• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Iran and US have first formal talks since over 27 years

dannybek

Golden Member

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The United States told Iran on Monday its support for militias fighting in Iraq needs to cease, said Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

Crocker spoke at a news conference after a meeting with Iranian diplomats in Baghdad -- the first public and formal meeting between U.S. and Iranian representatives since the United States cut off diplomatic relations 27 years ago.

"I laid out before the Iranians a number of our direct specific concerns about their behavior in Iraq," Crocker said. "Their support for militias that are fighting both the Iraqi security forces and coalition forces; the fact that a lot of the explosives and ammunition that are used by these groups are coming in from Iran; that such activities led by the [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] Quds Force needed to cease and that we would be looking for results."

Crocker said the Iranians did not respond directly to the U.S. allegations.

"The Iranians did not go into any great detail," he said. "They made the assertion that the coalition presence was an occupation and that the effort to train and equip the Iraqi security forces had been inadequate to the challenges faced.

"We of course responded on both points, making clear that coalition forces are here at the Iraqi government's invitation and under [U.N.] Security Council authorities, and that we have put literally billions of dollars into training and equipping an increasingly capable set of Iraqi security forces."

Crocker said the Iranian delegation proposed a trilateral mechanism to coordinate on security matters in Iraq. He said officials in Washington would have to consider whether to pursue that idea.

Crocker characterized the talks as "businesslike."

"We both laid out our support for the government of [Iraqi] Prime Minister [Nuri al-] Maliki as he undertakes a number of very difficult challenges," he said.

Iranian officials did not immediately comment on the content of the discussions.

Before the meeting -- which lasted four hours -- al-Maliki aide Hasan al-Sneid told CNN that the prime minister would call for dialogue on Iraq between Washington and Tehran, urging them to clear contentious issues between them, with the hope that Monday's meeting will pave the way for broader talks.

Al-Sneid also said al-Maliki would reiterate that Iraq will not be used as a launchpad for terrorism in the region.

In his opening statement, al-Maliki laid out no timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led coalition forces from Iraq.

"The presence of multinational forces in Iraq is dependent on completing the process of building Iraqi security forces and their readiness," he said.

Crocker said there was no discussion in Monday's meeting of a timetable for a pullout of U.S. troops.

Although al-Maliki opened the session, Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie was the only Iraqi official sitting in on the meetings, one of his aides said.

In addition to Crocker, the U.S. delegation included Daniel Speckhard, deputy chief of mission. Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qomi was among those representing the Iranians.
No talk of prisoner swap

A number of other issues loomed over the U.S.-Iran talks.

Tehran said on state-run media over the weekend that it has uncovered U.S.-run spy rings inside Iran and would release more details in the coming days. There was no immediate response from the White House. (Full story)

Tehran recently charged Haleh Esfandiari, one of four Iranian-Americans detained in Tehran, with conducting activities against the Iranian government, a charge dismissed by Washington.

The State Department repeatedly has called for Esfandiari's release as well as for more information about three other Iranian-Americans who have been detained, imprisoned or had their passports revoked.

In addition, Robert Levinson, an American and retired FBI agent, has been missing since March 8, when he was last seen on Iran's Kish Island.

The U.S. military is holding seven "Iranian intelligence service personnel" in Iraq, spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell told CNN's "Late Edition" in an interview taped Friday.

Tehran has referred to five of the Iranians who were arrested in January as "diplomats" and is seeking their release.

When asked if he thought a prisoner swap would be discussed at Monday's meeting, Caldwell said, "There's nothing of that nature that I know of."

He said the Iranians were "detained just like anybody else who has broken the law" in Iraq.

Crocker said the subject did not come up in Monday's talks.

These disputes come amid an international showdown over Iran's nuclear program. U.S. officials insist Tehran is seeking nuclear weapons, though Iran says the program is for civilian energy purposes only.
Talks mark rare meeting

The Iraq Study Group late last year called on the Bush administration to initiate talks with Iran and Syria.

The United States broke off diplomatic ties with Iran in April 1980 in the midst of the seizure of the U.S. Embassy. Iranian students occupied the embassy from November 1979 until January 1981, when they released the remaining 52 hostages.

While Monday marks the first time U.S. and Iranian diplomats have met bilaterally, they have taken part in informal meetings with Iraq's neighbors in recent months.

I am glad that the Bush administration has resorted to diplomacy and dialog rather than the fiery World War III rhetoric Bush spoke in his first term.
 
I'm sure many folks here will forget all about this in a few months... they'll go right back to accusing Bush of diplomacy at the end of a barrel. It's similar to the 17 or so resolutions Saddam ignored, or disobeyed, leading up to the invasion in 2002.

Apparently, at least according to some of the anti's around here, Bush skipped diplomacy and UN procedures altogether. The same will be true if/when the diplomatic efforts with Iran fail. Bush will again be accused of skipping any worthwhile diplomatic efforts...

such is life.
 
Bush doesn't have a choice right now with all his eggs in one basket in Iraq.

Iran and Venezuela are off the hook at the moment.
 
Something wrong with your reading comprehension, Palehorse? So far, the "Talks" have merely been used as a vehicle to launch ultimatums and accusations by the Bushistas... while 3 carrier battle groups hover nearby, and American troops occupy 2 countries adjacent to Iran...

Seems as if the Bush faction is intent on leaving their successor embroiled in an even greater conflict than their disaster in Iraq...

 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Something wrong with your reading comprehension, Palehorse? So far, the "Talks" have merely been used as a vehicle to launch ultimatums and accusations by the Bushistas... while 3 carrier battle groups hover nearby, and American troops occupy 2 countries adjacent to Iran...

Seems as if the Bush faction is intent on leaving their successor embroiled in an even greater conflict than their disaster in Iraq...

o00o0o0o0o good strategery.... force his successor into a more terrible situation in the Middle East so Bush's mistakes get looked over in the anals of history and he has a nice "legacy."
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'm sure many folks here will forget all about this in a few months... they'll go right back to accusing Bush of diplomacy at the end of a barrel. It's similar to the 17 or so resolutions Saddam ignored, or disobeyed, leading up to the invasion in 2002.

Apparently, at least according to some of the anti's around here, Bush skipped diplomacy and UN procedures altogether. The same will be true if/when the diplomatic efforts with Iran fail. Bush will again be accused of skipping any worthwhile diplomatic efforts...

such is life.

First of all we invaded in 2003, not 2002. Second of all, Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a foregone conclusion. He and key members of his Administration had already decided to do so the day they set foot in the White House. Thirdly, Bush gave diplomacy and UN inspections mere months to work out the problem with Saddam. It was a token gesture and it was clear to everyone as day. Except for you of course.
 
Right now the USA has a giant credibility problem---and does not have the standing to lecture anyone about conduct. But the GWB party line is that Iran is aiding the Iraqi insurgency and Iran needs to stop aiding the Iraqi insurgency. There are just two glaring problems with any talks based on such a US lecture to Iran regarding that allegation.

1. That any aid Iran itself provides to the Shia insurgency is relatively minor and is somewhat unproved. But there is a tremendous amount of Iranian civilian support for their fellow Shia in Iraq and for that matter, at least an equivalent amount of civilian Sunni aid comes from Saudi Arabia. So there is a somewhat giant question---is any aid to the Shia insurgency from Iran coming as a result of official Iranian government policy or not. But one thing if abundantly clear. If Iran made it even a half hearted government policy to aid the Shia insurgency in Iraq, the quantity and quality of Shia arms would be orders of magnitude better than it is now.---and the Iraqi Shia would easily be able to make the US occupation of Iraq totally untenable. So at best, these parts of the US Iranian talks can be only productive if the US asks Iran to step up its efforts to better police cross border traffic.

2. The USA has no damn moral right to lecture Iran when the US, as a matter of official policy, is funding various terrorists groups that do conduct operations inside of Iran. The existence of these groups are already well known and its an internationally undisputed fact. Groups ring Iran and operate from Kurdish Iraq all the way East to the Afghan Pakistani
sphere of Influence. And its also indisputable that the US has made it an official policy to disrupt Iranian interests ever since the Shah fell. Anyone even remotely unbiased would have to conclude Iran has the moral high ground in any argument regarding terrorism or international aggression. And that was true before GWB was elected. And under GWB, the USA now occupies the moral grounds formerly occupied by only the worse international war criminals.

I find it very shameful as a US citizen to have to write this post---but I have never been a believer in my Country right or wrong. And I also believe in telling the truth as I see it. I also don't believe Iran is a bastion of truth and decency---or that it has fossilized into a fixed form of government. And I also welcome these US Iranian talks as a good starting point. The degree of US Iranian mutual antagonism is counterproductive and both nations could do both themselves and the rest of the world a giant service if they both started engaging in finding some common ground. Nor am I thrilled that Iran is starting down a road that may lead to them acquiring nuclear weapons. But I suspect that a US position of no peaceful use of atomic power will lead to same result.

In short a US policy of all sticks and no carrots for Iran is unsustainable. But at least we are talking---but right now the US would be better advised to quit pretending the moral high ground they no longer occupy. GWB has already totally ruined that kind of argument. But both Iran and the US have long term national interests. They need not be mutually exclusive.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'm sure many folks here will forget all about this in a few months... they'll go right back to accusing Bush of diplomacy at the end of a barrel. It's similar to the 17 or so resolutions Saddam ignored, or disobeyed, leading up to the invasion in 2002.

Apparently, at least according to some of the anti's around here, Bush skipped diplomacy and UN procedures altogether. The same will be true if/when the diplomatic efforts with Iran fail. Bush will again be accused of skipping any worthwhile diplomatic efforts...

such is life.

I believe the litmus test is anything short of them detonating a nuclear weapon is us not giving them enough time with diplomacy.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Right now the USA has a giant credibility problem---and does not have the standing to lecture anyone about conduct. But the GWB party line is that Iran is aiding the Iraqi insurgency and Iran needs to stop aiding the Iraqi insurgency. There are just two glaring problems with any talks based on such a US lecture to Iran regarding that allegation.

1. That any aid Iran itself provides to the Shia insurgency is relatively minor and is somewhat unproved. But there is a tremendous amount of Iranian civilian support for their fellow Shia in Iraq and for that matter, at least an equivalent amount of civilian Sunni aid comes from Saudi Arabia. So there is a somewhat giant question---is any aid to the Shia insurgency from Iran coming as a result of official Iranian government policy or not. But one thing if abundantly clear. If Iran made it even a half hearted government policy to aid the Shia insurgency in Iraq, the quantity and quality of Shia arms would be orders of magnitude better than it is now.---and the Iraqi Shia would easily be able to make the US occupation of Iraq totally untenable. So at best, these parts of the US Iranian talks can be only productive if the US asks Iran to step up its efforts to better police cross border traffic.

2. The USA has no damn moral right to lecture Iran when the US, as a matter of official policy, is funding various terrorists groups that do conduct operations inside of Iran. The existence of these groups are already well known and its an internationally undisputed fact. Groups ring Iran and operate from Kurdish Iraq all the way East to the Afghan Pakistani
sphere of Influence. And its also indisputable that the US has made it an official policy to disrupt Iranian interests ever since the Shah fell. Anyone even remotely unbiased would have to conclude Iran has the moral high ground in any argument regarding terrorism or international aggression. And that was true before GWB was elected. And under GWB, the USA now occupies the moral grounds formerly occupied by only the worse international war criminals.

I find it very shameful as a US citizen to have to write this post---but I have never been a believer in my Country right or wrong. And I also believe in telling the truth as I see it. I also don't believe Iran is a bastion of truth and decency---or that it has fossilized into a fixed form of government. And I also welcome these US Iranian talks as a good starting point. The degree of US Iranian mutual antagonism is counterproductive and both nations could do both themselves and the rest of the world a giant service if they both started engaging in finding some common ground. Nor am I thrilled that Iran is starting down a road that may lead to them acquiring nuclear weapons. But I suspect that a US position of no peaceful use of atomic power will lead to same result.

In short a US policy of all sticks and no carrots for Iran is unsustainable. But at least we are talking---but right now the US would be better advised to quit pretending the moral high ground they no longer occupy. GWB has already totally ruined that kind of argument. But both Iran and the US have long term national interests. They need not be mutually exclusive.

Speaks volumes about your character.
 
Originally posted by: Jaha
Originally posted by: Lemon law


2. The USA has no damn moral right to lecture Iran when the US, as a matter of official policy, is funding various terrorists groups that do conduct operations inside of Iran. The existence of these groups are already well known and its an internationally undisputed fact. Groups ring Iran and operate from Kurdish Iraq all the way East to the Afghan Pakistani
sphere of Influence. And its also indisputable that the US has made it an official policy to disrupt Iranian interests ever since the Shah fell. Anyone even remotely unbiased would have to conclude Iran has the moral high ground in any argument regarding terrorism or international aggression. And that was true before GWB was elected. And under GWB, the USA now occupies the moral grounds formerly occupied by only the worse international war criminals.

I find it very shameful as a US citizen to have to write this post---but I have never been a believer in my Country right or wrong. And I also believe in telling the truth as I see it. I also don't believe Iran is a bastion of truth and decency---or that it has fossilized into a fixed form of government. And I also welcome these US Iranian talks as a good starting point. The degree of US Iranian mutual antagonism is counterproductive and both nations could do both themselves and the rest of the world a giant service if they both started engaging in finding some common ground. Nor am I thrilled that Iran is starting down a road that may lead to them acquiring nuclear weapons. But I suspect that a US position of no peaceful use of atomic power will lead to same result.

In short a US policy of all sticks and no carrots for Iran is unsustainable. But at least we are talking---but right now the US would be better advised to quit pretending the moral high ground they no longer occupy. GWB has already totally ruined that kind of argument. But both Iran and the US have long term national interests. They need not be mutually exclusive.

Speaks volumes about your character.

Speaks volumes about your knowledge of the facts.

As for the whiny murderous duo of Palehorse and Jaskalas, their response to the US violating the law to invade Iraq, to not letting the Hans Blix UN team complete its inspections in a few months by arguing that the WMD threat did not allow the time to do so, is to try to pretend they can now mock the idea of diplomacy, as if events had proven them right and the liberals wrong. What a joke.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Jaha
Originally posted by: Lemon law


2. The USA has no damn moral right to lecture Iran when the US, as a matter of official policy, is funding various terrorists groups that do conduct operations inside of Iran. The existence of these groups are already well known and its an internationally undisputed fact. Groups ring Iran and operate from Kurdish Iraq all the way East to the Afghan Pakistani
sphere of Influence. And its also indisputable that the US has made it an official policy to disrupt Iranian interests ever since the Shah fell. Anyone even remotely unbiased would have to conclude Iran has the moral high ground in any argument regarding terrorism or international aggression. And that was true before GWB was elected. And under GWB, the USA now occupies the moral grounds formerly occupied by only the worse international war criminals.

I find it very shameful as a US citizen to have to write this post---but I have never been a believer in my Country right or wrong. And I also believe in telling the truth as I see it. I also don't believe Iran is a bastion of truth and decency---or that it has fossilized into a fixed form of government. And I also welcome these US Iranian talks as a good starting point. The degree of US Iranian mutual antagonism is counterproductive and both nations could do both themselves and the rest of the world a giant service if they both started engaging in finding some common ground. Nor am I thrilled that Iran is starting down a road that may lead to them acquiring nuclear weapons. But I suspect that a US position of no peaceful use of atomic power will lead to same result.

In short a US policy of all sticks and no carrots for Iran is unsustainable. But at least we are talking---but right now the US would be better advised to quit pretending the moral high ground they no longer occupy. GWB has already totally ruined that kind of argument. But both Iran and the US have long term national interests. They need not be mutually exclusive.

Speaks volumes about your character.

Speaks volumes about your knowledge of the facts.

As for the whiny murderous duo of Palehorse and Jaskalas, their response to the US violating the law to invade Iraq, to not letting the Hans Blix UN team complete its inspections in a few months by arguing that the WMD threat did not allow the time to do so, is to try to pretend they can now mock the idea of diplomacy, as if events had proven them right and the liberals wrong. What a joke.

What good has Iran done for the world? Until we start saying that we're going to wipe countries off the face of the earth I do think we do have the moral high ground.

And your hate America crap is tiring really.

Like I said...speaks volumes about your character.
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'm sure many folks here will forget all about this in a few months... they'll go right back to accusing Bush of diplomacy at the end of a barrel. It's similar to the 17 or so resolutions Saddam ignored, or disobeyed, leading up to the invasion in 2002.

Apparently, at least according to some of the anti's around here, Bush skipped diplomacy and UN procedures altogether. The same will be true if/when the diplomatic efforts with Iran fail. Bush will again be accused of skipping any worthwhile diplomatic efforts...

such is life.

First of all we invaded in 2003, not 2002. Second of all, Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a foregone conclusion. He and key members of his Administration had already decided to do so the day they set foot in the White House. Thirdly, Bush gave diplomacy and UN inspections mere months to work out the problem with Saddam. It was a token gesture and it was clear to everyone as day. Except for you of course.



Took them a year and a half to figure out how to win in Iraq before they attacked and.. well.. you see the result. How anyone backs these warmongers is beyond me
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'm sure many folks here will forget all about this in a few months... they'll go right back to accusing Bush of diplomacy at the end of a barrel. It's similar to the 17 or so resolutions Saddam ignored, or disobeyed, leading up to the invasion in 2002.

Apparently, at least according to some of the anti's around here, Bush skipped diplomacy and UN procedures altogether. The same will be true if/when the diplomatic efforts with Iran fail. Bush will again be accused of skipping any worthwhile diplomatic efforts...

such is life.

First of all we invaded in 2003, not 2002. Second of all, Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a foregone conclusion. He and key members of his Administration had already decided to do so the day they set foot in the White House. Thirdly, Bush gave diplomacy and UN inspections mere months to work out the problem with Saddam. It was a token gesture and it was clear to everyone as day. Except for you of course.



Took them a year and a half to figure out how to win in Iraq before they attacked and.. well.. you see the result. How anyone backs these warmongers is beyond me

So you're attacking the military now? You know Bush doesn't draw out the tactical war details right?
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Jaha
Originally posted by: Lemon law


2. The USA has no damn moral right to lecture Iran when the US, as a matter of official policy, is funding various terrorists groups that do conduct operations inside of Iran. The existence of these groups are already well known and its an internationally undisputed fact. Groups ring Iran and operate from Kurdish Iraq all the way East to the Afghan Pakistani
sphere of Influence. And its also indisputable that the US has made it an official policy to disrupt Iranian interests ever since the Shah fell. Anyone even remotely unbiased would have to conclude Iran has the moral high ground in any argument regarding terrorism or international aggression. And that was true before GWB was elected. And under GWB, the USA now occupies the moral grounds formerly occupied by only the worse international war criminals.

I find it very shameful as a US citizen to have to write this post---but I have never been a believer in my Country right or wrong. And I also believe in telling the truth as I see it. I also don't believe Iran is a bastion of truth and decency---or that it has fossilized into a fixed form of government. And I also welcome these US Iranian talks as a good starting point. The degree of US Iranian mutual antagonism is counterproductive and both nations could do both themselves and the rest of the world a giant service if they both started engaging in finding some common ground. Nor am I thrilled that Iran is starting down a road that may lead to them acquiring nuclear weapons. But I suspect that a US position of no peaceful use of atomic power will lead to same result.

In short a US policy of all sticks and no carrots for Iran is unsustainable. But at least we are talking---but right now the US would be better advised to quit pretending the moral high ground they no longer occupy. GWB has already totally ruined that kind of argument. But both Iran and the US have long term national interests. They need not be mutually exclusive.

Speaks volumes about your character.

Speaks volumes about your knowledge of the facts.

As for the whiny murderous duo of Palehorse and Jaskalas, their response to the US violating the law to invade Iraq, to not letting the Hans Blix UN team complete its inspections in a few months by arguing that the WMD threat did not allow the time to do so, is to try to pretend they can now mock the idea of diplomacy, as if events had proven them right and the liberals wrong. What a joke.


Murderous duo? LOL, you're like a little kid.
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'm sure many folks here will forget all about this in a few months... they'll go right back to accusing Bush of diplomacy at the end of a barrel. It's similar to the 17 or so resolutions Saddam ignored, or disobeyed, leading up to the invasion in 2002.

Apparently, at least according to some of the anti's around here, Bush skipped diplomacy and UN procedures altogether. The same will be true if/when the diplomatic efforts with Iran fail. Bush will again be accused of skipping any worthwhile diplomatic efforts...

such is life.

First of all we invaded in 2003, not 2002.
thanks genius. I was talking about the UN resolutions and attempts at diplomacy... which mostly took place during the year leading up to the invasion - which followed 12 years of treaty violations and useless UN resolutions that Saddam ignored on a daily basis while teasing global intelligence efforts with rumors of WMD's, funding suicide bombers, and other similar threats to global security.
Second of all, Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a foregone conclusion. He and key members of his Administration had already decided to do so the day they set foot in the White House.
sure they did. got tinfoil?
Thirdly, Bush gave diplomacy and UN inspections mere months to work out the problem with Saddam. It was a token gesture and it was clear to everyone as day. Except for you of course...
...and the majority of Congress. Imagine that!
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'm sure many folks here will forget all about this in a few months... they'll go right back to accusing Bush of diplomacy at the end of a barrel. It's similar to the 17 or so resolutions Saddam ignored, or disobeyed, leading up to the invasion in 2002.

Apparently, at least according to some of the anti's around here, Bush skipped diplomacy and UN procedures altogether. The same will be true if/when the diplomatic efforts with Iran fail. Bush will again be accused of skipping any worthwhile diplomatic efforts...

such is life.

Bush more or less did skip UN procedures. THe 2003 invasion was a joke. His justification, the WMD program, was a sham. Go read "Collusion" and you'll realize that Yellowcake and Aluminum tubes was a complete forgery that was *KNOWN* to be a lie before Bush gave his speech where 16 words all but sealed Saddam's fate.

In the end, you realize just how f'd up the run-up to the war was. I highly doubt you'll change your mind, but at least you could be a bit more enlightened. The forgery was masterminded by a scam artist who has been arrested numerous times in Italy and other countries. He was an information broker who made his money by selling lies to different countries. He owed millions to different people and they were calling in his debts, he was desperate to get money and to justify his existence. He, with help from others, created a forgery of a document that stated Saddam's intent to get WMDs, it was a complete sham and was proven to be a sham WELL before it was used by Bush. There were numerous inconsistencies (such as stating Nigeria's constitution in 1966, which it's latest constitution is dated in the late 90s). The man who created them, along with his accomplises, have admitted the scam.

Bush and his ilk thrive off of ignorance, which is why he loves people like you.
 
Originally posted by: Jaha
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'm sure many folks here will forget all about this in a few months... they'll go right back to accusing Bush of diplomacy at the end of a barrel. It's similar to the 17 or so resolutions Saddam ignored, or disobeyed, leading up to the invasion in 2002.

Apparently, at least according to some of the anti's around here, Bush skipped diplomacy and UN procedures altogether. The same will be true if/when the diplomatic efforts with Iran fail. Bush will again be accused of skipping any worthwhile diplomatic efforts...

such is life.

First of all we invaded in 2003, not 2002. Second of all, Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a foregone conclusion. He and key members of his Administration had already decided to do so the day they set foot in the White House. Thirdly, Bush gave diplomacy and UN inspections mere months to work out the problem with Saddam. It was a token gesture and it was clear to everyone as day. Except for you of course.



Took them a year and a half to figure out how to win in Iraq before they attacked and.. well.. you see the result. How anyone backs these warmongers is beyond me

So you're attacking the military now? You know Bush doesn't draw out the tactical war details right?


Military Leaders? Yes... Not the Grunts or any of the non-tactical planning members

Rumsfeld
Wolfowitz
Powell
EVERY PNAC Member who FORCED their plans on the military

^^^^^ Do you think the plans were good enough to win the war?
 
This thread is par for the course for P&N. We start with a news event, someone expresses some opinions, and soon the entire thread has degenerated into a name calling contest as we bitterly exchange various interpretations of the same facts.

I am still hoping that the joint US Iranian talks will produce better results. Even though Ryan Crocker, as the GWB head honcho started the talks out on a low note of accusations, the bulk of the talks will still be conducted by lower level professional diplomats on both sides. In short people trained in diplomacy, trained to be open minded, and not hopeless adherents of a given party line. The fact that this is the first time such a diplomatic exchange occurred in 27 years is something not be be dismissed lightly. Even if no magical full blown agreement resulted from the initial meeting, I am optimistic enough to hope that the seeds planted in this meeting can germinate and later grow into a joint US Iranian policy not totally based on mutual distrust and hatreds.

Although I have grave doubts about Crocker, I am betting that his lower level team will learn some useful lessons from their Iranian counterparts. And in turn their Iranian counterparts
will also have their influences on Iranian thinking. Both Iran and the US have a similar current problem---they both have hard line leaders who will not be in power much longer. Sooner or later one or both countries will be gifted by a leadership that has the vision to see perpetual US Iranian hostility is in no one's interests. Until then we will limp along on name calling.
Unless some nut really gets their way and the name calling escalates into open warfare.---and hopefully the problems we now have in Iraq will deter even the most hardened of war mongers into thinking long and hard about playing the war card. I also note the last time the US thought they had Iran mousetrapped into over reaching----its was Bush' poodle Blair that ended up mousetrapped. In short don't underestimate Iran. Iran has learned a thing or two about diplomacy since the Shah fell.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'm sure many folks here will forget all about this in a few months... they'll go right back to accusing Bush of diplomacy at the end of a barrel. It's similar to the 17 or so resolutions Saddam ignored, or disobeyed, leading up to the invasion in 2002.

Apparently, at least according to some of the anti's around here, Bush skipped diplomacy and UN procedures altogether. The same will be true if/when the diplomatic efforts with Iran fail. Bush will again be accused of skipping any worthwhile diplomatic efforts...

such is life.

First of all we invaded in 2003, not 2002.
thanks genius. I was talking about the UN resolutions and attempts at diplomacy... which mostly took place during the year leading up to the invasion - which followed 12 years of treaty violations and useless UN resolutions that Saddam ignored on a daily basis while teasing global intelligence efforts with rumors of WMD's, funding suicide bombers, and other similar threats to global security.

You're welcome brainiac.

Second of all, Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a foregone conclusion. He and key members of his Administration had already decided to do so the day they set foot in the White House.
sure they did. got tinfoil?

Ever read the PNAC's statements on Iraq pre-Dubya? Sure you have.

Thirdly, Bush gave diplomacy and UN inspections mere months to work out the problem with Saddam. It was a token gesture and it was clear to everyone as day. Except for you of course...
...and the majority of Congress. Imagine that!

Unfortunately, I can't because Congress gave Bush a blank check and he hung himself with it. Congress never dictated the timing of the war -- you're a deluded fool if you believe that. They voted for the authorization and Bush was the decider as to when the war started. Don't bother trying your pathetic revisionist history BS.
 
What No One Is Telling You About Our Talks With Iran
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://patdollard.com/2007/05/30/what-no-one-is-telling-you-about-our-talks-with-iran/">?Speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go
far?</a>

Watching the pundits discuss our historic meeting with Iran, you would have mostly heard despair at the notion that we have no leverage in these talks, and so therefor why would Iran give on anything? Why would they stop waging war against us in iraq if they have nothing to fear? To all the experts in the media, the whole thing seemed like some grand puzzlement. Was it just an attempt to appease the administration?s domestic critics who have been chiding it for not engaging in diplomacy ( a vaguery if there ever was one ) with the world?s top terrorist? No one you heard from could really quite grasp what was going on.

For some reason, no one told you that just 5 days before Monday?s talks, an entire floating army, with nearly 20,000 men, comprising the world?s largest naval strike force, led by the USS Nimitz and the USS Stennis, and also comprising the largest U.S. Naval armada in the Persian Gulf since 2003, came floating up unnanounced through the Straight of Hormuz, and rested right on Iran?s back doorstep, guns pointed at them. The demonstration of leverage was clear. And it also came on the exact date of the expiration of the 60 day grace period the U.N. had granted Iran.

And it came just a few weeks after Vice President Dick Cheney had swept through the region and delivered a very clear and pointed message to the Saudi King Abdullah and others: George Bush has unequivocally decided to attack Iran?s nuclear, military and economic infrastructure if they do not abandon their drive for military nuclear capability. Plain and simple. Iran heard the message as well, and although a lack of leverage may seem clear to America?s retired military tv talking heads, it is not so clear to the government in Tehran.

The message to both Iran and Syria is that if the talks in Baghdad fail, the military option is ready to go.

The administration is almost freakishly confident, in marked contrast to media reports like the one featuring Newt Gingrich?s attack on the President below. The U.S. is in the midst of another dipolomatic surge through the region to bolster allies for the final showdown with Iran. Moqtada Al Sadr has sent signals he may be ready to break with Iran. And, frankly, the military turnaround in Al Anbar province is of greater strategic significance than the increase in U.S. casualties this month. In addition, the surge is still not entirely deployed, and whole key neighborhoods of Baghdad have yet to be entered. While John McCain was being mocked for having to wear a flak jacket in a Baghdad market, the bigger story was that his son, a Marine newly deployed to the Al Anbar province, and a frontline grunt at that, was more likely than not to never see a shot fired in an area that until just weeks ago was called ?the most dangerous place on earth?.

Oh, and preparations are under way for the construction of new U.S. airbases in Kurdistan, so we are not, under any circumstances, giving up a firmbase posture throughout Iraq.

And special props to VP Cheney who had nearly been ordered by his doctors to not even make the first trip. A compromise was had and he flew with a physician. He is preparing for a trip to Iran?s various northern neighbors like Uzbekistan and Khazekstan to shore up our position for offensives from the north.

We want to have them entirely surrounded.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Bush doesn't have a choice right now with all his eggs in one basket in Iraq.

Iran and Venezuela are off the hook at the moment.

Would liberals in America ever want them on the hook in the first place? You wouldn't want to encourage those evil American warmongers would you? Of course not. Don't sit here, after being so vehemtoly against military action and then somehow pretend you'd advocate doing something about Iran and Venezuela.

I believe the rhetoric over impeachment if we touch Iran still echoes in P&N.
 
Back
Top