|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Experienced Member |
|
||
|
|
Member |
The article is similiar to some analysis in Robert Baer's new book, "Iran, The Devil We Know".
|
|||
|
|
Member |
Whoa...
How did this happen? Peter Brooks writing an article suggesting that talking to the Iranians might not be a bad idea? And even conceding that the we pulled some nasty tricks on them that would suggest that they had reasons to distrust the United States? WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT DID YOU DO WITH PETER BROOKS? It is important to note that the Iranians: were the first to offer condolences and aid on 9/11; helped the US prepare for ousting the Taliban in Afganistan by giving the US a good deal of intelligence; offered us logistical support and use of airbases and hospitals; helped the US prepare for the invasion of Iraq; and, informed the Bush Administration that they were ready to put all issues of the past and present on the table to iron out our differences. Until G W Bush added them to the "axis of evil" in a cheap publicity stunt and all but put them on notice that they were in the crosshairs. So the Iranians aren't stupid - they started to accelerate every defense program they had because to do otherwise would've been negligent. |
|||
|
|
Member -------------------  Proud Member Derelict Veterans Group -------------------  |
Is PolicyWonk on the same planet- Pres GW Bush's Axis of Evil a cheap stunt. What peace loving country broke international law and kept our embassy staff prisoners for over 400 days? Who runs training camps, provides weapons & cash to most of the terrorist groups out there- like the Taliban, Al-Queada & Hamas? I'm all for talking before you have to kick someone's butt, but so far Iran has said very lttle truth and done a lot of dirty deeds! Let them prove their intentions first before you nut cases go running up to embrace them. I'll stand with GW- if it walks & talks like a duck, then I seriously doubt it a peace loving pig!
|
|||
|
|
Member |
PolicyWonk,
You might want to look up the Holy Land Foundation and their ties to Hezbollah and Iran. Iran is not a passive country nor will it ever be. It is out to be the new empire it once was when it was Persia. I do think that PBO's adminstration will talk to them, but it will be all lies and deception that it has been since the 1970s. |
|||
|
|
Member |
You are quite correct that Iran has done a lot of dirty deeds - but so has the US - and directly against Iran. Did you not read my post, or did you simply hit "Reply" and start typing? They helped us go after the Taliban, and offered us considerable support logistically for both the Afganistan and Iraqi campaigns. These were *concrete* steps they took to start repairing relations with the US. And adding them to the 'axis of evil' after they came to the table hat-in-hand to repair relations just to make the neo-con freak show happy was a deeply shortsighted thing to do at best. If you want to stand with GW, go ahead, but the crowd you are standing with is tiny, and getting smaller every day as the reality of how much damage that administration did to our country becomes apparent. And keep in mind that he (according to the recent presidential ranking issued by C-SPAN) ranks lowest in foreign affairs than any president in our nations history (he came in at 36 out of 42 - only 5 other presidents did a lousier job than he did, and Jimmy Carter came ranked 25th). |
|||
|
|
Member |
Nor is the US a passive country - and note that by removing their arch enemy from the mix, GWB is the man ultimately responsible for empowering Iran and making them the power broker in the middle east. We can't stay there forever, but they live there, something that might've served our former president well to consider more carefully before he went into Iraq to take out the man who "tried to kill my daddy". And I am acutely aware of Irans ties to Hezbollah, just as I am aware of the US's former ties to the Contra's (amongst others). One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. GWB liked to oversimplify situations and/or circumstances with slogans like "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists...". So apparently the Saudi's either never got that message, or that message was only selectively delivered, as just one example. PW |
|||
|
New Member |
Policywonk, You state "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. GWB liked to oversimplify situations and/or circumstances with slogans like "you're either ......." That's funny you say that because the terrorist/freedom fighter line is overly simplistic. Your thinking indicates that freedom fighters are just terrorists by another name. That is very naive and in error. For example, I do not think that George Washington or Nathan Hale were terrorists; I do not think that the men who died at the Battle of Breed's Hill were terrorists either. And I would lay a years worth of paychecks that Molly Pitcher never placed explosives in her dress and detonated them in a room full of civilians. There is a difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist; I would think that someone who calls themself "Policywonk" would understand the difference. That is unless you like to over simplify things.  |
|||
|
|
Member ------------------- Proud Member Derelict Veterans Group ------------------- |
Gee PolicyWonk you must be standing in a small group like I supposedly am, if you think Iran is a friendly peace loving country! Concrete steps by offering logistical support to us and going after the Taliban? 1st I heard of it- Concrete- gee have they turned over any terrorists to any nations or any UN group? Have stepped down from nuclear production with a military capability? Have they ceased support terror groups with weapons (like rockets- Hamas doesn't build those out of fridges) & cash? Have they stopped screaming for the total annihilation of Israel and it's population? These are the same folks who for almost 3 years sent their children ( estimated 60-70% without weapons) against the Iraqi military in human waves during their war. The same folks who sent & continue to send Revoltionary Guards in small boats to intercept/interdict shipping in international waters. Yeah a real peace loving country. Freedom fighters do not target innocent people, women and children- nor do they use women & children to target innocent people. Maybe you should take your Policy bod to Iran as a common person and see how welcome you are & how freindly, peace loving their gov't is?
|
|||
|
|
Member |
I didn't way that - you assumed that I consider Iran to be a friendly country (a serious mistake on your part). If you are assuming the US is a friendly country, maybe you should read up on world history w/r/t our actions against Iran, and a load of other countries. It is all a matter of perspective. This is the first you've heard of the Iranians offering logistical support? Do you only get your news from FAUX? You need to read more international news, or horror of horrors, read the newpaper that makes the neo-cons freak out (i.e. the New York Times). They hate that paper because it has vastly more credibility as a news organization than practically any other. And, at least when they screw up - unlike Faux, New Republic, Welfare Queen Limbaugh, etc, and the other right-wing "news", they own up to their errors. When GWB blew what could've been a huge foreign policy win for his lousy excuse for an administration by adding Iran to the 'axis of evil', the Iranians were in a word stunned. If you were the Iranian leadership, and you didn't accelerate your defense programs after GWB openly puts you into the crosshairs then you would be a moron, wouldn't you? You can also safely ignore the comments of the Iranian president as well. He has a big mouth and ZERO clout: he can't even go potty without permission from the mullahs (maybe you've been reading too many of that traitor Ollie North's pathetic excuses for editorials). The guy drives himself to work in a 1982 Peugeot. The only decisions in Iran than make any difference at all are those of the mullahs. As far as your notions of terrorism and thier support for Hamas, Hezbollah: one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter (note: Ronald Reagan supported the much-despised Contras in Nicaragua, which is partially what got old Ollie into such deep doo-doo - and the contras had their share of death squads, etc, as well). The US has supported many insurgencies throughout its history and any claims to the contrary are dilusional. The Iranian war with Iraq was one of absolute desparation for the Iranians - and desparete times call for desparate measures. One of the guys I worked on a construction crew with while I was in college served in the Iranian Army during that war: and they were on the ropes. You seem to forget that the Iranian patriot can be just as willing to defend his homeland as any American patriot. Go and do more more reading - its out there and easy to find. If you have the stomach for it. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I didn't say that - you assumed that I consider Iran to be a friendly country (a serious mistake on your part). If you are assuming the US is always a friendly country, maybe you should read up on world history w/r/t our actions against Iran, and a load of other countries (and more recently - the unjustifiable invasion of Iraq). It is all a matter of perspective. Be clear: both countries have to come to the table, and there is considerable reason for distrust on BOTH sides (maybe you should re-read the editorial - the Iranians have a memory span far longer than what passes for a republican or neo-con these days). This is the first you've heard of the Iranians offering logistical support? Do you only get your news from FAUX? You need to read more international news, or horror of horrors, read the newpaper that makes the neo-cons freak out at the very mention of: the New York Times. They hate that paper because it has vastly more credibility as a news organization than practically any other and they have this unfortunate habit of informing the public about the bad news of whatever the so-called conservatives are peddling. And, at least when they screw up - unlike Faux, New Republic, Welfare Queen Limbaugh, etc, and the other right-wing "news", they own up to their errors. When GWB blew what could've been a huge foreign policy win for his lousy excuse for an administration by adding Iran to the 'axis of evil', the Iranians were in a word stunned. If you were the Iranian leadership, and you didn't accelerate your defense programs after GWB openly puts you into the crosshairs then you would be both negligent and a moron, wouldn't you? You can also safely ignore the comments of the Iranian president as well. He has a big mouth and ZERO clout: he can't even go potty without permission from the mullahs (maybe you've been reading too many of that traitor Ollie North's pathetic excuses for editorials). The guy drives himself to work in a 1982 Peugeot (that makes him a big honcho doesn't it?). The only decisions in Iran than make any difference at all are those of the mullahs, who aren't nearly as dumb as the previous incumbant of the white house (or his neo-con "advisors"). As far as your notions of terrorism and thier support for Hamas, Hezbollah: one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter (note: Ronald Reagan supported the much-despised Contras in Nicaragua, which is partially what got old Ollie into such deep doo-doo - and the contras had their share of death squads, etc, as well). The US has supported many insurgencies throughout its history and claims to the contrary are dilusional and/or dishonest to be charitible. The Iranian war with Iraq was one of absolute desparation for the Iranians - and desparete times call for desparate measures. One of the guys I worked on a construction crew with while I was in college served in the Iranian Army during that war: and from his stories you can be assured that they were on the ropes. You seem to forget that an Iranian patriot can be just as willing to defend his homeland as any American (Americans do not have a monopoly on patriotism). You need to do more more reading - its out there and easy to find. If you have the stomach for it. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Well, our friends or enemies change like the wind according to the how the chips stack up for our national security which makes it a challenge for strategic policies at times. Neither of us have the presidential daily briefs, so I doubt we have no idea what W, or now PBO, have to think about before making a decision. The real decision to go into Iraq was oil and that is a US national security objective (although denied and liberation was used). WMD intelligence was wrong, but the US, NATO, and other middle east countries all had similiar information AND Sadaam had already displayed WMD capabilites (against the Kurds) and intentions against the US and other countries. As far as the House of Saud, they are only there to protect their royal family. If it was up to the rest of their welfar population, the House of Saud would be dead for their crimes against sharia and Osama would appoint a cleric to rule them. Countries like Saudi Arabi, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain (Iran still claims it as former Persion territory), and Kuwait all pandered to the US for support. As far as covert action goes in foreign policy, what is your limit? Do we eliminate ALL covert action? I'd rather keep the US safe than let threats build against us unchecked. I could give two rats' *ss*s if the world thinks we are too powerful or "not nice". If you want the US' support, then it is truly, "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists...". None of this wishy-washy crap of sitting on the fence. Whose side are you on? |
|||
|
|
Member |
Lets see - what is my limit? The lessor of evils and thinking through our actions with an eye to long-term results is the only way to judge. As you mention above, we do not have access to the presidential briefings. There is no way I would eliminate all covert action - that wouldn't be constructive or in the US's national interests. The world isn't a very nice place, and in fact it is arguable that in absense of the cold war it has in fact become a good deal more dangerous - in the cold war foreign policy was ironically more straightforward. I think that special ops if anything needs to be expanded, especially since they are severely overworked now. They are trying to do so, but it takes time for even the cream of the crop to be adequately trained/prepared for those types of missions. You are correct that the only reason we went into Iraq was for Oil - and for that, the previous administration should've been impeached (I think even the democrats blanched at the prospect on Nancy Pelosi sitting in the big chair) if the republican congress had even the slightest ounce of "principals" they had when they went after WJC during the Lewinski affair, but I digress. Saddam did inform the Bush Administration through multiple intermediaries that if they thought there were WMDs in Iraq then they would be allowed to send any representatives they wanted (CIA, Marines, NSA, UN, etc.) to Iraq, and they would take them immediately to any site to demonstrate otherwise. The Bush Administration, who had already decided they were going to war regardless, refused. But I believe you are incorrectly oversimplifying the "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists..." thing. There are far too many shades of grey as any student of foreign policy can tell you, and we have to function in the context of the rest of the world - especially since our economies are now so reliant on each other (I think Pat Buchanan is correct w/r/t "the global economy"). The "with us or against us" mantra is far too simplistic, and like many other administrations of the past we've had sometimes have to make decisions based on the lessor of two (or more) evils. The problem our nation has had with that aspect of policy making is that sometimes we get too carried away, and thats when we get into trouble. Unfortunately, the world is a wishy-washey place, and there is no amount of threats, military action, etc, that is going to change that as much as we might wish otherwise. I therefore, as a patriot, am on the side of American pragmitism with an eye to our long term national interests. This is in serious conflict with the previous administration, who's only eye was on interests other than those of the United States as a nation, in far too many cases. We have to learn as a nation when to fish, cut bait, or get out of the game. And that "faith-based" policy making needed to be flushed down the tubes long ago, because it only got us into a butt-load of trouble: you have to make decisions based on how things ARE, not how you wish them to be. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Cold War foreign policy and intelligence was just as dangerous as it is now. Read about the Huston Plan and the Church hearings and find out. Nothing is EVER straightfoward; that's what makes intelligence an artform not a science even though the legislative oversight committees have failed to do their jobs with over 45 intell agencies...
Impeach for protecting strategic oil reserves that are critical to the US economic and defensive postures? I hope you're ready for Al Gores winter from "inconvenient lie". Even by 2030, the rest of the world and the US will still be using oil and alternatives will still only be 1% of energy. No oversimplication to say, "...with us...", because the other countries have a difficult decision to make according to their strategic plans. The US should not sacrifice its safety and security to play *****foot with others. WE need to control our destinies; not others. Look at the mess we are in with the oil barons. Bush was looking ahead and Cheney may have been an #*s hole, but he wasn't stupid. PBO will realize what he's jumped into and watch his foreign policy closely; it won't change too drastically unless he doesn't care about the US. |
|||
|
|
Member |
As with an article of a similar nature regarding a readdressing of relations with Russia...Iran must demonstrate a willingness & ability to step onto this road, as it is, after all, a two way street. They must be willing to concede & apologize for quite a few hostile actions & utterances that they've made. They must, also, drop the demanding & narrow dogma being presently dictated by there clergy. They are, really, the real power behind their supposedly elected political leaders. It will only be when two-way open & frank discussions & negotiations on issues of mutual concern be entered into; & not continual insulting & threatening diatribes being hurled at one another; that will open the way to, just maybe, positive headway & actions toward one another. This, & this alone, will be the key to any future positive relations for one another, along with our various regions of influence....
|
|||
|
|
Member |
Unfortunately, the Iranian clergy control EVERYTHING and eliminate any opposing views. Not even its stagnant economy, rampant heroine/opium addiction, vast unemployment, internal terrorist threats, and disenfranchised females have any effect on Iran's clergy. The Revolutinary Guard destroy all. Iran has proven it does not care about UN sanctions or mandates or resolutions. |
|||
|
Member |
That's the problem with polls, it doesn't show that most know little to nothing and base most everything on the prevailing winds of politics and media. Two areas with little to nothing to do with reality. And how does a bully acutally be nice for more than a delaying tatic? |
|||
|
|
Member |
Going to war in Iraq was a way to have a forward base. It had the added bonus of ousting one more nutcase well on his way to having a nuclear weapon and closer ties to a country with oil reserves. Even the worst mental midget could connect those dots. |
|||
|
|
Member |
As a country, even IF (and thats a mighty big if) President Bush wanted to play emporer, he would not have had the backing to pull it off. Look at all those who parret the Democrat party line. |
|||
|
|
Member |
It is my opinion that GWB should've impeached for going after Iraq - because he supposedly didn't go there for oil, remember? That administration told 935 documented lies to goad the nation into supporting a war that shouldn't have happened. Furthermore, according to the Downing Street Memos, they lied to both houses of congress, the American people, and our allies when they claimed that they would exhaust all diplomatic channels prior to going to war. They had already decided they were going to war almost a full year before the invasion began, and the outstanding issues were how to persuade the nation to support it. As far as I can tell, the only reason they got away with it, is because even the democrats couldn't stomach the thought of Nancy Pelosi being in the Big Chair. W/r/t "with us or against us" we will have to agree to disagree. I don't buy that argument for previously mentioned reasons. And as far a GWB looking ahead - I don't buy that for even a second. He is easily the worst president in foreign affairs in our nations history. He ignored repeated warnings on so many issues that have since helped lead this country into disaster that it boggles the mind. He was a failure as a president, and left behind an unprecendented mess for his successor to clean up (quite unlike the situation he inherited). Thats why his few remaining supporters spend so much time desparately attempting to foist blame for the problems his administration created on others. Believe me, as an American patriot, I really wish this wasn't the case. |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
