Dec 25 2006
Iranians Caught Fighting In Iraq
For the naive, like James Baker and the Iraq Surrender Group [H/T Rush Limbaugh], the concept of negotiating with Iran to achieve a political solution in Iraq has just become a political disaster. What Democrat will demand we negotiate with the enemy now that the US has caught Iranians striving to kill Americans in Iraq? What totally idiotic Democrat will call for America to talk to the very people who are out to kill us? Sadly most of them will continue their suicidal plans, with only a few like Joe Lieberman who will know better than to treat the killers of our people as some magical allies in peace. The Chamberlain force runs strong on the left, so they will not see the danger of their ways.
What ever the President does, informed by the joint chiefs, intel community etc. the dems will suggest any alternative, regardless of the consequences. They are pathetic.
This is no surprise. We have long known the Iranians were making mischief in Iraq. They have sent IEDs over the border. We intercepted some of these shipments. Their goal, alfter all, is to get us out of the ME and they don’t care how they do it. How anyone can put any credence in these Iranians? They think it is moral to lie to infidels.
They want to add the Shiite portion of Iraq to their country for their oil. You never hear the lefties talk about this but they sure were vocal about Bush going to war In Iraq for oil. I want to know the justification for all that talk. Where is this famous oil?
I wonder if the news in this article will make the MSN? I doubt it. It does not fit their agenda.
Oh, isn’t this just peachy:
So I suppose any mention of sanctions should be put into quotes as in “sanctions”. Sanctions that don’t hurt commecial contacts aren’t really sanctions are they?
Simply worry that nearly all of the past Sec State Mamals have been apologists….. Some before, some during and Most after office…
You must negotiate with your enemies. In this case
particularly because they hold the best cards.
Barbara
I agree Iran has as much right to be in Iraq as America–none.
Shorter Crosspatch
America has a right to stage economically-motivated
invasions but Russia has no right to make economically-oriented political decisions.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061223/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_skilled_snipers
Don’t know if you can go to this , but a detailed AP piece wherein US snipersin Iraq admit the opposition snipers are coming in from all over the Mideast and outgunning and demoralizing the former is worthwhile reading. The war cannot be won.
Over at Strata’s recommended Glittering Eye
a “freedom fighter” is finally catching on.
Iraq’s new “democracy” is an ally of Iran, on the
subject of which I have corrected your esteemed
AJ whenever he praised it’s existence as a sign of “progress,”and its need for US help in stabilizing.
Seems like these Iranians were there with the
Iraqis’ approval, wonders be!
Two of the Iranians were there with the Iraqis approval and were released to the Iraqis. The other two are still in custody.
Here is another issue I have been trying to point out for some time.
Crosspatch
If what you are saying is true then the annexation of the Shia portion of Iraq by Iran would not only be desirable but a neccessity for Iranian status quo survival. I felt that Iran wanted this oil for the income but did not realize they needed it.
Iran has made a move that does not sit well with the United States. The move I am sure came as a result of the Iraq Study Group and the emphasis on negotiating with Iran. This emphasis has led Iran to make the same mistake that Iraq made back in November of 2000.
Vol XXIX NO. 274 Tuesday 19th December 2006
Gulf Daily News
Iran to replace dollar with euro for deals
Published: 19th December 2006
TEHRAN: Iran yesterday announced it has ordered the central bank to use euros for foreign transactions and transform the state’s dollar-denominated assets held abroad into the single European currency.”The government has ordered the central bank to replace the dollar with the euro to limit the problems of the executive organs in commercial transactions,” government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters.
“We will also employ this change for Iranian assets (in dollars) held abroad.” Elham implied that the move would apply to oil revenues from the world’s number four crude producer, although it remains to be seen how this would be received by the market.
“Foreign income sources and oil revenues will be calculated in euros and we will receive them in euros in order to put an end to our dependence on the dollar,” Elham said.
SBD
SBD
Hmmmm. Some wags say this change to Euros was what got Saddam
gone (though his Baathists remain firmly in defiant stalemate with the
invader). You hinting Bush will attempt to destroy Iran too?
Actually, the Europeans aren’t all that happy with the measure either. Their currency has been gaining strength with the dollar. It will make Iranian oil more expensive for them. As the dollar fell relative to the euro, oil bacame cheaper for them. This move will cause a greater demand for euros and push it up relative to other currrencies. That will make all other oil sold in dollars cheaper than Iranian oil and will result in Iran scrambling for customers when the euro is strong (dollar valued oil cheaper).
It is aimed more at Europe than it is against us. Overall it will probably backfire on Iran. They are cutting off their nose to spite their face, as they have repeatedly shown they are willing to do. Overall, this will simply hasten the economic collapse of Iran.
Also, this should take some wind out of the sails of the Saddamist insurgents. They might raise a little hell right after Saddam hangs, but once that is done, they have to consider what to do going forward and once Saddam is dead, there is no way to restore him to power, so the chances that some will want to rejoin the political process increase.
Oops, wrong thread!
Crosspatch
Read juancole.com today on the ten biggest Iraq War myths and
settle down. It’s hopeless.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16361120/
Israel just made things worse for America in the Mideast but what do they care?
How exactly would an Israeli settlement on the West Bank make things worse for the US? And what would you care? You seem most pleased about anything that would be negative for the US anywhere in the world in any context whatsoever. But in this case, your attempt to connect anything negative to the US falls flat because we are likely to oppose this thereby giving us an opportunity to look like the good guy. We have been opposed to Israeli settlements before and will probably continue to be opposed to any new ones.