Yossi Melman at PostGlobal: Lose-Lose Situation, Start Cutting Deals

The Mid East is in flames; it is horrid for everyone, and eveyrone agress that it is because of the Israli-Palestine conflict. And everone agress that it is the vile rape and occupation of Palestine, the blowing up of the infrastructure of Lebanon, the stealing of the Goland Heights.
Yes,if something isn't done...Russia and China and Europe and everyone else will DO something.
And let's just say israel has nothing to offer and is detested universally. Period.

November 27, 2007 5:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on November 27, 2007 17:12

norris:

Polaris,
If I were you, jewish obviously, I might refrain from the words "...sniveling around for assistnce...".
Read the Aipac and israeli appeals to the Amerian taxpayer for "defense" and money for Israel, billions a year. And arms and all they can hoist.
Israel has been propped up by the Amerian taxpayer since it's inception. It's miserable,
vile, inception.
While the likes of you mouth off about earthquake assistance for decent societies.

November 27, 2007 5:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on November 27, 2007 17:06

harry:

Yossi hopes there's no difference...that the
savage Isralies can continue their rape of Palestine as they like.

Before there were handshakes..and pretend...and the Jews went right on.

This time there is high profile. There is world wide consensus of disgust and hatred of Israel and it's games. The SAudis are there,andall the Arab league. High profile.

Thanks partly to Jimmy Carters book and the big profile of Little Georgie's War in Iraq.

Yhe whole world is sick to death of the brutal jewish occupation. And the games.

This time America, hated, with less than NO moral authority, can't be a buffer.

If something doesn't happen, something WILL happen.

November 27, 2007 4:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on November 27, 2007 16:54

Anonymous:

Yossi hopes there's no difference...that the
savage Isralies can continue their rape of Palestine as they like.

Before there were handshakes..and pretend...and the Jews went right on.

This time there is high profile. There is world wide consensus of disgust and hatred of Israel and it's games. The SAudis are there,andall the Arab league. High profile.

Thanks partly to Jimmy Carters book and the big profile of Little Georgie's War in Iraq.

Yhe whole world is sick to death of the brutal jewish occupation. And the games.

This time America, hated, with less than NO moral authority, can't be a buffer.

If something doesn't happen, something WILL happen.

November 27, 2007 4:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on November 27, 2007 16:54

marian. baginski@gmail.com:

What is better: To have 1.5 billion people on our side, or 6 million plus other 12 million?

November 12, 2007 8:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on November 12, 2007 20:54

Floyd R:

It all depends upon the strategic objective, which isn't always going to make the front pages of the Post and the Times. Sir, you know that decisions at the top are measured, and the rule is "one plan with multiple options." Beyond their participation in democratic process, as seen in elections and referendums, the Iraqis faced the near impossible task of administering justice and the rule of law. If you consider a major Coalition presence as leverage against continued Iranian-Syrian cooperation and causing a significant delay to Chinese access to the resources that would fuel both their economy and military, IMHO, it's been a great success. Hope to hear from you sometime. Ask your west coast ally who he knows S/F GM God Bless you.

May 30, 2007 12:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 30, 2007 12:48

Jesus@PL:

"In economic jargon Iraq is a “lose-lose” situation. In strategic and political terms it is one big mess. The question – “There are two kinds of land mines: the kind that explodes when you step on it, and the kind that explodes when you take your foot off. Which one is Iraq?” – already contains the answer. Iraq is both."

So why you create the mine for yourself *USA/UK/PL* and STEP ON IT :-( ? The Polish president already declare that he is mislead. But the others ?

"The U.S. can't win the war in Iraq. But the withdrawal of U.S. and coalition troops would not guarantee stability. On the contrary, it may only further destabilize Iraq. The risks are tremendous and the ramifications for the rest of the region are terrifying."

Stability will come at once if the USA leave Iraq within 7 days. After that there will be war : Amagedon.

May 5, 2007 9:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 5, 2007 21:40

Anonymous:

((((((((((((( Peace-Love-RockeM ROMNEY, For Prez <?: + )/ Ya! )))))))))))

May 5, 2007 7:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 5, 2007 19:16

Maurie Beck:

It is nice to read something from someone who is making no false assumptions. Yossi Melman acknowledges that all actions will probably lead to bad outcomes, which will then lead to a choice between bad and worse.

In terms of his advocacy of diplomacy with regional players, I think he again is correct. What many people in this debate (to talk or to isolate) seem to forget or not understand is that diplomacy does not equal acquiescence. Recently Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) went to Syria. Perhaps she did it for political reasons, or perhaps she appears to be one of those people who believe that if we can just sit and talk, then reasonableness will prevail. This is a false assumption. Many people are unreasonable or have interests that are very divergent from our own. On the other hand, not engaging is can be equally foolish.

As another reader pointed out, we talked to the Soviet Union and we talked to China, neither of which shared our interests. In fact, we were in a war with them. However, in our diplomacy with adversarial regimes or governments, we did not approach them with outstretched hands, whining "could you help us." There is a middle way that is not a watered-down compromise between the two. We approached problems as strong, respectful adversaries with certain divergent interests, and more importantly, with some interests in common; both sides did not want to blow the world up. This is what diplomacy is.

There are times when non-engagement and isolation can work, but only when the adversary is weak and can be manipulated without fear of retaliation (e.g. South Africa at the end of apartheid). However, this is not the case in the Middle East. We need a strong diplomatic effort that will result in a bad, but not worse, outcome.

May 5, 2007 5:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 5, 2007 17:12

Hawkwood:

To Blank : You have anwered the question. I think you advocate a form of the "final solution".I think a Jewish only nation is cool,just like a muslim only nation in Syria and other countries holding 1.5 Bill.Muslims,as well as Catholic only countries,such as Spain and Ireland,and Hindu only countries or Buddist only countries. Its no big deal.I think a Jewish only nation is a place Jews can escape to from the "other only" countries. I don't Israel is the most hated nation, its only that the "other" countries are not used to Jews defending themselves. It scares them. They would prefer them slinking away into the Ghetto better. I think Israel will be here forever.

May 5, 2007 3:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 5, 2007 15:15

to hawkwood.:

Hawkwood,
Given Israel's status as most hated nation in the world--given the sympathy most decent people feel for the Palestininans--I wonder if you're wise to ask what people think Israel should do? As for me, not the Anonymous you address, I think 'disperse' would be nice. Like why would the Americans who so insist on
everyone being equal...and the jews tradition of
wanting to be anywhere they wish and suing if not, why in the name of God does America support a Jewish only nation? It's too stupid, too rotten, it won't last. It isn't lasting.

May 5, 2007 2:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 5, 2007 14:30

Anonymous:

((((((((((((( Peace-Love-Rock and ROMNEY! )))))))))))

May 5, 2007 11:30 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 5, 2007 11:30

Kohsar240:

We all know why Bush went to Iraq. First Bush and oil influence around him were dying to get their hands on Iraqi oil but needed a justification and some guts to do it. That came with 9/11 and the easy victory in Afghanistan. thinking they could run a repeat of Afghanistan in Iraq blinded them to see potential dangers and strategic blunders in Iraq. It is time for the US to just pull out and forget about not getting any oil-fields.

May 4, 2007 11:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 4, 2007 23:59

Hawkwood:

Anonymous: I have read your posts and cannot determine readily if you are serious or a flamer. First,other than the "final " solution what do propose Israel do ? Second, what the hell does your comments have to do with Melmans thoughts ?

May 4, 2007 10:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 4, 2007 22:50

Peter Principle:

At this point a deal with Syria is low hanging fruit -- comparable to Kissinger's detente with China (albeit on a smaller scale, one befitting the smaller and nastier scale of Middle East diplomacy).

The failure of the Bush-Olmert axis to capitalize on this opportunity, despite the dire situation in Iraq, is the ultimate proof of just how pig-headed and incompetent they really are.

May 4, 2007 9:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 4, 2007 21:22

Kevin:

Another domino theory?

May 4, 2007 8:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 4, 2007 20:58

Yakov Yosifovich:

Att: Brother Yossi M E L M A N, et al

This message might sound strange, but this is PROPHECY Brother(s), Sister(s) our Lord's. SHOLOM A-yOME! Now!

Better to VOTE for a MORMON then to vote for a Moron, right? SO;

(((((((((( A N N O U N C E M E N T )))))))))))))))

Because the ACLU helps Protect the "Eclatarianity" & "Mormon-LDS" establishments, then We Eclati-on's or us "JOKTAN" people, not "Peleg", of the "Eclatarianity" Cosmic feeling faith,

Here under & NOW "officialy" endorse in support temporary support of the MORMON(s) Peoples of the Restoration Books, a/k/a LDS et el, as "Friends of Eclati-On's."

Eclati-on people support ALL Mormons & friends U,S.A. Only!.

<?: + )'

Ya Ya. Peace to President Richard M. Nixon. A/k/a "Tricky Dick", Yet ROMNEY W. is no Nixon.

As a matter of fact ROMNEY is better then Nixon, if you think about OBAMA & his Madrasa?. Ya? No? Wow!

"One Acquires all their prejudices [Heuristics] by the time they hit 18." [Similar].

-Albert Einstein.

<? : + )' interesttingg.

May 4, 2007 8:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 4, 2007 20:49

Polaris:

Artic: Do you really believe that the Russians and the Chinese will go to war for Iran? Don't you want to see if Iranian emergency services are up to the task, because they dealt very poorly with their last earthquake and had to go snivelling around the globe for assistance. There will be no aid forthcoming in the event of a man-made earthquake in Persia. Actually, why not give the Iranians 5 nuclear missles with a maximum range of 5000km to hasten their demise?

May 4, 2007 4:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 4, 2007 16:01

Rufus Wainwright's fan club:

Erik: "As one of the few people who still believes in America, and after reading these comments, my head hurts. Surrender, appeasment, dialogue with our enemies. ... Most of you make me sick."

Just for you, Erik: "Going To A Town" lyrics by Rufus Wainwright.

I'm going to a town that has already been burned down

I'm going to a place that is already been disgraced

I'm gonna see some folks who have already been let down.

I'm so tired of America

I'm gonna make it up for all of the Sunday Times

I'm gonna make it up for all of the nursery rhymes

They never really seem to want to tell the truth

I'm so tired of you America

Making my own way home

Ain't gonna be alone

...

Tell me do you really think you go to hell for having loved?

...

(I really need to know)

I'm so tired of America

...

You took advantage of a world that loved you well

I'm going to a town that has already been burned down

I'm so tired of you America

Making my own way home

...

I got a soul to feed

...

Ain't gonna be alone

May 4, 2007 1:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 4, 2007 13:52

Mark W.:

First, I think it's wrong to suggest there are few options left for Iraq. Perhaps tunnel vision itself has compounded numerous ineffective means of War Resolution, Reconciliation and Reconstruction.

Being passive observers, we see sectarian civil war with outside influences such as Freedom Fighters, Homicidal Bombers and ever present forces of quests for wealth, land and power.

First, I think we need to resolve ourselves to the fact that as long as terrorism is used as extremist religious/political activism there will be war. That radical means of expressing idealism is counter-productive to support of the ideal itself.

If the ideal itself is dedicated to civil or social order then extreme disobience to global standards of civility will be confronted and rejected including the ideal.

Look, mountain climbing the highest peaks of our world may require numerous base camps or lay-over points. If base camp is not firmly established then why attempt to climb a peak ?

We cannot expect any society to function without a basic principle of society in place which is civility. How can uncivilized human beings restore civility ? We as a global community can act to decrease or increase civility in Iraq. And that is to me the choice between a lose-lose or win-win situation. Can even the best Dentist in the world fill his own tooth cavity ? In this case could the best dentist in the world give himself root canal surgery ?

Here in the United States there is an overwhelming distrust of the Federal Government. Can our leaders be trusted to do the right thing behind closed doors or do they have to be constantly paraded before the public eye until oversight is restored which restores trust in our Federal Institutions ?

Perhaps lose-lose situations are humbling to all. Americans are being penalized right now for a lack of civil progress in Iraq. And this war has yet to be resolved. I would say that too few options have been afforded to war resolution for Iraqis and the rest of civil societies wishing to remain so.

May 4, 2007 11:53 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 4, 2007 11:53

Diogenes the Cynic:

Demosthenes above writes: "Our executive branch won't even talk seriously with the democratic oppostion, I really don't think that they are in Egypt now for anything but a photo-op for the American public."

In broad daylight, my lit candle in hand, I see things as Demosthenes does.

Last night, Antisthenes was pointing out that "cities are doomed, where one cannot tell the good citizens from the bad."

Now Crates insists: "Generals only lead asses."

May 4, 2007 10:57 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 4, 2007 10:57

DDOG:

I agree with Yasi Melman that the US under leadership from Bush has found itself in a loose-loose situation in Iraq. However, the loose-if-you-stay option is worse than the loose-if-you-leave option. The stay option is already apparent: The Iraq internal strife and the obvious targets of Americans to kill by Al-Qaedi has had four years to show itself. There has been virtually no progress since the early days of the fall of Sadam. From a strategic standpoint, its time to make another move. However, the Bush administration is stuck in trying to save face for the monumental blunder that was the first move: invading Iraq in the first place. The region was relatively stable with Sadam as a strong man who could keep the current waring factions suppressed while at the same time being able to deal harshly with any terrorists that threatened his position. But that was not good enough for the Bush administration. They invaded and removed the stabilizing factor resulting in the quagmire and revealing the blunder that is unfolding now.

May 4, 2007 10:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 4, 2007 10:55

Anonymous:

Those Americans that want to destroy Iran, Syria and others seem to forget that they could not defeat Iraq after four years, a country that was substantially weakened by sanctions and the Kuwait war and an oil-for-food survival program.

But again, closed minds are indeed empty minds.

May 4, 2007 8:51 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 4, 2007 08:51

Robert James:

If the US wants peace in the Middle East then it will have to recognise that it contributes to hostilities and instabilities. Syria has border issues that need to be resolved with Israel. The US has backed Israel and has been prepared to accept Israel's dominance for decades. Well, it cannot continue if it wants some harmony in the region. Israel will have to stop bullying its neighbours in order to keep the territory under its control. Friendship and trade will go along way to enhancing harmony. Causing harm to Iran by demeaning it and telling it that the US, Europe and Russia do not want it to have nuclear weapons is nothing more than saying to Iran our interests will be imposed on you. If the US keeps playing the same game it will get the same outcome.

May 3, 2007 10:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 22:38

Erik:

As one of the few people who still believes in America, and after reading these comments, my head hurts. Surrender, appeasment, dialogue with our enemies. I'm glad you people were'nt running the show during the second world war, otherwise we wouldn't be worrying about the middle east. If it weren't for oil, they'd be an extension of the African continent, complete with all of the civil war, famine, strife, etc.

I find it interesting that no one mentioned any responsibility for the Arabs, or other middle eastern countries, to fix thier own repressive regimes. But after all it's easy to blame America for everything isn't it? How many thousands of Palestians were killed by the Jordanians? Up until the terrorist were voted in, Hamas, the US donated more money to the Palestinians than all of the Arab countries combined.

I'm sick of hearing from mis-informed, hypocrites, who have been propagandized to the piont of lunacy. Talk to Mahmoud I'manutjob if you think that will help, work with Bashir Asshead, but in the end, you'll end up with a knife between your shoulder blades. Just watch the end of Lawrence of Arabia to get an idea of the Middle Eastern mindset, if they didn't have America and Isreal to hate, they'd be busy killing each other.

Most of you make me sick.

May 3, 2007 10:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 22:31

kennytal:

Talk of this being a start. Sorry, the sun has already set on the ME. Stalling for time is no longer an advantage, so begin to talk of the end rather than the start. The balance of power in the ME is shifting as we speak and soon the tactics of the past are meaningless. The endless bouts of talking and not talking will no longer bear fruit. Waited to long to settle, now settle for second best.

May 3, 2007 10:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 22:10

Elbonian:

I agree with you entirely, up to a point. My disagreement is that dialog between the USA and Iran cannot lead to anything productive because the leaders of both nations have way too much domestic political capital invested in seeing each other as their greatest bogymen. For that reason, Iran must continue to publicly denounce the USA as the "Great Satan" while President Bush sticks to something more or less equivalent to his "axis of evil" declaration about Iran.

Frankly, I feel that both sets of current leaders actually believe their own propaganda points about each other. And the intense rhetoric and threatening actions they engage in only serve to ensure continued enmity between the two nations.

Iran has the upper hand in the current situation. Its proxy government is in control in Baghdad, so Iran only needs to outwait the Bush administration as its days count down towards zero, just as they waited for Jimmy Carter to leave office over two decades ago. There is no equivalent pressure on the Iranian government to act or not act as they might wish to.

The longer the USA keeps its military in harms way, the more US (and other) lives will be lost. Removing or redeploying the US military will give Iran a great victory, but there is no foreseeable way to avoid that consequence sooner or later unless the US is willing to invade Iran. For the sake of us all, let us hope that Bush never gives that order to his military commanders.

The bottom line is that US negotiations with Iran will have even less success than Israeli negotiations with Palestinians. And I expect to die without seeing any end to that endless war. I can hope to see an end to the US involvment in Iraq, no matter how humiliating that end might be. I can only hope that the USA is big enough to take its lumps and go on. I believe it is at least that big, and even bigger. But we have to force President Bush to admit he was wrong, and that is the real difficulty that the USA faces.

May 3, 2007 9:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 21:30

rk, Oakland, USA:

Shiveh, that was 4 years ago and I would argue that
Iran and America have fallen into a dance not unlike
Israel and Palestine, where they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity for better
relations.

May 3, 2007 9:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 21:25

ellec:

After we have already embroiled ourselves in this mess, I think that it would be foolish to pull out of Iraq without thinking about the repercussions and alternatives for this war. I think that for Iraq to escape chaos, insitutions and funding need to be in place to address and prevent further poverty and political instability. Is there ever a simple answer though? No. It's a civil war and it's a global issue. Bush needs to learn that we can't fix Iraq alone.

If the original principle of why we are fighting this war is as important as Bush claims, the $340 billion already spent and the further $100+ billion to be spent should be redirected toward plans to fight poverty and develop the country to prevent another Afghanistan. According to the Borgen Project, just $19 billion annually can end starvation and $15 billion provides water and sanitation all over the world. If ending terror is the goal, the Millennium Development Goals to end poverty is the way to to go for our leaders.

May 3, 2007 7:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 19:45

Anonymous:

Denis,I fully agree with you.Nobody can imagine the growing numbers of Iraqi children who are being under treatment for cancer in many hospitals in the Middle East.I have seen on Al jazeera news a frightening report on this issue. They have shown very young children,4-12 years old,with hopeless cases of cancer all caused by depleted uranium in Iraq.
I cannot unerstand why the international court in the Hague has kept silent all tus time about such war crimes.

May 3, 2007 7:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 19:15

Denis:

You all seem to have missed the most important untold story....the deliberate and monstrous use of Depleted Uranium munitions in Iraq by U.S forces since '91. The entire population of Iraqis are doomed to die in the next 15 years from malignant cancers caused directly by breathing in dust containing radiation from the exploded depleted uranium.
But not only Iraqis, but US troops and coalition troops are being affected.
Search it out yourself...Depleted Uranium is THE story in Iraq...

May 3, 2007 7:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 19:03

Anonymous:

It's quite surprising that Israeli columnist Yossi Melman can not admit that Israel is behind all the turmoil and chaos in the Middle East.
Israel was admitted as a UN member in 1949 provided that all palestinian refugees return home, and within specified borders under UN resolution 181.Instead of applying such resolutions,Israel with US support has kicked out more Palestinans to live as refugees in neighboring countries and expanded their borders to conver new territories three times the area specified by UN.
Th injustice imposed by Israel and the US has led to the creation of terrorism and human bombs in the area.Going back to the basics and applying all UN resolutuins on Israeli Palestinian conflict
is the only way out of all Middle East problems, including Iraq,Afganistan,lebanon etc.

May 3, 2007 6:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 18:52

Forgotten history:

The Shias and Sunnis are killing each other with the Americans in the country. What’s to believe they’ll stop if the Americans exit and leave a weak, ineffectual government behind? Has the world already forgotten Vietnamese fleeing into the sea and the killing fields of Cambodia?

May 3, 2007 6:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 18:43

Hawkwood:

Hooray for the USA,Israel and the jewish people and screw anybody who disagrees with the foregoing !!

May 3, 2007 6:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 18:43

DS Arthur:

I remain puzzled as to why the American people have so much trouble grasping a simple concept. This is that every country has a central concern which trumps all the others --- security. To cite a prominent example: Israel. Yes, she is the dominant military power in the Middle East but she still has legitimate security concerns. And one of her convictions (which I happen to share)is that surrendering even an inch of the territory she currently controls will, absent any offset, detract from her security which, from an Israeli point of view, is still not entirely adequate. What could such an "offset" be? A mutual defense treaty with the United States and/or other Great Powers. Only that will ever persuade Israel (and the Arabs, for that matter) to seriously consider "Land for Peace" And only THAT will ever enable a lasting peace in the Middle East. All else is folly as the history of that area continually proves.

DS Arthur
La Mesa, CA

May 3, 2007 6:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 18:34

Anonymous:

The way out of Iraq is not that complicated as some might imagine. Let us go back to the roots and tackle the problem from the main stem.
The unlimited support of the US to Israel from 1948 till now has led to unmatched state of disappointment and despair in the Middle East, which in turn has led to the creation of terrorist groups who are ready to sacrifice their own bodies in a holy war agianst Israel and US interests, not only in the Middle East but all over the world.
What do we expect from a palestinian refugee who has been deprived of all his belongings and thrown out of his country to live in a refugee camp for more than 60 years now.
The way out of Iraq and Afganistan is to tackle and resolve the root issue, the Palestinian holocaust at the hands of the Israeli army.Once this issue is settled in a fair way to all concerned parties and under UN resolutions, the resultant issues if Iraq and Afganistan will definitely lose steam and take a turning point towards their end.

May 3, 2007 6:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 18:32

Pat Riot:

You want us to negotiate with terrorists?? We were hit on 9/11 by the terrorists and now you want to appease them? This is the same Clintonian strategy that we lived with in the 90s, and it brought us 9/11 on American soil. Finally we have a leader who does not negotiate with terror. There is only one way to deal with this threat- crush it.

May 3, 2007 6:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 18:22

REread 2:29pm above:

Please read carefully POLARIS above. (5/3, 2:29pm)
That's the kind of person we are using American blood and treasure to protect and promote. Bloodthirsty savage. No more interest in the well being of the United States than his peers. Are you glad to sacrifice for that? While good old Yossi lays on the advice.

May 3, 2007 6:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 18:02

Are we stupid?:

OH, GEE, Yossi Melman would like SO much for the US to get out of Iraq, but he thinks the US better stay there. But then, of course, since the Israelis are so dmnd determined to keep US blood flowing in Iraq, would the Israeli columnist/propogandist Melman would want American boys out of Iraq? It's so cute. Who is fooled?

May 3, 2007 5:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 17:47

Arctic:

Polaris: Before annihilating the Iranian nation, you will've to do somthing about CHINESE; INDIANS na d ofcourse RUSSIANS

May 3, 2007 5:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 17:25

Guest Worker:

Fact #1: Timeframe for US withdrawal from Iraq is likely to be in months or years.

Fact #2: Iran and Syria are likely to border Iraq for centuries to come.

Get used to it.

May 3, 2007 5:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 17:16

USA Steve:

Remember the old line..."keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"

This would require keeping dialogues open with Syria, Iran, Iraq, etc...over all these years, and trying to really work thru our differences, which would have yielded far more fruitful outcomes at this point in history than what has happened.

The Pro-Israel Lobby wouldn't stand for it though, because if everyone made nice in the middle east, then Israel couldn't have kept up its land grab for all these years.

And big oil wouldn't stand for it either , because instability, rather than stability, drive oil prices higher.

And the big defense contractors wouldn't like it either , because it is bad for their business too.

Unfortunately, what is right and should have been done for the benefit of the American people and the world, contradicts the special interests of some very powerful groups.

And please keep the anti-semite comments out of any responses- really, that is an old and tired accusation.

May 3, 2007 4:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 16:49

Shiveh:

Not True RK. Please read Kristof: "Diplomacy at Its Worst"
New York Times, April 29, 2007

This is how he starts:

"In May 2003, Iran sent a secret proposal to the U.S. for settling our mutual disputes in a “grand bargain.”
It is an astonishing document, for it tries to address a range of U.S. concerns about nuclear weapons, terrorism and Iraq. I’ve placed it and related documents (including multiple drafts of it) on my blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground.

Hard-liners in the Bush administration killed discussions of a deal, and interviews with key players suggest that was an appalling mistake. There was a real hope for peace; now there is a real danger of war."

May 3, 2007 4:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 16:29

rk, Oakland, USA:

Well, Syria could be amenable to making a deal but,
Iran would be a big problem because, the current
governments main reason for existence is its opposition to America and all things American.
Anyone who suggests making a deal with America
is very vulnerable to be attacked politically.
It is unfortunate but, it was something that should
have been taken into account by Bush before he decided that removing Saddam from power was a good
idea. All actions have consequences and in the middle east the consequences are often extreme and
long lasting. Hence, we have a sort of "perfect storm" in that America needs Irans help to stabilize
Iraq but Iran cannot give it, even if it wanted to.

May 3, 2007 4:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 16:07

Michael L. Wagner:

Please understand there's no real question here: firstly, we sold Iraq the pesticide manufacturing facility that was easily converted to put Saddam in the chemical WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION business; Ted Koppel reported, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Iraq into an aggressive power. REAGAN/BUSH ADMINISTRATIONS PERMITTED--AND FREQUENTLY ENCOURAGED--THE FLOW OF MONEY, DUAL-USE TECHNOLOGY, CHEMICALS AND WEAPONS TO IRAQ." (Wikipedia) Secondly, where we invaded Iraq absent ties to terrorism, now Bush is directly sponsoring the bad guys, "A US government report has concluded that oil smuggling abetted by corrupt Iraqi officials is netting insurgents $100 Million a year..." (the Guardian, Dec. 2, 2006--Oil Smuggling) Thus, it's really quite obvious that the invasion of Iraq was all about Iraq's high-grade crude oil (regarding 9/11, remember: 1./ it's entirely inexplicable how the FBI fumbled the ball, while, again, it's entirely inexlicable that the government didn't have a policy of scrambling jet fighters in any instance of a doemstic hyjacking, 2./ Representative Charles Key alleges that the government knew about the OK Bombing ahead of time but did nothing to stop it, while one of the Grand Jurors in the OK Bombing investigation actually quit in protest over a perceived government cover-up, 3./ following those grim debacles, first Clinton pushed for his own version of the unduly repressive PATRIOT ACT, and, then, after 9/11, Congress did pass that wild and crazy Act, and 4./ in '97, Defense Secretary W. Cohen got down to the nitty gritty when he stated that, "Terrorism is escalating to the point that Americans soon may have to choose between civil liberties and more intrusive methods of protection," (DID HE SAY CHOOSE????). Finally, remember how the Iraq Study Group determined that the US should make friends with Iran--because of all that fossil fuel it represents (alternatively read?: we should invade Iran).

Here one should consider how: 1./ all the politicians have "overlooked" the glaring fact that it takes as much energy to make ethanol as it contains (Wikipedia), such MEGA-OIL is used to manufacture it (except maybe in S. Brazil, the sugarcane capitol of the world), 2./ CA's Air Resources Board created a mandate for the entirely electric car, however the auto-makers, instead of adequately promoting "the beast," instead maintained that there was no interest... (though one lease holder actually sued to keep his lease...)(remember, potentially, these cars could be "fueled" though an at home solar panel), 3./ land-based wind power has the potential to supply more than one and a half times the current electricity consumption of the US (search: DOE, Wind and Hydroelectric Technologies Program--click on: Wind Energy Basics--then: US Wind Energy Resource Potential).

So..., in reality..., the politicians are all in bed with BIG-OIL (remember, Bush, an oil man, never actually won a Presidential Election), and, in fact, the BIG PLAN in not merely to stay in Iraq, but as well to institute the DRAFT--because Middle East oil is going to be around a very long time...!!!

May 3, 2007 3:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 15:47

an:

Who are you to comment??? This is not your war dude!!! Your fellow citizens aren't getting killed out there.

May 3, 2007 3:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 15:31

Demosthenes:

Our executive branch won't even talk seriously with the democratic oppostion, I really don't think that they are in Egypt now for anything but a photo-op for the American public.

May 3, 2007 3:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 15:26

Al:

Iraq is an open book, you could read the conclusion if you bothered to read history.
The General is looking at the strategic implication vis-vis Israel, and it isn't a pretty picture. US will have to leave, their economy can't cope with the direct or the indirect(oil price) cost of this war. Their strategic enemies, China, Russia and ofcourse Iran has been emboldened, whilst the strategic allies, EU/ Moderate Arab states have been weakened. The bright Israelis know if there was a sudden economic collapse in the US then they are very much exposed. This war has created the same kind of dynamics few could have imagined during the last years of the soviet union. If war is to achieve political outcomes that can't be achieved with diplomacy, then this war is total and utter defeat.

May 3, 2007 3:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 15:10

Anonymous:

You state:

"Of course it will require the U.S. to be ready to pay a certain price for . . . cooperation."
_________________

Nothing "of course" about that statement. The price will be penalty paid for not cooperating.

May 3, 2007 2:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 14:41

Polaris:

Iran and Syria are enemies to be dealt with severly by the US Armed Forces. The US is not going to leave Iraq because Iraq is nothing more than a bridgehead from which to launch attacks against both these nations. It is completely irrelevant whether the Iraqis continue to slaughter each other. On the contrary, this should be encouraged by the US. Indeed, let Iran have nuclear weapons and hopefully they will use them and give the US the pretext to thoroughly annihilate the Iranian nation once and for all.

May 3, 2007 2:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 14:29

lonewolf:

maybe it is time for condaleeza rice just to take the time to listen to the iranians as well as the syrians have to say. you are right to say that the the two of them are presently holding the better hand of cards. this has been true for some time now. with the israelis quickly becoming surrounded and the saudis becoming increasingly desperate for dialogue of any type, the tide has turned in the middle east. after the saudis' infusion of cash to shore up the lebanese economy it has become quite obvious to this reader that the subtle war of ideologies has begun and without dialogue this war might become much less subtle sooner than later. the u.s. and nato could begin to shore up their own position by beginning to make a more concerted effort in afghanistan as opposed to iraq. this should come in the form of a serious flanking manouever to lessen the influence of iran in western afghanistan which would in effect give the iranians cause to rethink their entire position where iraq is concerned. while southern iraq appears to be for the most part a lost cause in the near term, the remainder of iraq is seriously open to question. would iran wish to be confronted by a two front threat? or would they wish for the time being to become more cooperative in respect to their near term positions on iraq as well as in lebanon? only the state dept. can answer this question without respect to the wishes of the cheney camp i believe. it is time for rice to assert herself and do her job irrespective of the ideology emanating from the neos presently encamped in the bowels of the white house who are misleading our president in respect to what ca n be reasonably achieved in the middle east.

May 3, 2007 1:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 13:35

Kamal:

Stupid Bush and its hawkish dog cheney did not have any plan for Iraq after saddam when they started war.
Sooner they leave Iraq it would be better for Iraqi people to have future and save US live.
They have to let Iraqi people decide for themselve and they can push pro american gov to a country in the name of democracy.

May 3, 2007 1:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 13:29

Mohamed MALLECK, Swift Current, Canada:

The main point I mean to make is: Get out of Iraq as soon as possible. The Iraqus, having to live with each other, will work out the best solution to stabilize their country. The sooner the US gets out, the sooner it will be able to come back, this time around not as an invader but as a real promoter of democracy. This time around , it will really be welcomed.

May 3, 2007 12:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 12:42

Shiveh:

Talking with Iran and reaching a comprehensive agreement is possible and achievable. Iran has a repressive regime that more than anything is scared. It's scared of it's own people who are mostly pro democracy and yes, pro America. It's scared of outside powers trying to over through it. And it's scared of a future that is not sustainable. They are and have been ready to talk because they need to feel secure.
Bush administration came to power with the idea of changing Middle East including the government in Iran. For that they did not see any reason to talk with people they plan to get rid of.
A look at history shows that engaging repressive governments makes rational forces within those governments stronger and can gradually change them for better. A good example is China. In other hand, boycotting a repressive regime can solidify it's grip on the country, look at Cuba.
Now that president Bush has apparently lost the nerve to attack another country and changing the regime in Iran is not in agenda, may be it's time to start positively influencing them by first giving them reason to bring their guard down and then help them improve their economy. Fanaticism exists only when you feel you have noting to loose.
With Iran helping instead of opposing, Iraq's problem can be solved easier. Try spending a fraction of the money that is being wasted in Iraq on bettering the economy. Give the money to small Iraqi enterprises. Let them build. If they build it, they'll try to keep it and for that they need stability. So, they'll work to achieve it. In the process they may start to like us a little too!

May 3, 2007 12:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 12:33

Garak:

Excellent post. Reagan talked to the Soviets, something conservatives today seem to have forgotten. And let Iran have nukes. They won't use them against Israel because they know that by acquiring nukes, they will have entered the realm of mutually assured destruction. Israel will lose its ability to engage in nuclear blackmail, but they still have complete conventional military superiority. By losing some minimal degree of superiority, Israel might well decide to finally engage in serious peace talks with the Palestinians.

May 3, 2007 12:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 12:29

Mohamed MALLECK, Swift Current, Canada:

While I agree with the general tenor of this opinion piece ('the US can't win the war in Iraq';'the potential for the disintegration of Iraq in three regions exists because most of the nations in the region as well as their borders are inventions of 19th and early 20th century colonial powers'; etc.) I find it too pessimistic and I fear it could prove to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Certain parts of the course of action recommended are excellent -- dialogue with Iraq's neighbours, in particular bringing-in Syria and Iran from the periphery,highlighting the point that securing a deal with Syria will 'help save face' for America and also help stability for Israel. On the two latter points, I would go further. The situation could be win-win for all concerned, if American policy-makers have the daring to really believe in their professed-but-maybe-not-fully.honestly-held ideal of bringing democracy to the Middle-East.

Constructuve dialogue with Syria and Iran, with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan on board on the same side of the table while UK, Israel, Germany, France join the US on the other side of the table, could lay the groundwork for a loose NATO-Muslim World axis(probably leaving out Central Asian Muslim countries that are more likely to swing towards a Shaghai Cooperation Organisation affiliation) to promote ecology-friendly economic growth, and a variable-geometry bipolar/tripolar world that sometimes sees China and Russia pursuing geo-strategic interests jointly and at other times, the NATO-Muslim World axis joining a China-dominated axis and another Russia-dominated axis in a geo-strategic tantric dance for global influence.

Conflict wil always be opart of the human agenda, but it can be rendered less violent by appraoching problem resolution armed with a cpnviction that win-win is possible.

May 3, 2007 12:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 3, 2007 12:27

Yossi Melman

Tel Aviv, Israel

Yossi Melman

Tel Aviv, Israel

Lose-Lose Situation, Start Cutting Deals

All Comments (159)

Post a comment