Political Crossfire Forums

Gaia · Joined: 08 Jul 2005 Posts: 90

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/20/iraq.main.ap/index.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Iran has invited the Iraqi and Syrian presidents to Tehran for a weekend summit with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, four key lawmakers told The Associated Press on Monday.

The goal is to hash out ways to cooperate in curbing the runaway violence that has taken Iraq to the verge of civil war and threatens to spread through the region.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has accepted the invitation and will fly to the Iranian capital on Saturday, a close parliamentary associate said.

The Iranian diplomatic gambit appeared designed to upstage expected moves from Washington to include Syria and Iran in a wider regional effort to control violence in Iraq.
More civilians have been killed in Iraq in the first 20 days of November than in any other month since the AP began tracking the figure in April 2005.

The Iranian move was also a display of its increasingly muscular role in the Middle East, where it already has established deep influence over Syria and Lebanon.

"All three countries intend to hold a three-way summit among Iraq, Iran and Syria to discuss the security situation and the repercussions for stability of the region," said Ali al-Adeeb, a lawmaker of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Dawa Party and a close aide to the prime minister.

Both Iran and Syria are seen as key players in Iraq.

Syria is widely believed to have done little to stop foreign fighters and al Qaeda in Iraq recruits from crossing its border to join Sunni insurgents in Iraq.

It also has provided refuge for many top members of Saddam Hussein's former leadership and political corps, which is thought to have organized arms and funding for the insurgents.

The Sunni insurgency, since it sprang to life in the late summer of 2003, has been responsible for the vast majority of U.S. deaths in Iraq.

Iran is deeply involved in training, funding and arming the two major Shiite militias in Iraq, where Tehran has deep historic ties to the current Shiite political leadership.

Many Iraqi Shiites spent years in Iranian exile during Saddam's decades in power in Baghdad. One militia, the Badr Brigade, was trained in Iran by the Revolutionary Guard.

An Ahmadinejad spokesman said that Talabani's visit was scheduled several weeks ago for late November to work on improving bilateral relations.

Majid Yazdi told The Associated Press that he had no information on a coming visit by Syrian President Bashar Assad.

But Talabani confidants said the invitation was issued on Thursday by Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazimi Qumi, who said Assad also would be in Tehran for the talks with Ahmadinejad.

Al-Maliki met privately Monday with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem, the highest level Syrian official to visit Iraq since the 2003 ouster of Saddam Hussein. Afterward, government spokesman Ali Al-Dabagh told reporters the meeting was successful.

"There is a very strong Syrian desire to develop relations between the two countries. Stability and security in Iraq means stability and security in Syria and other countries in the region," Al-Dabagh said.

When Moallem arrived in Baghdad on Sunday, he called for a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces to help end Iraq's sectarian bloodbath.

Is this a positive development? It's difficult for me to form an opinion. On one hand, I'm glad those Middle East folks are starting to take responsibility for their own security.

But if they're successful, would they still sell us oil? I know Iran won't.

Eduffy80911 · Joined: 11 Dec 2005 Posts: 4291

It doesn't matter if they sell us oil, only that they sell someone oil.

If this results in Syria and Iran reigning in their goons, it's a good development, so long as Iraq continues to develop democratic institutions.

If Iraq is going to be seen and accepted as an independent state, it's not a bad thing for it to appear as though they are snubbing the US. The goal is a free and stable country, not a lapdog.

Chymical · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:51 pm Post subject:

Eduffy80911 wrote: The goal is a free and stable country, not a lapdog.

When can you liberate Britain? :lol:

Eduffy80911 · Joined: 11 Dec 2005 Posts: 4291

Chymical wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: The goal is a free and stable country, not a lapdog.

When can you liberate Britain? :lol:

only Britain can liberate Britain

but don't go piercing your tongue with a railroad spike just to show how independent you are.

Chymical · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:24 pm Post subject:

Oh I wouldn't, the electromagnetic thought control waves would only be increased by such foolishness.

anyway, lapdogs eh? Who wouldn't want one? How much is that doggie in the window? $100 billion, or do we get a discount?

this is my new cryptic questioning btw, just go with it...

Eduffy80911 · Joined: 11 Dec 2005 Posts: 4291

Chymical wrote: Oh I wouldn't, the electromagnetic thought control waves would only be increased by such foolishness.

anyway, lapdogs eh? Who wouldn't want one? How much is that doggie in the window? $100 billion, or do we get a discount?

this is my new cryptic questioning btw, just go with it...

do we get a discount, or does a discount get us?
Is the doggie in the window, or is the window outside the doggie?

Chymical · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:57 pm Post subject:

The discount always gets you in the end: economics 101
The doggie is ALWAYS in the window...but hey, I was supposed to be asking the questions :(

I hope Iran and Syria can help in this situation, i don't think it's a dirty trick or underhand stuff, although Ahminajad is a wierd one, he does seem to genuinely want the best for his people and the region, sans israel of course...

anyway I'm off to get my tounge pierced...

Eduffy80911 · Joined: 11 Dec 2005 Posts: 4291

Chymical wrote: The discount always gets you in the end: economics 101
The doggie is ALWAYS in the window...but hey, I was supposed to be asking the questions :(

I hope Iran and Syria can help in this situation, i don't think it's a dirty trick or underhand stuff, although Ahminajad is a wierd one, he does seem to genuinely want the best for his people and the region, sans israel of course...

anyway I'm off to get my tounge pierced...

Everyone wants what's best

but Ahminapolooza's idea of what's best is different from GW's which is different from Kim's which is slightly to the right of John Kerry, which is a bit different from Chirac, who once disagreed on the subject with Osama.....

but they all sincerely believe that the world would be a better place if everyone agreed with their vision.

beachbum bob · Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:08 am Post subject:

Eduffy80911 wrote: Chymical wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: The goal is a free and stable country, not a lapdog.

When can you liberate Britain? :lol:

only Britain can liberate Britain

but don't go piercing your tongue with a railroad spike just to show how independent you are.

only iraqis can liberate Iraqis....what are we doing there???

Chymical · Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:50 am Post subject:

oh dear, we have entered the logical dimension. Engage reverse thrusters Eduffy...

Bonobo · Joined: 21 Aug 2006 Posts: 741 Location: London

beachbum bob wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: Chymical wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: The goal is a free and stable country, not a lapdog.

When can you liberate Britain? :lol:

only Britain can liberate Britain

but don't go piercing your tongue with a railroad spike just to show how independent you are.

only iraqis can liberate Iraqis....what are we doing there???

I'd have thought the 'logic'al flaws in your argument were apparent even to you.

The previous poster is suggesting that, as Brtain is a free country, it's people should have done and should do more to prevent it in acting in such an immoral way.
Of course any leader of the UK should by definition act in the UK's best interests, and sigustingly enough this makes us supporters of the US and as such as immoral at the same time.
However the point is we as the people have a choice. We could have voted in another party.

Compare this to Iraq 5 years ago. I'll assume I don't need to carry on showing what a poor comparison it is.

Timmytour · Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 6863

Chymical wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: The goal is a free and stable country, not a lapdog.

When can you liberate Britain? :lol:

:lol:

I'm not so sure the goal is or was a free and stable country. I think there a one time intention that the US would set up camp there.

Forget all the talk of democracy and so forth. The US has a track record when it comes to taking over land that it considers of strategic importance to itself. It has even cooperated with Britain in the past to ensure that some people were ejected from the land they and their ancestors were born and raised in, so they could have that land for themselves.

In all the talk of democracy in the last few years, I have never once heard the proposal by anyon ein the Bush administration that it ought to start by putting right its own injustices of the past first.

Apparently it's do as I say not do as I do rhetoric.