<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.5" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Now THIS is escalation&#8230;</title>
	<link>http://www.polimom.com/2007/01/11/now-this-is-escalation/</link>
	<description>I used to be in the middle, but they keep moving the line!</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:04:21 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Ed T.</title>
		<link>http://www.polimom.com/2007/01/11/now-this-is-escalation/#comment-53850</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:53:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.polimom.com/2007/01/11/now-this-is-escalation/#comment-53850</guid>
					<description>roux - while you are correct in that a consulate is not an embassy (and oftentimes consular officials don't have diplomatic immunity), if the Iranian govt is about to fall on its own as you say, why not simply stand back and let nature take its course?

~EdT.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>roux - while you are correct in that a consulate is not an embassy (and oftentimes consular officials don&#8217;t have diplomatic immunity), if the Iranian govt is about to fall on its own as you say, why not simply stand back and let nature take its course?</p>
<p>~EdT.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: roux</title>
		<link>http://www.polimom.com/2007/01/11/now-this-is-escalation/#comment-53839</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:01:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.polimom.com/2007/01/11/now-this-is-escalation/#comment-53839</guid>
					<description>Ed T. is right it's not an embassy. It is about time we went after the Iranians. 

BTW-The Iranian gov't is about to tumble. I give it less than a year.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ed T. is right it&#8217;s not an embassy. It is about time we went after the Iranians. </p>
<p>BTW-The Iranian gov&#8217;t is about to tumble. I give it less than a year.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: MinorRipper</title>
		<link>http://www.polimom.com/2007/01/11/now-this-is-escalation/#comment-53829</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:39:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.polimom.com/2007/01/11/now-this-is-escalation/#comment-53829</guid>
					<description>Looks like "The Dunce" might just invade Iran and Syria while he's still in office...God help us.
www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looks like &#8220;The Dunce&#8221; might just invade Iran and Syria while he&#8217;s still in office&#8230;God help us.<br />
<a href="http://www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com</a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Ed T.</title>
		<link>http://www.polimom.com/2007/01/11/now-this-is-escalation/#comment-53823</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:15:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.polimom.com/2007/01/11/now-this-is-escalation/#comment-53823</guid>
					<description>I don't think that the facilities used for a consulate are considered 'sovereign territory' as an embassy is, though Article 31 of the &lt;a href="http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_2_1963.pdf" rel="nofollow"&gt;Vienna Convention on Consular Relations&lt;/a&gt; outlines the protections due a "consular premises".  I didn't see anything that specifically prohibits the guest nation from using the consulate as a based for armed insurrection (such behavior would probably considered an act of war, justifying the host nation's armed response), but the seizure of the documents and computers was very likely a violation of Article 33.

~EdT.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think that the facilities used for a consulate are considered &#8217;sovereign territory&#8217; as an embassy is, though Article 31 of the <a href="http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_2_1963.pdf" rel="nofollow">Vienna Convention on Consular Relations</a> outlines the protections due a &#8220;consular premises&#8221;.  I didn&#8217;t see anything that specifically prohibits the guest nation from using the consulate as a based for armed insurrection (such behavior would probably considered an act of war, justifying the host nation&#8217;s armed response), but the seizure of the documents and computers was very likely a violation of Article 33.</p>
<p>~EdT.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
