi'a islam Karbala and Najaf are located in Iraq. That is why shooting might be a bad idea... It is irreversible, in case a mistake has been made.

Capturing and ousting or arresting Iranian agents would be a less dangerous tactic

Well I'm sure when they say "capture" they mean to keep them of course. And I really don't see how we have Iran's response as our primary concern. They send agents into Iraq and then get angry because we stop them from carrying out their plans? Silly, really. And if Iran chooses to do the escalating by targeting our troops, then they are the ones courting disaster. I simply don't see how we can ignore the threat their agnts pose? If we are going to try to pacify Iraq so we can get the hell out, then we can't let their agents do what they wish now can we?



As I said above, if Iran decides to start targeting our troops then it will be they who are doing the escalating. We will actually have a valid reason to go after Iran more firmly, certainly more than we ever had with Iraq. I'd have to hope that the Iranians have some sense of self-preservation and giving Bush a reason to attack them is hardly a smart move. It would almost certainly harm us more in the long run as we piss off even more of the Middle East but that won't do Iran's current government any good.

I think most of the middle east has a serious problem with Iran. Iran is shi'ite and persian rather than Sunni and Arab like the rest of the region. Also they see Iran as a threat. They percieve Iran's goal to be a major regional power as a challenge to their own governments. Hell, Sunni governments were secretly cheering on the Israelis during this summer's war in Lebanon because they wanted to see Iran's Hezbollah puppets beaten down.

I think most of the middle east has a serious problem with Iran. Iran is shi'ite and persian rather than Sunni and Arab like the rest of the region. Also they see Iran as a threat. They percieve Iran's goal to be a major regional power as a challenge to their own governments. Hell, Sunni governments were secretly cheering on the Israelis during this summer's war in Lebanon because they wanted to see Iran's Hezbollah puppets beaten down.

You're right, note that they do not want the instability that a military intervention might cause. A second Iraq may well be harmful to other Middle Eastern states. Furthermore, there is a difference between the regimes and the populations. In a conflict between Iran and the US, the Iranians are still fellow Muslims, albeit strange ones. A confrontation with Iran like that with Iraq may again prove supportive of militant Islamism against the Middle Eastern regimes. Something, which the US was trying to prevent in the first place.

I thought that supporting Saddam and shooting down a civilian passenger plane was enough payback in advance ;)

If I recall correctly, we were supporting Saddam and the Iranians. It was a case of "please kill each other, pleeeeeeaaaaaaase!".

If I recall correctly, we were supporting Saddam and the Iranians. It was a case of "please kill each other, pleeeeeeaaaaaaase!".
Not realy, it did not support Iran.

During the second half of the 1980s Iran became the focus of US security policy in the Gulf; this to the benefit of Iraq, which was seen as a bulwark against Iranian influence in the region. Consequently the importance of Iraq grew, for as the war between Iraq and Iran escalated the US tilted increasingly towards Iraq. During the conflict, the US did not provide Iraq with weaponry however; instead it provided Iraq with non-military technology and shared secret military information about Iranian troop movements, picked up by AWACS. Consequently we may conclude that during the war Iraqi-US security relations were present, though not exceptionally extensive.

I think most of the middle east has a serious problem with Iran. Iran is shi'ite and persian rather than Sunni and Arab like the rest of the region. Also they see Iran as a threat. They percieve Iran's goal to be a major regional power as a challenge to their own governments. Hell, Sunni governments were secretly cheering on the Israelis during this summer's war in Lebanon because they wanted to see Iran's Hezbollah puppets beaten down.

As much as they may dislike Iran I would be that they hate America more. Besides wasn't there a similar arguement when we invaded Iraq? The rest of the Middle East hardly cared for Saddam and could care less that he is gone now but when we settled into the country, Iraq's neighbors hardly cared for that. I would bet that any move on Iran would only increase the trouble as they see America increase its imperial ambitions over the region.

Not realy, it did not support Iran.

During the second half of the 1980s Iran became the focus of US security policy in the Gulf; this to the benefit of Iraq, which was seen as a bulwark against Iranian influence in the region. Consequently the importance of Iraq grew, for as the war between Iraq and Iran escalated the US tilted increasingly towards Iraq. During the conflict, the US did not provide Iraq with weaponry however; instead it provided Iraq with non-military technology and shared secret military information about Iranian troop movements, picked up by AWACS. Consequently we may conclude that during the war Iraqi-US security relations were present, though not exceptionally extensive.

On the inverse, we sold weapons to Iran, you'll recall. There was this whole big scandal that came out in 1986...

On the inverse, we sold weapons directly to Iran, you'll recall. There was this whole big scandal that came out in 1986...
Sell weapons to Iran to fund terror. The irony...

Sell weapons to Iran to fund terror. The irony...

Ya do what ya gotta do. *shrugs*

On the inverse, we sold weapons directly to Iran, you'll recall. There was this whole big scandal that came out in 1986...

I must admit that you are right :)

Still, I am not entirely sure whether that should fall in the support cathegory, or in the blackmail or randsom cathegory. If I remember correctly, the US Navy did collide with iran in the Gulf, and not with Iraq. The US did tilt towards Iraq during the conflict, despite the secret arms sales.

Well I'm sure when they say "capture" they mean to keep them of course. And I really don't see how we have Iran's response as our primary concern. They send agents into Iraq and then get angry because we stop them from carrying out their plans? Silly, really.
That's how governments work ;)

And if Iran chooses to do the escalating by targeting our troops, then they are the ones courting disaster. I simply don't see how we can ignore the threat their agnts pose? If we are going to try to pacify Iraq so we can get the hell out, then we can't let their agents do what they wish now can we?
They haven't been ignored, and won't be ignored. It's just a question of tactics and how best to do it.

Antagonizing Iran and then moving out is probably not the best way to do it either. So a balance has to be found, and it seems to have been found in this.

As I said above, if Iran decides to start targeting our troops then it will be they who are doing the escalating. We will actually have a valid reason to go after Iran more firmly, certainly more than we ever had with Iraq. I'd have to hope that the Iranians have some sense of self-preservation and giving Bush a reason to attack them is hardly a smart move. It would almost certainly harm us more in the long run as we piss off even more of the Middle East but that won't do Iran's current government any good.
It could score propaganda points... But I don't really mind this if the right people are targeted and screwups are avoided.

Though both the government and the military have been sooo good at avoiding screwups the last couple of years... :rolleyes: http://forum.sksf.no/style_emoticons/diverse/cthulhu.gif