Who is watching the "Special report" Iraq Study Group?

[The Willow Sword]

I am watching right now. WHo else is? what are we thinking about this?

Peace,TWS

[The Willow Sword]

Here is one review of the book that i saw on Amazon

Reviewed by Don Passos(dont know if this is a real name but that was the name given)
Dont Waste Your $$$$.

Bush has been a total failure at anything he's ever done. Who honestly thinks his Daddy's play group is going to save him? Give me a break. Not a single expert on the Middle East is in this group. I'll repeat: Not a single expert on Middle Eastern culture or affairs was involved in this joke of a "study". I'll take this opportunity to say "thanks" to all the brainwashed Bush-lovers who got us into this. How many of YOU have kids over there???



As to what i think? I feel that there has to be a consensus of agreement that whatever our strategy in Iraq that The country WILL be Partitioned between the two Major Religious Sects, Shiite and Suni. I mean it is evident that Civil war in Iraq is going strong and that our presence there to protect our interests has become secondary to the growing violence and deaths to iraq citizens as well as our troops. We need to step back and let them fight it out and then deal with in a good manner whoever gains the majority of control over the country(shiite i guess is who we would like to prevail).
Iran could be an ally to us if we take a step back and really LOOK at what Iran is really wanting to accomplish with its growth as a nation. No country wants to be dictated how to live by another Nation thousands of miles away. i know we wouldnt like it if we had Iraqis in our country trying to set up a government that makes them feel more comfortable about US. We would be just as rebellious and as insurgant oriented as the groups are in Iraq right now fighting to re-establish control of their own country. True that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy by our standards, but it would seem that when he was in power that the country was "STABLE". It really ISNT so STABLE now eh?

Peace,TWS

Peace,TWS

[Royal Dragon]

The Mideast is a Soup Sandwich...

I tend to think that Sadam was the way eh was, because THAT is what it took to keep his population under controll, and stable.

They are slaughtering eachother at a pretty good rate at this point. Instead of Sadam doing it, it's just spread out to other factions. The Killing rate is the same, or higher now.

[Shaolin Wookie]

[QUOTE=Royal Dragon;724271]I tend to think that Sadam was the way eh was, because THAT is what it took to keep his population under controll, and stable.[QUOTE]

That's what I've always contended. Yeah, it might not seem ethical. But perhaps it takes an iron ruler to keep that area under control.

Scratch that. It sounded too soft. It takes an iron ruler and regular, ritual spankings to keep that area under control. No questions about it.

[jigahus]

I see in the far future that Iraq will be split into two countries between Shiites and Sunni's just like the what happened in India with Pakistan.

[Baqualin]

I have a son over there on his 2 tour...will be home this Xmas for the first time in 3 years. I hope this is his last tour I'm glad Sadam is gone, but I'm starting to believe you guys are right about the way to handle these idiots.

[Merryprankster]

I concur with the reviewer: It is sad that no ME expert is on the panel. However, I am reluctant to discount the recommendations of these guys. There are some good brains there, and the issue is not just about Islam or the ME. It's about U.S. strategy in Iraq. They could have benefitted from having an expert or two on the ME.

With regards to the war: It is too early to tell if Iraq will be split into three distinct sovereign states. I expect that the political realities of that particular monster will prevent it from happening. The Sunni dominated areas don't have enough resources to form a viable state, and an independent Kurdistan will be vociferously opposed by Turkey, Iran and other neighboring states. A shi'ite state seems viable, but has significant hurdles. Iran will seek to dominate the affairs of a Shi'ite state, and I predict a sizable chunk of Iraqi Shi'ites would resist that, and would find ready allies in the Arab ME. I think the Persian-Arab divide runs deeper than the Shi'ite Sunni divide, and I think Arab ME states will be more than happy to make that distinction, to reduce Iranian influence among shi'ites in their own countries as well as Iraq.

I'm guessing that a weak federated state may come about, with significant autonomy for each region, after some sort of oil-revenue sharing agreement is reached.

Iran could be an ally to us if we take a step back and really LOOK at what Iran is really wanting to accomplish with its growth as a nation.

What Iran wants to be is the dominant regional player. There are significant, dangerous repercussions to this. I am personally in favor of lifting the Iranian embargo, of re-establishing diplomatic relations, and becoming quite chummy with the country, on several grounds:

1. Increased ties with Iran would allow us avenues to influence their behavior. Right now, we can't.

2. It has a potentially destabilizing effect on their regime, which is god-awful, as millions of faithful Iranians who have demonized the United States - and taught to do so by the Mullahs, are suddenly faced with their leaders doing business with the Great Satan.

3. It gives us a bargaining chip with Saudi Arabia.

4. Information flow will skyrocket, eventually forcing the Iranian regime to either reform or face potential unrest and rebellion.

We are already starting to see the impact of points 2 and 4 in many parts of the ME. Governments there are being forced to respond to the common Arab citizens' concerns in ways they have not in the past.

No country wants to be dictated how to live by another Nation thousands of miles away.

Iran isn't. They've quite correctly identified that the moral authority of the United States is at a low ebb, and there is no international consensus on confronting Iran in our absence, thanks to the need of modernizing nations for Iranian oil.

It would be a beautiful example of "losing the battle but winning the war," if we started relations with Iran and agreed to some of their terms. The Iranian leadership would get to gloat about bringing the Great Satan to its knees for a short while, then struggle to figure out how to cope with the reality and symbolism of that act.

Iran is vain and vastly overestimates its strategic (vice tactical) importance on the global stage. We can put that to great use, and we should. They are BEGGING to be players on the world stage...and in the generous spirit of inclusivity, and in the cynical spirit of outmanuevering them strategically, and keeping your enemies closer, we should acknowledge they "have arrived."

Incidentally, anybody who thinks Iran wants a nuclear program for peaceful reasons should have their head examined, but that's another issue.

[The Willow Sword]

Is it possible that MP and i are actually in agreement on this subject?. The wonders never cease. Good post MP.
Peace,TWS

[Merryprankster]

Is it possible that MP and i are actually in agreement on this subject?.

I only disagree with you when I think what you've said is stupid. I think that's reasonable.

If you quizzed me on my take on many political issues, you would find we are in significant agreement.

I would wager that our primary disagreement would be over the causal relationship between U.S. policy and <insert horrible situation here>.

For some reason I've yet to establish many liberals seem to measure your liberal bona fides by how much you blame the United States for all the world's problems.

Oh, and thank you. I appreciate the kudos. I'm not sure I agree with your statements re: Iraq wholesale, but I agree that opening a dialogue with Iran is valuable.

[Water Dragon]

I only disagree with you when I think what you've said is stupid. I think that's reasonable.

I'm stealing this one!

[golden arhat]

i agree with mp for the most part

but i do wonder how the iranians could afford a nuclear weapons program and keep it maintained with out their people complaining

in the cold war it cost the ussr and america billions to keep their silos at the ready
now think
iran would have to create silos (expensive)
get their hands on the proper missile technology (and not the small rockets they supply hezbollah with) also exspensive
they dont have a sea front which means they cant have subs to launch their missiles
and if tey managed to get a nuclar missile israel wouldnt stand for it and the whole middle east would erupt like it never has before i and ran knows this
but yeah i do think we need to make nice

[bodhitree]

Here is one review of the book that i saw on Amazon

Reviewed by Don Passos(dont know if this is a real name but that was the name given)
Dont Waste Your $$$$.

Bush has been a total failure at anything he's ever done. Who honestly thinks his Daddy's play group is going to save him? Give me a break. Not a single expert on the Middle East is in this group. I'll repeat: Not a single expert on Middle Eastern culture or affairs was involved in this joke of a "study". I'll take this opportunity to say "thanks" to all the brainwashed Bush-lovers who got us into this. How many of YOU have kids over there???



As to what i think? I feel that there has to be a consensus of agreement that whatever our strategy in Iraq that The country WILL be Partitioned between the two Major Religious Sects, Shiite and Suni. I mean it is evident that Civil war in Iraq is going strong and that our presence there to protect our interests has become secondary to the growing violence and deaths to iraq citizens as well as our troops. We need to step back and let them fight it out and then deal with in a good manner whoever gains the majority of control over the country(shiite i guess is who we would like to prevail).
Iran could be an ally to us if we take a step back and really LOOK at what Iran is really wanting to accomplish with its growth as a nation. No country wants to be dictated how to live by another Nation thousands of miles away. i know we wouldnt like it if we had Iraqis in our country trying to set up a government that makes them feel more comfortable about US. We would be just as rebellious and as insurgant oriented as the groups are in Iraq right now fighting to re-establish control of their own country. True that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy by our standards, but it would seem that when he was in power that the country was "STABLE". It really ISNT so STABLE now eh?

Peace,TWS

Peace,TWS

THe war in Iraq is a horrible failure of policy that should have never happened. The Bush administration did not conduct itself with the wisdom of the George H. W. administration. Baker and Scowcroft (sp?) did consult with regional experts and that was the reason there was no occupation/regime change. The war has made America weaker in many ways: It has given radical Islam a new cause for recruitment, we have lost prestige power and moral highground in diplomatic relations, we have created much more anti-American sentiment, we have spread our military very thin, and we have diverted resources away from tracking Al-Quida in Afghanistan, yeah those guys who actually attacked us. This war was the doing of Cheney and Rumsfeld. Powell and other realists in the Bush administration were silenced. Military recomendations of putting "more boots on the ground" were silenced by Cheney and Rumsfeld (who also ruined our initial covert actions in Afghanistan due to the State Dept. having a grudge against Gearge Tenant (sp?) and the CIA. In my opinion these efforts would have been more effective in locating and capturing Al-Quida and Osama Bin Laden). If the advice of the realists is taken, we will withdraw from Iraq quickly. What will become of Iraq will become of Iraq (civil war). This war has weakened America in every possible way. It was the doing of Cheney and Rumsfeld, others in the Bush administration were more skeptical, and even if they supported action in Iraq they wanted higher troop levels, more diplomacy, and lets not even get into Paul Bremmer....

[bodhitree]

i agree with mp for the most part

but i do wonder how the iranians could afford a nuclear weapons program and keep it maintained with out their people complaining

in the cold war it cost the ussr and america billions to keep their silos at the ready
now think
iran would have to create silos (expensive)
get their hands on the proper missile technology (and not the small rockets they supply hezbollah with) also exspensive
they dont have a sea front which means they cant have subs to launch their missiles
and if tey managed to get a nuclar missile israel wouldnt stand for it and the whole middle east would erupt like it never has before i and ran knows this
but yeah i do think we need to make nice

\
Israel should take care of the Iranian nuclear program the way they did the Iraqi.

[Radhnoti]

Lots of analysts are questioning Israel's capability to wage that kind of war anymore. They were recently (in effect) defeated by a PROXY of Iran in Lebanon.
If you're trying to play the good guy and not hurt any civilians it's tough...especially when your enemy doesn't have the same compunctions.

[bodhitree]

Lebanon borders Israel, so that was a different situation. Israels F-16s can still take care of some Iranian nuke facilities. They couldn't invade and stay, but they certainly could blow up a few buildings all while at the same time increasing the hatred towards them in the arab world...