Reply With Quote
Agree with you. There is A LOT at stake here!
I'm not nearly as well-versed politically as most of you hairy triangles, but I wanted to throw an item out for discussion.
Assuming the common flag-waving Marriott owns a globe, why would the US even think about leaving Iraq and Afghanistan when the real threat is sitting right square between those two countries flipping the Western world the bird?
If Iran gets big-boy war capability and the US pulls out of the region, we're truly ed. The Brits won't even come back to the ME unless Damascus goes up in flames, and they're our stauchest ally. And Syria's not even on the grid right now.
At least to me, leaving at this point is the worst thing the US can do. Do we want to pull out, make the Iranian hardliners and all the Iraqi insurgents heroes, and then go back in 2011 to this mess on our own; or pray that the GOP and their favorite generals can figure this mess out?
I dunno. This is why I can't back the elephant or the donkey blindly.
Agree with you. There is A LOT at stake here!
I think we're going to war with Iran no matter what, its looking bleak
The commont marriott does not own a globe though. Its very hard to say whether we should stay the course or pull out when our objectives and goals that I know of are unreasonable. I dont keep up with this stuff well enough either so I'm not sure.
Its like, you want to go back in time, punch everyone who voted for neocons in the stomach, but you can't. No matter who is in office this problem is getting horrible and we need a solid goal or solution.
common marriott has funds set aside for Iran War assorted SUV magnets and ribbons
It's always good to pull out.
Conservative state linebackers own globes.
Do trophy wife globes count?
January 29, 2007
Iranian Reveals Plan to Expand Role in Iraq
By JAMES GLANZ
BAGHDAD, Jan. 28 — Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad outlined an ambitious plan on Sunday to greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iraq — including an Iranian national bank branch in the heart of the capital — that will almost certainly bring Iran into further conflict with American forces who have detained a number of Iranian operatives here in recent weeks.
The ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, said Iran was prepared to offer Iraqi forces training, equipment and advisers for what he called “the security fight.” In the economic area, Mr. Qumi said, Iran was ready to assume major responsibility for the reconstruction of Iraq, an area of notable failure on the part of the United States since American-led forces overthrew Saddam Hussein in the invasion nearly four years ago.
Mr. Qumi also acknowledged, for the first time, that two Iranians seized and later released by American forces last month were security officials, as the United States had claimed. But he said that they were engaged in legitimate discussions with the Iraqi government and should not have been detained.
Mr. Qumi’s remarks, in a 90-minute interview over tea and large Iranian pistachio nuts at the Iranian Embassy here, amounted to the most authoritative and substantive response the Iranians have made yet to increasingly belligerent accusations by the Bush administration that Iran is acting against American interests in Iraq. President Bush has said the American military is authorized to take whatever action necessary against Iranians in Iraq found to be engaged in actions deemed hostile.
The Iranian ambassador abruptly agreed to a longstanding request for the interview — made repeatedly after the first American seizure of Iranians here on Dec. 21 — and seemed eager to rebut the accusations and assert Iran’s legitimate interests in its neighbor. How much direction, if any, he was taking from his government was unclear.
The political and diplomatic standoff that followed the Dec. 21 raid until the Iranians were released nine days later has contributed, along with a dispute over the Iranian nuclear program, to greatly increased tensions between the United States and Iran. This month, American forces detained five more Iranians in a raid on a diplomatic office in the northern city of Erbil.
While providing few details, the United States has said that evidence gleaned in the Baghdad raid, made on an Iraqi Shiite leader’s residential compound, proves the Iranians were involved in planning attacks on American and Iraqi forces.
With a look of restrained sarcasm, Mr. Qumi ridiculed the evidence that the American military has said it collected, including maps of Baghdad delineating Sunni, Shiite and mixed neighborhoods — the kind of maps, some American officials have said, that would be useful for militias engaged in ethnic slaughter. Mr. Qumi said the maps were so common and easily obtainable that they proved nothing.
He did not say whether he believed the maps bore sectarian markings or address other pieces of evidence the Americans said that they had found, like manifests of weapons and material relating to the technology of sophisticated roadside bombs. But that is not why the Iranians were in the compound, he said.
“They worked in the security sector in the Islamic Republic, that’s clear,” Mr. Qumi said, referring to Iran.
But he said that the Iranians were in Iraq because “the two countries agreed to solve the security problems.” The Iranians “went to meet with the Iraqi side,” he said.
In a surprise announcement, Mr. Qumi said Iran would soon open a national bank in Iraq, in effect creating a new Iranian financial ins ution right under the Americans’ noses. A senior Iraqi banking official, Hussein al-Uzri, confirmed that Iran had received a license to open the new bank, which Mr. Uzri said would apparently be the first “wholly owned subsidiary bank” of a foreign country in Iraq.
“This will enhance trade between the two countries,” Mr. Uzri said.
A number of American and Iraqi officials said on Sunday that it was difficult to respond to Mr. Qumi’s statements until they had been communicated through official routes.
Sean McCormack, a State Department spokesman, said on Sunday that the United States had a significant body of evidence tying Iran to sectarian attacks inside Iraq.
“There is a high degree of confidence in the information that we already have, and we are constantly ac ulating more,” Mr. McCormack said.
He did not address any of the specifics of Mr. Qumi’s comments about plans for stronger economic and security ties, but said that Iran currently plays “a negative role in many respects” in the country.
Iraqi officials also said that they could not comment on specific programs until they had seen the details, but expressed a range of views on the wisdom of expanding ties with Iran.
“We are welcoming all the initiatives to participate in the process of reconstruction,” said Qasim Daoud, a former national security adviser who is now a secular Shiite member of Parliament.
“My belief is that our strategic alliance is with the Americans, but at the same time we are looking for the participation of any country that would like to participate,” Mr. Daoud said.
Barham Salih, a deputy prime minister who is Kurdish and whose duties include economic matters, took sharper issue with Mr. Qumi’s criticism of the American presence.
“Iraqi national interest requires seeking good neighborly relations with Iran as with other neighbors, but that requires respect for Iraqi sovereignty,” Mr. Salih said.
Mr. Qumi spoke largely in Persian during the interview, but he occasionally broke into English when he wanted to be certain that a point had been conveyed forcefully.
Although Mr. Qumi was not given specific questions ahead of the interview, he was made aware of the general topics that would be covered and seemed prepared with detailed answers in many cases. He seemed particularly keen to give his government’s view of what occurred in the early morning hours of Dec. 21, when American forces raided the Baghdad compound of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, one of Iraq’s most powerful Shiite leaders, who had traveled to Washington only three weeks before to meet President Bush.
Within the compound, the Iranians were seized in the house of Hadi al-Ameri, who holds two powerful positions in Iraq: he is the chairman of the Iraqi Parliament’s security committee and also the leader of the Badr Organization, the armed wing of Mr. Hakim’s political party, which spent years in exile in Iran.
Although the Americans have suggested that the Iranians were providing support for militias like the Badr Organization, Mr. Qumi said that his countrymen were dealing with Mr. Ameri only in his official governmental capacity.
The Iranians would not even have stayed the night in the compound except, in a situation faced by many Baghdad residents, their business lasted beyond the early-evening curfew and they were forced to spend the night, Mr. Qumi said, dismissing the evidence, like the maps, that the Americans said linked the group to sectarian and other attacks.
“They said that they have seen maps on walls,” Mr. Qumi said. “Hundreds of these maps you can find on the Internet.”
A senior Iraqi official expressed irritation that, even if Mr. Qumi’s account of the meeting was correct, the Iraqi government was not fully aware that Iran was making quasi-official contacts with Mr. Ameri.
“Iranians are still dealing with the Iraqi political parties as if they are still in the opposition,” the official said, referring to the parties’ years in exile Iran and elsewhere.
Mr. Qumi also warned the United States against playing out tensions in what he called “the nuclear file” in Iraq.
“We don’t need Iraq to pay the cost of our animosity with the Americans,” Mr. Qumi said.
Finally, as the interview was breaking up, Mr. Qumi called upon a bit of humor to make one last stab at the Americans. If Iran is allowed to undertake reconstruction activities in Iraq, he said, all international construction companies would be welcome. “Urge the American companies to come here,” he said before his advisers swept him out of the room.
Abdul Razzaq al-Saiedi contributed reporting from Baghdad, and Mark Mazzetti from Washington.
============
My guess is the Iranians waited for dubya/ head to make the post-electon move, which turned out to be escalation rather than retreat, with dubya ignoring the US electorate as sovereign.
The Iranians may be figuring that the escalation is their queue to start helping the Iraqis make the US staying in Iraq so bloody that dubya will retreat.
"massive reconstruction"
There are no more US funds for reconstruction. head's profiteers took their $Bs and really didn't do with it. The rest of the $$$ disappeared in stealing and corruption by the Iraqis (I'm sure lots of Iraqi power players have $Ms stashed away in Switzerland, Caymans, Singapore, etc) and in paying mercenaries for protection against the pervasive violence.
Even if the US funds were there, the violence precludes reconstruction, as it has for 3 years.
Invading Iran is nearing unavoidable. While I understand comepletely if the US does in fact invade, it will just be seen as another Zionist mission.
There is no winning in the Middle East. Being non-Muslim and from the West precludes such an end.
There is only subjugation (sp?). I think the entire strategy of invasion with intent to rebuild the government in our image is flawed from the outset. Go into the fray with one intention, and one intention only....the complete and utter dominance and destruction of military personnel, structure and ability to produce arms.
That means temporarily securing key sites of infrastructure for demolition. The ability to manufacture true war weapons needs to be removed utterly, the current regime responsible removed utterly, and any standing army removed utterly.
Afterword, leave immediately. Leave rebuilding to whomever wants the job (say, I dont know, maybe Iranians?). Make it clear in no uncertain terms that no aid will be given to a government seen as theocratic. The people will decide what government suits them. If it is theocratic, so what? It will wax and wane on its own, if it becomes a threat, we go back in and remove it again.
I know that sounds....stupid, really. But the American military is un- ing-matched against any standing army in the world. You could throw a dart at the globe and know with confidence that the US has every capability of wiping said government and corresponding military from the face of the Earth without the use of nuclear arms.
There does not exist (yet) one army, or even a coalition of armies that can stand the American military might for longer than 100 days. Where we stumble is the aftermath. Leave the aftermath to the people who have interest in such things (ahem...the people, per chance). Once we adopt said philosophy, I think our concept of "winning" will be much more attainable and not so abstract.
In. Out. up again, and we are coming back. Simple .
If you think invading Iraq has been a disaster, invading Iran would be far worse. At least in Iraq, we had the fantasy that we could get rid of Saddam and everyone would live happily ever after. If we invade Iran, all of Iran would be unified against us.
A more coherent option is whether you bomb Iran's nuclear facilities or not.
Attacking Iran would make our benefactor (China) rather unhappy, but at this point, I don't think the WH cares. If the Saudis are going to arm the sunnis and Iran is going to arm the e, why not leave? Support for both will never end.
How about a Nuke?
"wiping said government and corresponding military from the face of the Earth"
so ing what? That didn't deter Saddam from bluffing dubya,
and it apparently isn't scaring Iran. Iran already lost several 100K, including kids, when Saddam attacked. One has to assume they are ready to throw 100Ks more at the US, with an Army much more professional and better equipped that Saddams' bogus Army that didn't put a fight.
The problem is not busting up a country like Iraq or Iran, but rather what's going to happen in that country afterwards.
Shock-and-awe entrance strategy is always great TV enteratinment, to make the Macho Men fakers feel like their s are 18" long, but what's the exit strategy?
Incompetent, irresponsible s, dubya and head had NO plan for post-invasion Iraq. They probably don't have any plan for post-attack/invasion Iran, either. And even if they had a plan, it's probably the wrong one, will be incompetently-as- executed. The US military is already over-extended in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I'm sure the US military occupying Iran would be bled to death in nasty urban warfare just like in Bagdad now, but with millions more Iranians, with tons more munitions and firepower than Saddam, ready to martyr themselves in anti-US jihad.
That's right, Iran is too ing tough for the depleted, under-equipped, worn-out US military now.
Last edited by boutons_; 01-29-2007 at 12:04 PM.
Where Bush Co. ed up was the occupation of Iraq. I am not really talking about Iraq at the moment because the reasons behind invasion where....exaggerated, to say the least.
If GWB just said "Hey, Iraq is violating the terms of surrender from 1991, we have the right, the duty to enforce said agreement....we are going in." He would catch flack sure, but at least he never......exaggerated. He would have just been enforcing policy laid out by his predecessors.
Onto Iran...
Occupation and rebuilding....the very ideas need to be ditched completely. Invade, dismantle, capture government officials, hamstring and leave. The people of said country have a vested interest in the rebuilding. Remove the leaders of said country from power and let the vac be filled by whomever. Provide no monetary aid to a government seen as theocratic, business as usual afterword, unless new government starts tripping....show them CNN footage from last government to not mind its place, a reminder of sorts, if it cotinues, 20 days later they arent in power either.
Keep doing it until the people get it right. If they dont, then they will continually be reminded about what happens when theyre wrong.
I know it isnt diplomatic, but at his point, who cares? The rest of the world despises us beyond any measure previously known, might as well embrace it.
It's like this that keeps me paying attention to U.S. politics.
I laugh at the absolute ignorance of world affairs of some people
on this board and in the U.S and elsewhere.
If we lose this world war, which is what we are in, it will be because
of politics. You know the guys who claim to be experts in ever
faucet of life, except knowing when to listen and pay attention
to someone who really knows what they are talking about.
I see people who are so absolutely involved in the political
process that they still hold an election that happened in 2000,
and they lost, as a reason to lose their country. Now you just
got to call that brilliance.
We cannot afford to "pull out" or lose this war. In no way, shape
or fashion. If we do. God help us all. And God help those in
the ME. Everyone seems to forget and forgive those that
had us pull out of Viet Nam and standby while hundred of
thousands died or was imprisoned and watch Cambodia fall
into the enemies hands.
Live in ignorance, live in ignorance.
You got Hanoi Jane back, so be happy!
I'm a big fan of the ever faucet myself.
We won the war. We accomplished our original objective - remove Saddam and destroy Iraq's WMD capability. That's what the people wanted when they told their congressperson to vote for the Iraq war resolution. They didn't vote for occupation.
So what the are we still doing there?
^^You get the point.
The point is we should be going after the evit bas s who financed and planned 911, and those evil bas s are in Pakistan, not Iraq, and certainly not Iran.
"We won the war"
As with the Gulf War, there was no war. The Iraqi Army didn't even show up, either time.
"We accomplished our original objective"
yes, the Repug party political objective of getting dubya got re-elected in Nov 03 as "the wart-time president" was achieved. The Repugs had to switch, but they didn't care, from "victorious warrior/Mission Accomplished" to "war-time president" when the insurgency started in summer 03. But the Repugs didn't care. Whatever lies and lives required to get dubya re-elected are OK.
Removing Saddam was not the primary objective or justification, it was by-product of going-after hyped/misrepresented/dissembled WMDs, which in fact didn't exist.
Last edited by boutons_; 01-31-2007 at 07:57 AM.
^Listen to this guy Rufus, he knows what hes talking about
I'm going to wait until I get my RNC or DNC newsletters (whichever comes first) before I weigh in on this issue.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
