BF2S Forums Well, Well! Iran-Syria plan for Iraq is all the rage!

Did my post get deleted? Or just not go through?

Anyway, I doubt that the "sovereign" nation of Iraq will be allowed to make a decision like that by their benevolent US overseers.

Last edited by Ikarti (2006-10-17 13:53:42)

ghettoperson wrote:

He managed to make 3 topics. No wonder you were confused.

Something fucked up going on with my connection...

It will never work.

What do Iran and Syria know about the nuances of Middle East affairs?

The best course for Iraq is to follow the course laid out by Rumsfeld whatever Israel whispers in Bush's ear the generals on the ground uh... by... lemme get back to you on that one kthx

Does Iran still stone people to death?

I read recently that Syria had become something of a silent partner in the war on terror.
It was in last months www.sofmag.com world sitrep.

Something to the effect that they feel the Jihadist movement is a threat to their own survival, they didn't like being a interchange of foreign terrorist, because some of these guys were staying behing in Syria and agitating trouble there.

It's hard to imagine the top brass didn't consider that all they'd be doing by invading Iraq was...make a bigger Iran if they didn't win.
     The truth is, the U.S. is banking everything on Iran.
     We have to fomment regime change there, without military intervention. We are counting on the youth of Iran to demand freedom, and in reality, Iran has a history of mostly peacefull relations with its neighbors, including Israel.
     The United States is aware that pulling out will cause an almost instant invasion by Turkey, who will battle Iran for controll of the oil fields. We are also aware that the borders imposed by European powers after WW1 are a large part of the problem, and may be carefully easing the area towards a precipice of our own design.

     Hey, lets not forget Korea;
the chances of a limited nuclear exchange there are very, very high and that will divert a lot of attention away from the area so we can dispatch large numbers of Muslim trouble makers without the international scrutiny we now enjoy.

     Remember what we said; " As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."
     Okay we've stood down, and are about to declare the experiment a failure. Look for the sacking of the governement and the appointing of a American general to oversee the wellfare of the country.
   
     Because things are chaos now does not mean we've failed; it means they've failed.
     After the November elections look for the U.S. to get tough in Iraq.

ATG wrote:

I read recently that Syria had become something of a silent partner in the war on terror.
It was in last months www.sofmag.com world sitrep.

Something to the effect that they feel the Jihadist movement is a threat to their own survival, they didn't like being a interchange of foreign terrorist, because some of these guys were staying behing in Syria and agitating trouble there.

Syria has usually been at odds with Islamists. You should look up what happened between the previous Syrian president (the late Hafez al-Assad) and the Muslim Brotherhood when they tried to assassinate him in 1980. The Syrians have cooperated in the war on terror (at least until being antagonized by the US in 2005).

BBC wrote:

President George W Bush has accepted that the surge in violence in Iraq may be equivalent to America's traumatic experience in the Vietnam War.
Mr Bush told ABC News that it could be right to compare Iraq's situation to the 1968 Tet offensive, widely seen as a key turning point in the conflict.

CameronPoe wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6060544.stm

BBC wrote:

Talabani backs 'Iran-Syria plan'

Violence in Iraq could end "within months" if Iran and Syria joined efforts to stabilise the country, says Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. He told the BBC the move would "be the beginning of the end of terrorism".

The suggestion is said to come from a panel of US experts who are reportedly considering calling for a big change in US policy on Iraq. The panel, led by a former US secretary of state (who served under George Bush), is also said to think that "staying the course" is untenable.

The task force, which was asked by the US Congress to examine the effectiveness of American policy in Iraq, has reportedly been looking at two options, both of which would amount to a reversal of the Bush administration's stance.

Although there is nothing to suggest that what President Talabani has called for would end violence "within months", this development certainly made me chuckle heartily. To endorse the plan would represent a complete and utter turnaround on the part of the US administration. Essentially it would be like Bush admitting he was wrong and that his plan for Iraq is, was and always has been, a failure. Whatsmore it would mean that the US administration would be giving two members of the so-called 'Axis of Evil' their stamp of approval and allowing them to exert their influence in Iraq!! The Iranian administration must be rubbing their hands with glee as we speak. What a humiliating potential eventuality for the US. And what a kick in the teeth for those soldiers who served their country only to have them essentially cede control of Iraq to two supposed enemies!!!!

I wonder will the US acquiesce to the desires of The President of Iraq. We'll have to see whether his opinion matters at all in so-called 'sovereign' Iraq...

I'd like to see the responses of some of the smug neo-cons if this ever does come to pass!!!!

Problem is this PLAN on our end is comeing from an EX Cabinet member(can you say grudge) And a supposed Unbias Think tank. Ill let you all get on with this debate. Guess you can figure out my stance on this one.

CameronPoe wrote:

BBC wrote:

President George W Bush has accepted that the surge in violence in Iraq may be equivalent to America's traumatic experience in the Vietnam War.
Mr Bush told ABC News that it could be right to compare Iraq's situation to the 1968 Tet offensive, widely seen as a key turning point in the conflict.

A key turning point in that the NVA and Vietcong got there asses kicked back a few centuries.

Capt. Foley wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

BBC wrote:

President George W Bush has accepted that the surge in violence in Iraq may be equivalent to America's traumatic experience in the Vietnam War.
Mr Bush told ABC News that it could be right to compare Iraq's situation to the 1968 Tet offensive, widely seen as a key turning point in the conflict.

A key turning point in that the NVA and Vietcong got there asses kicked back a few centuries.

And how many times has bush been right in the past?

"We will be greeted as liberators."

Bubbalo wrote:

ATG wrote:

We are counting on the youth of Iran to demand freedom

Which is exactly how modern Iran was created.....................

Which didn't last long. The democratic movement was squashed by the islamic nutsoes.

ATG wrote:

We need Bush to tell the Ayatolla he's got 48 hours to get out of Dodge, or we start bombing 


Information is the best weapon we have. It would be nice if we could blanket the country with wifi and airdrop pc's in so's they could get online and join the debate!

Freedom is a fire that, once started, is not easily put out.

You know the leader started cutting the internet speeds for homes & cafes.