Barack Obama has lost his marbles

[JaJae]

He says we should

send a message to the Iraqis as well as to the regional powers including Iran and Syria that they have to take some ownership for creating some stability there.

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.

[motivez]

Olberdouche

O'Reilly?

[motivez]

Why shouldn't Iran and Syria play a stabilizing role in the reigion rather than what is apparently currently happening as far as funding the insurgency, etc.. which is a common claim made by people on the right?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Why shouldn't Iran and Syria play a stabilizing role in the reigion rather than what is apparently currently happening as far as funding the insurgency, etc.. which is a common claim made by people on the right?

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.

[motivez]

So because it's not in their interest, we shouldn't even try?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

So because it's not in their interest, we shouldn't even try?

No. That's like asking for North Korea's help in South Korea. It's like asking the Palestinians to come in and help stabalize Israel. What good could possibly come by giving Syria and Iran a hand in Iraq?

[motivez]

What I think doesn't make any sense is not talking to countries because we have ideological differences with them.

It might turn out that they're not very good partners, or they don't help much, or whatever.. but turning other countries into some type of ally in stabilizing Iraq is much better than ignoring them and trying to ratchet up the rhetoric against them.. because then rather than being neutral, or potentially helping, they'll do what they can to subvert our efforts in Iraq.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

What I think doesn't make any sense is not talking to countries because we have ideological differences with them.

It might turn out that they're not very good partners, or they don't help much, or whatever.. but turning other countries into some type of ally in stabilizing Iraq is much better than ignoring them and trying to ratchet up the rhetoric against them.. because then rather than being neutral, or potentially helping, they'll do what they can to subvert our efforts in Iraq.

Giving Iran and Syria strategic information needed to help stabalize Iraq doesn't seem like an intelligent move to me. It has nothing to do with isolating them or bringing them into the showm as far as I'm concerned. If you give Syria and Iran a hand in Iraq the only possible result is death and sabatoge. I'm just worried of the likely outcome of such an idea.

[motivez]

The ONLY possible result? Really?

I'm not suggesting, and I doubt Obama was either, that we should give them all sorts of information about our strag..oh wait, we don't have a strategy, our uh, troop positions or any intelligence that could put us in harms way.

Rather, I'm saying bringing them to the table and attempting to get something done with them as partners can't be any worse than what's going on right now, even if it's simply getting them to enforce their borders more thoroughly.

They don't have to actually be in Iraq doing stuff, but since Bush has refused to ever send the number of troops required, they could help quite a bit in apprehending any shipments crossing the border that could be used to harm our troops or carry out attacks on the Iraqi people.

I think playing to their humanity in terms of other Muslim's could work, but we'll never know if we're too arrogant to try.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

The ONLY possible result? Really?

I'm not suggesting, and I doubt Obama was either, that we should give them all sorts of information about our strag..oh wait, we don't have a strategy, our uh, troop positions or any intelligence that could put us in harms way.

Rather, I'm saying bringing them to the table and attempting to get something done with them as partners can't be any worse than what's going on right now, even if it's simply getting them to enforce their borders more thoroughly.

They don't have to actually be in Iraq doing stuff, but since Bush has refused to ever send the number of troops required, they could help quite a bit in apprehending any shipments crossing the border that could be used to harm our troops or carry out attacks on the Iraqi people.

I think playing to their humanity in terms of other Muslim's could work, but we'll never know if we're too arrogant to try.

Of course we have a strategy. You just don't agree with it. And bringing them to the table to do what exactly? Discuss what supplies and where they're needed and how to go about getting to them. And where we need to tighten security? Exactly what part of the stabilization of Iraq should we include Iran on other than the part telling them to keep their crap inside their own borders.

[motivez]

I wish we had a strategy because then I could critique it piece by piece, rather than simply watching our military flounder in the middle of a civil war.

We don't though, so all I can disagree with is the current military tactics being used, house to house raids, etc, which aren't working..

[Thorgrim]

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.

You must have missed these two events:

Hafez al-Assad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iran-Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd really like to know why you think you're an expert on politics in the Middle East

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You must have missed these two events:

Hafez al-Assad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iran-Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd really like to know why you think you're an expert on politics in the Middle East

What does the fact that Iran and Syria hating Iraq or working with Saddam have anything to do with justifying your point.

FOXNews.com - Syria, Iraq Link May Have Fueled Insurgency - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

Congressional lawmakers on Wednesday laid out a detailed and disturbing picture of alleged Syrian complicity with Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

And because of that complicity, money funneled into Iraq may have gone to help fuel the insurgency currently targeting U.S. and coalition troops, as well as Iraqi civilians, said members of the House International Relations Joint Oversight Subcommittee.

NEWS ANALYSIS / The Iranian factor in Iraq insurgency / Country is influencing rebellion, U.S. says -- analysts not so sure

For 29 months, U.S. troops in Iraq have battled an elusive and increasingly violent insurgency that has eroded domestic support for America's involvement there.

Now the United States says it faces another enemy in Iraq: Iran, the country's Shiite neighbor, which President Bush once called part of an "axis of evil."

I'm sorry, but these countries are not our allies in stablizing Iraq. And they have not supported us up until this point. They have only made matters far worse.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You must have missed these two events:

Hafez al-Assad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iran-Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I'd really like to know why you think you're an expert on politics in the Middle East

and you are an expert?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

I wish we had a strategy because then I could critique it piece by piece, rather than simply watching our military flounder in the middle of a civil war.

We don't though, so all I can disagree with is the current military tactics being used, house to house raids, etc, which aren't working..

And your suggestion would be what?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

and you are an expert?

I talk to people with PhD's in middle eastern and international relations, I'm probably more educated than most people on this board

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I talk to people with PhD's in middle eastern and international relations, I'm probably more educated than most people on this board

And these people are?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

What does the fact that Iran and Syria hating Iraq or working with Saddam have anything to do with justifying your point.

FOXNews.com - Syria, Iraq Link May Have Fueled Insurgency - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum


NEWS ANALYSIS / The Iranian factor in Iraq insurgency / Country is influencing rebellion, U.S. says -- analysts not so sure


I'm sorry, but these countries are not our allies in stablizing Iraq. And they have not supported us up until this point. They have only made matters far worse.

Speculation and theory

The only party that clearly destabilized Iraq was the US

Syria and Iran are protecting themselves, from each other

Syria was an early ally in the war on terror until Bush pissed them off, we still work together on some levels and send people there to be tortured

Iran was working towards moderation until it became clear the goal of the US was regime change not moderation

Anyway...in Iraq...Iran is worried that a Saddam-like figure would come into power, or maybe Saddam himself, and with other Sunni nations would overpower Iran

Syria is worried, correctly, that an Iraq-Iran alliance would topple their regime and perhaps the entire middle east except for Israel

If Iraq went into total chaos, they'd risk destabalizing their own regime, same with Syria...Iran HATED that the Afghanistan was a black hole, one of the biggest favors we ever did was rid them of the Taliban

I just don't get how anyone could not look at the facts indepth, and not see how they are both balancing securing Iraq and their own interests at the same time (like we are)...the only way someone could miss this would be if they totally ignored the facts on the ground in the middle east and got their opinions from the SOTU

[7960]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I talk to people with PhD's in middle eastern and international relations, I'm probably more educated than most people on this board

I teach classes to people who actually live in israel and pakistan and ask them questions about politics in their part of the world.

IMO who you "talk to" doesn't mean shit.