Does this mean that US army approves of it's own actions? Your argument is only true if you accept at the same time that Iraq is an occupied territory and Iraq's government has no say about who resides inside their country.
gworld, you do realize what your posts look like, correct? Here, let me help: You are upset with the Army for arresting Iranians that are, or have ties with terrorists (insurgents is too kind of a word). You are not upset with the terrorists at all. How do you explain that?
With gw on my ban list, I can only imagine what he wrote..its probably something similar to: The Iraq govt is a puppet and iraq is an occupied country and the us is all wrong. How did I do?
I need to get into this conversation now. lol I didn't read all the posts, but whether Iran has any ties with suicide bombers in Iraq or not, is not the issue... The Iranians in Iraq were political diplomats and their office was and is a diplomatic office and therefore should not be attacked/bothered by ANY other countries. That's what international laws are for...
no one asked you to response. You will get your 5000 posts sooner or later. No need to make useless posts.
whats the deal nima? How can you respond on a subject if you haven't read all the posts? You don't know all the information shared...I guess you just want to share your biased opinion. I just ask you to read everything before you respond? It sounds like you are so infatuated with saving Iran's skin that you don't know the facts... And this is the issue...these people were terrorist supporters. Please read the posts if you want to get in on the conversation. One more thing, you average more posts/day than I do, so it looks like you want to get to 5000 first...thats the facts, jack!!
In what country did they arrest these people, in USA or Iraq? Who should decide what people should be arrested in a country, it's government or a foreign power? Since these people were arrested in Iraq without permission by Iraq's government, isn't this a realistic conclusion that the real government of Iraq is the U.S. Army? This part of Yahoo article is also interesting: "Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, described it as a liaison office that had government approval and was in the process of being approved as an Iranian consulate. " Obviously Iraq government and it's foreign minister are not in charge of shit when it comes to real decision making.
His post was not useless. In fact I just posted this on the last page. Giving a bigger image of what potential went down..... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_detained_iranians
Whether U.S makes the key decisions for Iraq government is out of question. Of course they do. They attacked the country, overthrew the government and have the power to do anything they want (it's a war) Back to the diplomats issue, the office that was raided has the same protection in international laws as an embassy. It is considered soil of the other country (iran, in this situation) and no one is allowed to attack it. Simple laws that need to be followed. But again, United States doesn't have much respect for international laws.
To my knowledge they were not on diplomatic land. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_detained_iranians
They were not on diplomatic land...and Rick, Nima has already stated that he or she doesn't read everything. They just want to throw out their opinion which seems to support the terrorists from Iran.
In order to have a ground for this discussion, let's clear couple of questions first. In your opinion who is in charge in Iraq? Iraq independent government or US army through a puppet government? Who has the right to decide about who should reside inside a country, it's government or a foreign power?
Those fighting terrorists? Isn't that who should be arrested, gworld? Or are you further demonstrating your displeasure that terrorists were arrested/detained? The US Army (and other branches and other country's military) are in Iraq providing security for the Iraqi people. They do not need permission to arrest terrorists. That IS what they are there doing. Incorrect. They are very much in charge, but they are not out conducting military operations to rid terrorists personally. Again, the coalition is there to take out your buds. And your buds were caught in a non-diplomatic area with terrorist information. How you could possibly be disappointed in this is beyond belief. Except to note whose side you take. But that's no surprise, is it? You're upset that terrorists are caught. Tell us something we don't already know
Sorry I actually thought there was a government in Iraq which could make decisions but your post confirms that in your opinion US army should be in charge. I think this is also based on my faulty assumption that there was a government in Iraq but according to you all Iraq's people are just bunch of children that have no say in their country and US army is baby sitting them for their own benefits. So according to you we have a so called government that does not control foreign military powers inside their own country and in effect itself is a hostage to the military power. As previously mentioned Iraq government approved their presence according to Iraq's foreign minister but all this is irrelevant as you mentioned since they have no actual power. Thank you for confirming that this present government in Iraq is just a puppet.
I was just listening to a Dick Cheney interview on Fox News and Chris Wallace asked him what U.S would do if Iraqi government tells United States not to carry out certain operations (for example capturing certain religious leaders in Iraq), And Cheney responded, that U.S would still carry out the mission. I personally don't see any problems in that. This is a war not humanitarian mission. But at least have the balls to accept that it is not about democracy.
At least he is honest that Iraq government is just a puppet. It seems US government has decided to stop pretending that there is actually a government in Iraq.
Denazification at the end of world war II wasn't about democracy, either....it was about elminating physical threats. If 'democracy' was such a great thing it wouldn't lead to the fucktard elections of central and south america. Popular opinion historically has always had it short-coming. I've always favored limiting the power/influence of the government, people, and businesses. They all have some respective role in influence the function and direction of government, but giving too much power to any interest group can destroy or negate the whole. Thus the American constitution originally had very stringent limits (which have been ignored slowly over the coarse of American history).
In my opinion, A government is not supposed to do the right (or wrong) thing. It is supposed to do what people of that country want it to do.