Posted on 12/12/2006 10:15:06 PM PST by Esther Ruth
Stupid. Bring back literacy tests or better yet literacy.
Proponents of talking to Syria (who we have diplomatic relations with) and Iran (who we don't have diplomatic relations with) remind us of the following:
Nixon opened relations with China, and Reagan talked with the Soviets, both well before the close of the so called Cold War.
Both were considered our "enemies" at the time of such talks. And both were probably plotting against us, at that time.
How would it give us a better understanding? You think they're going to tell us their plans?
RoyStevens wrote: "Iraq should be pacified by now."
Easier said than done when you have two hostile nations on the borders and a country that is very sectarian to start with.
Distortion????
If the poll/'survey' has ANY accuracy, then when people said 'direct talks' did half of them actually intend for the US to THREATEN Iran and Syria if they DONT stop interfering in Iraq by supporting the terrorists/insurgents there????
Its another dishonest trick to lump general answers in such a way to represent something that the people answering would not actually agree with.
At this time, too.
Not intentionally, but we may be able to get some clues as to what their motivations are. The problem is that we are doing nothing right now, so any option would be better than that. We should attack Iran now if we are going to assume that Iran cannot be negotiated with, but our government is not going to do that unless they attack first. Talking is the only option if we aren't going to fight now, and we most likely are not going to fight right now.
Welcome to FR, by the way.
They really, truly are.
Exhibit #487 in why I am proud that we are a Republic, not a mobocracy.
How do you know we're doing "nothing"?
Hey Clemenza! How's it going? Are you happy in New York? (The Lori formerly known as Spanaway) =)
Iran, Syria, and Al Qaeda's fighters got in after we took control. We should have gone in with three times as many troops, and should have carved Iraq up into a loose confederation with three autonomous states, and we should have arrested almost everyone over Major in the Iraqi army and put the lower level officers under coalition command and sent them to secure the border. We also should have set up a semi-Iraqi led, military-style dictatorship led by Sunnis to secure the Sunnis area, and by a Shiite to secure the Shiite area. We should have relocated and built security fences in the areas were rival factions live in close proximity. Our notion that Iraq would be like America was naive, and we rushed elections. If we did something like the above, Iraq may be ready for elections in a few years and Iraq would be more stable than it is.
Thank you.
Nothing may be too strong. I meant to say not nearly enough. This is a conclusion based on the amount of people and goods moving over that border.
Two thirds of Americans couldn't find Iran or Syria on a map, and could not tell you ANYTHING about either country. The LA Times wants to guide foreign policy by surveying American citizens?
I am currently living in Lawrenceville, NJ, right on the Princeton border and a stone's throw from the Governor's Mansion. I am midway between New York and Philadelphia, although NY is much easier to access via the train (and is where I spend my weekends).
Other than the corrupt politics (the Sopranos is set here for a reason) I am happy here. Hope all is well on in the PSOWS. Go Dino!
RoyStevens wrote: "We should have gone in with three times as many troops..."
What could have been done wasn't done. Even if I agree and think we should have fought the war far more aggressively early on, that time is past. I'm not terribly disappointed with Bush's handling of the war. In fact, I think it's one of the better things he's done (despite what the MSM and apparently a large number of Americans think). If I have any complaint about how he handled the war it is this: he didn't find a way to articulate our goals and inspire the people to support them. He said it was going to be a long, hard fight from the beginning, so he should have known it was going to have periods like this when Americans would sour on the war effort. The war is being fought on two fronts: the one in Iraq and the one here in the US. Militarily, we are winning the one over there. Politically, we are losing the one here.
I'll go you one further. I'll bet a majority of Americans could not put all the states inside their correct borders if given a bare outline...even with the state borders drawn in. I know this because I've been in college geography classes where many students had trouble knowing where the states were located much less foreign countries. Some had Mexico and Canada reversed and some thought that the Soviet Union was on our northern border. It's actually scary.
I'm fairly positive when the poller asked the pollees about the Baker commission, he or she had to tell them what it was and some of the rudimentary provisions. And then he or she probably had to explain to the pollee about Iran and Syria. I'll bet most pollees were coached very well to get a certain response.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.