Iran wants a seat at the big table, and they are about to get it. They deserve it, considering they pulled this off without firing a shot. And I don't want some loopy doopy dipshit in the POTUS when dealing with them. They are not stupid or unsophisticated players and we should not underestimate them or their intent in the region. They deserve our respect and we should realize they have their own ideas about thinggs that may bring us into conflict with them at points in the future.

Do you mean a non-loopy-doopy-dipshit POTUS may have to have a "conflict" with Iran, as in the U.S. going to war with Iran?

I'm inclined to agree with you, owing to the fact that I actually engaged with you to begin with. I think I may have used the following word only once or twice in my posts here, and it may have been directed at you to begin with and I don't take it lightly: You LWM are an idiot.

The reason is that this is all a joke for you; you have found nothing better to do with your life in your sunset years than to take your ludicrous positions (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't actually believe any of these inanities) and heckle people on line. I imagine you in a study surrounded by Time/LIfe books with loving photo studies of military aircraft and weaponry, perhaps a History channel special on some kind of fighter aircraft that won whatever great war you are currently masturbating to is on mute in the background. And there you are surrounded by all of your hard back consumer conventional wisdom foreign policy also-rans, frantically searching on wikkipedia for something, anything with at least one of the words you have just used in your argument. Enough, give it a break dude. Some of us have been in war, and others now have their children in one. Get a life and leave these discussions who at least have a stake in the game.

Thanks for the Ansari recommendation.

We (and Iran) were natural allies until... eh, read that book.

You are the loopy doopy dipshit.

Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy and the Next Great Crisis in the Middle East (Hardcover)

by Ali Ansari

http://www.amazon.com/Confronting-Iran-Failure-American-Foreign/dp/0465003508

It will take time. All of you MTV gen kids who just want it now will just have to learn to be patient.

I get what you're saying. And you've put a lot of food for thought up there.

One factor that does help matters is that Iran is developed enough to have a large and influential portion of the population that has no interest in getting into a hot war- not even one over on the other side of the border. A lot of Iranians have a good life, day to day. They're educated and reasonably well-off. Some of them even remember the weariness that comes over a land locked in a long-lasting state of war. That fraction of the populace is very disinclined to become desperate, alienated extremist fodder- even as collateral damage or through deprivation.

Seems odd, but Iran is the most likely candidate we have to increase stability in the region--Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey don't seem like good picks for the future.

There are only two candidates for president. Which one is the "loopy doopy dipshit"? If you support McCain, then come out and say it and provide all of your brilliant reasons as to the why. I'm sure it will only make you even more popular here.

Iran wants a seat at the big table, and they are about to get it. They deserve it, considering they pulled this off without firing a shot. And I don't want some loopy doopy dipshit in the POTUS when dealing with them. They are not stupid or unsophisticated players and we should not underestimate them or their intent in the region. They deserve our respect and we should realize they have their own ideas about thinggs that may bring us into conflict with them at points in the future.

And there are some people I just wouldn't want in the office of the POTUS when dealing with Iran. I shudder to think what they might do with some possible candidates that some on the left seem to think have the qualifications for the job. They played Bush like a fiddle and Iran is no less interested in a hegemony over the region than we are. This is going to be a delicate and lengthy process of de-escalation and rapprocehment.

Whoa dude, are you saying what I think you're saying? How about saying what you mean.

"It is through Iran, Mona."

Yep, we definitely strengthened their position and I'm sure that the Bush admin never gave a thought as to why we had propped up Saddam in the first place.

But having said all that, the withdrawal -- and every sane person knows it cannot happen in one week -- should have commenced when the Democrats took Congress in '06.

-- -Mona-

Not with this admin.

It is through Iran, Mona.

From what I've gathered, you've been arguing that the US public does not demand withdrawal in 16 months--which was not a claim--so it's moot. The claim was that facts on the ground should be the deciding factor, (Liasson), and that the public wants this as a criterion. Greenwald disputes that claim by posting polls that demonstrate that a majority prefers withdrawal within the next year or two, regardless of facts on the ground--stability, civil order. A minority prefers immediate withdrawal--facts be damned-- and a slightly larger minority prefers staying until we win/stabilize Iraq. It's pretty simple.

Except we didn't do it. And one of the reasons (or excuses) I heard over and over, was how logistically daunting it would be. IRonically, enought it would be over by now. But then what would the military fetishists such as LWM have to fantasize about?

What is stopping us is the failure to reach a political solution in the effort to avoid taking high numbers of casualties in the process of withdrawing under hostile conditions. Those are lives, and not just American lives, we are talking about. You know, some projectiles are just too dangerous to remove from a body without killing it under cvertain circumstances. Not a perfect analogy, but like I said, detente with Iran is the way out of Iraq peacefully and that is going to take time and it certainly won't happen under this administration. And there are some people I just wouldn't want in the office of the POTUS when dealing with Iran. I shudder to think what they might do with some possible candidates that some on the left seem to think have the qualifications for the job. They played Bush like a fiddle and Iran is no less interested in a hegemony over the region than we are. This is going to be a delicate and lengthy process of de-escalation and rapprocehment.