world

Iraq's prime minister visits Iran

24 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

24 Comments
Login to comment

Iraq's prime minister visits Iran

So, I guess this makes Prime Minister al-Maliki an "appeaser."

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka, if I was a Neocon who is told what to think by his Government, I'd say you're right :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think it's great that they're talking. Iran and Iraq were bitter enemies, fighting wars that killed over a million, using chemical weapons, etc. Maybe we can get a meeting with Obama, Iran, and Iraq. Imagine that prospect 10 years ago?

I also enjoy the egg on the face of people like Sushi and Taka. If they had their way Saddam would be in power right now and Iraq/Iran would still be going at each other's throats. You guys will be OK, tho. I'm guessing that your plans to keep Iran and Iraq in a state of war never even crossed your mind as a consequence of your position. :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib. I'm happy al-Maliki is talking to the Iranian president. I also think any U.S. president should do the same. Unfortunately the current U.S. president is hiding his gutlessness to do so behind blustering rhetoric - and actions - that have strengthened and emboldened the Iranian government.

"You guys will be OK, tho. I'm guessing that your plans to keep Iran and Iraq in a state of war."

can you explain where you get this logic from?

Closer to the truth, it's the support of people like you that has led directly to Iran being as strong as it now is, and Iraq being nearly totally destroyed for lies you were careless enough to buy into, hook, line and sinker.

The only ones here with egg on your face is you and all the other Bush/Neccon supporters.

It's the same people who are too ignorant and gutless to own up to your collossal errors of judgement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

superlib, And 4000+ U.S. troops would still be alive and 20,000+ wouldn't be injured, the military's recruitment standards wouldn't have had to be lowered, the U.S.'s military wouldn't be stretched passed the point of danger, the U.S.'s debt would be close to a trillion dollars less than it is now, the U.S.'s international standing would be significantly better. Do those consequences factor into your reasoning? I ask, since you failed to mention it and we're playing the "let's point fingers" game.

Just as you like to point out the deficiencies in others' arguments, the above seems absent from yours. So, long story short, there's plenty of egg to go around. Enjoy.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib. I'm happy al-Maliki is talking to the Iranian president. I also think any U.S. president should do the same.

Great. Then we agree.

Unfortunately the current U.S. president is hiding..

Tell someone who cares. Surely you don't go around forcing people to listen to your opinions about Bush 24 hours a day.

can you explain where you get this logic from?

Sure. If you had your way Saddam would be in charge and Iran and Iraq would be in a state of war. Correct or incorrect?

It's the same people who are too ignorant and gutless

I don't think I'm ignorant or gutless. If you disagree, then so be it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just as you like to point out the deficiencies in others' arguments, the above seems absent from yours

How many times have you listed the consequences of the invasion? Hundreds? Thousands? And someone comes along and shows you one time what would be if you had gotten you way and you freak out. Not fair at all.

Face it, if you and Sushi had your way this meeting wouldn't have been possible. Surely a reasonable man such as yourself can give me that much.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Face it, if you and Sushi had your way this meeting wouldn't have been possible. Surely a reasonable man such as yourself can give me that much."

That's an excellent point. I judge superlib the winner on this one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

super, It's a fair point. I'll give you that.

However, destroying Iraq, while weakening America simultaneously, so that we can get Iraq to the table with Iran doesn't really seem to me to be a net win. Maybe it will be in the long run, but that remains to be seen. If it comes to pass, look for me at the head of the line of those willing to happily admit they were wrong. Until then, I'll be hanging with the skeptics.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib - "Sure. If you had your way Saddam would be in charge and Iran and Iraq would be in a state of war. Correct or incorrect?"

When did the Iran/Iraq war end? How many years has it been now since both those countries were at war?

Superlib - "Face it, if you and Sushi had your way this meeting wouldn't have been possible. Surely a reasonable man such as yourself can give me that much."

I couldn't help notice that you failed - again - to mention the elephant in the room, and the elephant is that partly due to your support of the Iraq war, that country has been pretty much destroyed.

You don't have a point.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And Superlib, Iraq has been destroyed, a quarter of its people displaced, 4,000 Americans killed (probably 7,000+ if you count the many who have died outside Iraqi borders), upwards of 70,000 wounded, maimed and paralyzed, likely 1,000,000+ Iraqis killed and US$3 TRILLION wasted.....for what?

A: for the WMD your Government KNEW Saddam didn't have.

Hope you're proud, mate, hope you're proud.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"the U.S.'s international standing would be significantly better" ( had we not liberated Iraq )

Good grief, another liberal American worried about scoring brownie points with global liberals!

"However, destroying Iraq"

Good grief! We didn't destroy Iraq, Saddam did that; we liberated Iraq.

"while weakening America"

Good grief! You want to see weakening of America? Vote for Obama.

It's true that without the libertion of Iraq, Iraq's prime minister wouldn't be visiting Iran right now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, and SuperLib, 80+% of YOUR countrymen think you and your president are wrong.

How does it feel to be in the abject minority?

Time to blame those dang polls again?

I'm sure it must feel great that you don't actually have to fight to back up your point of view.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi, I'm sorry, I can't answer your quiz here, as my answers would be deleted for being off topic. But here's an on-topic quiz question for you:

If Iraq hadn't been liberated, would the Iraqi prime minister be visiting Iran now?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi, Iraq has been damaged ( and you can blame Saddam for the bulk of that ), it's not been destroyed. It's being rebuilt in spite of the efforts of the extremist wackos over there who were happy with Saddam in power to sabotage the rebuilding.

"The Iraqi prime minister is a puppet"

Really? A puppet of who? The U.S.? If he was, I guess he wouldn't be doing stuff like going to visit our nemesis Iran, and complaining about the new U.S.-Iraqi security arrangements. Really, Sushi, you've got to start thinking before you post.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When Isreal attacks Iran and the United States, failed backing of Isreal, backs Isreal's attack of Iran AND when Iraq backs Iran's positions and Iraq becomes a new enemy of the United States; we're screwed guys.

We really are in a position where we're going to be the biggest catalyst for the most deaths and destruction ever seen.

We need to draw back our troops, we need to rebuild our broken military, we need to rebuild moral, we need to work through our PTSD epidemic, we need to rebuild our homeland military and we need to talk about the draft. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

woops.

Nah, I save my bile for those whose insanity and inanity really matter:

The American Right. And their lathering rah rah squads.

You see, they actually have power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think it's great that al-Maliki and Ahmadinejad are talking, just like it will be when President of the United States Barack Obama plans to do after his victory this November.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USAFdude - When President Obama goes to Iran to talk with Ahmadinejad, I believe peace will break out all over the Middle East! Because I believe in CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi, Iraq has been damaged ( and you can blame Saddam for the bulk of that ), it's not been destroyed.

Spot on. The Iraqi people had been subject to torture rooms, rape rooms, summary executions, mass graves, chemical weapons attacks, denial of medical services and basic needs, etc. To some, that's the definition of a "fixed" Iraq before the US "broke" it.

Today we had meetings between Iran and Iraq, something that was unthinkable in the past. Notice how this amazing achievement is being presented by some? Oh, no! Iran benefited! Yeah, they do benefit from peace with Iraq. So did the Iraqis. So does the entire world for that matter. War has been replaced with peace yet they throw this fact aside as some trivial side point, as if the entire point to the invasion was to actually keep Iran down, and now that Iran no longer is at war with Iraq then I guess the entire policy is somehow a failure.

Taka, I appreciate your telling me that my point was valid. And I understand that admitting to that point doesn't mean you have to support the invasion, support Bush, be a Republican, etc. You can admit to one point without having to change your entire position about the war. There's a lot of evidence to consider and that was just one piece. Maybe you can explain that to Sushi...heh. I asked him the same question but he's demanding that I know the price of gas in 2000 before he answers. But I did enjoy watching him respond 3 times before I could answer. I must have really gotten to him. ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

superlib, You are welcome. I'm not a black and white worlder. Obviously, there are positives that have taken place, due to the invasion of Iraq. Whether they outweigh the negatives boils down to a matter of opinion. As much as I hate the invasion and occupation, I must admit, I sleep a little better knowing that kusay and uday are no longer among the living. They scared me far more than their old man.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Full-circle: Righties proclaim they are happy that the US was duped into strengthening Iran...

Diplomats, counterterror analysts and a former top military commander agree that President Bush's attempt to secure Baghdad will only succeed in dragging out the conflict, creating something far beyond any Vietnam-style "quagmire." The surge won't bring an end to the sectarian cleansing that has ravaged Iraq, as the newly empowered Shiite majority seeks to settle scores built up during centuries of oppressive rule by the Sunni minority. It will do nothing to defuse the powder keg that an independence-minded Kurdistan, in Iraq's northern provinces, poses to the governments of Turkey, Syria and Iran, which have long brutalized their own Kurdish separatists. And it will only worsen the global war on terror.

"Our invasion and occupation has created a cauldron that will continue to draw in the players in the Middle East for the foreseeable future," says Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama bin Laden. "By taking out Saddam, we have allowed the jihad to move 1,000 kilometers west, where it can project its power, its organizers, its theology into Turkey-- and from Turkey into Europe."

How bad will things get in Iraq--and what price will the world ultimately pay for the president's decision to prolong the war? http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13710030/leaving_iraq_the_grim_truth/print

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Real bombshell of an article, jahdog. Rolling Stone published it a year ago. That means the interview material was probably gathered at least two months before publication. So as of March or April of 2007 the expert you quote, Michael Scheuer, is giving this prediction about the surge, which would start a month after the music magazine hit the news stands and was in the hands of America's teeny boppers and aged hippies

Scheuer: No matter what happens now , the Islamists will have beaten both of the superpowers -- first the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and now the United States in the heart of Islam. The impact of that in Islamic civilization is going to be enormous. We have made bin Laden a prophet: His organizing concept for Al Qaeda was "The Russians are a lot tougher than the Americans. If we can beat the Russians, then we can eventually beat the Americans." Even more important, Al Qaeda will have contiguous territory on the Arab peninsula to attack from.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

so we can get Iraq to the table with Iran doesn't really seem to me to be a net win.

Oh come on, Taka, how can you put a price tag on this Kodak moment? I mean truly how can you question whether it's worth handing the bill to your kids and grandkids?

Face it, if you and Sushi had your way this meeting wouldn't have been possible.

I'm sure the guilt trip made all the difference. And the laundry list for good measure: "Iran and Iraq were bitter enemies, fighting wars that killed over a million, using chemical weapons, etc."

Sounds like the voice of a person knowledgeable about what was going on. But do you think SuperLib has any idea what they were fighting over? Somehow, I think it's safe to assume "No." Control of the Shat Al Arab (Waterway).

For that, Ayatollah Khomeini would have Iranian conscripts, some as young as their pre-teens, run into Iraqi positions where they were mowed down. At the time most outsiders found it odd a leader would ask that of his people, or that he would find willing volunteers (they were promised martyrdom). But this was not seen as threatening others (border wars are usually localized conflicts).

One cannot say peace now prevails because no agreement was ever drawn up on usage rights as a result of this costly conflict (even after Saddam was toppled). In fact it's been in dispute for much of the past few centuries.

Since the public was not privy to the discussions between the two leaders, one cannot the world benefited from the meeting. While I wish neither people any harm, I would prefer our finite resources be invested at home.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites