You want your country to get paved over? We got no problem with wall-to-wall blacktop as far as the eye can see from Baghdad to Kabul. Just bring it. We'll supply the can of Whoopass, and open it all over y'all.
Posted on 04/25/2002 5:05:35 PM PDT by Bronco Buster
Iranian President Mohammad Khatami left for the republic of Kazakhstan after the summit of the Caspian countries In Ashkhabad. Khatami and his Kazakh counterpart Nursultan Nazarbayev discussed issues of economic cooperation between the two countries. Khatami paid attention to the serious subject of the presence of American troops in Central Asia: in Uzbekistan and in Kyrgyzstan.
Iran’s president said that the presence of the American army in the Central Asian republics was “humiliating for our countries, which have their own right to solve their problems independently and determine what is good and what is bad for them.”
President Khatami believes that such actions on the part of the USA infringe upon the sovereign rights of a nation and lead to drastic reactions in response, which sometimes takes the form of terrorism.
However, Kazakh president did not comment on the subject. Nazarbayev did not either condemn or support the statements from the president of Iran. No wonder: US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is scheduled to arrive in the republic of Kazakhstan this weekend; therefore, it is needless to mention that Nursultan Nazarbayev would not like to overshadow the beginning of Rumsfeld's visit with the support of anti-American statements from the Iranian leader.
We should mention one more aspect. President Khatami is considered to be almost a "liberal" politician in the West, who is open for dialogue with politicians of all countries. However, it is not likely that the European countries will understand Khatami’s words that justified terrorism against the United States (not to mention the USA itself).
However, one should not wait for anything else from the president of Iran. Washington is not likely to achieve any kind of mutual understanding with Tehran after all those “axis of evil” statements. Khatami did not limit himself with the criticism of the US military presence in Central Asia. The Iranian leader called upon the government of Kazakhstan to support the project of building a pipeline that will reach the terminals of the Persian Gulf via the territory of Iran.
“I think that owing to the wise politics of esteemed President Nazarbayev, we will soon witness the construction of a new pipeline via the territory of Iran," – Khatami stated. "This is the most reliable, cheapest, and shortest way to transport oil.”
As it is known, there exists another oil project: the pipeline from Baku (the capital of Azerbaijan) to the Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan. Americans are very active lobbyists of this project, but its implementation has been delayed several times due to the unstable political situation in the Caucasian region. This project does not have a successful future of its realization in the nearest future, and Kazakhstan might not support Khatami’s offer, although Nazarbayev announced Kazakhstan’s interest in diversification with the help of oil deliveries to the international market. The Kazakh president added that Kazakhstan’s transporting abilities would be enough until 2010.
On the whole, it is too early to say that Iran and Kazakhstan will establish close economic and political cooperation. Kazakhstan really wants to develop relations with the USA. It is not hard to guess what reaction Washington will have if Kazakhstan and Iran start building an oil pipeline. This project will be possible to realize only after the USA and Iran find a common language, which is not likely in the nearest future.
Translated by Dmitry Sudakov
The Persians are bracketed, and they know it. They'll be our 'new' best-friends.
Iraq is toast! Stay well and vigilant, kids, and figure it out!.........FRegards
Bernard Lewis is a middle-east expert and author. He opines that in Iraq and Iran, the governments are against the US, but the citizens would be pro-US, given the chance to freely select a government.
So if you accept that, which I'm willing to consider possible, it argues for the US to support changes in governments, over there. It seems a worthwhile strategy, and saves a lot of bombs, for any later, necessary use.
Bush told us it would take a long time. Our war isn't against Iraqi and Iranian civilians; but with radical islamist terrorists, their supporters, and dictators like Saddam.
We need to pick them off, through supporting government overthrows, clever diplomacy, economic deals with mutual benefits, and failing the above, with loud explosions. It will be wise to not open too many fronts, all at once.
Keep me on your ping list for this info Shermy. I'm trying to collect all the pieces of the anti-American puzzle. Thanks.
Oh my God, that would make me so happy.... please tell me where you read/heard this??
I don't see why. What does the one thing have to do with the other? Oh, we can pretend it does, and kowtow to fundamentalists and leftists.... but why?
'Til what?
I say we go with CIA-led assassinations of troublesome dictators (each one followed by strong denials on the part of administration, of course.)
Zogby is certainly in the propaganda business
Now, after all these years, still a good reason to neutron bomb them even further back into the stone age.
I don't hate the mideast. The region is very beautiful and resource rich. unfortunately it's infested with mohammedans.
God I pray that you'll bring the mohammedans to their senses, reveal the truth to them and save them.
God Save America (Please)
Arabs and Pershians think of us as the Junited States of America. We are their enemy and they are at war. We had better get serious.
You want your country to get paved over? We got no problem with wall-to-wall blacktop as far as the eye can see from Baghdad to Kabul. Just bring it. We'll supply the can of Whoopass, and open it all over y'all.
I'm not so sure the khatami is that big. Yes, he was implicated in arms shipments to hamas and arafart, but does he have the capability to sustain a terrorist regime on the order of the taliban? Two factors still run counter to this: the shiite/sunni split, whatever that's about, and a west-leaning population, reported recently (don't recall the source). It would seem hard to opperate a terrorist program in this setting.
Of course the arms shipment makes me wonder. Can somebody cite some articles showing further Iranian involvement? It wouldn't be the first time I've altered my opinion here.
These Islamic thugs who used boys to clear mine fields in their war against Iraq started this current anti America/hate America/kill Americans back in 1970 when no balls Carter was playing like a president!
Erase these murdering thugs and let the good Iranians who fled from Iran return and restore democracy instead of a bunch of Islamic Nazi Fundamentalists.
Make these murdering thugs the first target in the next round of ridding the world of the Islamic garbage leaders. Take them out, bag them and place them on the curb for garbage pickup. It should take about 5-10 hours. There will be such a massive uprising when the head thugs disappear in a big bang. It will be quick, brutal and close to 3 decades of these thugs will be cleansed by the Iranians with a little help for us!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.