Evidently, the current hot topic in the right scream machine is Barack Obama's foreign policy proposals, particularly his willingness to discuss issues with Syria and particularly Iran.

Evidently, the idea of talking to ones enemies is anathema to the radical right, and therefore we must continue to parctice the arrogant "talk to the hand" brand of non diplomacy advocated by people like George W, Bush, John Bolton and John McCain.

Evidently, hard core conservatives have a little trouble recognizing that this approach has been disasterous for us over the last eight years.

We tried bullying and bluster with North Korea. They responded by reactiviating their nuclear program and building a bomb.

Iran is in ths same position now.

Iran knows that the United States isn't going to start another war.

We have no army to fight it with. They also know that a well placed shoulder lauched missile fired in the Straits of Hormuz will shut the oil spigot off, and drive the price of oil past $200 in a week.

Beyond that, there is the obvious double standard implicit in the conservative rants.

Aminidijhad has said all sorts of over the top things about wiping Isreal off the map and so forth.Most of this, of course, is posturing for his domestic and regional audience.

And, like most posturing, it makes little sense.

But, it doesn't take much digging to fin a host of American politicians saying equally over the top things about Iran.

In the world, both sides are seen as purveyors of ridiculous extremist rhetoric.

And, given the fact that the local media of both countries would rather pander to these distractions than discuss real policy issues, the rhetoric rules the collective consience.

There is real issue, though.

It has been a truism for a couple of years now that the US started a war in Iraq, and Iran won.

The last two months have brought that reality into sharp focus.

In February, an offensive by Iraqi goverment forces in Basra collapsed almost the day it was launched, and descended into a shooting war between the Mahdi Army and recalcitrant Iraqi forces. IT did not help things when we learned that this offensive was actually the brain child of Gen Petraeus, even though the US goverment went out of its way to misrepresent their imvolvement.

What was important was that the crisis was diffused by Iran, specifically by the Iranian Kuds forces.

They did what 160,000 US tropps couldn't do.

The pattern repeated itself in Satr City this month.

Very little is being said about that in the US.

But it is now clear that the US is on its way out of Iraq, and the struggle over the end game is now on, with Iran very much in a dominant position.

We have everything to gain, and nothing to lose by claiming a seat at the table at this point.

Talk to the hand politics destabalized the Middle East, emboldened terrorists, strenghtened Iran, and drove the price of oil through the roof.

We can certainly do better.

I am not saying do not talk to Iran, but I am saying talking to rogue or evil empires in the past is either futile or a false sense of security. How many treaties did the Soviet Union completely ignore and do as they pleased? The only times they backed down was as a result of military threat in Cuba and in Germany during Reagan’s term. How well would Hitler or Tojo have responded to direct talks? How well has Israel done over the last century trying to have peace talks with their neighbors? IOW, it is not that obvious what to do.

why not learn how OBMA got his name from his dad? His Daughter Malia from Mali-- And of his Roots in Mandinka islamic conversions under veil of hate white instead of Arrabic slav traders who sent his here to sow their royal oats in polygamist uncensored Freedom Tower restructurings for global change trades with their seeded Feminists!

hmmm

Mandinka in literature

One well-known Mandinka is Kunta Kinte, a main figure in Alex Haley's book Roots and a subsequent TV mini-series. Haley claimed he was descended from Kinte, though this familial link has been criticised by many professional historians and at least one genealogist as highly improbable (see D. Wright's The World And A Very Small Place). Martin R. Delany, a radical 19th century abolitionist in the United States, was of partial Mandinka descent.

Mr. T, of American television fame, once claimed that his distinctive hairstyle was modeled after a Mandinka warrior that he saw in National Geographic magazine.

<link>

Today, over 99% of Mandinka people are Muslim and follow the teachings of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, and the Qu'ran, the holy book of Islam. The contents of the holy Qu'ran are written in both Arabic and English. Thus, for those who don't speak Arabic, there is an English translation next to each passage. Many Mandinka have learned Arabic over the centuries, due to the free education of higher learning, taught in Arabic, offered by the University of Timbuktu since the 11th century. This is one of the many glories of the Mandinka people. They have a rich history of scholarship, culture, innovation and great wealth. Mandinkas pray five times every day. Praying in a group signifies the solidarity of Islam. Complete strangers will stand shoulder-to-shoulder, praying together in a line.Christianity

Like many Muslims, Mandinkas believe that the Christian Bible has become corrupted because it contradicts the Qu'ran and the sayings of Mohammed. The few Mandinkas who have converted to Christianity are viewed as traitors to Mandinka society, to their heritage, and to their ancestors and they are sometimes rejected by family members.

Spiritual beliefs

During the 1800 Islam was introduced to the Mandinka people. Today the Mandinka still practice Islam but have infused much of their own culture into the religion. For example, a Mandinka may practice salat, Islamic prayer five times a day to Allah, but may also recognize and even sacrifice to a village god or spirit

The Kora

According to "the Kora" (2002) (2002), “the Kora (CORE-uh) has become the hallmark of traditional Mandinka musicians.” Kora (2002) describes that the kora with its 21 strings is made from half a calabash, “covered with cowshed fastened on by decorative tacks.” The kora has sound holes in the side which are used to store coins offered to the praise singers, in appreciation of their performance. The praise singers are called “jalibaa” in Mandinka. "The Kora" (2002) says that “as the kora is played, it begins to take on a life of its own and it is believed that the singer and the instrument become one.” According to "the Kora" (2002) , the kora was traditionally used as “storage for historical facts, to memorize the genealogy of patron families and sing their praises, to act as messengers and intermediaries in disputes between families, to serve as guardians of traditional culture, and to entertain.” Today, however, the kora is losing its importance. "The Kora" (2002) says that although it is a skill passed down from father to son, it is primarily used to entertain people, most especially tourists.

<link>

Jihad (Arabic: جهاد‎ IPA: [ ʤi'haːd]), an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, Jihad means "strive" or "struggle". Jihad appears frequently in the Qur'an and common usage as the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".[1][2] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid, the plural is mujahideen.

A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this Islamic duty as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status.[3] In Twelver Shi'a Islam, however, Jihad is one of the 10 Practices of the Religion.

According to scholar John Esposito, Jihad requires Muslims to "struggle in the way of God" or "to struggle to improve one's self and/or society."[3][4] Jihad is directed against the devil's inducements, aspects of one's own self, or against a visible enemy.[1][5] The four major categories of jihad that are recognized are Jihad against one's own self (Jihad al-Nafs), Jihad of the tongue (Jihad al-lisan), Jihad of the hand (Jihad al-yad), and Jihad of the sword (Jihad as-sayf).[5] Islamic jurisprudence focuses on regulating the conditions and practice of Jihad as-sayf, the only form of warfare permissible under Islamic law, and thus the term Jihad is usually used in fiqh manuals in reference to military combat.[6][5]

Actually, the Russians backed down in Berlin in 1949.

They backed down in Cuba under military treat, but there was little credible military threat to the USSR in the 1980's that hadn't already existed. Conservative like to credit Reagan for bringing down the Soviet Union, but Micheal Gorbachev has as much or more to do with it than Reagan did. Had Yuri Andropov lived, this history of the 1980's would have been markedly different.

There is little evidence that Iran is an evil empire comparable to Tojo's Japan or Hitler's Germany.

Iran has always had an inferiority complex about its place on the world stage. That was evident in the way the Shah strutted around and spent huge sums glorifying himself and linking himself to Persia.

Right now, Iran has been moving quietly to fill the power vacuum that the US created in teh Middle East when it chose to start a war there.

IT was clear even before the war started that the Bush adminstration didn't know what it was doing, and that this would create a vacuum and opportunities for nearly all the major political factions.

The Sunnis, and the Sunni kingdom of Saudi Arabia was in the weakest position.

Hussein had been an American vassel for nearly 20 years before he threw over his traces and invaded Kuwait.

During the 1990's he was allowed to stay in power, under US imposed sanctions and a no-fly zone. Essentially, he was an exile in his own country.

This had the effect of preserving the regional balance of power between the Sunnis and the Shia.

Bush shattered that.

Ahmed Chalabi saw that rigth away, and began manueuvering with the Iranians as early as 2004.

He is not our friend or our representative.

It is clear from the most casual review of America's current stand in Iraq (regardless of which Presidential candidate you prefer) that America's withdrawal from Iraq is inevitable, and that we will be in no position to seriously influence the outcome.

The US is at the end of the material resources it can devote to the fight, and despite Mr McCain's rhetoric, at the end of its political will as well.

Bush will still be president for another eight months. He has effectively been a lame duck for months now.

Iran sees this, and it's about time we did too.

Altamont, How well as Israel done when they sit down and actually negotiate with their enemies? They have been at peace with Eygpt since 1978, after Jimmy Carter mediated the Camp David Accords. That's thirty years without an attack from one of their bitterest foes. Have they negotiated with others with the same honesty and willingness to compromise? I don't think so. it's been their way or no way since then.

Reagan had less to do with the collapse of the USSR than Afghanistan and it's drain on Soviet military and the Soviets bankrupting their country trying to control it. Much like Iraq is doing to the USA right now.

When was the last time,(not counting the economical attack we are now experiencing) China attacked the US after Nixon went there to "talk" to them?

How many treaties has the USA signed then ignored when we decided that it was in our interests to do so? Talking to your enemies is not the same as surrendering to their demands.

I am in no position to argue with you and I tend to agree with a lot of your opinions. Tomorrow I may try to seek you down on some other thread and respond in kind. Thanks.

jammer:

Altamont, How well as Israel done when they sit down and actually negotiate with their enemies? They have been at peace with Eygpt since 1978, after Jimmy Carter mediated the Camp David Accords. That's thirty years without an attack from one of their bitterest foes. Have they negotiated with others with the same honesty and willingness to compromise? I don't think so. it's been their way or no way since then.

Reagan had less to do with the collapse of the USSR than Afghanistan and it's drain on Soviet military and the Soviets bankrupting their country trying to control it. Much like Iraq is doing to the USA right now.

When was the last time,(not counting the economical attack we are now experiencing) China attacked the US after Nixon went there to "talk" to them?

How many treaties has the USA signed then ignored when we decided that it was in our interests to do so? Talking to your enemies is not the same as surrendering to their demands.

I agree it is not the same and I actually am not opposed in many cases. Iran however does seem to be hyper radical on the Islamic world thoughts or death to the infidels and they are very much involved in training the most extreme terrorists to carry out their dirty work.

I disagree on Israel. Israel is willing to accept peace at almost any cost, meanwhile I see no sincer attempt by any arab neighbor to be as willing.

China I simply do not trust, a godless communist regime has never brought anything but sorrow to its own people and its neighbors.