(2006-11-21) — In advance of this weekend’s historic summit, Iran and Syria today offered to protect Iraq from foreign terrorists trying to foment civil war.
Iranian president, and presumptive Nobel Peace Prize winner, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, “I have compassion on our brother, Iraq, who sits defenseless as terrorists pour across his borders from the east and the west.”
Under the terms of a draft accord, Iran and Syria would station their troops in 250-mile wide demilitarized zones within “what is now considered Iraqi territory in order to carefully watch for foreign terrorists trying to destabilize this sovereign nation.”
In related news, President Ahmadinejad said Iran has no intention of invading the Sudetenland.
23 responses so far ↓
1 JamesonLewis3rd // Nov 21, 2006 at 8:04 am
God Bless America
2 JamesonLewis3rd // Nov 21, 2006 at 8:05 am
“Iran, Syria Offer to Guard Iraq from Terrorists”
Too funny.
3 conserve-a-tips // Nov 21, 2006 at 8:20 am
Giggle - I just had this picture of a fox looking to his right and his left outside of a henhouse.
Perhaps we need Ahm-a-durn-nutjob to make a fanfare visit to Congress in order to instruct it on how to get a fence along the border with Mexico.
4 Ms RightWing, Ink // Nov 21, 2006 at 8:24 am
It is getting to be a mess over in Iraq already and the Democrats aren’t even in power until January
5 MargeinMI // Nov 21, 2006 at 8:32 am
Is this the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ I’ve heard so much about?
Mornin’ all!
6 Darthmeister // Nov 21, 2006 at 8:32 am
Maxwell Smart: “So, it’s the ol’ fox guarding the hen house, eh Chief?”
7 Darthmeister // Nov 21, 2006 at 8:33 am
DemDonk Agenda: Draft Gays
8 Gideon // Nov 21, 2006 at 8:51 am
Not funny. Too true to be funny! Especially the part about Ahmadinejad winning the Nobel Prize. Scary.
9 Fred Sinclair // Nov 21, 2006 at 8:52 am
b/f last thread:
Kofi Annan - where was he in the roaring twenties, when we needed him? He could have advised the Chicago police (and Elliot Ness of course) to make nice with the Chicago gangs and enlist their help in stamping out illegal booze and beer in all of Chicago!! WoW! What a plan!
Sounds like his current plan for Iraq.
Heirborn Ranger
10 conserve-a-tips // Nov 21, 2006 at 8:52 am
I heard about this book today on the morning news. Among the findings:
*The average conservative makes 6% less then the average liberal.
*Conservatives give 30% more of their earnings to charity then do liberals.
*Conservatives are also more generous in other ways, such as blood donations, and volunteer work. In fact, if liberals gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45%.
You can read the rest of the findings at the review site.
11 gafisher // Nov 21, 2006 at 9:06 am
“…trying to foment civil war.”
See, that’s the problem with the mideast. All good revolutions (and Reformations) are plotted over properly aged beverages, forbidden to these benighted sons of the desert. Less fomenting, more fermenting, that’s the answer.
12 MargeinMI // Nov 21, 2006 at 9:10 am
Oh, I think they’ve been fermenting there for quite a while (about 1200 years). They just ‘brew’ in their hatred.
[Ooooooooh Beerme. Where are you?]
13 Maggie // Nov 21, 2006 at 9:19 am
These Iranian madmen are already “fomenting ” at the mouth.
14 Maggie // Nov 21, 2006 at 9:22 am
Oops…..forgot to wish everyone a ‘Good Morning’!
(and a special hello to MargeinMI)
15 sturat // Nov 21, 2006 at 9:22 am
What? There are terrorists in Iraq?
When did that happen???
The LSM propaganda wing of the Donkey party have been trying to convince us for 3 years that there aren’t any terrorists in Iraq, that’s why we don’t need any troops there.
Did I miss something? Maybe Bush didn’t lie after all?
There are insurgents, kidnappers, extortionists, murderers, political operatives, and every other term in the thesaurus, but you won’t catch Katy Couric, bless her perky little heart, use the “T” word relating to Iraq.
Of course, since we all now know that there really aren’t any terrorists in Iraq, the job for Iran and Syria is quite meaningless.
16 seneuba // Nov 21, 2006 at 9:34 am
Oh c’mon! There is no way that a terrorist would ever win the Noble Piece Price. NO WAY!
One would think that Yassir Babyfat would win it before I-m-in-a-bad-mood would.
Oh, wait! He already did win it!
Lord, have mercy on us all.
17 Darthmeister // Nov 21, 2006 at 9:38 am
Welcome to bizarro, world, seneuba. Where else can a political party of a free nation consider it a reaffirmation of their party platform when terrorist states and organizations applaud their winning?
18 RedPepper // Nov 21, 2006 at 9:56 am
Ahmadinejad and Assad would like to protect Iraq from foreign terrorists.
Of course, Ahmadinejad and Assad believe that George W. Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world.
Hmmm …
19 MargeinMI // Nov 21, 2006 at 9:58 am
Why, my brother-in-law told me just the other day that the quagmire in Iraq doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with the War on Terrorism. Sheesh, I thought that was common knowledge! [Shaking head in disbelief]
20 nylecoj // Nov 21, 2006 at 10:14 am
Have any of you looked at the forum section? It is kind of nifty.
21 onlineanalyst // Nov 21, 2006 at 7:26 pm
I propose that we call it the Iraq Front in the War on Islamofascistic Terrorism.
22 bystander // Nov 21, 2006 at 11:24 pm
“It is getting to be a mess over in Iraq already and the Democrats aren’t even in power until January”
Kind of tough to blame the mess on the Dems Ms Right Wing when Bush started it, albeit with some serious great fibs (err, trying to be polite).
23 Pros and Cons » The Ultimate Foreign Minister - Updated to take the latest Gemayel assasination into consideration. // Nov 22, 2006 at 4:10 pm
[...] We might even succeed in toppling it simply by taking out it’s pitifully small oil refining capability. Doing such a thing would at least cripple it’s ability to provide for it’s dependents in the Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere, much less hold down it’s own restless population. Don’t forget that Tehran’s writ travels less far than Baghdad’s does in it’s own country. Can we still afford to think Syria and Iran want to “talk” after this, the latest in a string of murders? Iraq the Model correctly says the Syrians are “not so much” interested in talking and neither are their masters in Tehran. Bombing, invading, or blockading (as I argued at some length last year), Iran may be our best bet if we cannot more completely subvert it from within. Our alternatives seem to me consist of a decision to lie back and do our best to get past it and hope the problem resolves itself (or someone else resolves it for us), or at least denuclearize and chasten, maybe topple, Tehran ourselves. For those like our own Dr. Steven Taylor, Poliblogger, who in all seriousness, think Iraq with it’s small expenditures and remarkably low loss of life is “a clear failure”, I respond by asking if a nuclear Iran being punished only after using it’s nuke (I do not think Iran can be deterred once it is nuclear, as I am convinced that the mullahs believe their own propaganda) is not far worse. Iraq is not much of a stretch by even Cold War standards. We are fighting an ideological conflict much like the Cold War here. The decrease in support for combat operations abroad has much to do with how little sense of direct threat most of our citizens feel at this point, which is good. Further, as I argue above, we need not commit to a functioning Iran the way we had to in Sunni dominated Iraq, bordered as it is by Syria, Palestinians (in Jordan), Iran and Saudi Arabia. If Pakistan, India, Russia and the House of Saud want to fight it out over the new order in Iran, I’ll refer them to how well that worked for everyone in Afghanistan, except, again, as I mentioned above, Iran won’t be proving much of a threat to us nor Europe in the meanwhile, cf Kurdistan, now a rare regional bright spot. As for Iraq, Tehran out of the way will mean an end to probably half the supplies going to the Shiite and Sunni problems we face in Iraq as well. It’s not as though Damascus has the resources to project force out of itself without Iranian cash. As for their threats to the Persian Gulf and especially the Straights of Hormuz, well, we’ve fought that war a coupe of times since the 1980s already and did rather well. I doubt the third time will be the charm for Iran’s Navy or Air Force, though their rocketry will obviously present a serious problem, but not an insurmountable one. As for the continuing Iraq problem (it’s an annoyance, not an existential threat, and it is decidedly not a catastrophe, especially by regional standards though it could become very, very bad indeed should we decide to lose the war), this guy has the right idea. UPDATE II: This updated link is provided just to prove one can always laugh at a situation. [...]
You must log in to post a comment.