Should we be talking to Iran and Syria?

[pocketfullofshells]

Thinking other than short term in a rapidly changing region is irrational.



As I am an agnostic, I will withhold comment on that.



3A. The current islamic Republic goes all the way back to 1979.

3B. Iran was founded in 1925.

3C. J P Morgan was founded in 1823.

3D. Get a clue.



Read at least ten pages of a history book.

Belive it or not, but Becoming "Iran" in 1925...does not in fact mean it did not exist before then...I know shocking, there where people there, they even had alot of power. At one point, even a Empire. But we all know the middle east Cares more about the name on the map, not the people and the reasons for its power.

 

[sun tzu]

Since you appeasers can't stomach the possibility of the US not being defeated in Iraq, you are inventing wholesale replacements of reality.

From the documented wiki entry for iraq:



It's the most bitter pill for an appeaser to swallow, I know, but al qaeda in Iraq has been crushed. Deal with it.

Wow, Wikipedia says Al Qaeda has been crushed. If Wikipedia ways it, it must be true!

Face it, Al Qaeda is still in Iraq. I know that being a Bush supporter requires you to use a slightly different form of logic than most sane people, but the truth is that Al Qaeda (as well as the Sunni Awakening Group) are still very much alive, and could wreak as much havoc on Iran as they do on us.

 

[Libsmasher]

I am sorry I should have been more specific....can you point out what Carter did...and by that I mean actually name something, not just say he abandoned and betray.

It's REALLY tiresome to tutor people who are clueless about 20th century american history, but I'll tell you the main events and you can read up futher.

- Carter gave away the panama canal, which had been ceded to the US "in perpetuity" by treaty by the panama government.

- Carter abandoned the Republic of China, by derecognizing them and recognizing the PRC. For 30 years under democrats and republicans, the US position had been that the PRC must first promise never to invade the ROC. Carter asked for and received NOTHING in return for recognition of the PRC - even they were stunned.

- Carter abandoned the formerly US-supported Angolan insurgents, fighting the soviet-supported communist angolan insurgents, which had been joined by thousands of cuban soldiers.

- Carter signed the SALT II treaty, which was so lopsidely against american interests that even his own democrat congress refused to ratify it.

- Carter drew down the US forces in korea and removed US nukes, and fired the commanding general. The north korean army is one of the biggest in the world.

- Carter created the Camp David Accords, which directly resulted in the assassination of the egyptian signatory, Anwar Sadat, and triggered the birth of the islamofascist movement we enjoy today.

- Carter aided the marxist sandinistas in nicaragua.

- Carter was instrumental in getting marxist Robert Mugabe ensconced as head of Zimbabwe (heard of him? )

Also yes "poorly Trained" If the Delta Force is Poorly Trained, then I guess the rest of our Military must have been peasants with rocks. But I am sure in your mind the President of the US goes down draws up the plans, trains the troops, shows them how to shoot, flies over Iran to check out weather conditions and to find out about Sand Plooms, that can knock out choppers....all himself. No the tells the Military get me a plan to get in and get them out, then they do, and he OK's it.

Once again, you're just clueless. Carter, elected in a wave of appeasement very similar to that of today, at the end of the vietnam war, drastically cut back the US military, including budgets for training and maintenance. The iranian rescue operation failed, among other reasons, because the helicopters were ill-maintained (one had electronic equipment problems and another a cracked wing blade) and their pilots had not been trained to fly in dessert conditions. The US miltary also had no intelligence about the area, because Carter had drastically cut back HUMINT (human intelligence, ie spies) in the CIA.

Read up.

 

[Libsmasher]

Belive it or not, but Becoming "Iran" in 1925...does not in fact mean it did not exist before then...I know shocking, there where people there, they even had alot of power. At one point, even a Empire. But we all know the middle east Cares more about the name on the map, not the people and the reasons for its power.

Like saying the united states existed in 10,000 B.C., because "people were here".

 

[Libsmasher]

Wow, Wikipedia says Al Qaeda has been crushed. If Wikipedia ways it, it must be true!

Wikipedia is merely a repository for information - the statements are documented by references with the article.

Face it, Al Qaeda is still in Iraq.

Fact is, they are almost certainly in the US too, but who cares? They're crushed.

I know that being a Bush supporter requires you to use a slightly different form of logic than most sane people, but the truth is that Al Qaeda (as well as the Sunni Awakening Group) are still very much alive, and could wreak as much havoc on Iran as they do on us.

Yaaaaaa - all five of them might attack a US tank with rocks.

 

[sun tzu]

Wikipedia is merely a repository for information - the statements are documented by references with the article.



Fact is, they are almost certainly in the US too, but who cares? They're crushed.



Yaaaaaa - all five of them might attack a US tank with rocks.

Interesting view of how Wikipedia works. You might want to chech out this link before you stake your credibility on Wikipedia again. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/vandals.html:rolleyes:

OK, I did some serious research, and discovered that on the Al Qaeda front, you're right, their attacks are way down. They still happen, but they're way down from last year. However, there are many other Sunni groups that would be very effective at opposing Iran, the most formidable, the previously mentioned Sunni Awakening Group. They're US backed, and could give any nation a scare who tried to oppress them.

 

[Libsmasher]

Interesting view of how Wikipedia works. You might want to chech out this link before you stake your credibility on Wikipedia again. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/vandals.html:

That's neither here nor there - I only cite REFERENCED facts within Wiki - then only the ultimate source requires credibility. Get it? Get it?

 

[sun tzu]

That's neither here nor there - I only cite REFERENCED facts within Wiki - then only the ultimate source requires credibility. Get it? Get it?

People write total bull**** into articles and then reference them to obscure books noone has ever read. Don't tell me that nobody's going to do it either; it happens.

But why are we disputing the validity of the Iraq wiki page in a group about Iran/Syria talks? I lost the connection.

 

[Libsmasher]

People write total bull**** into articles and then reference them to obscure books noone has ever read. Don't tell me that nobody's going to do it either; it happens.

YOU are the one calling into question my citation - YOU disprove it.

But why are we disputing the validity of the Iraq wiki page in a group about Iran/Syria talks? I lost the connection.

YOU tried to question a point I made based on a reference in wiki - don't you remember? Reread the thread.

 

[sun tzu]

YOU are the one calling into question my citation - YOU disprove it.



YOU tried to question a point I made based on a reference in wiki - don't you remember? Reread the thread.

Interestingly, I can't find any mention of Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, or Zarqawi in the entire iraq wiki entry. It must have been removed for innacuracy.

my point was that you have yet to give a single valid reason for us to not talk to Iran or Syria.

 

[Libsmasher]

Interestingly, I can't find any mention of Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, or Zarqawi in the entire iraq wiki entry. It must have been removed for innacuracy.

You're confused - go to the al qaeda wiki entry:

1. Paste

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#cite_note-136

into your URL field, then hit "GO".

2. Do a find-on-this-page of the string "600 to 20" - this finds the documented footnoted section which reads:

In a 39 page document retrieved in November and a 16 page document retrieved in October gives insight on how Al-Qaeda in Iraq is in panic and fear. The documents reveal how local fighters are being mistreated by the foreign fighters and labeled as "scoundrels, sectarians, and non-believers." Abu-Tariq, states that the number of fighters has dwindled from 600 to 20 fighters. [137]

my point was that you have yet to give a single valid reason for us to not talk to Iran or Syria.

Uh, OK - I'll play your silly ass game:

Yes I have!

 

[PLC1]

Fact is, they are almost certainly in the US too, but who cares? They're crushed.

"They" referring to Al Qaeda, of course.

Yay! Mission accomplished! Al Qaeda is crushed, Iraq is free from the terrorists, now let's go home.

Support the troops. Throw them a great homecoming party.

 

[Dr.Who]

"They" referring to Al Qaeda, of course.

Yay! Mission accomplished! Al Qaeda is crushed, Iraq is free from the terrorists, now let's go home.

Support the troops. Throw them a great homecoming party.

You just don't want to get it do you?

AQ was and is a threat to us! F. P. Clinton wanted to take out OBL because they were a threat to us. P. Bush had the same reasons.

AQ was stronger than they are now. Crushed? Who knows but they are weaker now.

Do they have cells in our country now? A lot of analysts think so. And that is no laughing matter. They could kill a few of us, or they could cause another 911, or they could do something even worse. Anytime we stop any of them anywhere we are making the world safer for us. Will our efforts to stop them make them more determined? yes. It makes them more determined but weaker. While doing nothing leave them just as determined as they are now and allows them to grow stronger.

 

[PLC1]

You just don't want to get it do you?

AQ was and is a threat to us! F. P. Clinton wanted to take out OBL because they were a threat to us. P. Bush had the same reasons.

AQ was stronger than they are now. Crushed? Who knows but they are weaker now.

Do they have cells in our country now? A lot of analysts think so. And that is no laughing matter. They could kill a few of us, or they could cause another 911, or they could do something even worse. Anytime we stop any of them anywhere we are making the world safer for us. Will our efforts to stop them make them more determined? yes. It makes them more determined but weaker. While doing nothing leave them just as determined as they are now and allows them to grow stronger.

I don't get it?

First, look at the post I was responding to.

Then, look up the word "sarcasm" in the dictionary.

Finally, tell us who didn't get it.

 

[Dr.Who]

I don't get it?

First, look at the post I was responding to.

Then, look up the word "sarcasm" in the dictionary.

Finally, tell us who didn't get it.

I understood that you were using sarcasm to make fun of the previous post. Which is why I said that it was no laughing matter.

But I did assume that you were trying to make one particular point when you might have been trying to make another. My apologies.