Obama calls for talks with Iran over Iraq

[Dan J 277]

US political icons: Time to talk to Iran

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:43:46

Five former US secretaries of state have advised the next presidential administration to conduct direct negotiations with Tehran.

In a Thursday conference at the University of Georgia, former chief US diplomats Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, James Baker III, Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright highlighted the importance of engaging in dialogue with Iran's political leaders.

They agreed that holding talks on a 'common ground' such as the Iraqi crisis could help the restoration of Washington-Tehran relations.

"A dysfunctional Iraq, a chaotic Iraq, is not something that's in the interest to Iran. There's every incentive on their part to help us, the same way they did in Afghanistan,'' explained Baker, who served as secretary of state under the senior Bush.

They concluded that it may be time for Washington to abandon its 'unilateral' doctrine.

"When policies don't work for 50 years, it's time to start thinking about something else,'' maintained Christopher.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=49322§ionid=3510203

I beg to differ. Iran would love to be able to take over Iraq. The more dysfunctional it is the better for them. That is why they have been shipping IED's into Iraq. They want that country destableized and then hope we pull out. That gives them just what they are looking for. Talking to them about Iraq is like talking to the fox about the hen house.

Having an unstable country next to you is a bad thing no matter who it is. It creates problems for you, especially with the flow of refugees. It is in Iran's interest to see that Iraq is stable.

Dealing with Iran has other benfits, such as creating opportunties for moderates in the country to get into places of power.

As long as the hardliners in the US and Iran stay in power, its always going to remain a tense standoff. Neither will attack the other as the cost of an all out war would be too expensive for either side. Not to mention, it would likely involve nuclear weapons.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I can watch the news and think. It doesn't take an advanced degree in international relations to see what Iran wants.

I respectfully submit that it takes a bit more than watching TV news to get the depth of understanding necessary to handle foreign relations.

Out of curiosity, do you have any experience in foreign affairs?

I am the one saying that perhaps we might want to pay heed to some who DO have that type of experience.

[Scott & Lai 12]

How fast does the blast wave travel again?

A moot point if all that's left is a shadow on a wall

I'm pretty sure whoever took that photo wasn't reduced to a shadow on a wall...

[Dan J 277]

I can watch the news and think. It doesn't take an advanced degree in international relations to see what Iran wants.

I respectfully submit that it takes a bit more than watching TV news to get the depth of understanding necessary to handle foreign relations.

I guess thats why I work in a factory and not in the State Department. But I do have my opinion and I think my opinion has some truth to it. Don't you think Iran has ideas of taking over Iraq? Do you think they haven't been trying to destabilise the area?

Do we really have any choice?

Involving Iran in stabalizing Iraq may create an Iraq that is not entirely friendly do our goals. However, how long can we afford to continue to occupy the country? After 5 years and $500 billion we have managed to create an Iraq where security is fragile at best. The poltical process has a long way to go. How many more years can we afford to stay in Iraq?

[no name 1]

I can watch the news and think. It doesn't take an advanced degree in international relations to see what Iran wants.

I respectfully submit that it takes a bit more than watching TV news to get the depth of understanding necessary to handle foreign relations.

Out of curiosity, do you have any experience in foreign affairs?

I am the one saying that perhaps we might want to pay heed to some who DO have that type of experience.

Gary disagreed with an article you (obviously) agreed with. It's called debating. I don't think Gary (or anyone else) thinks what we think will actually affect the outcome, but VJers do love to talk.

[GaryC 7]

I can watch the news and think. It doesn't take an advanced degree in international relations to see what Iran wants.

I respectfully submit that it takes a bit more than watching TV news to get the depth of understanding necessary to handle foreign relations.

I guess thats why I work in a factory and not in the State Department. But I do have my opinion and I think my opinion has some truth to it. Don't you think Iran has ideas of taking over Iraq? Do you think they haven't been trying to destabilise the area?

Do we really have any choice?

Involving Iran in stabalizing Iraq may create an Iraq that is not entirely friendly do our goals. However, how long can we afford to continue to occupy the country? After 5 years and $500 billion we have managed to create an Iraq where security is fragile at best. The poltical process has a long way to go. How many more years can we afford to stay in Iraq?

Yes it has a long way to go. Yes it is expensive. But I submitt that it would be a lot more expensive to leave before the job is done. It is in our best interests and of the region to leave Iraq in a stable situation. Unless we are willing to hand over the country to Iran there isn't much point in talking to the very country that is financing the factions that are currently destabilizing the country. They have their agenda just as we do. They happen to be mutually exclusive.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Having an unstable country next to you is a bad thing no matter who it is. It creates problems for you, especially with the flow of refugees. It is in Iran's interest to see that Iraq is stable.

Dealing with Iran has other benfits, such as creating opportunties for moderates in the country to get into places of power.

As long as the hardliners in the US and Iran stay in power, its always going to remain a tense standoff. Neither will attack the other as the cost of an all out war would be too expensive for either side. Not to mention, it would likely involve nuclear weapons.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Iran can make things very difficult for us with little effort - its a process of attrition for us and a waiting game for them. Also shouldn't forget that they have quite an influence on the shia factions within Iraq. I don't see how we can avoid dealing with them, distasteful as that may be.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Gary disagreed with an article you (obviously) agreed with. It's called debating. I don't think Gary (or anyone else) thinks what we think will actually affect the outcome, but VJers do love to talk.

Well... duh.

[PlatyPius 5]

This is the only language Iran understands..

Iran meet Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam meet Iran..

Are you willing to concede that Baker, Kissinger and Powell - among many other seasoned and accomplished top diplomats - know a hell of a lot more about what approach to take than you do?

In the same way that BY knows more about wrestling kangaroos and shagging crocodiles. Or is it the other way around? Hell, I can never remember.... I know that there's something about baby-eating Dingos in there, though.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I can watch the news and think. It doesn't take an advanced degree in international relations to see what Iran wants.

I respectfully submit that it takes a bit more than watching TV news to get the depth of understanding necessary to handle foreign relations.

Out of curiosity, do you have any experience in foreign affairs?

I am the one saying that perhaps we might want to pay heed to some who DO have that type of experience.

Gary disagreed with an article you (obviously) agreed with. It's called debating. I don't think Gary (or anyone else) thinks what we think will actually affect the outcome, but VJers do love to talk.

Sure, next week we'll debate what surgeons should and shouldn't do based on the expertise we garnered by watching ER.

This is the only language Iran understands..

Iran meet Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam meet Iran..

Are you willing to concede that Baker, Kissinger and Powell - among many other seasoned and accomplished top diplomats - know a hell of a lot more about what approach to take than you do?

In the same way that BY knows more about wrestling kangaroos and shagging crocodiles.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[HAL 9000 96]

Again there does seem to be some support for dialog with Iran from within the military.

It doesn't matter. You never, particularly if you're possibly going to be the president of this country, purposely undermine any possible negotiating "currency" we may have to sway the Iranians to do our bidding by blatently mouthing your intentions.

Political science 101!

Its an ongoing debate, Kaydee. Perhaps they shouldn't have had Petraeus testify at all.

Other than distracting Obama from his duties to chair his commitee overseeeing Afghanistan, the only senatorial responsibility he was given BTW, the Illinois junior senator, aka the deadbeat, needs some OJT.

I fail to see what having Petreus testify has to do with a potential president of the U.S. shooting his mouth off about foreign policy decisions that he'll persue if president, particularly with an enemy of this stae, Iran.

Got substantial proof of that besides what you Daddy Bush wants you to say? And, yes, the Cold War has nothing to do with Iran. Or Iraq. Perhaps the GI Joe outfit does suit you well...

[HAL 9000 96]

US political icons: Time to talk to Iran

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:43:46

Five former US secretaries of state have advised the next presidential administration to conduct direct negotiations with Tehran.

In a Thursday conference at the University of Georgia, former chief US diplomats Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, James Baker III, Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright highlighted the importance of engaging in dialogue with Iran's political leaders.

They agreed that holding talks on a 'common ground' such as the Iraqi crisis could help the restoration of Washington-Tehran relations.

"A dysfunctional Iraq, a chaotic Iraq, is not something that's in the interest to Iran. There's every incentive on their part to help us, the same way they did in Afghanistan,'' explained Baker, who served as secretary of state under the senior Bush.

They concluded that it may be time for Washington to abandon its 'unilateral' doctrine.

"When policies don't work for 50 years, it's time to start thinking about something else,'' maintained Christopher.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=49322§ionid=3510203

I beg to differ. Iran would love to be able to take over Iraq. The more dysfunctional it is the better for them. That is why they have been shipping IED's into Iraq. They want that country destableized and then hope we pull out. That gives them just what they are looking for. Talking to them about Iraq is like talking to the fox about the hen house.

The problem is that Iran is really in a stronger position than we are - what they're doing to destabilise Iraq doesn't cost them a fantastic amount of money (as it does us to occupy and secure the country), so really they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. As Petraeus says all the security gains are fragile and reversible - the biggest sticking point is moving towards a final solution is Iraqi political unity and that just doesn't seem to be happening. Not least when folks like Moqtadr al-Sadr appear to have significant leverage. That and regardless of what we're prepared to do - there's nothing stopping Iran from having an open dialog with Iraq's Shia factions.

Its what some people in the know of parallels call "their backyard."

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

US political icons: Time to talk to Iran

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:43:46

Five former US secretaries of state have advised the next presidential administration to conduct direct negotiations with Tehran.

In a Thursday conference at the University of Georgia, former chief US diplomats Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, James Baker III, Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright highlighted the importance of engaging in dialogue with Iran's political leaders.

They agreed that holding talks on a 'common ground' such as the Iraqi crisis could help the restoration of Washington-Tehran relations.

"A dysfunctional Iraq, a chaotic Iraq, is not something that's in the interest to Iran. There's every incentive on their part to help us, the same way they did in Afghanistan,'' explained Baker, who served as secretary of state under the senior Bush.

They concluded that it may be time for Washington to abandon its 'unilateral' doctrine.

"When policies don't work for 50 years, it's time to start thinking about something else,'' maintained Christopher.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=49322§ionid=3510203

I beg to differ. Iran would love to be able to take over Iraq. The more dysfunctional it is the better for them. That is why they have been shipping IED's into Iraq. They want that country destableized and then hope we pull out. That gives them just what they are looking for. Talking to them about Iraq is like talking to the fox about the hen house.

The problem is that Iran is really in a stronger position than we are - what they're doing to destabilise Iraq doesn't cost them a fantastic amount of money (as it does us to occupy and secure the country), so really they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. As Petraeus says all the security gains are fragile and reversible - the biggest sticking point is moving towards a final solution is Iraqi political unity and that just doesn't seem to be happening. Not least when folks like Moqtadr al-Sadr appear to have significant leverage. That and regardless of what we're prepared to do - there's nothing stopping Iran from having an open dialog with Iraq's Shia factions.

Its what some people in the know of parallels call "their backyard."

To me its honestly hard to look at Iraq and not see that its a massive and very expensive uphill battle for the US to maintain this huge military presence in Iraq indefinately. Grit and staying the course sound good - but they still don't amount to a plan to ensure political progress, self sufficiency and legitimacy of the Iraqi Govt. Its like trying to open a door by pushing at the hinge with both hands, while the guy on the other side pushes it closed with one finger on the edge.

This is what frustrates me about this - people say hindsight is 20/20, but there isn't really anything about what has happened in Iraq, not the insurgency, not the sectarian violence and not Iran's destabilising influence that wasn't entirely predictable from the getgo. That level of short sightedness IMO is really criminal. We prosecute politicians who misuse state money, but not politicians who misuse the country's military.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Number 6

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How fast does the blast wave travel again?

A moot point if all that's left is a shadow on a wall

I'm pretty sure whoever took that photo wasn't reduced to a shadow on a wall...

Well obviously.