You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Obama calls for talks with Iran over Iraq
2008-04-09
Gee Barack, what is there to talk about?
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday called for a "diplomatic surge" including talks with US foe Iran, to help stabilize the situation in Iraq.

The Illinois Senator battling Hillary Clinton for his party's nomination called for more pressure on the Iraqi government to embrace political reconciliation and a regional "diplomatic surge that includes Iran." "We should be talking to them as well," Obama told the top US General in Iraq David Petraeus and US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker.
What exactly do you talk about with a bunch of Mad Mullahs™ who are trying to wreck everything you're trying to do? What do you say -- 'pretty please'?
"I do not believe we are going to be able to stabilize the situation without that" said Obama, adding that a plan for US troop withdrawals was needed to force Iraqi factions to work together. "I think that increased pressure in a measured way, in my mind, and this is where we disagree, includes a timetable for withdrawal. Nobody is asking for a precipitous withdrawal."
Except TalkLeft, Daily Kos, ...
Obama has taken fire from his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and Republican presumptive nominee John McCain for his offer to talk, if elected president, with the leaders of several US foes including Iran.

He used his question period during the crucial Senate hearing to restate his initial opposition to the war in Iraq, which Clinton voted to authorize.

"We all have the greatest interest in seeing a successful resolution to Iraq," Obama told Petraeus and Crocker.
Except that you define 'successful' differently than we do ...
"I continue to believe that the original decision to go into Iraq was a massive strategic blunder, that the two problems you pointed out, Al-Qaeda in Iraq and increased Iranian influence in the region are a direct result of that original decision.

"That's not a decision you gentlemen made. I will not lay it at your feet. You are cleaning up the mess afterwards."
Posted by:Steve White

#17  As argued or inferred times before, a serious danger in this kind of "great game" competition-rivalry between the US + Russia-China, etc. is THAT BOTH CAMPS OR ALL WILL END UP HELPING IRAN + RADICLA ISLAMISM BECOME DE FACTO NUCLEAR POWERS IN THEIR OWN RIGHT, AND HENCE A POTENT NUCLEAR THREAT TO BOTH OR ALL CAMPS - The USA, etc, ends up empowering its OWN DESTROYER!

IRAN + OBL-Radical Islam are now going hell-bent for across-the-board, indigenous, INTENSIFIED ESCALATORY NUCPOWERDEV AND NUCWEAPSDEV, etc. ASAP AMAP BEFORE 2010 or 2012, IMO to include geographic expansion vv RUSS + CENTRAL ASIA etc.
"CALLS FOR TALKS" > the issue is the magnitude of any potential future ISLAMIST NUCLEAR THREAT BY THE END OF A POST-DUBYA POTUS FIRST TERM, AS BOTH IRAN + ISLAMIST TERROR WILL LIKELY HAVE POTENT NUKE-WMD ARSENALS BY 2012, SEPARATE OR JOINT, AND HENCE WILL BE THAT MUCH STRONGER THAN NOW.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-04-09 22:17  

#16  IOn RIAN > WHY DOES IRAN NEED THERMONUCLEAR BUBBLES. Are Mullahs, Ayatollahs, and other 1979/Shah-era = Iran-Iraq War "Old Guard" SLOWLY ON THEIR WAY OUT IN FAVOR OF DEDICATED ANTI-US SECULAR ANDOR "MODERATE", PRO-ECON REFORM POLITICIANS - IS IRAN USING THE NUCLEAR ISSUE AS BLUFF + DENIABLE COVER TO HIDE SERIOUS ECON PROBS = NEED FOR REFORMS??? Article indics that Tehran is offering every econ-suffering family US$50.00 NOT to complain or protest in the streets???

ALso from RIAN > RUSS MP: RUSSIA MAY CLAIM THE CRIMEA IFF UKRAINE JOINS NATO. Crimea = home of the BLACK SEA FLEET. You just knew Russ would try to claim Sevastopol = whole of Crimea? from Ukraine sooner or later.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-04-09 21:54  

#15  A vote for Obama in 2008 will be very much the same as a vote for Carter was. Hopefully it will be the 1980 election version, not the 1976 version.
Posted by: Darrell   2008-04-09 20:22  

#14  Are you quite certain the current president is ignoring Iran, Yosemite Sam? I'm not really qualified to have an opinion on the matter, but I've a strong impression all sorts of interesting things are quietly happening beyond the reach of open sources.
Posted by: trailing wife    2008-04-09 20:02  

#13  I think Obama talking with Iran will accomplish just as much as 'W' has by ignoring them them.

Posted by: Yosemite Sam   2008-04-09 19:34  

#12  Hitlery and Oblama - Dumb and Dumber. The Democratic Party should be so ashamed at allowing these two to run for ANY public office they should never wish to show their faces again. God help this nation if either of these two idiots gets elected, because they'd screw things up so badly only a revolution would be able to straighten it out.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2008-04-09 18:34  

#11  Obama calls for talks with Iran over Iraq.
McCain calls for talks with Iraq over Iran.

Who would you vote for!
Posted by: rjschwarz   2008-04-09 18:01  

#10  Ya gotta get them outta "Reverend" Wright's pocket first...
Posted by: tu3031   2008-04-09 17:22  

#9  You're making an unwarranted assumption there, JohnQC. Why on earth would they hand them back?
Posted by: trailing wife    2008-04-09 17:20  

#8  Obama calls for talks with Iran over iraq = dangerous naivette.

Obama would have his testicles handed back to him if he had talks with Iran.
Posted by: JohnQC   2008-04-09 16:37  

#7  Dumb rooster wants discussion with fox over henhouse.
Posted by: Sonny Elmeamp2499   2008-04-09 16:02  

#6  What exactly do you talk about with a bunch of Mad Mullahs™ who are trying to wreck everything you're trying to do? What do you say -- 'pretty please'?

How about "Die Now".
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2008-04-09 14:23  

#5  Ahmashamadingdong is playing Mayan Football and the o-hole thinks it is a game of footsie.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2008-04-09 12:16  

#4  Hey Darth, take it easy there that's a totally unfair comparison. Obama is no Chamberlin.

Chamberlin at least had a rational argument that UK was unprepared for war.

Obama is a tranzi-socialist-fool and is not worthy to lick Neville's shoes.
Posted by: AlanC   2008-04-09 10:20  

#3  So, you want to go to a country in a proxy war with your country, with your tail between your legs, and beg the country to stop.

Gee, that sounds like a fucking winning formula right there! I mean, it worked soooo well for Chamberlin, didn't it? What a genius! It is so simple!

Can I have back the 30 seconds of my life that were wasted reading this please?
Posted by: DarthVader   2008-04-09 09:29  

#2  ever notice he drops double-digits in IQ when not reading from a teleprompter or standard stump speech?
Posted by: Frank G   2008-04-09 09:15  

#1  Obama is a mouthpiece for the Internationals attempt to get back the largess it lost when saddam fell. The left is so deep into the OIL for $ scenario, at every level. Peak oil is the extrapolated myth of soros chaos crowd. everything is woven together.
Posted by: Thraviper Panda2099   2008-04-09 09:02  

00:00