Home
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...to-counter-isis-boosts-presence-in-gulf/

The Obama administration reportedly is preparing to open direct talks with Iran on possibly cooperating to counter the Sunni militant force seizing large swaths of Iraq and threatening Baghdad, weighing an unlikely alliance in the face of a common foe.

Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday the administration was "open to discussions" with Tehran if they can help end the violence. He told Yahoo! News he would "not rule out anything that would be constructive."

The deliberations come as the U.S. moved more assets into the region in preparation for a possible mass evacuation of Americans. According to U.S. Navy officials, the USS Mesa Verde is moving into the Persian Gulf with about 500 Marines on board, to help in the event of an evacuation.

It is the fourth U.S. Naval vessel to move into the Gulf. The ship will join the USS George HW Bush, along with the USS Philippines Sea, a cruiser, and the USS Truxton, a destroyer. Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said the ships provide "the commander-in-chief additional options to protect American citizens and interests in Iraq, should he choose to use them."

In addition, a senior U.S. military official confirmed to Fox News that the U.S. is sending nearly 100 troops to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad to provide additional security. The embassy remains open, but the State Department already has started to "temporarily" send some embassy staff to other consulate locations in Iraq.

In the face of the growing threat to both the Iraqi government and possibly American interests, The Wall Street Journal reports that a dialogue between the U.S. and Iran on the issue of Iraq is expected to begin this week.

Both sides have publicly committed support to the beleaguered government of Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in recent days.

American and Iranian diplomats are expected to convene in Vienna Monday to begin new talks aimed at curbing Tehran's nuclear program, though it is not clear if Iraq will be discussed on the sidelines of that conference.

The possibility of the U.S. engaging Iran to aid Maliki's government received a cautious endorsement Sunday from one of the president's biggest foreign policy critics.

"Why did we deal with Stalin? Because he was not as bad as Hitler," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. said Sunday. "The Iranians can provide some assets to make sure Baghdad doesn't fall."

Other U.S. officials told the Journal that the possibility of any kind of partnership with Iran in Iraq poses the risk of further polarizing the country along sectarian lines. U.S. allies in Sunni-dominated countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan could also be alienated by the dialogue, while allies in Israel and the Middle East worry that nuclear negotiations could be complicated by the two countries working together.

Graham spoke on CNN's "State of the Union."

The New York Times reported Monday that, according to a senior administration official, the White House still believes there is a brief window for some kind of diplomatic solution. The administration reportedly still wants to see if Maliki's Shiite-led government can work with the Kurds and reach out to the Sunni minority to discuss forming a new unity government.

While the U.S. weighs how deeply to get involved, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria continues to make advances.

Sunni militants captured a town in the northwest of Iraq on Monday.

The mayor of the town of Tal Afar told the Associated Press that his town, approximately 260 miles northwest of Baghdad, was seized before dawn by fighters from ISIS. The town has a population of some 200,000 people, mostly ethnic Shiite and Sunni Turkomen. Tal Afar residents reached by phone confirmed the town's capture and spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing for their safety.

One resident who did give his name, Hadeer al-Abadi, spoke as he prepared to leave town with his family. He said that the local security force left the town before dawn, and local tribesmen who continued to fight later surrendered to the militants.

"Residents are gripped by fear and most of them have already left the town to areas held by Kurdish security forces," al-Abadi said.

The ethnic mix of Tal Afar raises the grim specter of large-scale atrocities by the Sunni militants, who already claim to have killed hundreds of Shiites in areas they captured last week.

Photos posted on a Twitter account associated with ISIS Sunday claimed to show militants carrying out a mass execution of Iraqi soldiers. The images show soldiers being loaded onto flatbed trucks and being forced to lie facedown in a ditch with their hands tied behind them before they were shot. Captions accompanying the photos boasted that as many as 1,700 soldiers had been executed in this way.

Iraq's chief military spokesman, Lieutenant General Qassim al-Moussawi, told Sky News that he believed the photographs were authentic, and said that he was aware of cases of mass murder of captured soldiers in areas held by ISIS.

"The claim by ISIS that it has massacred 1,700 Iraqi Shia air force recruits in Tikrit is horrifying and a true depiction of the bloodlust that these terrorists represent," State Department spoksewoman Jen Psaki said in a statement. "While we cannot confirm these reports, one of the primary goals of [ISIS] is to set fear into the hearts of all Iraqis and drive sectarian division among its people."


Huh...Iran must have free oil.
Holy chit

1700 cadets executed?

How many people are in this "ISIS" thing? And how has that been allowed to grow as such an overwhelming force.

I thought Obama was crowing 'mission accomplished' part deaux in 2012 stump talk. Wtf
"The New York Times reported Monday that, according to a senior administration official, the White House still believes there is a brief window for some kind of diplomatic solution."

There was a General being interviewed on TV over the weekend that basically laughed at the idea of a political solution.

How do you negotiate with terrorists that are winning?

You can't. They don't care what anybody has to say.
Originally Posted by slumlord
Holy chit

1700 cadets executed?

How many people are in this "ISIS" thing? And how has that been allowed to grow as such an overwhelming force.

I thought Obama was crowing 'mission accomplished' part deaux in 2012 stump talk. Wtf


Same faces, different acronym.
Rent-a-arab

Originally Posted by slumlord


How many people are in this "ISIS" thing? And how has that been allowed to grow as such an overwhelming force.



I think it has more to do with the Iraqi "army" being a bunch of pussies...
These "rebels" are coming out of Syria & Libya...they are the same rebels the U.S. was supporting during the "Arab Spring" uprisings. They are Al Q fighters...yes, the same ones we're fighting...the situation over there is fubar...
Originally Posted by Middlefork_Miner
These "rebels" are coming out of Syria & Libya...they are the same rebels the U.S. was supporting during the "Arab Spring" uprisings. They are Al Q fighters...yes, the same ones we're fighting...the situation over there is fubar...


who knew?
The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Anyone who thinks we need to ally with Iran needs to lay down the crack pipe.
We need to stay out of all middle eastern chit. Period!
ALL of those [bleep](kers hate us and no matter who we back we end up fighting them within the year yet we continue on expecting a different outcome.

Right now,,, all I see is mzzie's killing muzzie's and for the life of me I can't find anything wrong with that scenario.
Only thing better would be a good ol neuclear cleansing of the entire area.
Keep pouring the weapons to both sides and let them bleed out.
Originally Posted by FieldGrade
We need to stay out of all middle eastern chit. Period!
ALL of those [bleep](kers hate us and no matter who we back we end up fighting them within the year yet we continue on expecting a different outcome.

Right now,,, all I see is mzzie's killing muzzie's and for the life of me I can't find anything wrong with that scenario.
Only thing better would be a good ol neuclear cleansing of the entire area.
I'm right with ya, brother...
Originally Posted by Daveinjax
Keep pouring the weapons to both sides and let them bleed out.


That is about the only strategy I can support.
The coalition with Iran makes sense. No one in Iraq is going to get excited about US involvement. The people who need to rise up are the Shiites, and they take their religious leadership from Iran. So Iran is the only one's who will inspire them to fight. And of course, we can help with supplies, intelligence, and training.

I don't think for a minute, this means we're all buddy buddy with Iran. But it couldn't hurt to make things a little better between the US and Iran. Just like our alliance with the USSR in WWII, it's a coalition of convenience, and probably doesn't mean much more than that. To me, it makes sense and it's a smart move. If you don't have the pull, the partner with someone who does.
Originally Posted by Daveinjax
Keep pouring the weapons to both sides and let them bleed out.


What would Ronald Reagan do?
Originally Posted by Dutch
Originally Posted by Daveinjax
Keep pouring the weapons to both sides and let them bleed out.


What would Ronald Reagan do?


Glass parking lot
Originally Posted by Mink
Originally Posted by Dutch
Originally Posted by Daveinjax
Keep pouring the weapons to both sides and let them bleed out.


What would Ronald Reagan do?


Glass parking lot


actually, he made sure neither Iran nor Iraq won the war......
Originally Posted by Mink
Originally Posted by Dutch
What would Ronald Reagan do?

Glass parking lot

He did NOTHING in response to 241 American serviceman getting killed in the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing.
Like FG said, muzzies killing muzzies not a whole lot about that really bothers me. Only things these sand crickets are gonna understand is watching their sand dunes being turned into glass, then maybe they will take a second look.
Originally Posted by GunGeek
But it couldn't hurt to make things a little better between the US and Iran.


Our best long term bet in that part of the world would seem to be a more secular Iran, but I'm not expecting that much in imagination from .gov.
I think it was planned the whole time.

It's simple, 80% of Iraq is Shiite. 100% of Iran is Shiite. The PM of Iraq is Shiite. Our POTUS removed all the sanctions from Iran so they could do business on the world stage and bring outside dollars into their economy. They are now free to buy all the war materials they ever wanted.

The best thing the POTUS did to speed this up was to pull all the American military out of Iraq so the country would fall apart from sectarian violence, quicker. The ISIL sped the process up. The ISIL was a gift via the Syria civil war. Iran will now "help" Iraq fix the Sunni problem. It's just that Iran will not ever leave. We are witnessing the beginnings of the "new" Persian empire.

It's no accident.

kwg
Originally Posted by FieldGrade
We need to stay out of all middle eastern chit. Period!
ALL of those [bleep](kers hate us and no matter who we back we end up fighting them within the year yet we continue on expecting a different outcome.

Right now,,, all I see is mzzie's killing muzzie's and for the life of me I can't find anything wrong with that scenario.
Only thing better would be a good ol neuclear cleansing of the entire area.


^^^This^^^. +1000

Let's supply Israel with all the Nukes they need and let them do it right!
Originally Posted by chlinstructor


Let's supply Israel with all the Nukes they need


That occurred a long time ago.
Originally Posted by kwg020
I think it was planned the whole time.

It's simple, 80% of Iraq is Shiite. 100% of Iran is Shiite. The PM of Iraq is Shiite. Our POTUS removed all the sanctions from Iran so they could do business on the world stage and bring outside dollars into their economy. They are now free to buy all the war materials they ever wanted.

The best thing the POTUS did to speed this up was to pull all the American military out of Iraq so the country would fall apart from sectarian violence, quicker. The ISIL sped the process up. The ISIL was a gift via the Syria civil war. Iran will now "help" Iraq fix the Sunni problem. It's just that Iran will not ever leave. We are witnessing the beginnings of the "new" Persian empire.

It's no accident.

kwg


Surprisingly close, as is the assertion that your Government is up to it's neck in it.
http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...-of-iranian-efforts-to-destabilize-iraq/
So,...everybody here that's saying "We should just stay out of the middle east"
You don't think we should have retaliated after 9/11?
(talking Afghanistan not Iraq)

The problem (IMO) isn't that we're "there" or "go there", it's the ROE, and we're not allowed to FINISH the job when we ARE there.


So retaliate quietly, in the dark, when none are looking...there is no reason to spend your fortune and blood to bolster the profits of the rich.
Many on the 'fire are propaganda susceptible. That's how most of the logs on the 'fire were duped by the two Obama shills, Steve_No and RISJR, to pull Romnut rope thereby assuring Obamanation's reelection.

Going to war with Iran would be a stupid as fish head posting pics of his tampon that he took out of his mangina.
Originally Posted by SansSouci
Many on the 'fire are propaganda susceptible. That's how most of the logs on the 'fire were duped by the two Obama shills, Steve_No and RISJR, to pull Romnut rope thereby assuring Obamanation's reelection.

Going to war with Iran would be a stupid as fish head posting pics of his tampon that he took out of his mangina.
Bull. Voting for Romney did not assure Obama's re-election. The domination of academia, media and large cities by the right, assured Obama's re-election. Throw in some REALLY ineffective strategy by the right,dirty tactics and election fraud to sweeten the pot, and there you have it.
Originally Posted by chlinstructor
Originally Posted by FieldGrade
We need to stay out of all middle eastern chit. Period!
ALL of those [bleep](kers hate us and no matter who we back we end up fighting them within the year yet we continue on expecting a different outcome.

Right now,,, all I see is mzzie's killing muzzie's and for the life of me I can't find anything wrong with that scenario.
Only thing better would be a good ol neuclear cleansing of the entire area.


^^^This^^^. +1000

Let's supply Israel with all the Nukes they need and let them do it right!


Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has declared war on us. It has repeatedly spied on us. It has sold technology we gave it to our enemies. It is an apartheid country that routinely violates human rights. We dismantled apartheid South Africa yet we prop up a more vicious version of it. Israel is not a democracy. Ashkenazi Jews running Israel are not related to Biblical Israelites. Israel propagandizes Americans with our own tax dollars. Israel is the true enemy of the USA in the Middle East.

"They (the Jews) work more effectively against us, than the enemy's armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in... It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America."
***WASHINGTON, GEORGE, in Maxims of George Washington by A. A. Appleton & Co***

Other famous historical men knew of the destructive force of Ashkenazi Jews. Stupid Americans support them to the detriment of the USA.

If we had half a brain, we'd take back the nukes Eisenhower gave it. After all, Israel has God on its side. Why does it need goyim boys?
History, gentlemen, history! Did you just take shop classes?

Reagan gave battlefield intel to Sadam during his war with Iran when it looked like Iraq might lose. And he gave arms and intel to IRAN when they were losing. In both cases he did so clandestinely w/o blabbing it out in news conferences for photo ops. And he did it to stay ahead of events, not as a panicky 'do something-- anything' virtual response to events that escaped his attention during a busy politicking/vacationing schedule. Of course, he had Casey,Schultz and Wineberger to steer him and not the clown sycophants now serving.

1B
Originally Posted by benchman
Originally Posted by SansSouci
Many on the 'fire are propaganda susceptible. That's how most of the logs on the 'fire were duped by the two Obama shills, Steve_No and RISJR, to pull Romnut rope thereby assuring Obamanation's reelection.

Going to war with Iran would be a stupid as fish head posting pics of his tampon that he took out of his mangina.
Bull. Voting for Romney did not assure Obama's re-election. The domination of academia, media and large cities by the right, assured Obama's re-election. Throw in some REALLY ineffective strategy by the right,dirty tactics and election fraud to sweeten the pot, and there you have it.


Obamanation landslided Romnut. Do you really think that Romnut had even a slight chance? Why would you waste your vote on a candidate that couldn't of pulled it off with a Peterbilt?

A vote for Romnut was a wasted vote.
There is nothing in the Middle East that's worth one American soldier's life. We must close all of our foreign military bases, and bring every one of our brave soldiers home. They will protect our country and only our country. That's how our Founding Fathers intended it to be.

Our policy of intervention and democratizing the globe has resulted in many dead American boys and has been of no benefit to our country. But is has made a lot of insiders very rich.
Originally Posted by kwg020
I think it was planned the whole time.

It's simple, 80% of Iraq is Shiite. 100% of Iran is Shiite. ....

.... Iran will now "help" Iraq fix the Sunni problem. It's just that Iran will not ever leave. We are witnessing the beginnings of the "new" Persian empire.

It's no accident.

kwg


I see the Middle East being composed of 3 nations + Israel. 1 Sunni, 1 Shiite, and 1 small, more or less secular hanger-on. Perhaps run by Assad.

I don't see this as a bad thing. The 2 Islamic republics will constantly be at war with each other.

We don't have anything to lose in this case.
FUBAR, FUBAR, FUBAR!!!!!!!
Originally Posted by RufusG
Originally Posted by GunGeek
But it couldn't hurt to make things a little better between the US and Iran.


Our best long term bet in that part of the world would seem to be a more secular Iran, but I'm not expecting that much in imagination from .gov.
Agreed. But us opposing Iran only strengthens the Religious nutcases. Back when Bush was pres, Ahmadinejad would pop off and people in Iran would be unimpressed. But then Bush would then counter with threats of his own, and Ahmadinejad's dwindling popularity would take a significant upward bump. As long as Iranian's on the street see the US as a real threat, they will bolster the Caliphate to make sure they have some sort of defense. If we stop playing right into their hands, they will loose support. The majority of people in Iran are under 40 and most of them weren't around during the 1979 revolution, and have very little remembrance/connection to the Shah. So many are looking for a change, but we have to basically just get out of the way for that to happen.
Originally Posted by BarryC
Originally Posted by kwg020
I think it was planned the whole time.

It's simple, 80% of Iraq is Shiite. 100% of Iran is Shiite. ....

.... Iran will now "help" Iraq fix the Sunni problem. It's just that Iran will not ever leave. We are witnessing the beginnings of the "new" Persian empire.

It's no accident.

kwg


I see the Middle East being composed of 3 nations + Israel. 1 Sunni, 1 Shiite, and 1 small, more or less secular hanger-on. Perhaps run by Assad.

I don't see this as a bad thing. The 2 Islamic republics will constantly be at war with each other.

We don't have anything to lose in this case.


You would think so wouldn't you...the problem being that they won't stay there because some dill keeps forgetting to close the zoo gates.
Originally Posted by Dutch
Originally Posted by Daveinjax
Keep pouring the weapons to both sides and let them bleed out.


What would Ronald Reagan do?


Iran-Contra
Originally Posted by BarryC
Originally Posted by kwg020
I think it was planned the whole time.

It's simple, 80% of Iraq is Shiite. 100% of Iran is Shiite. ....

.... Iran will now "help" Iraq fix the Sunni problem. It's just that Iran will not ever leave. We are witnessing the beginnings of the "new" Persian empire.

It's no accident.

kwg


I see the Middle East being composed of 3 nations + Israel. 1 Sunni, 1 Shiite, and 1 small, more or less secular hanger-on. Perhaps run by Assad.

I don't see this as a bad thing. The 2 Islamic republics will constantly be at war with each other.

We don't have anything to lose in this case.


Wishful thinking, but I like how you think. That would be the idea scenario. Unfortunately the Sunni's and Shiites are in significant numbers in most Middle Eastern nations, so in order for that to actually happen, you have to convince millions of people with roots to a given place to play the world's larges Chinese Fire Drill. I just don't see that happening. MAYBE, they can decide to break up in to oodles of little Israel sized nations representing the pockets of people that live in each area, but even that is a long shot. The EU and the US won't even allow Somalia to break up into two nations (for what reason, I'll never know).
Originally Posted by SansSouci
Many on the 'fire are propaganda susceptible. That's how most of the logs on the 'fire were duped by the two Obama shills, Steve_No and RISJR, to pull Romnut rope thereby assuring Obamanation's reelection.

Going to war with Iran would be a stupid as fish head posting pics of his tampon that he took out of his mangina.


Stop picking on me.

You're hurting my feelings. laugh laugh laugh

How the hell did I pick up you as my follow me everywhere personal troll?

Is it man lust for my mangina? grin
The United States should have no eternal friends nor eternal enemies, just eternal interests. Think and act accordingly.
Originally Posted by GunGeek


I don't think for a minute, this means we're all buddy buddy with Iran. But it couldn't hurt to make things a little better between the US and Iran. Just like our alliance with the USSR in WWII, it's a coalition of convenience, and probably doesn't mean much more than that. To me, it makes sense and it's a smart move. If you don't have the pull, the partner with someone who does.


All it will do is buy us some time with Iran. At some point in the future after they have the controlling interest in the middle east, the west (America) will have to go to war with them. Buying some time means our grand children will be the ones who go to war with them. We are passing the buck on Iran just like the liberals are passing the buck on our national deficiet. Our grand children will have to pay the bill. kwg
The enemy of my enemy is my friend..............This week.
© 24hourcampfire