BF2S Forums Actions speak louder than words

Actions speak louder than words

Quote for truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth...

This makes more sense on the behalf of the US. Only through diplomatic relations can the US turn down the temperature on the melting pot that is Islamic fundementalism.

CameronPoe wrote:

Can anyone else see what is going on here?

wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6190662.stm

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is due to meet Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran on the second day of a key visit for Iraq's future. On Monday, Mr Talabani held talks with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said Iran was ready to do whatever it could.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6168276.stm

The restoration of relations between Iraq and Syria is part of a series of manoeuvres in which new diplomatic horizons in the Middle East are being explored by all sides.

1. Strategy team on Iraq forward the idea of trying to bring Iran and Syria into the fray to solve the long-foreseen debacle (by everyone except the Republican Party) in Iraq. Another strategy is selected by the team as the preferred option however, possibly given the unpalatable nature of engaging with the arch nemeses of state terrorist and US ally Israel.

2. All of a sudden, after more than 3 years of bloody strife in Iraq, diplomatic relations are reopened with Iran and Syria and their 'President' goes on missions to meet Khameini, Al-Assad and Ahmedinejad.

----->

Conclusion: The US government decided that the best course of action is in fact to engage Iran and Syria and have given the green light to Talabani to take this course of action. Their public denouncement of this policy direction was simply for media and face-saving purposes and to distance themselves from the media-unfriendly task at hand. The US governments lips have not matched their actions methinks.

all this means is a greater bloodier war to be fought later. Maybe the democrats should start buy stock in surrender flag manufacturing companies. There is one in France and one in Spain I think.

Stingray24 wrote:

Iran and Syria are the two largest sponsors of terrorism both in monetary terms and manpower contributed.  Yes, let's negotiate with them so they can get what they want and proceed to break 99% of the promises in the agreement.

Well dude - Iraq are negotiating with them - something I don't think the US would have let them do unless the US believed it was in their interests.

Ok fine.  Iran and Syria are the largest sponsors of terrorism against Western countries and their allies.  That is not a disputable fact.  Substantiate things with UN resolutions? Please.  We've already had a discussion about how worthless the UN is.  Of course, in the eyes of the Middle Eastern world, Israel is the greatest terrorist nation.  That fits their agenda: wipe Israel off the face of the map.  If they didn't push that, they wouldn't have justification to attack Israel in any way. 

I would prefer not to negotiate with any country whose leader feels he's on a divine mission to bring about the end of the world.  Amedinutjob wants a nuke to help bring that about and firmly believes he is capable of hastening the end of the world by his actions.  What bargaining chip can we possibly use to negotiate with him when his mission is our destruction?

------------------------
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh … world.html

"Its most remarkable manifestation came with Mr Ahmadinejad's international debut, his speech to the United Nations.

World leaders had expected a conciliatory proposal to defuse the nuclear crisis after Teheran had restarted another part of its nuclear programme in August.

Instead, they heard the president speak in apocalyptic terms of Iran struggling against an evil West that sought to promote "state terrorism", impose "the logic of the dark ages" and divide the world into "light and dark countries".

The speech ended with the appeal to God to "hasten the emergence of your last repository, the Promised One, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace".

In a video distributed by an Iranian web site in November, Mr Ahmadinejad described how one of his Iranian colleagues had claimed to have seen a glow of light around the president as he began his speech to the UN.

"I felt it myself too," Mr Ahmadinejad recounts. "I felt that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed there. And for 27-28 minutes all the leaders did not blink…It's not an exaggeration, because I was looking.

"They were astonished, as if a hand held them there and made them sit. It had opened their eyes and ears for the message of the Islamic Republic."

Western officials said the real reason for any open-eyed stares from delegates was that "they couldn't believe what they were hearing from Ahmadinejad".

Their sneaking suspicion is that Iran's president actually relishes a clash with the West in the conviction that it would rekindle the spirit of the Islamic revolution and - who knows - speed up the arrival of the Hidden Imam."
------------------
Read the bold above and tell me he's not insane.  He thinks he had a halo around his head at the UN.

lowing wrote:

all this means is a greater bloodier war to be fought later. Maybe the democrats should start buy stock in surrender flag manufacturing companies. There is one in France and one in Spain I think.

Democrats need the flags since they can't just stick their asses in the air and wave their whitey tighties around like the Republicans do.

People reacted with such horror at the thought of my undies that they stopped posting!

CameronPoe wrote:

Can anyone else see what is going on here?

wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6190662.stm

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is due to meet Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran on the second day of a key visit for Iraq's future. On Monday, Mr Talabani held talks with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said Iran was ready to do whatever it could.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6168276.stm

The restoration of relations between Iraq and Syria is part of a series of manoeuvres in which new diplomatic horizons in the Middle East are being explored by all sides.

1. Strategy team on Iraq forward the idea of trying to bring Iran and Syria into the fray to solve the long-foreseen debacle (by everyone except the Republican Party) in Iraq. Another strategy is selected by the team as the preferred option however, possibly given the unpalatable nature of engaging with the arch nemeses of state terrorist and US ally Israel.

2. All of a sudden, after more than 3 years of bloody strife in Iraq, diplomatic relations are reopened with Iran and Syria and their 'President' goes on missions to meet Khameini, Al-Assad and Ahmedinejad.

----->

Conclusion: The US government decided that the best course of action is in fact to engage Iran and Syria and have given the green light to Talabani to take this course of action. Their public denouncement of this policy direction was simply for media and face-saving purposes and to distance themselves from the media-unfriendly task at hand. The US governments lips have not matched their actions methinks.

OR

Iran funded the insurgency to force Iraq to ask them for help, to further cement their foothold in the middle east as the big dog.

This to make them look good in the face of all of the middle easterners, to galvanize the ME against the US.

Iran is trying to position itself as the savior of islam.

Stingray24 wrote:

Iran and Syria are the two largest sponsors of terrorism both in monetary terms and manpower contributed.  Yes, let's negotiate with them so they can get what they want and proceed to break 99% of the promises in the agreement.

Iran has a death wish IMO. I believe they are trying to bring the end of the world on and the return of Mohamed. It's funny how America is criticized for not reaching out to mend relations when their leader is screaming to it's people the rest of the world must bow down to Iran. Are we supposed to reach out a loving hand to someone who is advocating death to America?

To be honest with you I totally understand what the OP is saying. It just does not seem plausible when Iran is preaching the flag of Islam will fly over the White House. It takes two sides in case you forgot.

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-11-29 15:05:25)

*shrugs* You know...  this would be a lot more interesting if we suddenly withdrew right when Iraq receives aid from Iran and Syria.  It's likely that both Iran and Syria will eventually arrange something with Iraq that pays them back somehow.  If we put Iran and Syria in a position where it is in their best interests to assume the full peacekeeping responsibilities of Iraq, we can slip out and save ourselves from further debt accumulation.