A Regional Solution

[TheOlderGuy]

Iran has taken the lead now in setting up a dialogue between Iran, Syria and Iraq about how to solve the regional problems. They should invite some more of the neighbors to join them, to counter the obvious objections that they're just trying to bolster their own influence over "how" Iraq recovers from the American War.

How long before Iraq gets enough help from its Mideast neighbors that it tells the U.S., "You know, we can handle it from here on out. So pack up and leave like you said you would."?

 

[SeaCat]

While this would be nice to see, I somehow don't see this going over well with the American Government.

Cat

 

[rgraham666]

Or the Iraqi Kurds and Sunnis either.

Shrugs. The UN offered the US an 'out of Iraq' card. Twice.

But you know the current administration feels about the UN.

The Iraqis are going to have to wait until the 2008 election. The people in the White House would rather have more kids die than admit they made a mistake.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Iran has taken the lead now in setting up a dialogue between Iran, Syria and Iraq about how to solve the regional problems. They should invite some more of the neighbors to join them, to counter the obvious objections that they're just trying to bolster their own influence over "how" Iraq recovers from the American War.

How long before Iraq gets enough help from its Mideast neighbors that it tells the U.S., "You know, we can handle it from here on out. So pack up and leave like you said you would."?

That would be fine unless the Iranian "solution" is for Iraq to become a part of Iran, including the Sunni and Kurdish areas. I don't think anybody would like that, except for Syria and the imams of Iran.

 

[TheOlderGuy]

however unliklely it seems that anyone will do the right thing, i'm keeping my eye on Ahmadinejad, because he's a much smarter cookie than the guy in The White House, and he may be looking far enough ahead to understand the long term gains from helping to straighten this mess out now.

 

[oggbashan]

Lebanon assassination

Yesterday's assassination of an anti-Syrian politician in Lebanon appears to have been instigated to destablise Lebanon again. Whether it was ordered by Syria, or carried out by a hardliner angry at Syria's lesser influence in Lebanon, or by someone who wanted to have Syria blamed, the effect is to make a peaceful solution more difficult.

Syria will be blamed. That alone hinders peace in the Middle East. Maybe that was the intention of the gunman.

Og

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

however unliklely it seems that anyone will do the right thing, i'm keeping my eye on Ahmadinejad, because he's a much smarter cookie than the guy in The White House, and he may be looking far enough ahead to understand the long term gains from helping to straighten this mess out now.

The long term gains he is looking at are more power for him and his government. As far as straightening out the mess, Iran has contributed to it by providing weapons to terrorists.

 

[TheOlderGuy]

The long term gains he is looking at are more power for him and his government. As far as straightening out the mess, Iran has contributed to it by providing weapons to terrorists.

the word terrorist has lost all meaning in the current situation, because Bush and Co, have used it to try to claim the high ground in a dirty little war, started by the U.S. under totally false pretenses. the destruction of the Twin Towers could properly be called terrorism. what we have done to Iraq could be even be called terrorism. what the Iraqis are doing is civil war. they are no more terrorists than Lincoln was.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

the word terrorist has lost all meaning in the current situation, because Bush and Co, have used it to try to claim the high ground in a dirty little war, started by the U.S. under totally false pretenses. the destruction of the Twin Towers could properly be called terrorism. what we have done to Iraq could be even be called terrorism. what the Iraqis are doing is civil war. they are no more terrorists than Lincoln was.

A terrorist is a person, usually a membrr of a group, who practices terrorism, which is an easier word to define. Terrorism would be a violent act or a series of violent acts perpetrated against civilians in order to force the government or the larger target group to do certain things or to cease doing certain things. Those who burned or dynamited churches or murdered civil rights advocates in order to halt the march of integration were terrorists. Those who hijack airplanes and crash them into large buildings in order to force a government to do what the hijackers want are terrorists. Those who bomb public transit systems, such as in England and Spain, in order to compel the governments of those nations to do what the bombers want are committing acts of terrorism. Those who bomb abortion clinics or murder people who work at those clinics because the bombers object to abortion are terrorists.

Those who commit violent acts against third parties to punish the government are also terrorists. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist who blew up a government building, murdering hundreds of persons.

In Iraq we have terrorists who are bombing mosques used by members of opposing sects, or abducting and murdering members of those sects or burning or bombing stores or transit stations or other places are committing acts of terrorism. Exactly what these terrorists hope to accomplish is unclear, but they are still active. Even if you call it civil war, it is being waged by acts or terrorism.

I think we all know what terrorism is and who terrorists are

 

[TheOlderGuy]

the King of Jordan has been making the point that the civil war in Iraq is actually not the most pressing problem in the Middle East. the imminent civil wars in Lebanon and Palestine could make Iraq look like a walk in the park.

 

[erise]

the King of Jordan has been making the point that the civil war in Iraq is actually not the most pressing problem in the Middle East. the imminent civil wars in Lebanon and Palestine could make Iraq look like a walk in the park.

Or at least, the political impact of it is much more significant.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

the King of Jordan has been making the point that the civil war in Iraq is actually not the most pressing problem in the Middle East. the imminent civil wars in Lebanon and Palestine could make Iraq look like a walk in the park.

A civil war in Lebanon, certainly, because Syria would probably be the one fomenting it, and would very likely join in, hoping to take over the country. That would bring in Israel, and they would remove the gloves this time. Other nations, such as Iran might be involved too.

A civil war in Palestine would almost be situation normal.

 

[TheOlderGuy]

i wish that somebody, other than the neocons, would take an interest in the region. it seems that those who live there have the most to lose if the shit hits the fan. i know that in the middle east the shit is almost always ready to hit the fan, but Bush's incompetent meddling and incomparable neglect has brought it closer than ever to complete implosion. somebody should step up to the plate.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

i wish that somebody, other than the neocons, would take an interest in the region. it seems that those who live there have the most to lose if the shit hits the fan. i know that in the middle east the shit is almost always ready to hit the fan, but Bush's incompetent meddling and incomparable neglect has brought it closer than ever to complete implosion. somebody should step up to the plate.

How can you have both medddling and neglect? I would think they were opposites.

 

[TheOlderGuy]

How can you have both medddling and neglect? I would think they were opposites.

lots of people neglect things that are important, while meddling in things they should leave alone. Bush has made an art form of it.