Syrian Role in Resolving British Hostage Crisis?
Simon Massey, right, and Kaye Turney, the only woman amongst the 15 British service personnel released by Iran, smile after arriving at London’s Heathrow Airport, Thursday April 5, 2007. (AP Photo/Tim Ockenden-pa)
What really led to the resolving of the Iran-Britain hostage crisis?
We would have enough of it in the coming days. But the first story that comes out (from Associated Press) is that Syria played a crucial role in ending the Britain’s standoff with Iran.
Indeed strange are the ways of diplomacy. While the West had been branding Iran and Syria as the most dangerous ‘terrorist’ states, the two have managed to take the sting out of their detractors’ allegations by this latest development.
“ ‘Syrian efforts and the Iranian willingness culminated with the release of the British sailors,’ said Syria’s Information Minister Mohsen Bilal, reports Associated Press.
“He said Syria had been asked ‘to help positively in the issue of British’ crew members since their March 23 seizure by Iran in the Persian Gulf. He did not elaborate.
“Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem told reporters that ‘Syria exercised a sort of quiet diplomacy to solve this problem and encourage dialogue’ between Britain and Iran.
“Al-Moallem, who also did not give any details on the Syrian mediation, spoke at Damascus international airport before the departure of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for Saudi Arabia.”
One may also wonder what role Nancy Pelosi played in resolving this crisis?
Here’s the detailed Reuters report: “The 15 British military personnel freed by Iran after a two-week diplomatic stand-off arrived back in England on Thursday to cheers and to questions about the incident and its implications…”
36 Responses to “Syrian Role in Resolving British Hostage Crisis?”
[...] Yeah, sure. You could probably find a couple of Syrian government officials to claim that they assisted in getting the sun to rise in the east, too. (via TMV) [...]
I’m not sure where you’re trying to go with this. Is there a joke that I’m not getting?
So according to Syria, and providing no evidence to back up their assertion, Syria played a ‘crucial role in ending the Britain’s standoff with Iran’. Are you accepting this?
And you say Iran and Syria “managed to take the sting out of their detractors’ allegations by this latest development”? Is the West so thankful that Iran didn’t shoot their captives that they’re going to allow Iran to develop nukes and/or overlook Syria and Iran’s support for terrorism?
Why would some people try beyond reason to elevate the status of Syria, and for that matter, Iran, and why are you trying to do so at all? Whose side are you on, anyway?
If this is indeed true I think it is welcome news. It shows that despite our administrations labeling of Syria and Iran as unwilling partners, they are showing a willingness to act as mature adult nations and come to a table and talk about the differences between our nations and discuss each others interests. There is no shame in putting aside belligerent rhetoric and talking. However, if our administration continues its path of non-negotiation and belligerence towards these nations, then not only does it prove that the administration and republicans have placed their heads deep into where the sun does not shine, but it proves that we are the weak ones.
Keep in mind that Syria is only a terrorist state when we don’t want them to torture people for us.
Although politics is of little interest to me I must chime in here when I read this story.
Fact. Iran illegally captured British sailors thus Starting and forcing upon the world a CRISIS. Let me repeat the Iranians STARTED this mess.
Suspected Fact Syria marches to the drum beat of the Iranians.
Fact Iran and Syria unilaterally end the stand off THEY created, started and perpetuated and inflamed to crisis proportions while Nancy Pelosi defied the President and went to Syria as a peace gesture.
Implied Fact for the author of this blog is One may also wonder what role Nancy Pelosi played in resolving this crisis?
My conclusion is that bloggers are posting Exactly what the president of Iran, Syria and Nancy Pelosi wanted them to post.
DLS-Because we are pulling out of Iraq and we realize that we will soon have to negotiate for the right to buy oil, rather than just take it. As well, trade with Syria could be very lucrative. Terrorists? What terrorists?
Nobody:
fact, the British sailors were captured in disputed waters.
fact, the illegal invasion of Iraq by the US and the coalition of the willing, and our continued occupation of the region have created an atmosphere in which such a crisis is possible.
fact, this administration has consistently barred the door to any negotiation with these nations. While I agree that the capture of the sailors and their release was all preplanned, it is the fault of this administration for its knee-jerk policy against Iran and Syria that caused the opening for this propaganda coup by the Iranians. It is however more of an offering than a total ‘gotcha’ incident. Iran and Syria used this incident to show that they want to talk, and we would be foolish to ignore the gesture.
White, We have never just taken any oil. Companies buy and trade it as a commodity or do you think Chevron just filled up hauled ass without paying? What would we trade with Syria? They have some small oilfields but nothing to get worked up over. We import more oil from Norway alone than they export total. If you say you doubt the links to terrorists then you are a fool or lying, either way I probably shouldn’t bother.
Nobody-You just “toss in” Nancy Pelosi’s name and you say “politics are of little interest to you”?
Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you, Neocon Nobody.
Fact British Sailors are going out of their way to not inflame the situation using GPS navigation.
Fact the Iranians softened their stance and said they (British Sailors) might have been in Iraqi waters.
Fact we do not negotiate with terrorists. Syria and Iran are terrorist nations. They were labeled as such even under the Clinton Administration.
Facts remain. Bloggers are at the beckon call of the Iranians, Syrians and anyone else that will throw out a bone to make America look bad.
Ahh the antiwar. You do have to admire their tenacity. They make pit bulls look like Poodles.
FACT
In February, 1999, the U.S. list of countries sponsoring terrorism included:
* Cuba
* Iran
* Iraq
* Libya
* North Korea
* Sudan
* Syria
Galid Shalit has been held hostage by Hamas (backed by Syria and Iran) for over 9 months now. And he wasnt in disputed waters. But hes just a friggin Jew, right, and theyre all eevil Neocons, right?
So did Nancy ask about Baby Assad about opening up to the investigation of the Hariri murder? Shouldnt the road to truth enter Damascus first?
Fact, anytime a neocon/Bush apologist cannot make a valid, supportable point they start equating the position of liberals with that of terrorists.
Just because another nation may be an enemy doesn’t mean one has a hissy-fit over them not following our ways. If any progress is to be made you have to talk to people. Refusing to do so is a dangerous, isolationist policy.
The Palestinians are in a defacto state of war with Israel, that makes Shalit a captured prisoner of war. It’s the same claim that the Israelis make about the 10s of thousands of Palestinians they have captured and held without trial.
“The Palestinians are in a defacto state of war with Israel, that makes Shalit a captured prisoner of war. It’s the same claim that the Israelis make about the 10s of thousands of Palestinians they have captured and held without trial. ”
the pals held are held for specific crimes, including the murder of civilians. Shalit was a uniformed soldier, standing on Israeli soil, who was kidnapped.
If the current situation is such that the Pals have the right to raid Israel and kidnap Israeli soldiers as hostages, then Oslo is dead and the PA has no right to exist. And the roadmap is dead, and Pelosi might as well go home.
So just because an Israeli was wearing a uniform and Palestinians were not, that makes him a legitimate combatant and the Palestinians criminals?
Ashen Shard….typical.
Fact, anytime a neocon/Bush apologist cannot make a valid, supportable point they start equating the position of liberals with that of terrorists.
I supported all my points with pure, unadulterated facts. You sir on the other hand turn to fabricated talking points when confronted with facts.
I did not in any way say Nancy Pelosi was a terrorist. I implied that the terrorist used her for political gain, just as Bush feared they would and they proved him right. The blogger of this piece opined that “I wonder what role she played in their release?”
Just because another nation is our enemy we are supposed to “give in and talk peace with them everytime they take people prisioner. Everytime they blow up buildings, kill people and send millions of dollars to fund terror.
Everytime we are to give in and talk? Everytime? Give up everytime? Surrender our principals. Everytime?
No Jimmy Carter Ruined his presidency by refusing to talk to terrorists. He followed principal and it cost him his job. But he did not cave. Its been a tenet of this government since Nixon. We do not talk to terrorist openly. I am pretty sure we do behind closed doors, in back alleys and in dark coffee shops in damascus but we do not have Nancy Pelosi meetings because what just transpired will always transpire and is intended to make the USA look weak and impotent.
[Why the overjoyous support of Syria and Iran?]
> Because we are pulling out of Iraq and
> we realize that we will soon have to
> negotiate for the right to buy oil, rather
> than just take it.
The subject here is Syria and Iran, not Iraq.
> As well, trade with Syria
> could be very lucrative. Terrorists? What
> terrorists?
Not likely unless we want to sell them weapons the way the Russians have.
No, the real issue here is that some people predictably and stupidly over-hype Pelosi’s trip as an anti-war gesture while being outright supportive of Syria and Iran rather than the USA and Britain becauase they hate the thought of the USA or Britain standing up to terrorist nations Syria and Iran, and some act as if they value Syria and Iran more nighly as nations than the USA or the UK because Bush is in the White House. It goes beyond being anti-war, and these people are being despicable as well as stupid.
Don’t be surprised if Pelosi and her contingent get a great welcome someday in Iran … and North Korea … and for that matter, Venezuela under the thumb of Chavez — and are applauded by those who are gushing over the trip to Syria, and gushing over Syria and Iran, now. Oh, and don’t forget a visit to Saudi Arabia (a woman visiting Saudi Arabia, how quaint) and some predictable nonsense about the peace plan designed for Israel’s partial destruction, and even perhaps an echo of current lies that Israel “has” to accept this or it is Israel that is against peace and is to blame for a future war as a result.
A soldier can’t be kidnapped. It’s called being captured. And if those Palestinians are being held for specific crimes, then the Israelis should have no trouble putting them on trial, so why haven’t they? Some of them have been held for decades.
I never suggested we should cave, but one can never get anywhere without talking. Bush has already made our country look weak and impotent because he made it weak and impotent by invading Iraq and getting our military bogged down there. We need a carrot and stick policy, that is the only thing that works, and we cannot use it effectively if our stick is stuck in, or worse, broken by our occupation of Iraq.
You are not stating pure unadulterated facts. The fact that we do not negotiate with terrorists only applies to our dysfunctional administration. In fact, I’m surprised we even talk to ourselves since we support terrorist tactics. We threaten to use nuclear bombs if we don’t get our way, and that is a form of terrorism. Iran and Syria are not terrorists, they fund partisan activities that are to their advantage, same as we do. Terrorism is just part of those partisan activities.
And yes, you are equating the liberal point of view with that of terrorists and terrorist states and our enemies when they are in fact not the same. Both sides one negotiation, both sides want peace, how does talking about such make anyone weak? The more belligerent and the more stubborn a group is more of a sign of weakness than the strength it takes to put the gauntlet down in offer the olive branch.
> The Palestinians are in a defacto state of war
> with Israel, that makes Shalit a captured
> prisoner of war.
False. The “Palestinians” are not a nation at war with Israel.
Are you and Ashen through yet with the false “facts” [sic]?
> Just because another nation is our enemy
> we are supposed to “give in and talk peace
> with them everytime they take people
> prisioner. Everytime they blow up buildings,
> kill people and send millions of dollars to
> fund terror.
>
> Everytime we are to give in and talk?
> Everytime? Give up everytime? Surrender
> our principals. Everytime?
Sure, just like Israel, the victim, should always concede.
Don’t forget who is seen as the wrongdoer by the Usual Suspects. It’s Israel and the USA; the terrorists and terrorist nations are the Good Guys.
As I said yesterday, Nancy Pelosi has an individual freedom to visit Syria, North Korea, Iran, whatever. To purport she is an authorized diplomat of the US Government (or any sovereign power) is not true in this instance. The US citizens empowered her to serve in the House of Representatives…full stop.
However, most importantly, the fact stands above she misrepresented the position of Israel. Therefore, not only did she do a piss-poor execution of the role of an “honest-broker”, the unbiased observer has to wonder not so much what role did she play, but why she chose to make the representations she did.
DLS,
You and others seem to miss the point every time a liberal makes a counterpoint to the whole good vs. evil. There is no such thing in global politics. We are all equally to blame for the poor situation in the world, and the US has to realize it is not the moral/cultural/religious/intellectual superior of all others in the world. We cannot continually paint a picture of one side versus the other. Accepting the gray, and rejecting a binary view of the world is a step towards peace.
And I do not see how Israel is the victim. They have extreme wealth and a highly consumerist society, like all western societies, while Palestinians live in poverty struggling to meet the most basic needs of life. There is a definite disconnect between a Palestinian bombing an expensive building in Israel as opposed to Israel bulldozing entire poor Palestinian neighborhoods.
Then why are the Israelis blockading the Palestinian ports? Why does the IDF conduct operations inside Palestinian land?
ThinkProgress
We do not talk to terrorist openly. I am pretty sure we do behind closed doors, in back alleys and in dark coffee shops in damascus but we do not have Nancy Pelosi meetings because what just transpired will always transpire and is intended to make the USA look weak and impotent.
Um, our present policy of isolationism has made us look weak and impotent. And Pelosi was only one of many others from Congress to visit Syria. Bush is the only president to arbitrarily label entire countries state-sponsors of terrorism, and it has resulted in an unproductive stand-off. That stand-off was what caused the Congress to ask the ISG to come up with a solution. A major part of that solution was talking to Iran and Syria. Just as Bush cherry-picked the pre-war intel so that it pointed in the direction that he had already decided to go in, he cherry-picked the ISG report, so that he could claim support for the direction he had decided to go in.
Kritter our current policy of Isolationism is in your MIND.
The fact that most countries do not want to confront terrorists does not mean we are not talking to them. It just means they are afraid to confront terrorists.
More antiwar talking points. Show me which country has come out and said we will no longer talk to the USA. Show me which country the USA has said we will no longer talk too? Other then perhaps those on the terror list.
Except for the French who have never made the right choices in foreign policy. AKA supporting the south in the Civil war to supporting IRan and Iraq behind the worlds back…..show me one USA ally that has isolated us or we have isolated because they are not jumping up and down to support our lopsided iniative to fight terror.
I’m not saying our allies will no longer talk to us, but their support for us has weakened. Look at the “Coalition of the Willing” -are there more than a few thousand from other countries still in Iraq? Everytime you pick up a paper you hear the Brits, Australians or South Koreans are withdrawing more troops. Abu Ghraib, the secret renditions and our disregard for the Geneva Conventions have deteriorated our image in the eyes of the world.
And by isolating our enemies we unite them against us from Venzuela to North Korea. Our popularity in ME countries has plummeted and in many of the more moderate countries .Bush is seen as more dangerous than OSB by too many in the world.
It was said:
>You and others seem to miss the point every
> time a liberal makes a counterpoint to the
>whole good vs. evil. There is no such thing
> in global politics.
Yes, there is, just as good evil exist in other areas. The politics frequently are ugly, as we’ve seen all over the world and throughout history (including within the United Nations). But there is such a thing as good (not merely the absence of what is evil, but truly positive actions) as well as evil.
> We are all equally to blame for the poor situation in the world
Obviously we are not.
> and the US has to realize it is not the moral/cultural/religious/
>intellectual superior of all others in the world.
The US knows this already, one reason it has sacrificed greatly to save other nations, incidentally, rather than being as you imply (straw man).
> We cannot continually paint a picture of one side
> versus the other. Accepting the gray, and rejecting
> a binary view of the world is a step towards peace.
We realize the gray (just read Nixon’s books on foreign policy sometime, for example).
> And I do not see how Israel is the victim.
> They have extreme wealth and a highly consumerist society,
> like all western societies, while Palestinians live in poverty
> struggling to meet the most basic needs of life.
Isreal obviously isn’t the cause, and to blame, for the latter!
Even something so trivial as those Gaza greenhouses is revealing.
> There is a definite disconnect[ion[ between
> a Palestinian bombing an expensive building in Israel
Or bombing multiple buildings? Or using vehicle bombs? Or using rockets? Or…
>as opposed to Israel bulldozing entire poor Palestinian
> neighborhoods.
Individual buildings from which attacks were launched or supported — you left that out.
Also said:
> > The “Palestinians� are not a nation at war with Israel.
> Then why are the Israelis blockading the Palestinian ports?
The ports (which belong to no nation) are being misused to import contraband, including weapons used against Israel.
> Why does the IDF conduct operations inside Palestinian land?
It’s disputed land, not “Palestinian” land, land under Arab authoirty that is being misused for the conduct of attacks against Israel.
There is no official Palestinian nation other than Jordan. There’s Israel, Jordan, and the Territories.
Incidentally, the misuse of land for those attacks by Arabs, and what would happen if a modern army were there instead, is why it is fully sensible and acceptable for Israel to take its security needs in mind when formal boundaries of the Israeli portions of the Territories are ever finally, officially set.
And by isolating our enemies we unite them against us from Venzuela to North Korea.
Isolating our enemies is exactly how you defeat them. Its how we contained the USSR for 50 years. Its also why they ended up going broke.
We need a carrot and stick policy, that is the only thing that works, and we cannot use it effectively if our stick is stuck in, or worse, broken by our occupation of Iraq.
Are we hunting terrorists or rabbits? I dont know what news you watch but my news tells me that terrorists are dieing right and left in Iraq. Isnt that the mission? Kill terrorists who would kill Americans or Englanders or Canadians?
Both sides one negotiation, both sides want peace, how does talking about such make anyone weak?
Okay I give up. Please find me a terrorist who wants peace. Ill talk to him myself. But only in the place of my choosing and with lots of body guards. Daniel Pearl tried that and it got him beheaded. I can see how the Sunni and the Shia are just DIENG to be buddies.
I hate to admit it but the rumors I was hearing are true. The antiwar are smoking something and I want it!!
I have yet to see any argument presented by the antiwar here that is not Knee deep in BS.
Can’t you folk break out the real reasons you are against the war?
> [Bush] cherry-picked the ISG report
Even a real chimp would have done so, given some of what was in there that was wrong.
Does anybody really believe Iran or Syria would do as hoped in the Study Group report toward Iraq?
Also, note that Israel is being dragged into this (it has nothing to do with Iraq nor with Muslim warfare inside Iraq, etc.) and being forced to make more concessions, of course (partitioning of the Territories; returning Golan and enjoying being shelled from Golan again).
I left out the other non-Iraq-related topics that are in this report such as Afghanistan.
[report]
Dealing with Iran and Syria is controversial. Nevertheless, it is our view that in diplomacy, a
nation can and should engage its adversaries and enemies to try to resolve conflicts and
differences consistent with its own interests. Accordingly, the Support Group should actively
engage Iran and Syria in its diplomatic dialogue, without preconditions.
RECOMMENDATION 11: Diplomatic efforts within the Support Group should seek to
persuade Iran that it should take specific steps to improve the situation in Iraq.
Among steps Iran could usefully take are the following:
• Iran should stem the flow of equipment, technology, and training to any group resorting to
violence in Iraq.
• Iran should make clear its support for the territorial integrity of Iraq as a unified state, as well
as its respect for the sovereignty of Iraq and its government.
• Iran can use its influence, especially over Shia groups in Iraq, to encourage national
reconciliation.
• Iran can also, in the right circumstances, help in the economic reconstruction of Iraq.
RECOMMENDATION 12: The United States and the Support Group should encourage and
persuade Syria of the merit of such contributions as the following:
• Syria can control its border with Iraq to the maximum extent possible and work together with
Iraqis on joint patrols on the border. Doing so will help stem the flow of funding, insurgents,
and terrorists in and out of Iraq.
• Syria can establish hotlines to exchange information with the Iraqis.
• Syria can increase its political and economic cooperation with Iraq.
There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a
comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush’s June 2002
commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This commitment must include
direct talks with, by, and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept Israel’s right
to exist), and particularly Syria—which is the principal transit point for shipments of weapons
to Hezbollah, and which supports radical Palestinian groups.
RECOMMENDATION 15: Concerning Syria, some elements of that negotiated peace should
be:
• Syria’s full adherence to UN Security Council Resolution 1701 of August 2006, which
provides the framework for Lebanon to regain sovereign control over its territory.
• Syria’s full cooperation with all investigations into political assassinations in Lebanon,
especially those of Rafik Hariri and Pierre Gemayel.
• A verifiable cessation of Syrian aid to Hezbollah and the use of Syrian territory for
transshipment of Iranian weapons and aid to Hezbollah. (This step would do much to solve
Israel’s problem with Hezbollah.)
• Syria’s use of its influence with Hamas and Hezbollah for the release of the captured Israeli
Defense Force soldiers.
• A verifiable cessation of Syrian efforts to undermine the democratically elected government of
Lebanon.
• A verifiable cessation of arms shipments from or transiting through Syria for Hamas and other
radical Palestinian groups.
• A Syrian commitment to help obtain from Hamas an acknowledgment of Israel’s right to
exist.
• Greater Syrian efforts to seal its border with Iraq.
RECOMMENDATION 16: In exchange for these actions and in the context of a full and secure
peace agreement, the Israelis should return the Golan Heights, with a U.S. security guarantee for
Israel that could include an international force on the border, including U.S. troops if requested
by both parties.
RECOMMENDATION 17: Concerning the Palestinian issue, elements of that negotiated peace
should include:
• Adherence to UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and to the principle of land for
peace, which are the only bases for achieving peace.
• Strong support for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to
take the lead in preparing the way for negotiations with Israel.
• A major effort to move from the current hostilities by consolidating the cease-fire reached
between the Palestinians and the Israelis in November 2006.
• Support for a Palestinian national unity government.
• Sustainable negotiations leading to a final peace settlement along the lines of President
Bush’s two-state solution, which would address the key final status issues of borders, settlements,
Jerusalem, the right of return, and the end of conflict.
http://bakerinstitute.org/Pubs/iraqstudygroup_findings.pdf
Ok- you find one well-known foreign policy expert that agrees with isolating Iran and Syria (not someone from this administration pls). Find someone who thinks our European alliances are stronger since Bush. Blair was the best friend he had, but the new PM won’t be backing him in the same way, because he is unpopular over there as in the rest of the world. Unyielding Force does not make you safer, it just makes your enemies unite against you and your friends move away from you.
BTW, We did not merely isolate the Soviets for 50 years- we used pressure through arms build-up combined with diplomacy to break them down. We also got incredibly lucky because they got bogged down in a ten year war with Afghanistan. I wasn’t a big fan of Reagan’s domestic policy, but the US in the 80′s dealt with the USSR from a position of strength. We had solid alliances and solid footing in the UN.
I do agree with the sanctions on Iran, but think we need them and the Syrians to stabilize the region. We should be trying to peel Syria away from Iran, rather than allowing them to unite against us. Unless you think we can leave a huge army in Iraq indefinitely.
BTW, We did not merely isolate the Soviets for 50 years- we used pressure through arms build-up combined with diplomacy to break them down.
Hmm now your starting to catch on Kritter.
Economic sanctions will bring Iran to their knees and quite possibly land a knockout blow. They are staggering now and the continual squeeze along with all of the US and its Western Allies retirement funds being readjusted to no longer support Irans Gas and oil support/drilling/maintainance then we will see Iran slip into economic collapse in which the people themselves will demand an accountability of every dollar spent and they darn sure will not want to sponsor terrorism with 100′s of millions of dollars while the country goes hungry.
What most people did not realize with George W. Bush’s speech on the “Axis of Evil” is that by defining Iran, North Korea and Iraq as the axis of evil and then attacking Iraq He forced the other two into a spending frenzy in an effort to defend themselves against the evil USA which has resulted in both North Korea and Iran to teeter on bankruptcy much as Ronald Reagan forced the USSR into Bankruptacy by out spending them. I firmly believe that has and was always the plan. I do not think there have been any plans to attack either of these countries. The plan was always to let them spend themselves into the history books as the USSR did.
Most of the Bush Opponents think of Bush’s Axis of Evil speech as some hastily thrown together “Nitwit speech” when in fact it has had the EXACT effect on Iran and North Korea that it was intended to have. I think the miscalculation was in the force and power of the antiwar aided much quicker then anticipated by the Democrats.
This is one of the sillier articles I’ve read here. Iran gets zero points from me for returning soldiers they never should have captured in the first place. They should have been released the following day with an apology. The videos the soldiers were forced to be on were shameful and so transparent they could only carry weight with the most gullible viewer.
Implying Syria had anything to do with the release is pure conjecture.
Implying Pelosi had anything to with the release is laughable.
Nobody- Well if he’s such a brainchild why did he let Rummy and Bremer blow it in Iraq, and why is Syria left off the list? Also, if that was the plan all along in N Korea, why did his own VP disapprove of the 6-party agreement?? Honestly, he had no idea what he was getting himself into in Iraq, or he wouldn’t have posed for that idiotic photo op with the “Mission Accomplished” banner.
North Korea has not collapsed yet. Why would you want an agreement that gives them aid……..Jeeze what part of what I said about bankrupting them do you not understand.
Secondly if you win the war in Iraq in 1 year then how are you going to do something that might take years? Iran was always the problem for Us because they do have oil. The real genius of the worlds plan has been to run up the price of gasoline which has tortured Iran who has to import gasoline for a country per capita that is as hungry for gasoline as is the USA.
No plan ever goes according to how its drawn up in the war room. Iraq has been a mess I will grant you that. But not militarily or strategically. The mess has come in the eye of the antiwar who hate Bush so much that if terrorists were killing terrorists in the desert while we all watched on camera it would be an outrage and the President should be impeached.
The war is actually going quite well. Attacks around the world have all but stopped. Airlines are safe. The focus of terrorists everywhere has been upon Iraq and Afghanistan. Pakistan is stable despite helping the usa somewhat. Even the battles in Kasmir have all but ceased.
The war on terror and in Iraq and Afghanistan has done exactly what it strategically was intended to do.
Oh I can hear the collective wails of a million antiwar folk. Talking points they scream. Yes. In fact I started most of them because they were true and continue to be true today.
Strategically there was a plan to keep Americans and Westerners safe. Its worked. No I do not believe what is happening in IRAQ today was part of that plan. I do not believe we went to IRAQ to let Iraqis die in our place, but strategically the war on terror is going VERY well.
I just wished you antiwar chaps would realize that and give the dimwitted President a chance. He is toast. Democrats are in charge of the House and Senate and the presidency will soon be yours too. You do not need to continue this antiwar spectacle now. The damage is done. But the war will rage on worse then before if we stop the fight and bring the boys home now.
The world is only more dangerous if we give up this war on terror.