Captain Obvious to the Rescue

[Plane]

You need to know, Plane, that many of the supposed 'quotes' of Ahmedinejad are not so much anything he actually said, but Israeli propaganda about what they said he said.

Oh what did he really mean when he said that a world without America was acheveable?
I can understand that translation can be skewed by an unscrupoulous translator , so where can I get a better translation of that speech?

And
  How was that graphic showing time running out for America mistranslated?

[_JS]

Fine, don't buy both logical and eyewitness testimony of such.  Syria's contribution is much of what Iran tells them what to do, which is mostly aimed at Israel, but hardly limited to it

No other nations believe it either. If WMD's getting into the hands of terrorists is as big a threat as you and Bush made it out to be, why aren't Bush et al touring the country discussing attacking Syria? Why isn't Condi preparing a speech to the United Nations? Where is the substantive proof? We had Iraqis talking crap about their WMD after the first Gulf War, we knew most of it was false. Why believe it now?

Syria's contribution is much of what Iran tells them what to do

Evidence? Let's keep in mind that Syria is three-quarters Sunni Muslim whereas Iran is 90% Shi'a (and much more ethnically diverse). I want to see actual evidence that the Syrian secular government is taking orders from the Iranian theocratic government. Let's see it.

Tuekry isn't one of the countries we're having to deal with, as it relates to Iraq.

Ask the Kurds if that is true. I'm starting to seriously doubt your understanding of Iraq.

In the long term, I'm confident that their goal is for them to control the region, in whatever means possible, be it actual members of their contries implanted within whatever Iraqi Government is in power, complete disruption of the region, with them taking over lands, stabilized terrorist conduits to move both terrorists/insurgents and equipment in & out at will, whatever.

Why wouldn't they? A power vacuum has to be filled. It is stupid to think that Syria and Iran (as well as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Turkey) would not want influence on the region.

Now you have to be kidding.  No biggie, huh.  Wow

Terrorism compared to sectarian warfare is a minor concern. Again, look at Northern Ireland.

Of course both Iran & Syria are looking towards a stable Iraq/"long term situtaion".....stable in the sense that they're in control

And from their view they see us as the ones who want to be "in control." What's the difference? At least in Iran and Syria's case they represent different aspects of Muslim governance. What are you going to do, fight them too? You're not going to solve this with weapons.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Isn't time running out for the US in Iraq?

How much longer can things go on as they are? I wouldn't think more than a year or two at the outside.

Ahmedinejad has neither the means nor the support to wipe out Israel, let alone the US.

This is either something he didn't say at all, or something (like the bit about the US overthrowing the governments of both Syria and Iran) that is just not to be taken seriously.

[sirs]

No other nations believe it either. If WMD's getting into the hands of terrorists is as big a threat as you and Bush made it out to be, why aren't Bush et al touring the country discussing attacking Syria? Why isn't Condi preparing a speech to the United Nations? Where is the substantive proof?

I never claimed "without a doubt, all the WMD went to Syria".  What I claimed was it was logical to make that deduction, based on circumstantial evidence & eye-witness testimony of Iraqi defectors.  We don't have the global intel that makes that conclusion, only that Saddam had them before we went in.  And yes, most all other nations DID believe that.  But hey, if you're supporting the idea, let's move right on into Syria.

Evidence? Let's keep in mind that Syria is three-quarters Sunni Muslim whereas Iran is 90% Shi'a (and much more ethnically diverse). I want to see actual evidence that the Syrian secular government is taking orders from the Iranian theocratic government. Let's see it.

There's a laundry list of sites & reports that demonstrate the connection that Iran & Syria have, especially on the Terrorist front.  Not to mention how much of what Hezbollah is provided in military and rocket arms are directly from Iran.  Please note, I didn't make the claim that Iran says "jump", and Syria says "how high?"  I'm simply stating the intimate connection the 2 have, with Iran being the bigger power broker

Captured Terrorists admit Iran-Syria connection
Leader of Jaish Muhammed Admits Iran-Syria Connection
Strategic Support for Palestinian Terrorism
Syrian-backed terrorism
Hezbollah served as effective tool for Syria & Iran
The Syria/Iran Problem in the Middle East
Wikipedia, for crying out loud

I could copiously go on, but suffice to say, the notion that these 2 countries aren't intimately connected with terrorist actiivity and sponsorship is truely laughable

Ask the Kurds if that is true. I'm starting to seriously doubt your understanding of Iraq.

Ask the Kurds if they're glad that Saddam is no longer in power.  Ask the Iraqis if they believe it was the right thing to do that Saddam be taken out.  What I'm seriously doubting is your sincerity at what America's goals are in this conflict vs Iran's & Syria's

In the long term, I'm confident that their goal is for them to control the region, in whatever means possible, be it actual members of their contries implanted within whatever Iraqi Government is in power, complete disruption of the region, with them taking over lands, stabilized terrorist conduits to move both terrorists/insurgents and equipment in & out at will, whatever.

Why wouldn't they? A power vacuum has to be filled. It is stupid to think that Syria and Iran (as well as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Turkey) would not want influence on the region.

Amazing shift.  You ask why current instability would be a benefit to both syria & Iran, I provide you the answer, and you follow with "of course, why wouldn't they".  If you knew the answer already, why the need to ask the question?  When you can showcase mass influx of Turkish & Kuwaiti insurgents, then we can actually consider they're desire to rule the Iraqi region.  Until then current facts demonstrate the greatest amount of out-of-country insurgent and military influx to be coming from Iran & Syria, I'm afraid.  And lest we forget the goal is for IRAQ to fill whatever power vacuum is present....thus the efforts of Iran & Syria in trying to keep things unstable

Terrorism compared to sectarian warfare is a minor concern. Again, look at Northern Ireland.

Terrorism is no "minor concern", especially as it relates to its global repercussions.  I don't have to look at Northern Ireland.  I can look at the Middle East, the rhetoric of militant Islam and some of the Middle East leaders

And from their view they see us as the ones who want to be "in control." What's the difference?

That's actually a serious question on your part, isn't it.  How about the difference being we're trying to facilitate Democracy, while they're trying to facilitate Terrorism and civil war.  How's that for starters

At least in Iran and Syria's case they represent different aspects of Muslim governance. What are you going to do, fight them too? You're not going to solve this with weapons.

How do you fight Government sponsored Terrorism?  With harsh language? 


And last but not lease was my 1st query that never seemed to get addressed
Quote from: _JS on December 13, 2006, 10:39:51 AM
I suggest talk limited to discussing Iraq.

A) The "recommendation" by the ISG was to "talk" to both
B) you still haven't answered what kind of "talk" would you suggest?

[_JS]

I never claimed "without a doubt, all the WMD went to Syria".  What I claimed was it was logical to make that deduction, based on circumstantial evidence & eye-witness testimony of Iraqi defectors.  We don't have the global intel that makes that conclusion, only that Saddam had them before we went in.

In other words you have an assertion with no valid evidence. You have Iraqi defectors, known to give horrible testimony (see the first Gulf War as proof of some of the outlandish crap we were told). We have no global intel and amazingly, you are still counting on what everyone, even the higher ups in the administration have admitted was horrible intelligence information prior to this invasion. Therefore it is safe to say that your "Syria has Iraq's WMD" theory is garbage.

There's a laundry list of sites & reports that demonstrate the connection that Iran & Syria have, especially on the Terrorist front.  Not to mention how much of what Hezbollah is provided in military and rocket arms are directly from Iran.  Please note, I didn't make the claim that Iran says "jump", and Syria says "how high?"  I'm simply stating the intimate connection the 2 have, with Iran being the bigger power broker

Ah, so we're toning down our "Syria's contribution is much of what Iran tells them what to do" rhetoric, eh?

I checked out the Wikipedia article and it only mentions Syria as another link. We all know that Iran supports Hezbollah, which is a Shi'a organisation in Southern Lebanon. Iran supporting Shi'a terrorists is just not surprising. Even having Syria helping them in Lebanon would not be surprising. But in general terms Syria is not going to be a strong ally in furthering Iran's agenda.

Moreover, this game the Bush administration and the right wing are playing of blaming Syria and Iran for our current quagmire in Iraq is the height of stupidity. If we cannot protect the borders of Iraq, we are to blame. As Powell said, we broke it - we bought it. Furthermore, it is sectarian violence and to think that Iran would not aid the Shi'ite communities and further try to achieve a theocratic Islamic Republic in Iraq was just the height of idiocy to begin with.

Ask the Kurds if they're glad that Saddam is no longer in power.  Ask the Iraqis if they believe it was the right thing to do that Saddam be taken out.  What I'm seriously doubting is your sincerity at what America's goals are in this conflict vs Iran's & Syria's

I know the Kurds are glad. What I doubt, again is your understanding of Iraq, and the Middle East in general.

When you can showcase mass influx of Turkish & Kuwaiti insurgents, then we can actually consider they're desire to rule the Iraqi region.

We represent Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, or did you not get that from the Saudi's recent threat? Turkey has a watchfull eye on Mosul, they don't need insurgents. There are other ways of peddling influence Sirs, it isn't always brute force. The Saudis have been using their power for years and when was the last time you've heard of the Saudis engaging in a war or sending insurgents (with the exception of the Gulf War).

And lest we forget the goal is for IRAQ to fill whatever power vacuum is present....thus the efforts of Iran & Syria in trying to keep things unstable

And "Iraq" will, it just may not be in the form you wish.

Terrorism is no "minor concern", especially as it relates to its global repercussions.  I don't have to look at Northern Ireland.  I can look at the Middle East, the rhetoric of militant Islam and some of the Middle East leaders

Of course I'm speaking of Iraq, you turned my comments into something global.

That's actually a serious question on your part, isn't it.  How about the difference being we're trying to facilitate Democracy, while they're trying to facilitate Terrorism and civil war.  How's that for starters

But our democracy is one of drawing distinct religious and racial differences (Kurds, Sunni, and Shi'a) as well as inflating the minority's importance in numbers. I'm not passing judgement on it one way or another, but what if the Shi'a (the majority of Iraq) decide that they'd prefer an Israeli-like state where they write the laws and make the rules. Democracy can take many forms, and in that case Iran could still support a democracy, but one that gives power to the majority.

How do you fight Government sponsored Terrorism?  With harsh language?

You get them all to the table after [/i]they've[/i] determined that bloodshed isn't going to settle their problems. And you stop playing your own game of politics on it and blaming everything on Syria and Iran. Those weapons are finding people willing to fight, don't forget that. Just like American weapons found Irish Republican Army, PIRA, and RIRA folks ready to fight. Call it terrorism, or whatever you like, but sectarian violence isn't going to be solved by more violence. You think the Troubles made things better in Northern Ireland?   

A) The "recommendation" by the ISG was to "talk" to both
B) you still haven't answered what kind of "talk" would you suggest?

We need to discuss how to get Iraq to return to a state of normalcy. We have to find some common ground. A sense of humanity for the Iraqi people to get them water, electricity, schools, a semblance of an economy. Otherwise they are nothing more than a large scale Bosnia, during the period where the world ignored the region. As Christians, Muslims, Zoarastrians and whatever else there might be - we need to get all parties to agree to some set of common terms to restore normalcy.






 

[sirs]

I never claimed "without a doubt, all the WMD went to Syria".  What I claimed was it was logical to make that deduction, based on circumstantial evidence & eye-witness testimony of Iraqi defectors.  We don't have the global intel that makes that conclusion, only that Saddam had them before we went in.

In other words you have an assertion with no valid evidence.

In your eyes perhaps.  Hardly the objective standard around these parts.  Your rapid denunciation of eye-witness testimony demonstrates that for all to see

Ah, so we're toning down our "Syria's contribution is much of what Iran tells them what to do" rhetoric, eh?

You asked for the connections.  I provided them

I checked out the Wikipedia article and it only mentions Syria as another link. We all know that Iran supports Hezbollah, which is a Shi'a organisation in Southern Lebanon. Iran supporting Shi'a terrorists is just not surprising. Even having Syria helping them in Lebanon would not be surprising. But in general terms Syria is not going to be a strong ally in furthering Iran's agenda.

Nice bit of rationalizing.  You'd make a good defense attorney.  take their connections, take their direct influence they have with each other, including the military arms that have Iran's singatures on them, shipped thru Syria right into Hezbollah's hands and it's deemed "not surprising"   Frelling amaizing, even for you Js.  Much like that question as to what would Iran & Syria gain with facilitating Iraqi instability, then reaffirming my answer of how of course they'd want to fill any power vacuum that might arise from the instability THEY helped perpetuate

Moreover, this game the Bush administration and the right wing are playing of blaming Syria and Iran for our current quagmire in Iraq is the height of stupidity.

Of course that might be the case IF that's what Bush and "the right" were doing.  No one's putting all the blame on Iran & Syria.  What Bush and "the right" have been indicating is the role they've been playing in perpetuating both the instability & in trying to start a civil war.  You do grasp the difference, correct?

I know the Kurds are glad. What I doubt, again is your understanding of Iraq, and the Middle East in general.

And what I continue to doubt is your sincerity towards what the U.S is trying to do, and instead trying to play this Brass-like Bush-the meglomoronic tact

We represent Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, or did you not get that from the Saudi's recent threat? Turkey has a watchfull eye on Mosul, they don't need insurgents. There are other ways of peddling influence Sirs, it isn't always brute force. The Saudis have been using their power for years and when was the last time you've heard of the Saudis engaging in a war or sending insurgents (with the exception of the Gulf War).

So in other words, you have an assertion, with no validation.  Gotcha

And "Iraq" will, it just may not be in the form you wish.

As long as it's in the form that THE IRAQIS WISH, I'll be happy

Of course I'm speaking of Iraq, you turned my comments into something global.

That's because you were trying to claim a local terrible conflict was much grander than some minor global terrorist activity

But our democracy is one of drawing distinct religious and racial differences (Kurds, Sunni, and Shi'a) as well as inflating the minority's importance in numbers. I'm not passing judgement on it one way or another, but what if the Shi'a (the majority of Iraq) decide that they'd prefer an Israeli-like state where they write the laws and make the rules. Democracy can take many forms, and in that case Iran could still support a democracy, but one that gives power to the majority.

That's what democracy is all about Js.  Providing the freedom of the citizeny to decide for themselves how they wish to be governed.  You think that's so much more terrible that Iran & Syria, sponsoring and perptuating terrorist acts, both regional & global?  You think our efforts at trying to bring freedom to the Iraqis are on par with Iran's & Syria's efforts to bring death & instability to the region?   

How do you fight Government sponsored Terrorism?  With harsh language?

You get them all to the table after [/i]they've[/i] determined that bloodshed isn't going to settle their problems. And you stop playing your own game of politics on it and blaming everything on Syria and Iran.

A) Again, the "blame" for "everything" is not being placed completely on Syria & Iran
B) When do they "determine" that bloodshed (terrorist endeavors) isn't going to settle their problems (gaining greater control and influence within the Middle East region)?
C) How long do we allow them to make their "determination"?  How many innocent lives do we allow to be killed with Iranian weapons and Syrian insurgents
D) What are the concessions you're ready to provide the Terrorist sponsoring Governments of Syria & Iran?

We need to discuss how to get Iraq to return to a state of normalcy. We have to find some common ground. A sense of humanity for the Iraqi people to get them water, electricity, schools, a semblance of an economy. Otherwise they are nothing more than a large scale Bosnia, during the period where the world ignored the region. As Christians, Muslims, Zoarastrians and whatever else there might be - we need to get all parties to agree to some set of common terms to restore normalcy.

And of course, this has never been our goal, to "return to a state of normalcy".."to find common ground".." to get them water, electricity, schools, and a semblence of an economy".  Naaaa, we just want to bomb the snot out of them and take their oil, right?   

[Plane]

Isn't time running out for the US in Iraq?


<< Why do you think that he ment  that time was running out for the US '\"in Iraq"/? I think you are adding your own modifiers , can we not finds a version of the speech translated by someone who is indiffrent or freindly to Iran?>>

How much longer can things go on as they are? I wouldn't think more than a year or two at the outside.

Ahmedinejad has neither the means nor the support to wipe out Israel, let alone the US.

<< Why do you think so ? Al Gore thinks that CO2 has the power to end the USA , what do you think it would take?(as a minimum)>>

This is either something he didn't say at all, or something (like the bit about the US overthrowing the governments of both Syria and Iran) that is just not to be taken seriously.

<< I don't think that overthrowing the government of Syria would be a bad thing , but would we still be bound by the "pottery barn" rule?>>

[_JS]

In your eyes perhaps.  Hardly the objective standard around these parts.  Your rapid denunciation of eye-witness testimony demonstrates that for all to see

Sirs, if you read the testimony given to us (and the Brits) by Iraqi defectors after the first Gulf War, you'll see why I don't put much faith in their testimony. Without that, you have absolutely nothing. I think we can consider the Iraq to Syria WMD theory to be a hypothesis with no real evidence.

You asked for the connections.  I provided them

Nice. I asked you to substantiate your claim that "Syria's contribution is much of what Iran tells them what to do" which you were unable to do. I agree though, both want to help Hezbollah, on that we can easily agree.

No one's putting all the blame on Iran & Syria.  What Bush and "the right" have been indicating is the role they've been playing in perpetuating both the instability & in trying to start a civil war.  You do grasp the difference, correct?

OK. So? There are willing fighters in Iraq. Syria and Iran help arm them. Saudi Arabia said they will help arm a particular side if the United States leaves as well. Clearly we are to blame in this as well. Now what?

And what I continue to doubt is your sincerity towards what the U.S is trying to do, and instead trying to play this Brass-like Bush-the meglomoronic tact

Not at all. Bush is irrelevant in this. What concerns me Sirs, are the Iraqi people and the amount of human lives lost (no matter what nationality). What I care about are the people: American, Iraqi, Syrian, Iranian, Kurd, Shi'a, Sunni, Christian, Zoarastrian, whatever. I want a solution that will allow the people of all of those nations to live in peace and preferably worship freely without worrying about losing body parts and lives in the process. I want them to feel safe walking with their children to the market. That is what matters to me. The political desires of Bush, Ahmadinejad, Assad, the Saud family, Clinton, McCain, Blair, and others are miniscule in comparison in my humble view.

So am I always sincere in what the US is trying to do? No, not always if you mean by "US" the politics of the administration, Congress, the Pentagon, etc. I think there is an overall good goal in mind, but I think it loses lustre once it gets run through the political cycle of Bush, Democrats, Republicans, military PR, etc.

So in other words, you have an assertion, with no validation.  Gotcha

Seems to me that the Saudi warning was well-documented. I'm sure you can look it up if you like. Also, Saudi contributions to anti-Israeli groups is well-documented. Same with Kuwait.

As long as it's in the form that THE IRAQIS WISH, I'll be happy

The majority of Iraqis?

That's what democracy is all about Js.  Providing the freedom of the citizeny to decide for themselves how they wish to be governed.  You think that's so much more terrible that Iran & Syria, sponsoring and perptuating terrorist acts, both regional & global?  You think our efforts at trying to bring freedom to the Iraqis are on par with Iran's & Syria's efforts to bring death & instability to the region?

That isn't what I said at all. I'm saying that Iran could easily claim to support democracy if they were reasonably sure that the Shi'a majority would approve of an Islamic Republic similar to Iran's. Then they could marginalise the minority Sunni and Kurd populations just as the Israelis did to their minority populations. Is that really what democracy is about, really? I wonder if James Madison would have agreed? They could claim their right to exist as a Shi'a state and simply drive out opposing populations.

A) Again, the "blame" for "everything" is not being placed completely on Syria & Iran
B) When do they "determine" that bloodshed (terrorist endeavors) isn't going to settle their problems (gaining greater control and influence within the Middle East region)?
C) How long do we allow them to make their "determination"?  How many innocent lives do we allow to be killed with Iranian weapons and Syrian insurgents
D) What are the concessions you're ready to provide the Terrorist sponsoring Governments of Syria & Iran?

A) That's not what I heard from the Washington Times correspondent on CNN when he discussed the ISG report.

B) It took a few decades in Northern Ireland. Basically when the rest of the population (Sunni and Shi'a) says "enough!"

C) So you stop them with more violence? Why not protect the borders then and allow the inner turmoil to simply be contained?

D) Who says we need to make concessions?

And of course, this has never been our goal, to "return to a state of normalcy".."to find common ground".." to get them water, electricity, schools, and a semblence of an economy".  Naaaa, we just want to bomb the snot out of them and take their oil, right?

Think before you type. Of course it is our goal. But we need it to be everyone's goal.


As someone who has been to Dachau I don't appreciate your "cartoon" at the end of your reply to me.

[Xavier_Onassis]

As someone who has been to Dachau I don't appreciate your "cartoon" at the end of your reply to me.

=====================================================
Okay, it wasn't my reply, but were you an inmate (detainee? prisoner? victim?) at Dachau? or perhaps a tourist?

Just curious.
********************************************************

And for Plane:

What Al Gore said about CO2 destroying the US (Did he really say this?) has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with the fact that Iran and Syria have no means to destroy the US. Probably not Israel, either.

If the US did invade Syria, it would most certainly be bound by the 'pottery barn' rule.

Syria shares a common border with Israel. Invading Syria would be even harder to get out of than invading Iraq, which was at least a 9.5 on the Stupidity Index.

Observe that Ahmedinejad's supporters appear to have lost bigtime in recent elections. It would appear that his silly annoyances have pissed off many Iranians.  Perhaps he will have his own Iraq Study Group.

[_JS]

No, no, not an inmate or detainee. It wa a bit before my time. I was a visitor to the historical site.

[Xavier_Onassis]

No, no, not an inmate or detainee. It was a bit before my time. I was a visitor to the historical site.

===============================================================
As I suspected. So your visit to Dachau as a tourist should cause the rest of us not to post cartoons about the Holocaust, lest it cause you to relive your vacation?

Just asking

[_JS]

Wow. I didn't realize I was being subjected to a mixture of Kantian ethics and basic semantics today.

I posted that message not as a universal law, but as a specific instance to a specific post in a specific reply to a specific poster (namely me). I figured that Sirs did not insert it randomly but for some reason as a reply to my post and therefore I made it known that I found it offensive. Also, though I was a tourist to Dachau the camp, the Free State of Bavaria is my birth state and home to most of my family. So I am perhaps more tied to that region than most tourists.

But you're right. Post whatever you like and I shouldn't complain about it. I know when it is not my day! Chacun voit midi à sa porte.

[sirs]

Sirs, if you read the testimony given to us (and the Brits) by Iraqi defectors after the first Gulf War, you'll see why I don't put much faith in their testimony. Without that, you have absolutely nothing. I think we can consider the Iraq to Syria WMD theory to be a hypothesis with no real evidence.

So, your claiming EVERY defector, including General Sada, can't be trusted.  Sorry, I didn't see that claim made by us or the Brits.  Perhaps you can show me were American & British agencies classified his commentary as not trustworthy

I agree though, both want to help Hezbollah, on that we can easily agree.

Good, we're making some progress

No one's putting all the blame on Iran & Syria.  What Bush and "the right" have been indicating is the role they've been playing in perpetuating both the instability & in trying to start a civil war.  You do grasp the difference, correct?

OK. So? There are willing fighters in Iraq. Syria and Iran help arm them.

So??  That's your answer??  another validation of the point, I've been making?  Sheeeeeesh

Bush is irrelevant in this.

No, Bush is paramount in this, as it was his decision(s), prompted by the intel he had at the time, that have launched us into this 

What concerns me Sirs, are the Iraqi people and the amount of human lives lost (no matter what nationality). What I care about are the people: American, Iraqi, Syrian, Iranian, Kurd, Shi'a, Sunni, Christian, Zoarastrian, whatever.

And what you continually ignore is how they all (outside of the Suuni who were the minority helping to run the dicatorship at the time), have been shown, via polls, and their actions, to have supported the taking out of Saddam & embracing democracy.  Somehow, you've developed this warped notion that those who support the war on Terror, along with bringing freedom & democracy to the people of Iraq somehow don't care about American, Iraqi, Syrian, Iranian, Kurd, Shi'a, Sunni, Christian, Zoarastrian, whatever.  Couldn't be further from the truth.  Our taking out of Saddam was necessary to enhance our long term security, but the side effect of helping to bring democracy to this ruthlessly oppressed nation can NOT be ignored, nor cast aside for partisan ideological differences, an Anti-war agenda, or simply hatred for Bush.

I want a solution that will allow the people of all of those nations to live in peace and preferably worship freely without worrying about losing body parts and lives in the process. I want them to feel safe walking with their children to the market. That is what matters to me. The political desires of Bush, Ahmadinejad, Assad, the Saud family, Clinton, McCain, Blair, and others are miniscule in comparison in my humble view.

We all want a solution Js.  But going to talk to messers Syria & Iran, would be like going to talk to messers Hitler & Mussolini, prior to the outbreak of WWII.  I seriously believe that this country is basically in 1941 mode, prior to Pearl Harbor.  Let's just keep our boys here, and let them folks fight it out amongst themselves, right? 

Seems to me that the Saudi warning was well-documented. I'm sure you can look it up if you like. Also, Saudi contributions to anti-Israeli groups is well-documented. Same with Kuwait.

So in other words, you have an assertion, with no validation.  Gotcha

As long as it's in the form that THE IRAQIS WISH, I'll be happy

The majority of Iraqis?

The majority of those that vote.  That is the cornerstone of democracy, last I checked.  Not polls, not focus groups, not PAC's, but voting

A) That's not what I heard from the Washington Times correspondent on CNN when he discussed the ISG report. 

When you can quote someone from the Bush administration vs a correspondent on CNN, then you might have something

B) It took a few decades in Northern Ireland. Basically when the rest of the population (Sunni and Shi'a) says "enough!"

And in the meantime, while Syrian & Iranian influence grows deeper and further within the Iraqi power vacuum.......that works for you, huh?

C) So you stop them with more violence? Why not protect the borders then and allow the inner turmoil to simply be contained?
And you don't think they've been trying to stop them at the borders?  Gads, alert the Pentagon     

D) Who says we need to make concessions?

How do you make Iran & Syria cease the backing and supporting of terrorist & insurgent activity within Iraq?  Remember, that "talk", everyone keeps talking about?

Think before you type. Of course it is our goal. But we need it to be everyone's goal.

Iran & Syria will have vastly different "goals" that what Iraqis and we would like, I'm afraid

As someone who has been to Dachau I don't appreciate your "cartoon" at the end of your reply to me.

OK I'll be honest, that went completely over my head.  I have no idea why such a cartoon would elicit such a reply.   

[Plane]

"If the US did invade Syria, it would most certainly be bound by the 'pottery barn' rule."

I don't think that the pottery barn rule is working out.

I think we ought to return to the " Break it and let it rot where lies" rule we used to have when we meddled in Afganistan and Bosnia and Serbia.

The pottery barn rule sounds nice but it is a new thing and seems to give our opposition the idea that we will never be willing to break what we can't fix , certainly not a real truth.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't think that the pottery barn rule is working out.

I think we ought to return to the " Break it and let it rot where lies" rule we used to have when we meddled in Afganistan and Bosnia and Serbia.

The pottery barn rule  certainly applies to Iraq. We broke it, now we own it. And it is self-destructing.

We did not destroy the governments of Afghanistan, Bosnia or Serbia. Each had a faction that wanted to take over and which we turned into a government.

In Iraq, there was no such faction: there were two factions that wanted the whole enchilada, Shiites and the Sunis, and a third , the Kurds, who just wanted their own 1/3 enchilada.

If the US invaded Syria, God forbid, it would be like Iraq. It is also a Ba'athist country in which the Ba'athists are the glue holding the place together.

Invading Iran would be even worse, because there are 75,000,000 Iranians, three times more people than Iraq, and they greatly resent the US for dominating them in 1950 and deposing their democratically elected leader, Mossadegh, and imposing that Royal Twit, the Shah on them.