• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Use Iran and Syria for peace - PM (1 Viewer)

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Amazing, perhaps Teflon Tony Blair either reads these blogs or more probably has a subordinate do it for him?
Must admit, I had no idea where he got his more sensible idea's from.
All it needs now is for this poodle's master (President Bush) to come round to Teflon Tony's point of view.
Hey, but guess what? YOU read it here first.
Link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6142252.stm
 
My oh my, how reticent we are.
 
This may come as a surprise to many, but both Syria and Iran offered their help to fight terrorists in 2001 and 2003.

Burnt Offering

How a 2003 secret overture from Tehran might have led to a deal on Iran’s nuclear capacity -- if the Bush administration hadn’t rebuffed it.

...In the spring of 2003, the Islamic Republic of Iran not only proposed to negotiate with the Bush administration on its nuclear program and its support for terrorists but also offered concrete concessions that went very far toward meeting U.S. concerns. ....

The stubborn rejection by President Bush and his neoconservative advisers of normal diplomatic practice in their dealings with Iran, detailed for the first time here, raises grave questions about the Bush administration’s real motives as it maneuvers through the present crisis over Iran’s nuclear program. ...

Almost from the beginning of Bush’s presidency, two groups in the administration were waging an intense struggle over Iran, while the U.S. government went month after month without an official policy. Those officials who wanted to try diplomacy had a champion in Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage, a close confidante of Secretary of State Colin Powell. Armitage had lived in Tehran for several months in 1975 as part of a Pentagon team trying to restrain the shah’s arms purchases, and he was “very interested” in Iran, according to Powell’s chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson. One of the reasons Armitage brought Middle East specialist Richard Haass into the department as head of the Office of Policy Planning, Wilkerson says, was to work on a new policy toward Iran.

Haass, for four years the senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the staff of the National Security Council under the first President Bush, began in the summer of 2001 to explore the possibilities for engaging Iran diplomatically, first through the easing of economic sanctions imposed in 1996 under the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. But by the time the State Department was focused on the problem, it was already too late: The bill re-imposing those sanctions had been introduced in the House on January 3, 2001, even before Bush’s inauguration, and had no fewer than 250 co-sponsors. A source who worked on the issue at the time says the American Israel Public Affairs Committee had been focusing on the legislation for months. The bill passed overwhelmingly in July 2001. ....
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11539

It might also be worth noting the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in the US government and how it shapes US foreign policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee

I sometimes wonder whose interests our representatives in Washington really represent, ours or Israels.
 
Last edited:
Syrai and Iran could help towards the Iraq war a great deal, pity the US is too stubborn to talk to them.
 
I suggest we all use a swarm of piranhas for shaving.
 
Moot said:
This may come as a surprise to many, but both Syria and Iran offered their help to fight terrorists in 2001 and 2003.



It might also be worth noting the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in the US government and how it shapes US foreign policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee

I sometimes wonder whose interests our representatives in Washington really represent, ours or Israels.


When in doubt, blame the Jews.
 
Well naturally we all blame the jews, heck, even the jews blame the jews, so why should any one else be any different.
By the way, just what are we blaming the jews for this time?
 
jujuman13 said:
Amazing, perhaps Teflon Tony Blair either reads these blogs or more probably has a subordinate do it for him?
Must admit, I had no idea where he got his more sensible idea's from.
All it needs now is for this poodle's master (President Bush) to come round to Teflon Tony's point of view.
Hey, but guess what? YOU read it here first.
Link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6142252.stm

Ya hay and while we're at it let's bring in North Korea, hay Cuba's not doing anything neither is Venezuela, let's bring Castro and Chavez into the fold. God save us from the useful idiots.
 
GarzaUK said:
Syrai and Iran could help towards the Iraq war a great deal, pity the US is too stubborn to talk to them.

One of the major (though perhaps unintended) points in the article linked to by Moot is that the US has had many, many, back channel communications, over quite a few years, with Iran and Syria. Further, the US has consistently agreed to talk directly with Iran, but on our conditions for an agenda, not Iran's.

Of course, the author of that article, Gareth Porter, is a well-known anti-war activist and rather self-styled historian, so one might be advised to take his assertions with a large helping of skepticism.
 
I bet if we had been really nice Hitler would have helped us out in the 1940s too.
 
Gardener said:
When in doubt, blame the Jews.

My, my, how anti-semitic of you to blame the Jews. Just so you know Gardner, not all Jews are Israeli and not all Israelis are Jews.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom