Bush asking Iran for help on war with insurgency in Iraq.

The nerve of this dude. First, he gets his chimp face on TV and says "Iran should not be allowed to have nukes." THEN, he turns around and asks Iran for help? Please.

I hope the Iranian govt gives Bush the finger on this one. And you peeps talking bout Iran needs to prove to the world they're good guys, wtf is that? Our govt needs to prove to the world that they're not professional liars. WMD, Osama bin Hussein anyone?

Bush asking Iran for help on war with insurgency in Iraq

Dubya: "Hello, is this Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
Iran: "No"
Dubya: "Can you get him for me please? I appreciate it.."
Iran: "okie dokie white devil..."
Dubya on hold....
Ahmadinejad: "Hello, who is this? Allahu Akbar"
Dubya: "Hello Ahmadinejad? This is Gearge Walker Texas Rang...ah...er Bush. I need your help"
Ahmadinejad: "Yes white devil infidel, how may I help you? Allah is great, all mercifull"
Dubya: "Well, I need your help with terrorists and the insurgency in Iraq"
Ahmadinejad: "How can I help you with that, you infidel swine?"
Dubya: "Well, stop being a terrorist state and regime, that would be enough...You can help me by not being a terrorist..."

I suppose thats how the conversation went.

How can Iran help? They can stop being and supporting the insurgents. Thats how they can help.

I see this as a great opportunity for IRI to take down the terrorist Mojahedeen Khalq Organisation in Iraq. What do you think guys? specially NR?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- U.S. President George W. Bush has authorized the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad to meet Iranian officials to help secure Iraq after the Pentagon starts withdrawing troops, Newsweek reported on Monday.

In the December 5 issue of Newsweek, which hit news stands on Monday, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said he had explicit permission from Bush to begin a diplomatic dialogue with Iran about Iraq.

"I've been authorized by the president to engage the Iranians as I engaged them in Afghanistan directly," said Khalilzad, a former U.S. envoy to Afghanistan. "There will be meetings, and that's also a departure and an adjustment."

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack confirmed the United States wanted to meet the Iranians to discuss issues related to Iraq but said discussions would not extend beyond that topic.

"It's a very narrow mandate that he (Khalilzad) has and it deals specifically with issues related to Iraq," he said.

Wasn't Iran a part of the so-called Axis of Evil?

Hasn’t the US been pushing hard to stop Iran from not only getting nuclear weapons, but nuclear POWER?

I hope the Iranians tell Bush to go eff himself, personally. Tell him, hey sorry, you broke it, you bought it.

Maybe this will teach your retarded president that burning bridges is a bad thing.

Originally posted by Jakomo
Wasn't Iran a part of the so-called Axis of Evil?

Yeah, I forgot about that, Jakomo.

Maybe Bush should ask North Korea to help out too.

To stop insurgency in Iraq you have to deal with it source. Those guys get money and weapons from Iran and maybe from Syria. Syria has been supported by Islamic Republic from 1979 till now.

You want to end this terror acts in Iraq and Israel, stop Islamic Republic regime in Iran. USA: Change it like you did changed it before in 1979 by replacing the Shah by Ayathollas. You did it once, you can do it again!

aria:

Change it like you did changed it before in 1979 by replacing the Shah by Ayathollas.

LOL! Yeah!

Except, in 1953, the CIA engineered the coup that overthrew the DEMOCRATICALLY elected Premier Mossadeq and replaced him with the (then) US friendly Shah.

So, you put the Shah into power in the first place.

Just do a simple goodle search for

"1953 Iran CIA"

and enjoy the more than 400,000 results. It's been well documented and thru the FOIA there are plenty of de-classified documents at the National Security Archives.

And we should remember what happened to the Shah when the British and the Soviets overthrew them in the first place even when Iran was neutral during WW2. Ironic that we would help the Shah regain power back in Iran. and we are criticize for that.

Originally posted by deltaboy
And we should remember what happened to the Shah when the British and the Soviets overthrew them in the first place even when Iran was neutral during WW2. Ironic that we would help the Shah regain power back in Iran.

and we are criticize for that.

Sure, guy.

For a country that strives to "spread" democracy, we sure do remove a bunch of democratically elected leaders and put in dicta...er, other leaders.

To stop insurgency in Iraq you have to deal with it source.

The Source is the foreign occupation.

There is not one single Iraqi insurgent anywhere in the world until there is a legitimate Iraqi government for them to rise up against, not one imposed by occupational forces.

Those who attack the American forces in Iraq are not now, nor will they ever be insurgents unless America gives all Iraqis US citizenship.

They are Partisans.

The way to defeat the Partisans is to withdraw from Iraq because without occupational forces in Iraq there cannot be an partisans.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
There is not one single Iraqi insurgent anywhere in the world until there is a legitimate Iraqi government for them to rise up against, not one imposed by occupational forces.

The Iraqi government, and it constitution, is 100% legitimate and 100% elected by the people of Iraq.

Your statement is bogus and does not apply as a result.

You dont give the Iraqi's enough credit, just like the insurgents who kill them...

skippy:

The Iraqi government, and it constitution, is 100% legitimate and 100% elected by the people of Iraq.

Your statement is bogus and does not apply as a result.

Um, yeah. Says you.


How can an election be legitimate when candidates only announce they are running the DAY BEFORE polls open because they are afraid of being murdered for running for office?

If you have a limited choice of candidates, it is NOT a free election (it’s totalitarianism, just ask Iran).

Because of security fears there were even fewer international monitors in Iraq, so they couldn’t accurately decide on the accuracy of the voter counts (it doesn’t matter as much who votes and who COUNTS the votes).

The Sunnis stayed away from the polling station in droves, meaning they are not going to be represented.

You CANNOT have a free election when your country is being militarily occupied by a country that has a vested interest in who wins the election.

None of this has to do with the threats of violence and killings by insurgents of votes. Because, the sad fact remains that the main killers in Iraq are not the insurgents but the Americans. The Iraqi Ministry of Health's latest statistics show that in the last six months of 2004 they killed almost three times as many people as the insurgents did.


Oh and fyi, the whole referendum was a total sham. The Iraqi people had no say in the draft constitution, which was drawn up behind closed doors by pro-occupation parties and US officials, or in what questions would be asked on the referendum. How is that democratic?


[edit on 30-11-2005 by Jakomo]

Originally posted by skippytjc
The Iraqi government, and it constitution, is 100% legitimate and 100% elected by the people of Iraq.

Your statement is bogus and does not apply as a result.

You dont give the Iraqi's enough credit, just like the insurgents who kill them...

As Bush said of the Lebanon election just before Syria got out 'You can't have a legitimate election under occupation'.

The Constitution was handed to a puppet Iraqi Government by the occupiers.

While its true a new constitution was adopted that has not been put in effect yet.

Under no stretch of the word is the current government legitimate.

It did NOT come from the Iraqi people.

It came from the invaders.

Iraq is not liberated until after a government is elected that has the power to order ALL US forces out of Iraq.

That will not happen until AFTER the Special Tribunal and its foreign judges is disbanded.

As long as a legal entity controled by foreigners with absolute power is standing over their heads there is no legitimacy.

Unless you believe the Vichy French government was legitimate too.....

ArchAngel: Your first mistake was using historical fact in your argument.
The pro-Bushies and pro-war crowd is a little sore when you back up your argument in a well-thought out way, so usually that’ll close the thread as they turn to easier prey.

Your second mistake was making a spot-on analogy to Vichy France. I predict this thread is about to become a ghost town.

Originally posted by Jakomo
The pro-Bushies and pro-war crowd is a little sore when you back up your argument in a well-thought out way, so usually that’ll close the thread as they turn to easier prey.

I predict this thread is about to become a ghost town.

Revelator and Duderino,

The sad part is that no matter what happens in Iraq at this point (even if the next Iraqi govt really is voted by the people) is that no one will buy it. When you have have so many people who are negative about everything in this world using words like "puppet" "invaders" etc you will never have anything constructive happen. If you say it loud enough and often enough it will become truth.

You don't want to solve the problem, you want to prod it and poke at it and make it bleed a little more. Infect the whole thing until it becomes terminal and dies so you can say "See, I told you so!"

Like when some lady found a finger in her chili at Wendy's, the place was ruined. Even though in the end, it was all a scam, the place closed and everyone will always remember the finger incident.

As soon as you call anything a puppet regime, it is finished. I say whomever has the cohones to step into those boots, can give it a try.

I think the US just wants the place to get a govt that will take an interest in its own prosperity so that they can leave. Everyone wants things to get better, but too many people want a piece of the big pie. I have a feeling that the "insurgency" is not one if ideology, but one of a need to seize power. They don't want to end up with the short stick when the Americans leave.

They all know we will leave eventually. What is at stake is who has the goodies when we do. You make it sound like the insurgency is so good and sweet and they only have the best of intentions for the Iraqi people. Who are the insurgency puppets of? Al Sadr? Iran? Syria? Turkey? or any of a dozen players in the region?

Don't make it sound like they just want the occupiers out. The game goes a hell of a lot deeper than that. The whole region is an occupier.

You are taking a very simplistic view of a very complex conundrum.

xman:

You don't want to solve the problem, you want to prod it and poke at it and make it bleed a little more.

No, I do want to solve the problem… I think the United States should immediately pull out and there should be an international force put in in their place. The US has already made such a complete mess of the situation that you’re fired.

Put in a multi-national force (Germans, French, Syrians, Portuguese, Africans, etc) that is actually there to help the nation rebuild instead of “sniff out terrorists” and pad their pockets with cash.

The second the US withdraws the insurgent attacks will drop dramatically, since that’s the whole reason there are attacks. Because there are Americans there.

Originally posted by Jakomo
The second the US withdraws the insurgent attacks will drop dramatically, since that’s the whole reason there are attacks. Because there are Americans there.

So sad you have bought the hype that Iran and Syria has been selling.
The minute we leave there will be a civil war. Attacks will not decrease, they will increase as factions try to seize power. The pawns in the field may be told they are fighting to remove the occupiers, but the real reason is ALWAYS one of power and status.

The attacks will increase to show the Iraq and the world who is really in charge. "The Americans are gone and WE are here to stay."

It has been that way since the very beginning and isn't about to change any time soon.

Originally posted by Jakomo

No, I do want to solve the problem… I think the United States should immediately pull out and there should be an international force put in in their place. The US has already made such a complete mess of the situation that you’re fired.

What internation force? Whose going to replace the Americans? You expect a Muslim force? The Muslims don't even trust each other even with the same religion.

Put in a multi-national force (Germans, French, Syrians, Portuguese, Africans, etc) that is actually there to help the nation rebuild instead of “sniff out terrorists” and pad their pockets with cash.

ooo so thats how its gonna work.

The second the US withdraws the insurgent attacks will drop dramatically, since that’s the whole reason there are attacks. Because there are Americans there.

Remember Afghanistan. Soviets pulled out but people who join the Jihad decided to go to World Jihad.

Saying that Iraq's elected government and constitution is illegitimate because of the American occupation and because of our vested interest in the results, would be like saying that Germany and Japan's governments are illegitimate. They were created under similar circumstances. There was an insurgency in both countries (with varying degrees of success) for years after the end of WWII.

The insurgents and terrorists have just as much, if not more, of an interest in the outcome and future government in Iraq as the US does. Shouldn't you be blaming them as well for the situation in Iraq, and how they've negatively effected voter turnout, among other things?

Originally posted by Rasputin13
Saying that Iraq's elected government and constitution is illegitimate because of the American occupation and because of our vested interest in the results, would be like saying that Germany and Japan's governments are illegitimate.

That is EXACTLY what I mean! But to Duderino and Revelator, Germany and Japan are just "puppets" of the US.

I doubt that those insinuations would fly in either country.