Barack Obama has lost his marbles

[Donkey®]

Obama isn't the only person saying this.

Description of Selected News


Don't bash the source, bash the people in the story saying the same thing Obama is.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Talabani backs 'Iran-Syria plan'

More people saying it. It is a GREAT idea. Yes, it only magnifies our failure in Iraq, but at least it is the right thing. People that actually LIVE in that region of the world need to dictate to themselves what to do.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

More people saying it. It is a GREAT idea. Yes, it only magnifies our failure in Iraq, but at least it is the right thing. People that actually LIVE in that region of the world need to dictate to themselves what to do.

Reason and logic, finally!

[Vietvet]

Originally Posted by JaJae

He says we should on Olberdouche last night.

We need to include Iran and Syria in helping stabilize Iraq? Why not enlist North Korea, Libya and Cuba while we're at it. You know, make the list well rounded. This kind of talk isn't going to help the Democrats gain confidence in Iraq for the midterm elections.

Now normally I like Obama. I think he should run for president and I think he's the Democrat's best candidate. He'll pick up the black vote. He'll pick up the minority vote. He'll pick up the liberal vote. And he's able to reach over and hold his stake in the independents and even grab a good amount of Republican votes. Barack is a great politician for his age. And he's new to politics. He doesn't have much of a record to abuse or too many skeletons in his closet like Hillary. If Billary runs again she'll get destroyed by her history and skeletons. I don't think Barack really has any. He's much cleaner than a man like Rudy.

If Obama ran I'd likely vote for him. But he really needs to get a clue on Iraq and come back to reality of what Americans want.

I think he means talking tough with Iran and Syria, using "carrots and sticks." Bush's approach is to just ignore them; you don't talk to your enemies, that's a sign of weakness.He'd rather talk ABOUT them and around them, which will never accomplish a DAMNED thang. That approach is akin to burying one's head in the sand. I think it takes more guts to TALK than to avoid your enemies. But when I say talk, I'm not saying roll over, I'm saying ENGAGE. Bushco is incapable of that. They'd rather just throw rocks at countries like Iran, Syria, and North Korea. We need to be ENGAGING these countries. Don't hold your breath.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Vietvet

I think he means talking tough with Iran and Syria, using "carrots and sticks." Bush's approach is to just ignore them; you don't talk to your enemies, that's a sign of weakness.He'd rather talk ABOUT them and around them, which will never accomplish a DAMNED thang. That approach is akin to burying one's head in the sand. I think it takes more guts to TALK than to avoid your enemies. But when I say talk, I'm not saying roll over, I'm saying ENGAGE. Bushco is incapable of that. They'd rather just throw rocks at countries like Iran, Syria, and North Korea. We need to be ENGAGING these countries. Don't hold your breath.

Welcome to the board

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by Vietvet

I think he means talking tough with Iran and Syria, using "carrots and sticks." Bush's approach is to just ignore them; you don't talk to your enemies, that's a sign of weakness.He'd rather talk ABOUT them and around them, which will never accomplish a DAMNED thang. That approach is akin to burying one's head in the sand. I think it takes more guts to TALK than to avoid your enemies. But when I say talk, I'm not saying roll over, I'm saying ENGAGE. Bushco is incapable of that. They'd rather just throw rocks at countries like Iran, Syria, and North Korea. We need to be ENGAGING these countries. Don't hold your breath.

I agree with your post and welcome to the forum .

If Bush were agree to such an outlandish idea as bringing Iran and Syria to the table in order to bring even a modicum of cooperation from these 2 countries to stabilize the ME, it would be in total contradiction of the neocon agenda.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

All he did was call upon them to help stabilize Iraq. Seems pretty vanilla to me. Don't see what the big deal is to call upon Iraq's neighbors to help out.

That said, I don't see why everyone sucks off Obama.

[Vietvet]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

I agree with your post and welcome to the forum .

If Bush were agree to such an outlandish idea as bringing Iran and Syria to the table in order to bring even a modicum of cooperation from these 2 countries to stabilize the ME, it would be in total contradiction of the neocon agenda.

Thanks Kat, this seems like a good place to hang out now and then. Bush reminds me of a schoolyard bully. He likes to talk tough and throw rocks, and he always has a bunch of surrogates who back him up, kiss his butt, and do whatever he says. And yet, he doesn't have the GUTS to go man-to-man with anybody he doesn't like. Deep down, the guy's really a weenie. Don't tell the "macho" republican guys around here, though. The poor fellas are still dealing with the fact that SOME of them are GAY!

[Vietvet]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Welcome to the board

Thanks, glad to be here.

[avsp]

[quote=JaJae;50782]No. That's like asking for North Korea's help in South Korea. /quote]
Other way round surely?

It's like asking the Palestinians to come in and help stabalize Israel.

It would be more like asking the Palestinians to stop trying to destabilise Isreal

What good could possibly come by giving Syria and Iran a hand in Iraq?

Because they are going to interfer anyway, not least in attempts to stymie each other.

By engaging with Iran & Syria at least a peacefull-ish solution may be possible.

This possibility only makes sense anyway coz of the west's/Americas lack of resolve/commitment in Iraq anyway. Much as you & I may deplore the current situation in this regard, (even if we blame different tendancies), it is nevertheless seemingly the case that the CoW forces are to be pulled out ASAP for domestic political reasons.

Thus regretable & risky though it may be examining this possibility makes total sense.

Look at it this way. It could be a victory for democracy in the long run, ..., force them to show their 'true face', ..., get them involved in an intractable resource sapping situation etc.
Such a sceanario is perhaps a bit unfair on the poor old Iraqis of course (especially the Kurds), ..., but then what have they too lose anyway.
'Democracy' is just a word without order in the streets, with very few jobs, with crap public utilities & with little hope of avoiding an extremely dirty, 12-sided, civil war.

[SICKGUY]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Because they don't have an interest in the success of Iraq. It's like asking the wicked stepsisters to take a role in helping Cinderalla get ready for the ball. It makes no sense.

at this point, what exactly is americas interest in iraqs success? i think we stopped caring about giving them a better life long ago. our focus is getting out of there without looking like a total failure.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by JaJae

He says we should on Olberdouche last night.

We need to include Iran and Syria in helping stabilize Iraq?

This is consistent with what the top minds are saying about the issue. It has to do with their influence on shiite sunni relations more than muslim american relations. Obama is a smart guy, and this proves he pays attention to detail.

[DosEquis]

I think the extent that we need Iran and Syria to help with Iraq is to have them stop the flow of foreign fighters, weapons, and bombs into the country.

I work with a guy who has a son that is a marine sniper. rumor/conspiracy from his son is that there are a few Russian snipers in the country being paid on a contract/mercenary type basis filtering through Iran to shoot at US soldiers. Which the possibility of something like that, the fall out if a russian is captured, etc, could fill a whole other thread.