The NY Times runs a front-page article that describes how Iran wants to overtake the southern half of Iraq (recall Iranian infiltators) and no one takes issue with it. The NY Times calls Hakeem (sp) the number one Shia leader in Iraq and a strong affiliate of the Iranian Regime and no one takes issue with it.

But Michelle speaks to the matter and she is immediately called a kook.

Meanwhile, in other news, the U.S. has formally agreed with Israel on the partition of Iranian targets.

Tony737 on February 24, 2007 at 10:36 AM

That may be closer to the truth than any of us know.

It’s like the NAU for Iraq!

Except faintly plausible.

Given that the operative term in this case is “partition”, it would actually be the reverse of the NAU scenario. Splitting a country up, not destroying the separation with its neighbors.

Just saying…

There is no such think as a Vulcan “Death Grip.”

Duh, there is a real death grip but that’s only on the WWE.

It must suck to live in Iran. First they lose a million or so to the Iraqis during their war. Then they have to live under Sharia law. Now they’ve got their government and religious leaders leading them like lemmings over the cliff. Here’s a politically incorrect quote from Churchill way back in 1899 about the Middle East:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

nuff said

There is no such think as a Vulcan “Death Grip.”

That is illogical……

/trekkie

See what you made me do? I need to watch Star Wars to cleanse myself.

- The Cat

Unless the British include in their security sector reform strategy some basic lessons in democratic principles, Basra risks falling further under the sway of Islamic extremists and their Western-trained police enforcers.

The definition of prescient.

The US government has been fighting to keep Iraq together. It isn’t much of a conspiracy at all to say Iran is opposed to whatever we are doing and would love to partition it. That is just the facts of the world we live in prety much. What doesn’t make sense is claiming there is already a line drawn on a map and written agreements. It seems pretty nutty to claim that but even so it in no way invalidtes that Iran would try to accopmlish it.

It’s like the NAU for Iraq!
Except faintly plausible.
see-dubya on February 23, 2007 at 6:44 PM

Now apply what I just said above to the NAU it is exactly the same. It is a strawman that there are lines on a map for a NAU with Bush’s signature on it. This doesnt negate the reality on the ground and in policy. Claiming there is no proof of an actual entity called NAU and saying argument over is sticking your head in the sand. In a few years you will claim you are right that your bottled water doesnt actually say manufactured in the NAU meanwhile your tap water is pumped up from Mexico city. What a victory you were right nothing is named NAU! (fictional example obviously)

Remember that Congresswoman who had a death grip on President Bush at the SOTU, to get a picture? The insanity continues. The Big Question reports: U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann claims to know of a plan, already worked out with a……

No debate. No conflicting info. No arguing the points.

Just the usual blind mockery shoot and run.

John from WuzzaDem on February 23, 2007 at 7:14 PM

*snort*

I can’t understand why England is pulling out their troops now when they are needed the most. How will that stabilize anything?

Is the whole world ready to just give up on the middle east and let that area devolve into civil war? That would kill millions!

It’s like the NAU for Iraq!

Except faintly plausible.

see-dubya on February 23, 2007 at 6:44 PM

No debate. No conflicting info. No arguing the points.

Just the usual blind mockery shoot and run.

Iran would enter and bring those rival groups to heel, either by backing one over the others (probably SCIRI) or smashing them all itself and asserting direct Iranian control.

Perfect, Iran can flood the region with terror, weapons, and cash, inorder to set up a “state of terror”, that will train and supply terrorists in the region and throughout the world for generations, work to build, test, and deploy an atomic weapon, all the time enslaving the local populous……….

And President George W. Bush, who went to war to try to bring peace, freedom, and prosperity to an oppressed people is the bad guy………..

I get it now……

Except faintly plausible.