DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Iran's mile-long ostrich sandwich

**Elaltergephah** · 10-19-2008, 05:31 AM

Well here is the the problem:

Iraq may have calmed down for the moment, but at anytime the Shia's can rise up and cause us huge issues. Just today, 10's of thousands of Shia's under the Mehdi army marched on Baghdad protesting the US occupation and referendums.

Worst of all, we now may have to go into talks with the Taliban because we cant win in Afghanistan.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...h-Taliban.html

Even Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith said that there must be a compromise with the Taliban. "The departing commander of British forces in Afghanistan says he believes the Taliban will never be defeated. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4887927.ece

Now, with the country of IRAN being situated between Iraq to the west and Afghanistan to the East our soldiers would be directly in harms way. You would have soldiers from IRAN flooding Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be a strategic nightmare for the US.

If it was the US vs IRAN alone it wouldn't be as big of an issue, But the US against the entire middle east would be a nightmare.

You articles prove NONE of that. First of all, we don't talk with Taliban EVER. We don't negotiate with terrorists and that has been our policy for the longest time. The article simply suggests that we SHOULD have talks with Taliban..but we won't.

Second, a British general doesn't say that at all...he doesn't say compromise...he says "What we need is sufficient troops to contain the insurgency to a level where it is not a strategic threat to the longevity of the elected Government" He is clearly for containing the problem, just doesn't think the problem can be defeated.

I don't get where you pull this stuff from when your own articles dont say what you are trying to prove.

10-19-2008, 05:31 AM	#4
Elaltergephah Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 482 Senior Member	Well here is the the problem: Iraq may have calmed down for the moment, but at anytime the Shia's can rise up and cause us huge issues. Just today, 10's of thousands of Shia's under the Mehdi army marched on Baghdad protesting the US occupation and referendums. Worst of all, we now may have to go into talks with the Taliban because we cant win in Afghanistan. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...h-Taliban.html Even Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith said that there must be a compromise with the Taliban. "The departing commander of British forces in Afghanistan says he believes the Taliban will never be defeated. " http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4887927.ece Now, with the country of IRAN being situated between Iraq to the west and Afghanistan to the East our soldiers would be directly in harms way. You would have soldiers from IRAN flooding Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be a strategic nightmare for the US. If it was the US vs IRAN alone it wouldn't be as big of an issue, But the US against the entire middle east would be a nightmare. You articles prove NONE of that. First of all, we don't talk with Taliban EVER. We don't negotiate with terrorists and that has been our policy for the longest time. The article simply suggests that we SHOULD have talks with Taliban..but we won't. Second, a British general doesn't say that at all...he doesn't say compromise...he says "What we need is sufficient troops to contain the insurgency to a level where it is not a strategic threat to the longevity of the elected Government" He is clearly for containing the problem, just doesn't think the problem can be defeated. I don't get where you pull this stuff from when your own articles dont say what you are trying to prove.
	Quote