Whitehouse says it has authority to detain Iranians in Iraq

[Durthorin]

We leave Iraq.

1. The factions divide the guns internally and the bloodletting really starts. Each faction fighting for control. The current govrenment will proably fall relaticly quickly and an alliance of clerics like Sadr will emerge as the defacto power.

2. Factions will look for weapons, manpower and money from the Saudis, Syrians and Iran. Depending on the winner.. whoever is backing the winning side will expect "concessions". The backers of the loosers will end up the "enemy" All sides will blame pretty much everything on the US invasion as the cause.

The most likly outcome is another Iranian type goverment in Iraq with strong ties to them. I'm betting the Kurds get eaten and the Sunni decimated. We will be everyones scapegoat for causing it.

Back to the original question: Iranian diplomats are diplomats.. we have agreed for centuries on the kid gloves used on diplomats no matter what they do. We have had to.. diplomatic immunity works for us as well as against us. Choosing to ignore it..in most cases is seen as an act of war. If these are not Iranian diplomats but just citizens.. different story.

but I'm concerned looking back at history if "Iranian involvment" becomes a reason for preemptive strikes across the border against terrorist/insurgents based in Iran. Can anyone say Cambodia.

edit: Also as a thought.. IF you say that Iranian provocation requires a response.. the response.. "could" be airstrikes againstt heir nuclear research faculties..

[Darth Executor]

but I'm concerned looking back at history if "Iranian involvment" becomes a reason for preemptive strikes across the border against terrorist/insurgents based in Iran. Can anyone say Cambodia.

It would be preemtive strikes if the Iranians hadn't gotten involved yet. Since they are involved, I think strikes across the border should be called "common sense".

[Durthorin]

It would be preemtive strikes if the Iranians hadn't gotten involved yet. Since they are involved, I think strikes across the border should be called "common sense".

Preemptive in the sense that the forces have not moved accross the border yet. One reason the Beka Valley was always a fave target for example airstrikes. But frankly, we drop a bomb intentionally on Iranian soil.. no matter what provocation we state and this war gets a boatload more complex. Cause I really doubt the iranians will back down or off.. An they as well as the rest of the world that does math knows we have our hands full.

[Storico]

But isn't your motive sanctimoniousness rather than charity? If more people die because we leave, then it hardly benefits the dead to claim it wasn't our fault. It will be our fault. We asked the Iraqis to join in the effort to create a democracy in the Arab world, and they bravely accepted, why would you want to abandon them to terrorists and militias?

Nice spin. I don't happen to buy it. Here's why:

The U.S. government is how much in debt over this 'war'? Take a look at the figures for yourself. If the military presence had never been in Iraq, how much money would have been freed up for medical, rebuilding, etc etc assistance for the Iraqi people? That's what the UN suggested, rather than going to war; that the president of the United States bypassed the UN and disregards it is, to me, very telling.

My only "motive" is the violence ending. As unlikely as that is, I still want the violence to end, not to increase. I'm not convinced the US staying in Iraq WILL help end the violence. Has it so far? Have Iraqi militants stopped their bombing just because the US is there?

Take a look at this article, right here, from the New York Times. Its headline reads "90 killed in Baghdad; U.N. Sets '06 Toll Above 34,000". Take a look at the picture. Twisted metal and blood after a bomb went off by a university. More people dead in a market, close to a Mosque. It's sickening. 90 people died today. Was the US army able to save them? Was the US army able to prevent the deaths of the rest of the 34,000 killed last year alone? 34,000 people dead for me is the same thing as saying 1/10th of the population of my city. That's 34,000 too many. While the US didn't CAUSE all of those deaths, would you admit that they didn't prevent any of them by being there? They might have prevented OTHER deaths, but not those.

So if 34,000 were killed in the last year alone, and 90 killed today, then the US in Iraq is performing a function, but it isn't the function of preventing mass killings. Those are still happening. And in the same article, a report that came out is discussed:

The report was also critical of troops from the United States and its remaining coalition partners, whose operations it said “cause severe suffering to the local population.”

Saying that limitations on freedom of movement and lack of access to basic services affect a large part of the Iraqi population, the report called on coalition troops to “refrain from any excessive use of force.”

Coalition troops are being asked to refrain from any excessive use of force. Well, I suppose it would require a LOT of force to stop the violence in the streets of Baghdad, wouldn't it?

The problem with looking for views from individual Iraqi citizens is that we have no idea if the views are representative of a majority of Iraqis. I don't think anyone believes its possible to accurately sample Iraqi opinion via polling because of all the militia and terrorist activity.

So, I'm pretty sure you will be able to find views from Iraqi citizens that say all westerners must die like dogs. Actually, you could find views from Americans that say we need to nuke the whole middle east. So, I don't really accept that your proposal of anecdotal sampling of Iraqis is fair. I think the best we can really do, at this point, is to look at the position of the democratically elected government.

Granted. Everyone's biased. So is the 'democratically elected government'. So while it's true that anecdotal sampling gives a representation of the entire population, it DOES give the citizens some voice in the matter. It's a better method than taking the word of two or three top officials, anyways. What the people of a country want is just or more important than what their officials want -- in any truly democratic country, the government serves the needs of its citizens, not the other way around.


I think you and I are going to go around in circles on this, simply because with all your heart, you think US troops should stay and bring in reinforcements, and with all of mine, I think they should have been out a good while ago, offering something more constructive than the military presence they've offered thus far. I don't mind discussing this with you at all. I find that I learn a good deal, and I find that I'm unwavering in my convictions.

And I'd like to take the opportunity right now to say that there's definitely ONE thing you and I would find common ground in: regardless of the U.S. government's POLICIES (which is really where you and I differ), both of us hold no animosity towards individual soldiers whatsoever. Whether or not they like it, they've been sent over there, and they take orders whether or not they agree with those orders. I know and care about people who have been overseas in Iraq, and those I've talked with have said the same things to me: "thank you for caring", "thank you for writing", "I think we should come home". So I'm glad that you and I can likely agree that the soldiers overseas are the ones who need our support, whether or not we think they should be there anymore. Fair enough?

[Hail Mary]

My only "motive" is the violence ending. As unlikely as that is, I still want the violence to end, not to increase. I'm not convinced the US staying in Iraq WILL help end the violence. Has it so far? Have Iraqi militants stopped their bombing just because the US is there?

But I don't see you doing any meaningful analysis of the best way to end the violence. You've assumed the only way for the violence to end is for the US to leave. If the end of violence is truly your motive, it seems that you should be engaged in some kind of thoughtful comparison of death rates if we stay, against death rates if we're gone, with consideration given to be short term and long term rates.

Take a look at this article, right here, from the New York Times. Its headline reads "90 killed in Baghdad; U.N. Sets '06 Toll Above 34,000".

Yeah, I saw that, it's gruesome. I thought the university bombing was especially gruesome, but they're all bad. But, how many people died each year under Saddam Hussein? There were 600,000 civilian executions alone in Iraq between 1980 and 2003. That's almost 30,000 a year of just executions. Millions more were killed in wars he provoked in Iran and Kuwait.

So, just comparing death rates, we're actually saving lives by being in Iraq. That's a good thing, right?

I think you and I are going to go around in circles on this, simply because with all your heart, you think US troops should stay and bring in reinforcements, and with all of mine, I think they should have been out a good while ago, offering something more constructive than the military presence they've offered thus far. I don't mind discussing this with you at all. I find that I learn a good deal, and I find that I'm unwavering in my convictions.

Yeah, I think we've reached a stalemate on this topic

[Storico]

But I don't see you doing any meaningful analysis of the best way to end the violence. You've assumed the only way for the violence to end is for the US to leave. If the end of violence is truly your motive, it seems that you should be engaged in some kind of thoughtful comparison of death rates if we stay, against death rates if we're gone, with consideration given to be short term and long term rates.

I'm not much of a statistician or a number cruncher, or what-have-you. I'll save that for those who deal with the numbers. Instead, I'm engaged in what activities I can be engaged in to help violence worldwide end against many persons. See Amnesty International's website, World Vision Canada's website, and Human Rights Watch's website for more for a few of those activities that everyone can get involved with.

Yeah, I saw that, it's gruesome. I thought the university bombing was especially gruesome, but they're all bad. But, how many people died each year under Saddam Hussein? There were 600,000 civilian executions alone in Iraq between 1980 and 2003. That's almost 30,000 a year of just executions. Millions more were killed in wars he provoked in Iran and Kuwait.

So, just comparing death rates, we're actually saving lives by being in Iraq. That's a good thing, right?

You say that that's almost 30,000 a year that used to be executed under Hussein. Last year, in 2006, as the article stated, 34,000 died anyways. There's no reason to expect there will be a lot less in 2007, barring a sudden wave of peace that hits every destructive person's conscience at once. So according to your numbers, that's still a 4,000 person jump up, not down, as you suggest. The only difference is how they're dying now. Wouldn't you say the whole thing's absolutely ghastly no matter who's killing them and how?

I'm not for a moment saying the US or US policies killed those 34,000 (closer to 35,000) people. They just didn't help them, either.

War's a horrible thing.

Yeah, I think we've reached a stalemate on this topic

Like I said. I don't mind talking about it at all.