Sorry , Red, I don't see how we can have a meaningful discussion with Iran or Syria . They are two-faced, they'll play nicey nice while at the same time funding terrorism to all new heights. That they want to destabilize Iraq should be quite obvious, they want Iraq's resources and they want the U.S. and the government we set up in iraq out of their way. Hell if Adolf Ahmadinejad has his way he'll turn Israel into a parking lot and then start lobbing nukes at EU and wherever else he can reach to 'destroy the zionist threat'.
But that letter he wrote makes him seem so nice, I'm sure he's a rational human being whom we can have an intelligent discussion on the future of Iraq with. Hell, we should GIVE him the nukes he wants, he's nice and he's a snappy dresser.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Bob Gates: "We're Not Winning"
Bob Gates: "We're Not Winning"Follow
Abadd wrote:
I don't see how we can have a meaningful discussion with Iran or Syria .
Bodhi channels Yoda: "and that, is why you fail"
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
By the way, the Study Group report is done and was sent to the Prez.
The 4th Estate wrote:
WASHINGTON -- The United States faces a "grave and deteriorating" situation after nearly four years of war in Iraq, a high-level commission warned bluntly on Wednesday, prodding President Bush to launch a diplomatic offensive to stabilize the country and allow withdrawal of most combat troops by early 2008.
"There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved," the commission said after its review of a war that has taken the lives of more than 2,900 U.S. troops and grown so unpopular at home that it helped trigger a Democratic takeover of Congress in last month's elections.
The commission recommended the United States reduce "political, military or economic support" for Iraq if the government in Baghdad cannot make substantial progress toward providing for its own security. Portions of the report were obtained by The Associated Press.
[...]
The report painted a grim picture of Iraq nearly four years after U.S. forces toppled Saddam Hussein. It urged Bush to embrace steps he has thus far rejected, including a call to involve Syria and Iran in negotiations over Iraq's future.
It warned that if the situation continues to deteriorate, there is a risk of a "slide toward chaos (that) could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe."
"Neighboring countries could intervene. ... The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized," commissioners said.
With diplomacy under way, the report said, the U.S. should increase the number of combat and other troops that are embedded with and supporting Iraqi Army units.
"As these actions proceed, U.S. combat forces could begin to move out of Iraq. ... By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq."
Baker, Hamilton and the other members of the commission traveled to the Capitol from the White House to present their findings to senior lawmakers. The report makes 79 separate recommendations on Iraq policy, said one official familiar with the work.
"There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved," the commission said after its review of a war that has taken the lives of more than 2,900 U.S. troops and grown so unpopular at home that it helped trigger a Democratic takeover of Congress in last month's elections.
The commission recommended the United States reduce "political, military or economic support" for Iraq if the government in Baghdad cannot make substantial progress toward providing for its own security. Portions of the report were obtained by The Associated Press.
[...]
The report painted a grim picture of Iraq nearly four years after U.S. forces toppled Saddam Hussein. It urged Bush to embrace steps he has thus far rejected, including a call to involve Syria and Iran in negotiations over Iraq's future.
It warned that if the situation continues to deteriorate, there is a risk of a "slide toward chaos (that) could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe."
"Neighboring countries could intervene. ... The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized," commissioners said.
With diplomacy under way, the report said, the U.S. should increase the number of combat and other troops that are embedded with and supporting Iraqi Army units.
"As these actions proceed, U.S. combat forces could begin to move out of Iraq. ... By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq."
Baker, Hamilton and the other members of the commission traveled to the Capitol from the White House to present their findings to senior lawmakers. The report makes 79 separate recommendations on Iraq policy, said one official familiar with the work.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
They are two-faced, they'll play nicey nice while at the same time funding terrorism to all new heights. That they want to destabilize Iraq should be quite obvious,
What should be even more obvious is that they have been *wildly sucessful*. Not talking with them in no way inmpairs their systematic victory here.
they want Iraq's resources and they want the U.S. and the government we set up in iraq out of their way. Hell if Adolf Ahmadinejad has his way he'll turn Israel into a parking lot and then start lobbing nukes at EU and wherever else he can reach to 'destroy the zionist threat'.
No, the reality is that he's a pragmatist, like virtually every other world leader and mainly wants power, money, and a better standard of living for his people pretty much in that order. Negoiating with him allows us to best protect our intrest and mitigate the damage he can do to it by presenting him with an easier option that benefits him and his people.
It's the reason we have a State Department. While war may be the contiunation of negoations through other means, negoation is the weapon of chioce when you're badly losing a war and are completely out of options for other meathods of winning it, or as is the case here, losing the least out of your miserable failure of a foriegn policy experiment.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Samira wrote:
And we get the usual cognitive dissonance from the White House.
I just don't know what to say about this. I feel so trapped in my reality-based paradigm.
Quote:
Here's Secretary of Defense nominee Robert Gates at this morning's confirmation hearing:
Senator Levin: "Do you believe we are currently winning in Iraq?''
Gates: "No, sir.''
Here's President Bush at a White House news conference on October 25:
Reporter: "Are we winning?"
Bush: "Absolutely, we're winning."
A point blank contradiction? Not at the White House, where press secretary Tony Snow assured reporters this afternoon that "What you saw is somebody who clearly shares the president's view on this.''
Senator Levin: "Do you believe we are currently winning in Iraq?''
Gates: "No, sir.''
Here's President Bush at a White House news conference on October 25:
Reporter: "Are we winning?"
Bush: "Absolutely, we're winning."
A point blank contradiction? Not at the White House, where press secretary Tony Snow assured reporters this afternoon that "What you saw is somebody who clearly shares the president's view on this.''
I just don't know what to say about this. I feel so trapped in my reality-based paradigm.
Edited, Dec 6th 2006 10:02am by Atomicflea
There are many reasons why Iran does not want an iraqi civil war, partition, or an unstable Iraq.
First, because of the Kurds. Iran has a large Kurdish minority. If a Kurdistan ever came into existence, the Iranian Kurds would start making a lot of noise and trouble to join that state. So would the Turkish kurds. It would reignite the whole Kurdish question, which is the last thing Iran wants.
Second, Iran also has a Sunni minority. If a civil war happened between Sunnis and Shias, it would spill over into Iran. Which, again, is the last thing Iran wants.
Third, despite all the crap you read, an unstable Middle-East is bad for Iran's government. Iran wants stability and economic prosperity. Mahmoud was elected, not very democratically, but still elected by Iranians. If Iran's economy gets too fUcked up, if the civil war spills over into Iran, it's likely he'll loose the next election.
Finally, Iranians are not Arabs. They are Persians. To you it might not matter, but to the Arabs, and the Persians, it's a huge difference. Most of the Arab states around Iran don't like them because of this. Or at least don't trust them because of this. Most of the Arab state certainly do not want a nuclear Iran.
All of this is leverage power for the US, and much more powerful than threats, sanctions, or /ignore.
All these countries are united in their desire to see the US out of Iraq. But once this is done, they will go back to their own squabbles. Iran and Syria are not natural allies. At all. Syria is Baathist, which is basically Arab nationalism. Iran is a Persian Islamist theocracy, which is the complete opposite. They are only circumstantial friends. This is what the US should be playing on, instead of sticking them into the same "evil people" drawer.
First, because of the Kurds. Iran has a large Kurdish minority. If a Kurdistan ever came into existence, the Iranian Kurds would start making a lot of noise and trouble to join that state. So would the Turkish kurds. It would reignite the whole Kurdish question, which is the last thing Iran wants.
Second, Iran also has a Sunni minority. If a civil war happened between Sunnis and Shias, it would spill over into Iran. Which, again, is the last thing Iran wants.
Third, despite all the crap you read, an unstable Middle-East is bad for Iran's government. Iran wants stability and economic prosperity. Mahmoud was elected, not very democratically, but still elected by Iranians. If Iran's economy gets too fUcked up, if the civil war spills over into Iran, it's likely he'll loose the next election.
Finally, Iranians are not Arabs. They are Persians. To you it might not matter, but to the Arabs, and the Persians, it's a huge difference. Most of the Arab states around Iran don't like them because of this. Or at least don't trust them because of this. Most of the Arab state certainly do not want a nuclear Iran.
All of this is leverage power for the US, and much more powerful than threats, sanctions, or /ignore.
All these countries are united in their desire to see the US out of Iraq. But once this is done, they will go back to their own squabbles. Iran and Syria are not natural allies. At all. Syria is Baathist, which is basically Arab nationalism. Iran is a Persian Islamist theocracy, which is the complete opposite. They are only circumstantial friends. This is what the US should be playing on, instead of sticking them into the same "evil people" drawer.
Quote:
They are two-faced, they'll play nicey nice while at the same time funding terrorism to all new heights.
And in that, they are no different than we, or any other player in world politics.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Cold War without up-front dialogue between Washington & Moscow - 40 Years
Regan & Thatcher open dialogue with Gorbachev - Effective end of cold war in 5 years
Civilian bombings by Irish Republicans and Loyalists - 75 years
Major (followed up by Bliar) open dialogue with Sinn Fein - Effective end of IRA & UDA Terrorism in 5 years
I'm not sating East & West are now Lovey-Dovey, but my kids don't attend weekly air-raid drills like I had to.
Ulster's still no love-fest, but when I check under my bus or train seat for a suspect device (US Citizens are only now thinking that way - we've lived with it for decades in UK), it's not "Seamus & Paddy's Bomb Factory" I'm worried about.
Today's report was a breath of fresh air, and the sooner we start dialogue with the key players in the middle east, the sooner we can find out how to mitigate the risk of us all being over-run by AQ within 5 years.
Regan & Thatcher open dialogue with Gorbachev - Effective end of cold war in 5 years
Civilian bombings by Irish Republicans and Loyalists - 75 years
Major (followed up by Bliar) open dialogue with Sinn Fein - Effective end of IRA & UDA Terrorism in 5 years
I'm not sating East & West are now Lovey-Dovey, but my kids don't attend weekly air-raid drills like I had to.
Ulster's still no love-fest, but when I check under my bus or train seat for a suspect device (US Citizens are only now thinking that way - we've lived with it for decades in UK), it's not "Seamus & Paddy's Bomb Factory" I'm worried about.
Today's report was a breath of fresh air, and the sooner we start dialogue with the key players in the middle east, the sooner we can find out how to mitigate the risk of us all being over-run by AQ within 5 years.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Recent Visitors: 344
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (344)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Bob Gates: "We're Not Winning"
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC