Discarded: Should the U.S. pursue regional diplomacy, including direct talks with Iran and Syria?

per comments

I'll throw something up for Syria seperately.  There's a lot of evidence out there on should we negotiate with Iran and Syria when it comes to Iraq though.  Everyone is packaging them in together because the study group did. 

I agree with Jacki.

we already have an issue up on direct talks with iran.  throw one up re: syria.

i'm not sure what we mean by "regional diplomacy".  i want to be very specific about which nations the U.S. should or should not talk to; otherwise it's impossible to collect evidence.

The debate is Syria and Iran that's the thing. 

"Should the U.S. pursue diplomacy throughout the Middle East including direct talks with Syria and Iran?"

Well, I'm implying the entire region and making sure it includes Iran and Syria because those are the two biggies Dubya doesn't want to sit down with. The recommendation calls for talks with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, etc. etc. "throughout the Middle East?"

i think we need to include In the Middle East after diplomacy

Good, good. Comma after "diplomacy."

Proposal: If we are going to have issues that are specifically drawn from the language of the ISG report, should we create a new subtopic for them?

This is a good question.

Great question. Direct; is not asking for a solution to iraq problem, just whether this be one of the strategies, something i think an equal number of people will say 'no' to b/c opens path to US concessions to iran/syria in exchange for their help.

It's a good and direct question. I like it.

I think this is the best formulation, and it's timely. Go with it!

i like this, but will people say, "yes, of course, but not just that..."

I'm going strictly off of what the Iraq Study group is going to propose for evidence purposes.  We now have Iraq Study group up as an organization, so I felt we should try and incorporate some of their recommendations without becoming redundant for evidence.