America Negotiating With Shia' Terrorists

[*Arabman]

Lt. Col. Rick Francona is pissed off and deeply disappointed in his government. He can't fathom why his government is negotiating with the Shia' terrorists. To add insult (or salt) to the injury, his government negotiated on Memorial day, a sacred day honoring those who died in military service. FYI, Iran is in the top list of state sponsors of international terrorism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timing of Iran talks insulting to troops
Why are we meeting with the people responsible for killing Americans?

By Lt. Col. Rick Francona
Military analyst
MSNBC
Updated: 4:00 p.m. ET May 29, 2007

On May 28 –- Memorial Day –- U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker sat down with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad for the first official talks between the two countries in over two and a half decades.

Mr. President, what were you thinking? While you are visiting Arlington National Cemetery honoring America’s fallen warriors, your ambassador is sitting down with the representative of a pariah regime that has American blood on its hands – including the blood of those same warriors we remember on that holiday.

An American diplomat meeting with the likes of Hassan Kazemi Qomi on any day is problematic, but to do so on Memorial Day is an insult to anyone who has ever worn a uniform. Kazemi is a former member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force, the Iranian special forces group that is involved in the training and arming of Iraqi Shia militias, particularly the jaysh al-mahdi (Mahdi Army) of radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The Iranian-supplied weapons include the explosively-formed penetrator used in roadside bombs that have killed over 100 U.S. soldiers. Of course, the Iranian ambassador denied any support to the Shia militias – what did you expect him to say?

Why are we meeting with the people responsible for killing our troops? I know why the Iranians want to meet with us. Anytime a pariah nation like Iran can convince the United States – the only remaining superpower – to meet as equals, it bestows legitimacy on that regime and provides a platform for hurling insults veiled as diplomacy. It also sends a chilling message to the moderate, Western-aligned Gulf Arab nations, as well as Jordan and Egypt, that Iran is fast becoming “the” power broker in the Persian Gulf. An American ambassador meeting with an Iranian ambassador seems to underscore that status, something Iran has been seeking for a long time.

During the meeting, Kazemi offered his country’s assistance to train and equip the Iraqi army and police. This is great: the organization responsible for supporting some of the worst violence in Iraq – sectarian fighting between the Sunni and Shia Muslims – is going to come in and solve the problem? To be sure, they just might “solve” the problem, but do we really want that kind of solution? Do we really want Shia-dominated security and military forces imposing Iranian values on the entire country?

Let’s remember who we are talking about – the Iranians. These are the people that created Hezbollah in Lebanon, seized the American embassy in Tehran, took American diplomats hostage, murdered Marine Lt Col Rich Higgins and CIA officer Bill Buckley, continue to support a variety of terrorist organizations – Hamas and Islamic Jihad included –- and are pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Not exactly the best recommendation for potential negotiators.

However, Mr. President, if you absolutely insist on talking to –- and I mean talking “to” not “with” –- the Iranians, start acting like the leader of a superpower instead of treating these thugs as equals. I do agree with your position that any talks should be limited to the security situation in Iraq.

Here are suggested talking points: Stop providing weapons and training to Iraqi militias. You can deny it, but here’s a news flash -- we don’t believe you! You have American blood on your hands and we will no longer tolerate it. Your diplomatically-protected facilities in Iraq are nothing more than operating locations for the Qods Force. That has to stop -– either you stop it or we will.

Say it, mean it, then do it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924629/

[michael_ital]

The height of hypocrisy. Here is a man crying about the "American blood on the hands" of Iran, when in fact no one has more blood on their hands than the Americans. I think it looks good on them.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Poor Rick, he needs lessons on the real world, instead of the fantasy one he lives in. Given that he and I share the same rank, I find it hard to believe he hasn't learned a little more in his service time than this. The boy hasn't done his homework. He should start with reading Machiavelli's The Prince, because this book lays out how the world in the 21st century works. Insightful guy, that Machiavelli.

Sooner or latter we are going to have to start working with the Iranians. Yes, their Íslamic shitheads. Yes, they are state sponsors of terrorism. But since we don't feel like destroying their country, the only other viable option is to talk with them. This is how life works.

Ian Paisley said he would never negoatiate with terrorists. Well, Sinn Fein was a terrorist organization and the only way to defeat it was co-opt it. Now they are governing Northern Ireland together.

Welcome to the Real World Rick. It ain't an MTV show.

[Grant]

Check the Stratfor article I just posted in Current Events.

[*Arabman]

[But since we don't feel like destroying their country, the only other viable option is to talk with them.]

You, I and others know you can't destroy Iran. That's impossible.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Ahab
Don't be foolish. It would be childs play to destroy Iran. Ten MIRVs would effecitively detroy the place as a political and social entity. The question isn't could we, but is the squeeze worth the juice.

The problem with you, is you WANT to see political Islam advance, so you see the world in this light. If enemies of political Islam have strengths, you wish them away. Just as you did in December, when YOU TOLD ME that the ICU would defeat the TFG in short order, that the Tigray's would be swept aside, that a khalif was about to be established in the horn and that there was nothing we could do about it. You were full of shit then, and you are full of shit now. You subordinate your intellect, such as it is, to your faith. That is why what you say and predict has ZERO credibility. You NEVER get it right.

[*Arabman]

[It would be childs play to destroy Iran. Ten MIRVs would effecitively detroy the place as a political and social entity. The question isn't could we, but is the squeeze worth the juice.]

It's impossible for America to destroy Iran. Why? Because America failed to destroy an undersized and underclassed enemy in the Iraqi insurgency.

[Just as you did in December, when YOU TOLD ME that the ICU would defeat the TFG in short order, that the Tigray's would be swept aside, that a khalif was about to be established in the horn and that there was nothing we could do about it. You were full of shit then, and you are full of shit now.]

I was away from Somalinet for almost a year. I wasn't here in December. Your intelligence and memory is failing and becoming incompetent.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"It's impossible for America to destroy Iran. Why? Because America failed to destroy an undersized and underclassed enemy in the Iraqi insurgency."

This is absolutely flawed logic. First of all, it would have been possible to destroy the insurgency had we been willing to kill all of the Iraqis, which we could have done. This technique worked for Ghengis Khan. Secondly, there is a huge difference between dstroying a state as a functional entity and trying to herd the cats of insurgency. Are you saying that Iran as a state would survive an attack by ten MIRVs over it's key cities? You're living in a fantasy.

"I was away from Somalinet for almost a year. I wasn't here in December. Your intelligence and memory is failing and becoming incompetent."

Bullshit. YOU said the ICU would win and there was nothing we could do about it. You know it and I know it.

[Gedo_Boy]

MAD MAC,

Is the US willing to tolerate a nuclear Tehran?

If not, where is the line drawn?

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

That's a tough call. The US is not prepared to attack Iran right now. Neither is Europe. Of course, Iran claims that nukes are not in the offing, but they are lying. Still, nukes are a funny thing, because you can't really use them. No one wants to cross the rubicon. My sense is that the Bush administration is not going to take any action on the nuke issue, and the other states concerned can't. So it will slide until the 08 election, and then slide some more.

[*Arabman]

[First of all, it would have been possible to destroy the insurgency had we been willing to kill all of the Iraqis, which we could have done.]

Wouldas, shouldas, couldas, etc. Since it's impossible to destroy the Iraqi insurgency, you can only dream about destroying Iran. You need lessons on the real world, instead of the fantasy one you live in. I find it hard to believe you haven't learned a little more in your service time than this. You haven't done your homework. I have known you to be an incompetent low ranking officer; you haven't changed one bit.

[Are you saying that Iran as a state would survive an attack by ten MIRVs over it's key cities?]

That's not. What I am saying is, it's impossible for the US to destroy Iran. The US is soft, gutless and lacks the means to destroy Iran, whether with MIRVs or other means. You have aroused my curiosity about your ability to make rational analyses. This is a test; supposing those MIRVs succeeded (big IF) to destroy Iran, make an analysis of the fallout.

[Bullshit. YOU said the ICU would win and there was nothing we could do about it. You know it and I know it.]

Your intelligence and memory are failing. You lack evidence proving if I wrote topics/comments in December, let alone what I wrote.