We have come to understand that George W. Bush neither listens to reason nor learns from experience.

Got a mouse in your pocket, Shaun?

As I said before, I’m hoping he’s just increasing the pressure on them so they’ll back down, but no one really knows at this point. He’s playing with fire, and I don’t think there’s a whole lot of trust out there for his diplomatic ability right now. I also am aware that there are still people around him who are urging him to take the nukes out before the next president is elected. That is making me very nervous.

Sadr is Iraq’s Huey Long.

LOL, good line, Rudi.

domajot: I agree, the rhetoric has been a problem.

Kevin, Kim, Rudi: I think the idea is though that the Iraqi govt will know that if it gets too close to Iran, then they’ll face pressure from the Sunni neighbors. And Kim, I would hope that Bush is saying something to SA and Jordan behind the scenes about their complicity in supporting the Sunni insurgents. I think it is somewhat normal to not publicly air grievances with your allies but to do so behind closed doors.

A belicose tone is perceived as a threat by the enemy, and it (Iran)is bound to react by stiffening its own position. I am less opposed to Bush’s actions of late than I’m opposed to the way he talks about them. Sure, Iran and Syria are making the situation in Iraq worse, but by persistently and emphatically singling them out for blame, nothing is accomplished but the elevation of overall tensions in the region. Should he talk about these countries? Sure. Should he talk about them constantly? Definitely not.

China.

China:
They are the top U.S. Creditor
Their second largest arms supplier is Israel
They are one of the top arms suppliers to Iran and Saudi Arabia

I EXPECT AN ANSWER FROM YOU in light of these seemingly obvious facts.

GB41 left Saddam to counter Iran’s influence; who will we leave there now?

Nobody. Why? Because GB43 thought democracy was the solution to all the world ills. It’s like asking how to get American influence out of Canada.

Lets face it, to remove the influence of Iran from the majority of iraqi citizens would take at least a generation. The current Shia majority grew up with friends, family and spiritual leaders, inside Iran. We would need to clamp down harder than Sadam did for 20 years to change that, and somehow make them love us for it. Only then could a democratic Iraq counter Iran’s influence.

Also, to put in place another Secular Dictator would be impossible right now. If you think international outrage is bad now, imagine what would happen if we tried to simple hand pick an Iraqi leader who would rule with the iron fist needed to control the Shia.

Suddenly I seem to be a lot more pessimistic about the long term chances of Iraq. I think this battle is lost and its time to retreat and regroup.

The Iranians have been involved in Iraq for atleast thirty years.

They’ve been involved, but not in control, Rudi.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the U.S. did some climbing down of its own and actually entered into talks with Iran, even if it initially was through a third party?

What makes you so sure that this isn’t already happening? I’m not sure if you could call them third party talks, exactly, but what about the EU/Iran negotiations? It seems to me that we learned exactly where Tehran stood through those talks, and I’d venture to guess that Tehran learned exactly where the US stood as well.

And I think the mistake many are making is to assume that the lack of direct talks means that there is no diplomacy going on behind the scenes. I could be wrong, of course, but I see signs of Bush being willing to sit down with Tehran if the conditions are right; the signs I note include the replacement of Rumsfeld with Gates (whose much more amenable to diplomatic solutions) and the fact that neither Baker nor Kissinger would criticize Bush’s plans. It seems to me that there’s more here than meets the eye; that maybe they know that Bush is planning to engage Iran and Syria but only after he gains enough leverage for those efforts to be fruitful.

First of all, don’t lump me in with the Cindy Sheehan crowd.

Second of all, I take it that America’s vile behavior is okay to someone like yourself because of Iran’s vile behavior. Or were you absent from school the day that they taught civility?

I do know you were absent when the U.S. looked the other way as Israel and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons. That’s okay with you, right?

And a misunderestimater in thinking that driving the wedge between Iran and America ever deeper will somehow make Iraq, the Middle East and world safer, let alone win new friends on the Arab Street.

IRAN is driving a wedge with its genocidal threats and its drive toward nuclear development that will enable it to carry out its threat. Also Iran causing problems and destabilizing Iraq and its support of hamas and hezbollah, and its destabilization of Lebanon through hezbollah. Honestly I just don’t understand the mindset of the left. To their way of thinking it isn’t terrorists and terrorist regimes who are to blame for the troubles in the world, but rather they believe it is those of us who want to put a stop to them. So the problem in their eyes is not that Iran wants nukes, the problem is the Bush administration who wants to prevent them from acquiring nukes.