Did you guys hear about McCain's letter to the Russian Embassy?!

[Sherwin]

You are putting yourself on record saying it is more important for a president to know who borders who than bring home an army, that he commands, in victory. If you don't care how the military comes home, then that is why you are not in the White House.BTW, I am just waiting to read all the glowing posts why we need to have a surge in Afghanistan just because the Leader says so.

You still never answered my question after I called you out several times on it, so I will try one more time. How can you vote for a candidate who sang bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran? Then he lied in a debate saying that John McCain said that to a vet as a joke.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg"]YouTube - Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran[/ame]
By the way we are in this mess because of your idiot President George W Bush, so you can spin it all the way you want, but this war is all his fault and the stupid Republicans who voted to put our troops in harms way.

I know you will not answer my question because you didn't the last two times I called you out. Go listen to Rush Limbaugh in your car, and Fox News I'm sure Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are both proud of you.

 

[RoozbehAzadi]

You still never answered my question after I called you out several times on it, so I will try one more time. How can you vote for a candidate who sang bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran? Then he lied in a debate saying that John McCain said that to a vet as a joke.

Believe it or not, there are actually Iranians who want the US to bomb Iran in order to get rid of the mullahs.

 

[Sherwin]

Believe it or not, there are actually Iranians who want the US to bomb Iran in order to get rid of the mullahs.

Nobody likes the mullas but I call these people vatan foroosh. How can you sell out like that and vote for McCain?

 

[Iranpaak]

You are putting yourself on record saying it is more important for a president to know who borders who than bring home an army, that he commands, in victory. If you don't care how the military comes home, then that is why you are not in the White House.BTW, I am just waiting to read all the glowing posts why we need to have a surge in Afghanistan just because the Leader says so.

I am sure you know what I am talking about but trying hard not to lose an arguement.
Look,one one makes a specific country centerpeice of one's campaign foreign policy, one travels there multiple times, one brags about his support of the surge; people expect him to know a thing or two about that country and where that country is located. Now if one does not know where Spain is and Spain relationship with the US, that maybe forgivable , if that person does not know if Putin is not the President of Germany , that might be forgivable by the "foreign policy" expert .
Check out this two year's knoweldge of geography, she seems to know more than your "foreign policy" expert about geography .
http://forums.iransportspress.com/showthread.php?t=53175
Rather than watching Fox all the time, you should have watched Frontline on PBS yesterday which had a program about the foreign policy challanges of whomever going to be the next President.
The real challange for the next President is not Iraq, is not Afghanistan, it is going to be Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapon, weak government and potent insurgencies.

 

[Flint]

The real challange for the next President is not Iraq, is not Afghanistan, it is going to be Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapon, weak government and potent insurgencies.

Thank you. That is all I wanted to know. Knowing your geography is more important than saving an army, the army you command, from defeat. We have all seen footage of Hitler and his generals poring over maps of the Eastern front where German Sixth Army was surrounded and eventually defeated. Germans never recovered from that defeat. Hitler knew exactly where Stalingrad was, what was to the east, west, north or south of it. What he couldn't do was to save his troops. History is not giving him credit for knowing his geography.

As for Pakistan, I feel safe with the Obama Doctrine. That is, if you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist. Hmm, where have I heard that before?

 

[Iranpaak]

As for Pakistan, I feel safe with the Obama Doctrine. That is, if you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist. Hmm, where have I heard that before?

LOOOL, not so fast. That is not what Obama said, he said if there are actionable intelligence about Al Queda in the tribal region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and if Pakistan will not act, he will act. There is a little difference here between what he said and what Bush has said.

We have all seen footage of Hitler and his generals poring over maps of the Eastern front

Yeah I am sure they were looking at the boundaries of the eastern front on the map to learn where it was situated .

 

[westwienmaskulin]

Thank you. That is all I wanted to know. Knowing your geography is more important than saving an army, the army you command, from defeat. We have all seen footage of Hitler and his generals poring over maps of the Eastern front where German Sixth Army was surrounded and eventually defeated. Germans never recovered from that defeat. Hitler knew exactly where Stalingrad was, what was to the east, west, north or south of it. What he couldn't do was to save his troops. History is not giving him credit for knowing his geography.

As for Pakistan, I feel safe with the Obama Doctrine. That is, if you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist. Hmm, where have I heard that before?

well..let's say it's only military expertise that matters.
let's say the US army is in trouble in pakistan..
let's say mccain comes up with the master plan.

and in the end, he sends more troops to iraq to get over the border to help the troops in pakistan.

how bad would that be?

 

[PJ]

Thank you. That is all I wanted to know. Knowing your geography is more important than saving an army, the army you command, from defeat. We have all seen footage of Hitler and his generals poring over maps of the Eastern front where German Sixth Army was surrounded and eventually defeated. Germans never recovered from that defeat. Hitler knew exactly where Stalingrad was, what was to the east, west, north or south of it. What he couldn't do was to save his troops. History is not giving him credit for knowing his geography.

As for Pakistan, I feel safe with the Obama Doctrine. That is, if you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist. Hmm, where have I heard that before?

It is very interesting that you compare Hitler's Army to Bush's army.
Those soldiers in Iraq would love to come back home. Mahi ro har vaght az ab begiri tazast.

 

[Iranpaak]

and in the end, he sends more troops to iraq to get over the border to help the troops in pakistan.

LOOOL

 

[Flint]

LOOOL, not so fast. That is not what Obama said, he said if there are actionable intelligence about Al Queda in the tribal region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and if Pakistan will not act, he will act. There is a little difference here between what he said and what Bush has said.

Bush is already doing the Obama Doctrine. Where do you think those missiles are going?They are just fired off into schools? BTW, this just crossed the wires,


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Pakistan's government summoned the U.S. ambassador on Wednesday to urge an immediate halt to missile strikes on suspected militant hide-outs near the Afghan border.

What should we do know President Obama? Sitting on the sidelines and pointing fingers was easy.

 

[Iranpaak]

Bush is already doing the Obama Doctrine.

I know, and guess who has been criticizing Obama for what he said, give you two clues, the self-proclaimed foreing policy and national security expert, another clue, who does not know that Spain is an ally of the US.

 

[deerouz]

How can you, as president, witness the last helicopter lifting off, once again, from a rooftop, this time in Baghdad. The moment US left under those circumstances, Maliki and his government would be taken to rooftops and shot. This notion that they would come together after US left under those circumstances is lunacy.

Your concerns are valid, but your information is incorrect, and your analogy to Vietnam is misplaced. The notion that Maliki's government and his Dawa and SIIC allies somehow need US protection is not true. What you and other supporters of war fail to understand is that Maliki is not the US frontman. He is essentially Iran's frontman, as are his allies as well as his rivals such as Moghtada Sadr. They are all of the same cloth. The media story about Maliki being the "good guy" versus Moghtada being the "bad guy" is just a ploy to refuse to admit that the US has lost this war to Iran.

All these guys whom you dine and welcome in the White house used to live in Tehran under protection of the IRI. During the war, Hakim's party (SIIC) had been given the monopoly of cigarrete's import to Iran to pay for their expenses. Maliki is not just an Iranian puppet, but neither is Hassan Nasrossllah. At the end, all these factions have a much closer relatinship with the Iranian government than they have with the US. In the political struggles after the departue of the US army, some of these groups will be sidelined but a poweful central govenment will emerge that may or may not look exactly like IRI, depending on how powerful the clerics in Iraq become.

Iran is playing a smart multi-front chess game in Iraq and has already checkmated the US. This is something the Saudis and Jordanians amd Egyptians already realized and have been warning about, but the US government has no choice to just repeat the good/bad story, otherwise it has to accept the defeat. Either the US takes over the day-today running of the govenment in Iraq (as they did in Japan and Germany) and stays there for twenty years, or it cuts its losses and runs away and gives the control to Iran. and I don't think the first scenario is feasible.

Sounds horrible , right? Bush should have thought of it before attempting such a grand task. At first I supported the toppling of Saddam because I thought the US really has a workable plan, but now it is clear the strategy was to "go in and let's hope for the best". It didn't happen. It never does.

 

[Kaz]

LOOOL, not so fast. That is not what Obama said, he said if there are actionable intelligence about Al Queda in the tribal region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and if Pakistan will not act, he will act. There is a little difference here between what he said and what Bush has said.

Although, frankly, not much.

 

[Iranpaak]

Spot on deerouz JAn.

 

[Motori]

Yeah McCain is sure expert in foreign policy. He is the same guy who thought Afghanistan borders Iraq. He is the same expert who thought Iranians are Sunnis and Al Quade has basis in Iran, he had to be corrected by Liberman in front of the camera. Just recently he did not know that Spain was an ally and made remarks about Spain's PM. Referring to Czechoslovakia a country that does not exist (since 1993) and mixing up Somalia with Sudan.Last but not least, he is the "expert foreign policy guy" who called Putin, president of Germany.


You are mistaking foreign policy experience with a round of Jeopardy. It matters not a whit if you don't know which country is on which side of which country. Just look it up. What you can't look up is what to do when your country has sent 150,000 men into battle, and they are losing. Obama said I want them out. Pure and simple. Just get out. He has always said he will "end" the war. Heck, anyone can end the war. Question is how? Forget about how much you may despise US military and the whole Iraq issue. Put your presidency hat on. How can you preside over bringing back a defeated army ,regardless of how they went in? What will it do to the moral, to future recruiting, to the nations psyche for generations to come? How can you, as president, witness the last helicopter lifting off, once again, from a rooftop, this time in Baghdad. The moment US left under those circumstances, Maliki and his government would be taken to rooftops and shot. This notion that they would come together after US left under those circumstances is lunacy. That is not how they settle arguments in that part of the world. We, of all people, should know that better than anybody else. Obama hasn't been around to be tested that often but he failed the big one miserably.

Duke,
Through out the history it is well proven and documented that the fastest way to end a war is loosing it.....:--wink::--wink:

 

[Flint]

Your concerns are valid, but your information is incorrect, and your analogy to Vietnam is misplaced. The notion that Maliki's government and his Dawa and SIIC allies somehow need US protection is not true. What you and other supporters of war fail to understand is that Maliki is not the US frontman. He is essentially Iran's frontman, as are his allies as well as his rivals such as Moghtada Sadr. They are all of the same cloth. The media story about Maliki being the "good guy" versus Moghtada being the "bad guy" is just a ploy to refuse to admit that the US has lost this war to Iran.

All these guys whom you dine and welcome in the White house used to live in Tehran under protection of the IRI. During the war, Hakim's party (SIIC) had been given the monopoly of cigarrete's import to Iran to pay for their expenses. Maliki is not just an Iranian puppet, but neither is Hassan Nasrossllah. At the end, all these factions have a much closer relatinship with the Iranian government than they have with the US. In the political struggles after the departue of the US army, some of these groups will be sidelined but a poweful central govenment will emerge that may or may not look exactly like IRI, depending on how powerful the clerics in Iraq become.

Iran is playing a smart multi-front chess game in Iraq and has already checkmated the US. This is something the Saudis and Jordanians amd Egyptians already realized and have been warning about, but the US government has no choice to just repeat the good/bad story, otherwise it has to accept the defeat. Either the US takes over the day-today running of the govenment in Iraq (as they did in Japan and Germany) and stays there for twenty years, or it cuts its losses and runs away and gives the control to Iran. and I don't think the first scenario is feasible.

Sounds horrible , right? Bush should have thought of it before attempting such a grand task. At first I supported the toppling of Saddam because I thought the US really has a workable plan, but now it is clear the strategy was to "go in and let's hope for the best". It didn't happen. It never does.

Great analysis but it is not what we are talking about here. Everything you are saying might come true but the book of Iraq is not finished yet. What we do know is this. What we have in Iraq NOW is far better that would have been if troops were withdrawn in the heyday of IEDs. During those days, the only people who were asking for immediate withdrawals were anti-war groups, not the Iraqis themselves. Read the man-on-the street interviews of the time. As for Iran, IR is in far weaker position now. It happened when their hatchet man fled and hid in a basement in Tehran. I agree, IR will not let up and will try to enter through another door. Obama will find out that his oratory may make people faint here but is not going to impress the Taliban or AQI.

 

[Flint]

Duke,
Through out the history it is well proven and documented that the fastest way to end a war is loosing it.....:--wink::--wink:

You are solely worthy of the moniker Duke. I ride a lowly vtwin. And yes, if there are no constraints, optimization is trivial. A little math lingo there.

 

[Motori]

Iran is playing a smart multi-front chess game in Iraq and has already checkmated the US. This is something the Saudis and Jordanians amd Egyptians already realized and have been warning about, but the US government has no choice to just repeat the good/bad story, otherwise it has to accept the defeat. Either the US takes over the day-today running of the govenment in Iraq (as they did in Japan and Germany) and stays there for twenty years, or it cuts its losses and runs away and gives the control to Iran. and I don't think the first scenario is feasible.

Sounds horrible , right? Bush should have thought of it before attempting such a grand task. At first I supported the toppling of Saddam because I thought the US really has a workable plan, but now it is clear the strategy was to "go in and let's hope for the best". It didn't happen. It never does.

Mr. D,
Your solution seems to be very reactionary based on current day to day situation in Iraq. Lets assume that coalition forces are out of Iraq as we speak and undoubtedly Iranian government has tightened its grip on complete political control of Iraq and as you mentioned many (or even all) of the smaller militant factions are sifted out and neutralized.
Now my question is, how well KSA, Egypt, Jordanians and possible other Arab nation will handle seeing an Arab nation in the hands of Iran. I mean what will stop them from establishing an all out Arab Nationalist Coalition against Iran and take military action? Will 50,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan be able to bring an all out destructive war in the Middle East under control? And lets not forget if such a war erupts which side Pakistan will lean toward.

 

[deerouz]

Mr. D,
Your solution seems to be very reactionary based on current day to day situation in Iraq. Lets assume that coalition forces are out of Iraq as we speak and undoubtedly Iranian government has tightened its grip on complete political control of Iraq and as you mentioned many (or even all) of the smaller militant factions are sifted out and neutralized.
Now my question is, how well KSA, Egypt, Jordanians and possible other Arab nation will handle seeing an Arab nation in the hands of Iran. I mean what will stop them from establishing an all out Arab Nationalist Coalition against Iran and take military action? Will 50,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan be able to bring an all out destructive war in the Middle East under control? And lets not forget if such a war erupts which side Pakistan will lean toward.

Motori aziz,
I don't have any solution for the situation! I just made observations about how the things appear to be going forward. If Iran in fact successully creates the shia crescent the Jodanian king talked about, it is indeed possible that the Sunni arab govenments would form a coalition to counter it. Scary situation indeed. However how the presence of American troops in Iraq would prevent it? Are they just going to be the separating wall between the Iranian army and the Aab army?

 

[oghabealborz]

Wow! Such great members that are truly missed, wish all of them well and love to hear from them.