• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John Kerry: U.S. Open To Cooperating With Iran Over Iraq Conflict

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is willing to talk with Iran over deteriorating security conditions in Iraq and is not ruling out potential U.S.-Iranian military cooperation in stemming the advance of Sunni extremists, Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday.Kerry also said in an interview with Yahoo! News that U.S. drone strikes "may well" be an option.
Kerry said Washington is "open to discussions" with Tehran if the Iranians can help end the violence and restore confidence in the Iraqi government. Asked about possible military cooperation with Iran, Kerry said he would "not rule out anything that would be constructive." However, he stressed that any contacts with Iran would move "step-by-step."
U.S. officials said earlier there is a possibility that Undersecretary of State William Burns may discuss Iraq with an Iranian delegation at nuclear talks in Vienna.


Read more @: John Kerry: U.S. Open To Cooperating With Iran Over Iraq Conflict
 
Before John Kerry can do any talking Iran has already sent 2000 troops into Iraq.
 
Before John Kerry can do any talking Iran has already sent 2000 troops into Iraq.

I recall a saying which said it is considered rude to interupt someone who is making a mistake.

I think Iran is in the middle of making a mistake and we should consider allowing them to spend resources trying to fix a mess of their own making.
 
Last edited:
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The problem is that this conflict is 700+ years old and wont be solved by taking sides, regardless of how brutal and disgusting ISIS is. What is really needed is for the religious leaders of both sides to sit down in a locked room and figure their religious differences out... only then will the problems go away.
 
Great. Just great. Now we're going to take sides in the sectarian fight between Shiites and Sunnis. Just great. That will turn out real well I'm sure.

We could always side with the Kurds. You know, the only ones in iraq who managed to govern effectively.
 
We've been reduced to asking Iran, which wants us eliminated from existence, to solve our problems for us.
 
Great. Just great. Now we're going to take sides in the sectarian fight between Shiites and Sunnis. Just great. That will turn out real well I'm sure.

Agreed. We should know by now that there is no way we can cure a religious conflict.
 
I remember way back when there was a solution to simply divide the country into three parts. Looks like nature is taking care of that now.
 
John Kerry: U.S. Open To Cooperating With Iran Over Iraq Conflict

we should stay the hell out of it. this is also going to happen in Afghanistan in a few years. we should stay out of that, too.

Saudi Arabia is the regional hegemon, and this is their problem to solve.
 
we should stay the hell out of it. this is also going to happen in Afghanistan in a few years. we should stay out of that, too.

Saudi Arabia is the regional hegemon, and this is their problem to solve.

Just hire the mercenaries from the US. Problem solved. You can hire the public or private ones.
 
We've been reduced to asking Iran, which wants us eliminated from existence, to solve our problems for us.

Which part of this is "our problem?"
 
This unique turn of events sure makes for strange bed partners.

I was watching today on televison that Iraqi men, young and old, 12 to 80, were climbing up on to trucks to go fight these extremists, as fast as the trucks could load them. Yet, their armed military runs away? Quite the contrast, hey?

That is puzzling.

I think we all can agree, Americans and even those nitwit Iranians, that this Iraq/Extremist invasion is bad for the whole world stage of economics, no matter where the politics lie. Probably the first thing in decades the world has reached a similar consensus on.

What also puzzles me is this. Moscow is about 1584 miles from Baghdad. Beijing about 3907 miles away from Baghdad and Washington, D.C. is about 6142 miles away. Twice as far as China. About 4 times further away than Russia. Tell me again why it is OUR (United States,) responsibility to be the world cop on this flare-up?
 
we should stay the hell out of it. this is also going to happen in Afghanistan in a few years. we should stay out of that, too.

Saudi Arabia is the regional hegemon, and this is their problem to solve.

Which part of this is "our problem?"

This unique turn of events sure makes for strange bed partners.

I was watching today on televison that Iraqi men, young and old, 12 to 80, were climbing up on to trucks to go fight these extremists, as fast as the trucks could load them. Yet, their armed military runs away? Quite the contrast, hey?

That is puzzling.

I think we all can agree, Americans and even those nitwit Iranians, that this Iraq/Extremist invasion is bad for the whole world stage of economics, no matter where the politics lie. Probably the first thing in decades the world has reached a similar consensus on.

What also puzzles me is this. Moscow is about 1584 miles from Baghdad. Beijing about 3907 miles away from Baghdad and Washington, D.C. is about 6142 miles away. Twice as far as China. About 4 times further away than Russia. Tell me again why it is OUR (United States,) responsibility to be the world cop on this flare-up?

This is "our problem" due to the patently obvious danger to our interests of an al-Qaeda-esque militant group seizing control of large swaths of a country we once occupied, including its capital city. The last time we let such extremists take over a country, they managed to launch a terrorist attack against us from that nation (although, to be fair, the Iraqi situation is not directly comparable to Afghanistan).
 
This is "our problem" due to the patently obvious danger to our interests of an al-Qaeda-esque militant group seizing control of large swaths of a country we once occupied, including its capital city. The last time we let such extremists take over a country, they managed to launch a terrorist attack against us from that nation (although, to be fair, the Iraqi situation is not directly comparable to Afghanistan).

as the regional hegemon, it's Saudi Arabia's responsibility, as it would be our problem if this happened in Mexico.

if it becomes necessary for the world to intervene, then the world, including and especially Europe, needs to assemble a force capable of intervention.

if we do get involved, wartime tax rates need to go into effect, as well. whenever we enter a conflict, we need to pay for it. tax rates should increase significantly for all brackets during time of war.
 
as the regional hegemon, it's Saudi Arabia's responsibility, as it would be our problem if this happened in Mexico.
In a world where all regional hegemons shared the same goals and abilities, or where we did not have so much skin in the game, I would support this. However, Saudi Arabia's relationship with ISIS and Iraq is starkly different from ours, and it would be against our interests (as well as those of the people of Iraq) to allow Riyadh to handle the crisis.
if it becomes necessary for the world to intervene, then the world, including and especially Europe, needs to assemble a force capable of intervention.
Again, this is only possible in a perfect world. For the time being, if we want something done right, we must do it ourselves.

In fact, though, we almost never act alone. Aside from minor skirmishes and non-combatant assistance, we appear not to have acted outside of a coalition since 1958.
if we do get involved, wartime tax rates need to go into effect, as well. whenever we enter a conflict, we need to pay for it. tax rates should increase significantly for all brackets during time of war.

I would say that such policy would limit our ability to act in American or humanitarian interests. I agree, however, that the public should care more about our interventions and their consequences - for better or worse.
 
Great. Just great. Now we're going to take sides in the sectarian fight between Shiites and Sunnis. Just great. That will turn out real well I'm sure.

The options really aren't all that attractive. Iraq falls into the hands of people who are crazier than the mullahs. They turn it into another Somalia - only this one is right smack in the middle of oil fields that keep the world working. What then? Gas prices so high we figure out ways to move timber on bicycles. However, imagine it doesn't get to that extent and they just get to a level of... let's say... regional power. That's a regional power who hates the Iranians, Israelis, Jordanians, Saudis and Egyptians far more than we hate any of those countries. Yeah, this isn't looking like something we'll have much of an option on.
 
we should stay the hell out of it. this is also going to happen in Afghanistan in a few years. we should stay out of that, too.

Saudi Arabia is the regional hegemon, and this is their problem to solve.

Staying out of it brought us WW2 and 9/11. We can strafe them now, or we can sent troops later.

The solution is to order some airstrikes to support the Iraqi Army. That time to do that is slipping away fast.
 
We've been reduced to asking Iran, which wants us eliminated from existence, to solve our problems for us.

Well, that's one weird way of seeing things. Iranians for the most part love America. Hell, Iranian Americans are some of the most well integrated people in our society. So.... what Iran are you talking about?
 
In a world where all regional hegemons shared the same goals and abilities, or where we did not have so much skin in the game, I would support this. However, Saudi Arabia's relationship with ISIS and Iraq is starkly different from ours, and it would be against our interests (as well as those of the people of Iraq) to allow Riyadh to handle the crisis.

Again, this is only possible in a perfect world. For the time being, if we want something done right, we must do it ourselves.

In fact, though, we almost never act alone. Aside from minor skirmishes and non-combatant assistance, we appear not to have acted outside of a coalition since 1958.


I would say that such policy would limit our ability to act in American or humanitarian interests. I agree, however, that the public should care more about our interventions and their consequences - for better or worse.

if it important enough to go to war, the entire western world participates equally, and taxes go up significantly here at home to pay for it.
 
if it important enough to go to war, the entire western world participates equally, and taxes go up significantly here at home to pay for it.

Sorry to break it to you but those two things just ain't gonna happen. They will not happen because the US has made itself the 'indispensable power' that so many people like to tout and our European allies (virtually all of whom are in NATO, in which the military might comes mainly from the US) don't have large militaries and so would not be able to participate on a level equal to ours. With regards to taxes, pretty much no one in Congress wants to increase taxes as the political capital just isn't there, if someone were to propose a tax increase, it definitely wouldn't look good and with November elections right around the corner, it definitely isn't a good time to test the political waters.
 
Sorry to break it to you but those two things just ain't gonna happen. They will not happen because the US has made itself the 'indispensable power' that so many people like to tout and our European allies (virtually all of whom are in NATO, in which the military might comes mainly from the US) don't have large militaries and so would not be able to participate on a level equal to ours. With regards to taxes, pretty much no one in Congress wants to increase taxes as the political capital just isn't there, if someone were to propose a tax increase, it definitely wouldn't look good and with November elections right around the corner, it definitely isn't a good time to test the political waters.

if internationally shared responsibility and actually paying for these police actions "just ain't gonna happen," then count me as a no vote. i'm not convinced that we can stabilize an entire region anyway, and it would probably require long term occupation. perhaps Saudi Arabia should assemble a military and give it a try instead.
 
Back
Top Bottom