Do you think the US should ask Syria and Iran to help out in Iraq? Or Russia, China, Europe?

Answer 1

Bush likes to emulate John Wayne. Just walk into the bar and challenge anyone to a fight. Though the Duke never followed the Bush doctrine of "shoot first and ask questions later." It would be nice if Bush were forced into having more chairs at the table, but his agenda does not call for the kind of help you describe. Mayor Daly once said in Chicago, "our police are not here to prevent disorder but to preserve it." I think Bush's plan for the middle east has all along been to destabilize the region,not to make it right. The other countries you mention could all prove helpful, but that might disturb the no bid Halliburton contracts Cheney obtained for his company. We can only hope.

Answer 2

Russia and China, no. Syria and Iran, absolutely. Let's get something straight about Iran. They are not Arabs, they're Persians. For those who are not aware, Iran and Iraq fought an eight year war not all that long ago. Iran is not Iraq's ally, it just sees an opportunity to support the hatred against America. Iran is more of a threat to Iraq than we are. Bringing in those two countries along with others in the region is the only way to secure some kind of peace and allow a government to begin to take hold in Iraq. We need to try a policy of inclusion. Get as many people from different countries in the region to participate in talks. The USA has been manipulating countries and leaders in that region for years, it's time we stopped.

Answer 3

Tony Blair recently admitted a solution was probably not possible without the help of these countries. Bush has not yet gone that far, but he has expressed openness to the idea. There might actually be a final push in Iraq by U.S. forces in a last ditch attempt to control the insurgency, but even people like McNamara (Not a liberal by a long shot!) are now calling the effort lost.
Negotiating with Iran and Syria, of course, amounts to a capitulation. It basically means: OK. We were wrong about trying to decide the politics of this place. Just help us keep it stable and we'll let you gain more of a foothold in Iraq, OK? No politician will ever admit defeat, of course. Politicians aren't big on that, but what else would you call it?

Answer 4

Sure, why not? After all the country really needs regional support. US can also improve relations with Iran and Syria and hope for a more stable region.

Don't know about Russia, I heard the Putin was angry at Bush cause he blocked Russia's entry into the WTO. The Russian's were goners after the collapse of the USSR. Why should Bush be worried about Russia.

Regarding China, there is a problem of a strong Yuan, which could pose a threat to US business interests in Asia. No idea about North Korea. As a matter of fact no one knows what Kim Jong wants, even after the six party talks. Funny....

Answer 5

no
Iran and Syria Help? HOW?
their "help" would be comparable to inviting the fox into the hen house..and asking the fox what he would do ?
Russia is cash strapped and cannot afford to "lose" the income it receives from Iran forits "industrial/technical services"
China doesnt want to irritate Iran" as they want their counrty's growth to continue without having to deal with excessive oil price blackmail from iran or "terrorist "attacks..
what people forget about the mideast is that their concept of a bargain is totally different from the west...
Bargains in the mideast are and "age old" tool that is simply a manuevering game of deceit...
one bargains with smiles, promises and agreements simply to try and secure "benefits" AND time...The benefits are just the "extras" as the Time is the key to success. The time is needed and used to complete the "plans" or "traps" needed to strip the compettitor of whatever is desired (land, wealth, resources, power...)..
In the west a "bargain" is viewed as a contract between parties willing to coperate to achieve mutual success...
Iran/Syria have no desire to see anyone succeed except themselves...

Answer 6

China and Russia yes...

Many ppl seem to either not know or have forgotten that when Bush first invaded Iraq, many of these nations offered to help. It was originally thought to be a good idea because it would be international. Bush declined due to some differences in power... who was to be in ultimate control.

I have a theory that he wanted to go in unilaterally from the get-go in order to control Iraq's oil revenues and production; but irregardless, now that there is a mess, the only resolution would be that original idea of international assistance.

Answer 7

do no longer hassle! If Iran attacked Iraq, it presented an extremely good execuse for U.S. to erase its nuke centers. word: even the infantrymen in Iraq would be withdrawn, they're re-deployed into Afghan and there are consistently 2 plane distributors strike communities asserting in the gulf.

Answer 8

It cannot be done without them. There certainly cannot be a resolution to the Kurdish situation without Syrian involvement. Well, there is a Kurdish solution and it probably involves them all being killed – you want to feel for them, but it is, in part, their own fault for trusting America again.

There is no way of knowing what Bush promised the Kurds, but it does not matter because whatever it was, he will not live up to it – because he can’t – because he has destroyed America’s ability to affect anything. In case you haven’t noticed, Syria is now telling us to get out Iraq. Yet another country gets to punk us to our face, and there is nothing we can do about it because of Bush’s insane decisions and incompetence.

Bush lost Afghanistan, where the Taliban is now stronger than ever and the Afghans hate us. He has lost Iraq, where he has stranded 140,000 American soldiers in a defensive position, turned the country over to anti-American forces, and made life worse for Iraqis (who now also hate us) than it was even under Hussein. How pitiful of a job does a person have to do to be even worse at managing a little country like Iraq than Hussein?

Most of the blame, however, falls on the American people, who rolled over and gave up their rights faster than a $2 whore and let the Bush administration ruin America’s reputation that was built over 250 years – all because they were scared by one old man living in caves in the middle of nowhere. How can we expect anyone to respect us when we behave like such cowards?

Bush talks trash to every country on earth and then runs away and blames liberals (who were right about Iraq and the real war on terror all along) and punishes Americans by taking away their Constitutional rights, destroying the nations economy, and opening America to future terror attacks because we don’t have the friends we will need to gather the intelligence information necessary to stop future attacks.

Instead, he has pushed for the right to torture people, an approach that even America’s own intelligence experts say is ineffective at best, and at worst, actually counterproductive. In fact, it has only increased the danger to Americans by creating even more terrorists, making them more popular and sympathetic, and making America look like a hypocrite that is no better than those who attacked it.

If someone’s goal was to destroy America, they could not have done a better and more complete job than Bush and his little gang of neo-cretins. It took America over two centuries to become the greatest power on earth and the most benevolent superpower in the history of mankind, and it only took Bush a few years to destroy it. That is the danger when you give stupid, arrogant people real political power.

Answer 9

I don't think they should ask.

Those countries should have offered their help at the outset !!

Answer 10

They should ask India for that matter.