Iran deals two blows to U.S. at oil talks

[lovuian]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/708044.html

DOHA - Iran struck two blows against the United States yesterday - closing in on a gas deal with Pakistan and India that Washington opposes and promising non-U.S. oil customers to keep its exports flowing.

Iranian Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri made the announcement at talks between the world's energy producers and consumers aimed at bringing down oil prices from a record 75 euros a barrel - their highest level in real terms for 25 years.



snip...


Asked to respond to speculation Iran could redirect exports to customers that were sympathetic to its cause, Vaziri said: "We will continue to meet our obligations to all our customers."

He and Pakistan's oil minister also told Reuters that Iran, India and Pakistan were close to signing a 7 billion euro gas pipeline deal in defiance of U.S. pressure.
more...
Iran India and Pakistan... why am I not surprised... India takes our jobs and screws Bush... ya gotta love it...

[HuffleClaw]

1. good for them!

the GALL of them, selling BUSH'S oil to other people!

[last1standing]

3. I wouldn't cheer this move.

The fact that bush's* incompetence has lead other nations to disrespect the US and could soon lead to a theocratic, extremist state having nuclear weaponry is nothing to be happy about. This scares me very much and I'm afraid of what the bushista's will do in order to save face and retain control over the oil supply.

[radfringe]

8. I agree

Iran's saber rattling is feeding into the bush fear machine.

9-11 and terrorists are still looming in the back of all our minds. Wouldn't take much to push public opinion over the edge and demand Iran be invaded.

expected bush blather: linking Iran with gas prices, and framing this latest move a terrorist hostage situation - i.e. Iran is holding oil hostage in order to cripple our country. They may not be attacking with bombs, but holding oil hostage does just as much damage to the economy....

[5X]

9. "...a theocratic, extremist state having nuclear weaponry..." What?

We have had them for a long time.

[last1standing]

22. But we're only recently a theocratic, extremist state.

I'm truly hoping beyond hope that situation is reversed soon.

[fshrink]

37. Since WW2,

we probably are the nation that has been the cause, direct or indirect, of the most deaths on this planet. As to theocratic, just read a banknote.

[last1standing]

41. I can't argue with your point, but I don't think we were AS extreme....

then as Iran is now. Also, the late '60's and '70's did give us a time of moderate moderation (if that's an allowable statement. LOL) as did bits of the '90's. It only really now that it's gotten so insane that to even question religion in politics is considered "anti-American".

Even so, we're not OFFICIALLY a one religion state as yet. I can still confess to being a Deist without being jailed or stoned (of course for how long is another questions).

[Tight_rope]

58. Yeah...how ironic...sounds like what we have here in the US.

[leesa]

13. Actually Iran is acting quite mainstream, wouldn't you say?

They are attempting to drive down oil prices and they are practicing business with friendlier countries who are not threatening them all the time. I think that your conclusion of their behaving as extremists is off-base.

[last1standing]

17. I was referring to India and Pakistan's contempt the US....

Which should be more important to them than it's relationship with Iran,so no, I don't think my conclusion is off-base at all.

It's all well and good to enjoy the failures of bush* as he has so richly deserved them, but I think it's rather short sighted to revel in a deal that features two of our "allies" completing a deal with the current number one "enemy" of the US is silly if not contemptable. Whether you like bush* or not - and I don't - this is still the country we live in and I don't want to see it weakened if at all possible. We'll have a competent, intelligent, president in the white house again one day and I'd like to see him/her have a chance at regaining the respect of the rest of the world. Therefore, I refuse to delight in things like this which hurt this country far more than they will ever hurt the bushistas.

[ShortnFiery]

19. It was the bushistas that "brought this on"

The rest of the world is scared shitless on which sovereign nation we will choose to invade next. It is their distinct lack of (disdain for) diplomacy that has made us the most feared and hated nation in the world community.

It's only when these deluded and warmongering neo-conservatives are out of power positions can we have ANY HOPE of re-establishing thoughtful trade negotiations with others.

If results like these above will help to force these PNAC-AEI ghouls out of power, then it's much better than allowing them to MAKE US nuke a non-nuclear sovereign state.

No, this is good news for it's another Reality-Check that An American Empire will not be realized in the 21st Century.

[last1standing]

20. The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.

Nowhere did I say anything other than the PNACers and the bushistas caused this whole mess, but I'm not willing to cheer the actions that will hurt our country and the world just to knock bush's* approval ratings down another two points. For that matter, it's likely that this is playing right into the hands of this bloodthirsty crowd and responses like yours only help them marginalize anyone who doesn't want war as the "America-hating fringe".

It's about time some people on this board started to realize that we're going to have a mess to clean up in a few years. I'd like to have the smallest mess possible.

[ShortnFiery]

24. Nobody's having a Mardi Gras here ... it's being noted so that

it can be brought to the attention of our pathetically lazy and/or frightened Corporate News Media.

I suggest that you take a step back from sentiments seemingly bordering on Nationalistic fervor? I love this country as much as you, but NOTING the faults of our leadership does not equate to cheering *'s drop in the poll ratings more because he and his INSANE neo-con handlers are trashing this country.

That is patriotic, not chiding us for noting the faults of this administration. :patriot:

* I submit that the above trade deals are a result of POOR to NONEXISTENT diplomatic relationships around the world, i.e., how can you defend the indefensible.

[last1standing]

25. I think that's the very first time I've ever been called a patriot.

I'm all for pointing out the faults of this administration and have done so in just about every post I've ever made, and I've not chided anyone here for doing so. What I have a problem with is the cheering and glee I'm seeing from a few posters over the fact that long term damage has been done to the country I have to live in (it's not so easy to move to another country as you might think). You can call it pragmatism, or realism, or even selfishness, but never patriotism. I'll reserve that for the nutjobs who think that "God has somehow blessed this land above all others".

And yes, to say "Good for them" when India has just made a deal that weakens and embarrasses the US (note: not the bushistas) does equate to cheering.

[ShortnFiery]

27. Use the Ignore Button - this is not a monolithic board like FR n/t

[last1standing]

29. You could use it as well.

It's not a monolithic board and I've not told anyone to shut up. I've expressed my opinions and listened to others without trying to tell them to stop expressing them. Are you not able to do the same?

[ShortnFiery]

31. Cool! No, I think you choose to lecture but if you enjoy that

That's cool too! I understand your M.O. and will let you go forth and conquer. :-)

[last1standing]

35. It's a message board - we ALL like to lecture.

It's the only thing we have to show how intelligent we are to everyone else. But I'm not looking to conquer here, I just wanted to express my views as clearly as possible - and yes, lecture a little, just as you did when you responded to my post. You see, I understand your M.O. as well :P

[ShortnFiery]

39. OK ... we've reached an agreement ... of sorts ... cheers eom

[last1standing]

40. LOL! Yes, it's an agreement and no hard feelings.

We're all in this together, my friend.

[ShortnFiery]

42. That we are ... thank you for giving me an alternative angle n/t

[Sterling]

62. I feel the same.

Hell I think Bush and co were in on 9-11 and I am still worried about Iran. They are not mutually exclusive. Iran in my view is a very volatile and dangerous society and should not be allowed to have nukes

[Psephos]

44. Actually, Iran is hoping for *higher* prices

Ahmadinejad said so himself last week.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12417998/

To which I say thanks, asshole, on behalf of poor people everywhere.

Peace.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

14. There's only one country with nuclear weapons that I currently fear....

....and that's us, the USA. Just in case you haven't noticed, we're also pretty close to being a "theocratic, extremist state", and we have thousands of nuclear weapons. We also have a fascist lunatic who can make the final decision about lanching a nuclear attack anywhere in the world.

Oh, and by the way, Iran won't have any nuclear weapons until they're capable of developing them in about 10 years.

[last1standing]

18. Ten years isn't very long at all, you know.

If in 10 years Iran has nuclear weaponry, I'll be 47. I'd like to live a bit longer than that if you don't mind.

As for countries that I fear having the bomb, I'm scared shitless by all of them, Isreal, North Korea, Pakistan,Ukraine, Belarus and the US most of all. Do we really need to add another extremist state to that list?

I find it amazing how often I see posts that seem to support anyone but the US here. bush* is not the US, he is merely the temporary leader of it, and as such will one day be gone. I'd like there to be a country worth running after that point, wouldn't you?

[ronnie624]

21. I don't care if Iran has nuclear weapons or not.

Iran has neither invaded nor attacked another country unprovoked. In addition, Iran has never threatened the U.S. in any manner therefore are your fears baseless and irrational.

There are far more important matters to concern myself with than being taken by anxiety over the possibility of Iran having nuclear weapons in ten years or so.

[last1standing]

23. Iran has never threatened the US? Where have you been?

Iran has threatened us nearly every day since they took those hostages back in '79. Did you somehow miss that? Have you never heard any of their leaders speak? I am honestly stunned by your statements as they have no basis in reality.

Look, if you want to support Iran over the US that's your business, but don't try to imply that Iran isn't a danger if provided nuclear technology. That's just insane.

[ShortnFiery]

26. Hello? We are NOT America Haters ...

We love America and most of us are Americans.

However, it's this Administrations policies that have set the climate to create such alliances.

Again, have you not notices that the rest of the world is scared shitless of what we might do next.

I want My Country to regain it's moral compass, that is not subversive by any stretch of the imagination. It's The Policies that are trashing this country - it's directly related to Our Executive branch and their PNAC - AEI handlers.

[last1standing]

28. Hello? back! I didn't call anyone America Haters.

I said that's the line the bushista's will use. Thanks for putting words in my mouth, though. I don't think anyone here hates America, I think that some people are having trouble understanding the difference between this administration and the country as a whole.

To be clear, I agree with what you're saying about the PNACers. I don't agree that we should cheer when the US is weakened and I don't think its wise to dismiss Iran as a threat if provided nuclear weapons.

[ShortnFiery]

30. Please consider - stop worrying over what "some people" might do ...

This is, as I understand it, Democratic Underground, NOT a one flavor fits all for patriotism, Message Board.

The Right Wing Spin machine will chug along and USE anything that will suit it's goal. Any organization that uses a few comments from a HUGE message board community to characterize the rest of it's members is already being intellectually dishonest.

Many people are way beyond me (a good thing) in wishing to discuss the details of many political happenings. We share different views.

Please just consider taking a step back because there will always be folks whose views you consider disconcerting? I've been there and it's not worth lecturing us over ... really, you can't change people but that IGNORE button comes in handy when you've had enough. :hi:

[last1standing]

33. The sad thing is we agree at heart.

Maybe you got the wrong impression of what I was saying and I got the wrong impression of yours. I don't see the need for any of us to use the ignore button as we're not flinging personal insults, just heated debate and there's nothing wrong with that.

In the end, I think we're both good progressives who are very concerned over what happens to this country and the world. I just think that some people here are forgetting that USA does not equal GWB. It's a difference that I hope others throughout the world understand.

[ShortnFiery]

36. Point well taken ... we are not in disagreement. eom

[Media_Lies_Daily]

34. If the only way to keep another country from attacking you is to...

...threaten them on a frequent basis, I would do it without blinking an eye.

I'm honestly stunned that anyone continues to believe anything coming out of the U. S. mainstream media, or planted in the media of other countries.

Do you not see the repeated pattern here?

If you want to support the NeoCon Junta over the rightful U. S. governmental system, feel free.

[last1standing]

38. So you really think Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton wanted to attack Iran?

Just because someone feels threatened doesn't mean there's really a threat in existance. And once again, I have in no place expressed support for the NeoCons. But if you have to build up a strawman arguement in order to have something to attack then feel free, I suppose.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

52. I was part of Operation Gallant Knight in 1980, a plan that became....

...the forerunner of Desert Storm. Gallant Knight outlined a full-scale attack on Iran using all branches of the service. The idea behind the attack was to rescue the hostages held in Tehran, secure the major oil fields in southwestern Iran, and to destroy as much of Iran's military as possible.

The trickiest part of the plan, IMHO, involved the the use of large air transports to fly the Marine Amphibious Force into the port city of Bandar Abbas north of the Straits of Hormuz, and marry up those units with the tanks and other heavy equipment being brought up from Diego Garcia on the pre-positioned ships. None of us on the Marine Amphibious Force Staff felt very confident about our part of the plan.

During our simulations held at Ft. Bragg we used a hypothetical that the old Soviet Union would enact a 1923 treaty with Iran that stated that should one be attacked the other would come to their defense. During every single simulation, with the exception of one, we lost the conflict involving the "Soviet invades" hypothetical. The only scenario that allowed us to reach a draw was the one using tactical nukes. Upon hearing the results of the Gallant Knight simulations, especially the nuke option, Carter called off the invasion...but it was a very close call.

Was our threat to attack Iran a real one? Ask anyone involved in the planning of Gallant Knight, particularly those of us that participated in the simulations at Ft. Bragg, and ask them what they think.

As far as your comment about the idea of Clinton attacking Iran, my thinking is that if he turned down a request to attack Iraq in the 1997-1998 timeframe, he sure as heck wasn't going to attack Iran...an option I don't believe was ever on anyone's table.

PNAC and those who formed PNAC, were pushing to attack Iraq long before 1997 when they strongly recommended to Clinton that he pursue that option. Clinton refused to consider that recommendation.

Currently, the NeoCon Junta has several sovereign nations in their crosshairs, to include Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and eventually China. If those countries don't think they're being threatened, then I submit that they're not paying attention.

[ronnie624]

45. Do you have something a little more substantive

than empty claims and insults? A link or two perhaps quoting threats against the United States by Iranian leaders?

[last1standing]

46. I'm sorry, but you must be joking.

Please say you are.

I'm not about to go find a link to prove that the current regime in Iran took many US citizens as hostages in 1979. Neither am I going to do so to show you that Iran has indeed threatened the US repeatedly over the years. Maybe you haven't been reading here at DU where they've been posted many times in the last couple of weeks. I don't know.

As for insults, I haven't insulted anyone as I'm very careful about that. I've expressed my shock and disappointment at some of the posts here, and I've made it very clear that I think some of the opinions in this particular thread, such are yours, are downright ludicrous, but I've been completely factual and have not disparaged anyone as a person.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say or prove with your post but it really doesn't make sense based on known fact or what I've previously posted.

Once again, though, I'm hoping it was a joke that I just didn't get. :shrug:

[ronnie624]

47. In my post

I stated that Iran had never attacked anyone unprovoked and that they had never threatened the U.S. I also stated that excessive anxiety (induced by government and corporate propaganda) over the potential development of nuclear weapons by Iran in ten years is irrational. What specifically do you find "ludicrous" about these indisputable facts?

[last1standing]

48. Is kidnapping not an attack?

If it's not an attack, is it not at least a threat? Why do you keep glossing over one of the most well publicized events of the let 20th century? 52 American hostages were taken captive on November 4th, 1979 and held for 444 days. How is this not a threat? How is this not an attack? Please explain what you're talking about here because I just don't get it.

In other words, this is SPECIFICALLY what I find ludicrous about your "indisputable facts": They're not facts, their fantasy. I'm really sorry to have to be this blunt, but there is just no actual truth in your statements. I'm not even sure how you can think that anyone here would believe that kidnapping 52 Americans does not constitute an act of aggression. Once again, I am stunned.

[ronnie624]

49. What I am "talking about here" is:

It is irrational to be gripped with such intensive fear of Iran because they have never attacked nor threatened the U.S. Indeed, Iran does not have the ability to pose any kind of threat to the United States.

You have yet to provide a link that proves this statement incorrect.

As you seem intent on carping endlessly about hostages, here is an interesting BBC interview of one of the hostage takers, who was a student, as were they all. Obviously the Iranian government was not involved, so that rules out that incident as being a threat against the United States by Iran.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3978523.stm>

[last1standing]

50. Your own link proves you completely wrong. Did you even read it?

According your your own link, Ebrahim Asgharzadeh was one of the masterminds behind the takeover of the US embassy. He says:

Our only concern was that this move would be opposed by the Revolution's leader, but when we took over the embassy, everything changed within a few hours.

The leader supported us and many groups of people came to the embassy to express their support, in a way that the future events went out of our control.

Then Former US hostage Bruce Laingen says:

We have had a lot of contact in the sense that we had a launched a major judicial class action suit against the government of Iran for what they did to us.

There are no quotes by either person (the only two interviewed in the article you link to) that in any way back up your fantasy that they had nothing to do with it.

I also have a problem with the fact that you seem to be pro-Iran and anti-American. This country isn't perfect and it's leaders are sometimes crooked and/or incompetent just like any other country, but it has a long way to go before I root for it's destruction at the hands of a theocratic, terror supporting state. I'll even go so far as to say that given the choice of living in the US under bush* or living in Iran under Ahmadinejad, I'll take here every time. And its not patriotism, or fear, or media manipulation, or any of the other bullshit excuses to knock my opinions I've read here today that influences my decision. It's the fact that as bad as things have gotten, I can still post any non-threatening statement I want about bush* and his cronies here at DU and not be locked up or shot. It's because I can go visit my gay or Jewish friends and not have to go to a jail or cemetery to do so. It's because we still have some fundamental freedoms here that would never be allowed under the current Iranian regime. It's because you can post something as flagrantly outrageous as you have and not fear reprisal. If you don't understand the subtle differences in our governments and society then I suggest you do some more reading. Maybe then the next time you post a link you won't contradict yourself so blatantly.

[ronnie624]

53. The quotes you provided

do not prove that the Iranian government was involved in the taking of the hostages (although I do believe it is possible the hostage takers were acting as proxies for the government). There is no doubt in my mind that the U.S. was using their embassy to conduct covert operations against the new Iranian regime. The history of U.S. involvement in Iran should be quite well known to anyone who frequents DU. Do the Iranian people not have a right to live as a sovereign nation, conducting their own political and economic affairs without interference from the U.S.?

But this whole issue is completely irrelevant to your fear of Iran and your claim that the country is a threat to the U.S. which is what I addressed in my initial post to you. I can only assume by the barely coherent blather of your last post that you have no intention of providing links to support your claim. Similarly, I assume you will not further address your stark raving terror of a relatively small, weak country thousands of miles away that has neither attacked nor threatened the U.S. and indeed does not possess the ability to do so.

[last1standing]

59. You can't argue with an ostrich.

It'll just put it's head in the sand and think every things okay. You just keep thinking that Iran is a peace loving country that just wants to develop nuclear energy to offset the vast reserves of oil they currently possess, and I'll keep going with my "stark raving terror of a relatively small, weak country thousands of miles away that has neither attacked nor threatened the U.S. and indeed does not possess the ability to do so." I mean unless Iran is right next to us and has a multi-billion dollar defense budget, there's no way they could sponsor terrorists, smuggle in a nuclear bomb, or conspire to slow oil shipments to the US. Nope, it's all just my "barely coherent blather", it could never really happen.

While we're at it, I suppose we should learn to accept Belarus, Ukraine, Syria, North Korea, and Sudan because they're just peace loving states that would never dream of hurting us or any of their neighbors. :sarcasm:

I'm still stunned and amazed that this conversation even took place, but I'm done with it now. I admit defeat. There's no point in discussion with someone who refuses to even say hello to Mr. Reality, so put in your last word, ronnie and enjoy it.

[ronnie624]

60. Ahh. I believe I understand now.

You have been completely and utterly snookered by the propaganda that is designed to support the fictitious "war on terror", the purpose of which is to mask the effort by the U.S. to re-establish a powerful military presence in the Middle East thereby taking possession of a significant portion of the worlds remaining oil reserves.

You made reference to PNAC in an earlier post. Surely you realize that the current propaganda campaign as well as the the potential military strikes against Iran are a part of the agenda outlined within the PNAC documents. How is it that you are so easily bamboozled?

[Tempest]

2. Talk about screwing Bush over

Bush makes a nuclear deal with India that is beneficial only to India, and then they go right around and make this deal against Bush's wishes.

If Bush's angry tirades in the WH are true, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near there in the next couple of days.

[0007]

7. Who's gonna be hopping pissed over this one?

[Oversea Visitor]

4. World

Trying best to show him line drawn in sand
Cannot scream it out
BUT LINE THERE ..... DO NOT CROSS.

[Ghost Dog]

5. No, no. This seems to be Haaretz fact-twisting propaganda

"promising non-U.S. oil customers to keep its exports flowing" is surely bullshit. As the Haaretz article itself says: "Asked to respond to speculation Iran could redirect exports to customers that were sympathetic to its cause, Vaziri said: "We will continue to meet our obligations to all our customers.""

Repeat, "all our customers".

As Reuters reported yesterday (Saturday): http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-04-22T182259Z_01_L22588162_RTRUKOC_0_UK-NUCLEAR-IRAN.xml

Iran eases oil supply fears
Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:23 PM BST10
By Alireza Ronaghi

TEHRAN (Reuters) - OPEC heavyweight Iran said on Saturday that it would not disrupt its oil exports as a weapon in its nuclear dispute with the West.

Fears that Tehran, the world's fourth biggest oil exporter, could cut back its crude oil exports or disrupt energy shipments from the Gulf have helped drive oil prices to record highs above $75 a barrel in recent days.

<snip>

Some Iranian officials have in the past suggested Tehran may use oil as a weapon in the dispute.

But Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri said on Saturday Iran's oil supplies would not be disrupted.

"We strongly believe there is no reason for sanctions but in any case we will not cut our oil exports," the minister told Reuters on the sidelines of an energy forum in Doha.

<snip>

He also quashed speculation that Iran could redirect exports to customers that were sympathetic to its cause. Iran ships most of its crude to the Far East while the majority of supplies to Europe goes to France, Italy, Spain, Greece and Turkey.

"We will continue to meet our obligations to all of our customers," Vaziri said.

/more... (also on possible enrichment deal with Russia "no new progress")...

Also, why should moving towards a commercial trade/pipeline deal with WTO members Pakistan and India be talked up as a blow against the US?

[Ghost Dog]

6. A bit more on the pipeline deal here:

Iran-India gas link deal seen in June
Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:32 AM BST13
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-04-23T073229Z_01_VAT000020_RTRUKOC_0_UK-ENERGY-IRAN-INDIA-PAKISTAN.xml

DOHA (Reuters)

<snip>

Indian Oil Minister Murli Deora also said on Sunday a June signing was likely and that he was impatient for progress on the project first mooted more than a decade ago.

"These things have taken so much time. We are all three parties sincerely dedicated to this project," he told Reuters.

Progress has been slow because of hostility between India and Pakistan and, more recently, U.S. opposition to Iran because of its nuclear programme.

When asked about U.S. pressure, Pakistan's energy minister said: "That's the (Pakistan) president's problem. I'm the energy minister. I must take care of energy needs."

The pipeline through Pakistan would link Iran's abundant gas reserves, the world's second biggest, to India's booming economy and it would carry 150 million cubic metres per day of gas for 25 years, Vaziri said.

/more...

[mmonk]

11. Such a move to "redirect" would not benefit Iran

and won't be done. As far as oil resourcs and dollar ties, that could erode, but Iran isn't going to limit it's customers.

[Minnesota Libra]

10. Know your enemies weak points and use them nt

[lovuian]

12. India making deals with Iran and now we are giving nuclear

technology to India... I see plans within plans!!!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

15. Both India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons without....

...the assistance of the U. S. If they want to help Iran with their nuclear program, they don't need U. S. nuclear technology to do it.

[ShortnFiery]

16. Yeah, but is India gifting Iran those precious shipments of mangos?!?

[entanglement]

51. The Senate is yet to approve the nuclear technology

deal, so nothing's been given as yet.

[Ready2Snap]

32. It's not the deal - it's the medium

No one has seems to have noticed that the impending 7 billion deal is in EUROS not $.
The Haaretz article also described the current price/bbl. in Euros.

Given the delicate position of the dollar in the world market,
making the Euro the staple of world trade could potentially cripple the US economy.

Back in 2002, Hussein wanted to make deals with the EU for oil contracts based also on Euros,
which went pretty much unnoticed by US media,
but which Bushco was dead set against and added full
to their reasoning to invade Iraq.

[NYC]

43. Was the deal made in Euros, or only quoted in Euros?

I can't really tell from the article. U.S. articles always quote dollars, even if they put the foreign currency in parentheses -- or the other way around.

I wonder. Anyway, good catch. Important.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. They also got the oil price in Euros wrong

It's 75 dollars; which is about 60 Euros. Don't read too much into an inaccurate article. When I follow the link, the last 2 paragraphs I see are:

He and Pakistan's oil minister also told Reuters that Iran, India and Pakistan were close to signing a 7 billion euro gas pipeline deal in defiance of U.S. pressure.

He and Pakistan's oil minister also said that Iran, India and Pakistan were close to signing a $7 billion gas pipeline deal in defiance of U.S. pressure.

It looks like it was written and/or edited in haste. Someone may have done a rewrite wanting the amounts in euros, but forgotten to recalculate the figures.

[Doctor_J]

54. The whole world now realizes that * is weak, stupid, and incompetent

we're in trouble, folks :-(

[Tight_rope]

56. I see Iran is still kicking Bush's ball arounds! n/t

[lonestarnot]

57. Oh shit.

[Supersedeas]

61. Dr. Condi is really getting results on the diplomacy tip