Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Damrod

Iran...are we going to attack them

169 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I don't know what to think...we have the Iranian military in motion but then we do a humanitarian thing and save some of their fishermen...

I am afraid that we are trying to pick a fight....and I think that the Iranians know they don't have a snowballs chance in h*ll of beating us...but I also understand the idea of entering hostilities is connected to the Military Industrial machine that drives our economy....and I have issues with that...

I personally prefer the Ron Paul Idea of "just worry about us" and bring our troops home...if this middle eastern country attacks that one....so be it...it is not our fight...we can make it without them...but...I know the Christian Fundamentalist think this is all staging for the "end of days" and it causes us to be involved in crap we really should leave alone...it is not Armegeddon people...it is just posturing and pride...

Just my opinion though...

Edited by Damrod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what to think...we have the Iranian military in motion but then we do a humanitarian thing and save some of their fishermen...

I am afraid that we are trying to pick a fight....and I think that the Iranians know they don't have a snowballs chance in h*ll of beating us...but I also understand the idea of entering hostilities is connected to the Military Industrial machine that drives our economy....and I have issues with that...

I personally prefer the Ron Paul Idea of "just worry about us" and bring our troops home...if this middle eastern country attacks that one....so be it...it is not our fight...we can make it without them...but...I know the Christian Fundamentalist think this is all staging for the "end of days" and it causes us to be involved in crap we really should leave alone...it is not Armegeddon people...it is just posturing and pride...

Just my opinion though...

There will not be a war with Iran, it's like going back to the Cold war, all mouth no action. But this is our planet, we should protect it, save people, animals, forests, waters. If your going to bring back troops, what are they guna do? no jobs? nothing to do? It will make more problems but little options to resolve it. The only help is by countries talking to each other.

If a country attacks another country whether you involved or not it will effect everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what to think...we have the Iranian military in motion but then we do a humanitarian thing and save some of their fishermen...

I am afraid that we are trying to pick a fight....

Try this opinion on for size...

We aren't actually trying to pick a fight. We are simply standing our ground. We are part of the popular clique, and it is in our interest to not let the new kids attempt to dictate what we should or should not do. Nor is it in our interest to do anything against them, as it would just make us look bad to our peers, and we already have a reputation for being a bit heavy-handed to everyone else.

So we simply stand our ground and look at the new kid with mild interest. When he tries to sit at the senior table, he is told firmly, yet politely, that he is not there yet. When he states he is going to do it anyway, we simply mention what has happened to the other students who attempted to assume privileges that the incumbents did not bestow (after all, the incumbents went through a lot of trouble to get those privilidges; who is the new guy to assume he can just waltz in and take them?).

If the new kid actively threatens our status, we degrade his status. If he physically threatens our status, we physically threaten his. If he makes reasonable attempts to progress up the popularity ladder, we keep an eye on him and guide or correct as needed. Eventually, once he is deemed an asset to the status quo and not an enemy of it, he is allowed into the club with full benefits and privileges.

Many people tend to look at this sort of thing through the eyes of politics. I find it much more easily understandable if we look at it as simply different aspects of human behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people tend to look at this sort of thing through the eyes of politics. I find it much more easily understandable if we look at it as simply different aspects of human behaviour.

hmm yeah... the U.S. also has a tendency to create, install, and fund an ally / organization, and then label them enemy or terrorist years later and rip them apart...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what to think...we have the Iranian military in motion but then we do a humanitarian thing and save some of their fishermen...

I am afraid that we are trying to pick a fight....and I think that the Iranians know they don't have a snowballs chance in h*ll of beating us...but I also understand the idea of entering hostilities is connected to the Military Industrial machine that drives our economy....and I have issues with that...

I personally prefer the Ron Paul Idea of "just worry about us" and bring our troops home...if this middle eastern country attacks that one....so be it...it is not our fight...we can make it without them...but...I know the Christian Fundamentalist think this is all staging for the "end of days" and it causes us to be involved in crap we really should leave alone...it is not Armegeddon people...it is just posturing and pride...

Just my opinion though...

Today the Iranian military is rattling sabers about closing the choke point for about a sixth of the WORLDS oil. The US and some allies are making calculations of how to handle the temporary disruption and prices are climbing just because of the talk. Consensus is (often wrong) the disruption would be for a few days while Iran's navy is destroyed. But what if Iran already possessed a nuke? Then defying the nutty mullahs would involve a potential exchange of nuclear weps.

The game stakes get MUCH bigger and so do the consequences for a mistake. Today the Iranians have, in their benevolence, offered to share the knowledge for the nuclear fuel cycle with any African nation that has Uranium deposits. It's a cluster any way you approach it and I expect a miscalculation will be the spark for a deepening crisis that no one is prepared for today.

One last thing though: note to self...if someone says they're going to kill you - take them seriously just in case :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...i see this as a problem...

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Jan-07/159105-britain-sends-new-warship-to-gulf-amid-iran-tensions.ashx#axzz1ipGesy00

I don't think anything good can come out of this...

I think it came down to:

[usa] we are taking heat for over reaching...we can't interfere...

[England] Fine...we'll go and once we engage them...you have to back us up

[usa] ok...that works...you take the heat for starting the next war and we'll take credit as the ones that end it...

Seriously....do you think this is far-fetched?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to wonder if we aren't going to get in a war with Iran. All the republican candidates, except Ron Paul, seem to want a war with Iran. I saw some of the debates and when they talked about war with Iran they would smile.:angry: I'm all for going to war if war is really needed but I don't like going to war over made up reasons. Like Iraq, those people aren't any better off than they were under Sadam. Its just a different type of people being tortured. They are over there now locking up journalist, beating them. Many young soldiers lost their life and we took on trillions of dollars in debt for that.

Don't get me wrong I do not trust Iran and if they thought they could win they would attack us tomorrow. I hope they don't ever have nuclear weapons. Some of the people in that part of the world aren't dealing with a full deck (not that we don't have crazy people everywhere) and some of them seem to be in power. If your a woman you can expected to get beaten if your seen in public talking to a man unescorted. Think about some of the things they do to their own people. Why would they have a problem hurting someone else?

I don't think we should start a war with them but if they try to close that Hormuz strait it will shut off the oil supply from Saudi Arabia and other countries in the area. That could have a major effect on the world financially. Can't go to work if you can't get there. I can't believe they would actually do it, the whole world would be mad a them, it wouldn't just be the US. I'm starting to rant, I'm going to stop talking now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...i see this as a problem...

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Jan-07/159105-britain-sends-new-warship-to-gulf-amid-iran-tensions.ashx#axzz1ipGesy00

I don't think anything good can come out of this...

I think it came down to:

[usa] we are taking heat for over reaching...we can't interfere...

[England] Fine...we'll go and once we engage them...you have to back us up

[usa] ok...that works...you take the heat for starting the next war and we'll take credit as the ones that end it...

Seriously....do you think this is far-fetched?

Not far fetched at all Damrod. In fact quite plausible if starting a war is the goal. I really don't think even repubs want another conflict right now. It'll be a nightmare for everyone BUT a nuclear Iran will be a worse nightmare. I think that Iran is willing to risk anything to get the bomb. And the closer they are to completion the crazier the risks they'll take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hmmm... just notice the trend here. Iraq = huge oil refinery = huge $$$$... Notice how we surround all of the countries with big oil refineries? I'd like to think pulling our troops out of Iraq was an obligation the military had to meet however, ever since that started I find it funny how I have been reading everywhere about a dozen of war ships passing through the straight. Coincidence? Don't think so.

Then you have the captured "drone". Why would we be spying on them unless we knew for sure they already built nukes? Simply we sent the drone to get further evidence of that. Iran built nukes to protect their oil industry. I don't want to see a war, nor can our country afford one financially. However I do think we are trying to talk our allies into doing our dirty work while we sit back then dip into the till.

Edited by Ecto76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My fear is that this will be a war of semantics and illusion...they are threatening the supply of oil....but it is an illusion...we have plenty of reserves, we have Canadian oil...we have South American oil too....it is just an excuse to feed the military industrial complex...we need those million dollar missiles...no..seriously...the military industrial complex is really p***ed off when we are not killing people...seriously...

There is a concerted effort to bolster and feed this ugly-ugly machine of warfare...and we let it happen because they say we need to....no we don't....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... just notice the trend here. Iraq = huge oil refinery = huge $$$$... Notice how we surround all of the countries with big oil refineries? I'd like to think pulling our troops out of Iraq was an obligation the military had to meet however, ever since that started I find it funny how I have been reading everywhere about a dozen of war ships passing through the straight. Coincidence? Don't think so.

Then you have the captured "drone". Why would we be spying on them unless we knew for sure they already built nukes? Simply we sent the drone to get further evidence of that. Iran built nukes to protect their oil industry. I don't want to see a war, nor can our country afford one financially. However I do think we are trying to talk our allies into doing our dirty work while we sit back then dip into the till.

Your theory would be fine except the wars have gained us NO OIL. NONE. Not even any promises to sell to us at favorable terms. The spying is to map out aim points for the bombs so that we kill as few civilians as possible. Iran is trying to build nukes so they can impose their brand of Islam on the whole world. The real danger for the region is that once Iran tests a bomb Egypt and Saudi Arabia will begin their "peaceful energy" drive. The mullahs are just religious versions of dictators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Closing the Strait of Hormuz sounds like a great plan to me. No more Middle East oil! It's surprising how what we're told are problems are actually solutions to problems. And we wouldn't even need our own military this time, not a single gun or bomb of it.

What, what? No longer using the giant credit card in the sky to fill up our Ford Excursions and Cadillac Escalades? Now that's just "kooky". :w00t:

Once we stop caring about the oil in the Middle East, we'll stop caring about the Middle East.

Maybe then we can start paying more attention to far more severe cases of human rights abuse in the world than the cherry picked comings and goings in Iran. Maybe some of that genocide, mass rape, and genital mutilation in Africa will attract someone's undiverted attention if only the media would try that on. I know, I ask too much. First the oil needs to be cut (silly me). Yeah, closing the Strait of Hormuz sounds like a great idea to me. If we completely ignored that action, someone else would surely get their noses in it and that would already be a welcome change of pace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end; its all about $$$$ and where we can make the most money. Its all about politics and where they can throw around the most power in politics.

But, I agree about the drone. I had to laugh when Obama had to ask Iran politely for it back? Like a country with Nuclear Weapons "intentions" is going to play nice and return our spying technology? LMAO!

I read on Fox News Headlines last night that Iran has stated that they plan to share their breaking technology of Uranium Ore with Nations like Africa who have Uranium that can help fuel Nuclear Reactors. So does this mean they already have Nukes? Probably, and also why we are sending drones to spy to collect evidence of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not far fetched at all Damrod. In fact quite plausible if starting a war is the goal. I really don't think even repubs want another conflict right now. It'll be a nightmare for everyone BUT a nuclear Iran will be a worse nightmare. I think that Iran is willing to risk anything to get the bomb. And the closer they are to completion the crazier the risks they'll take.

On one hand, I don't think Iran wants to pick a fight with us. They stood on the sidelines and watched us tear Iraq apart in...for the most part...a few days...their military was obliterated extremely fast...the rest of the time has been insurgency, terror cells and "humanitarian" efforts...Iran doesn't even have the military might that Iraq did...they know they don't have a chance...

But I think they are desperate...the sanctions are killing them and now they are trying to do anything to break free of them...desperation makes people do really crazy crap sometimes...I think their hope is someone like China, Russia or North Korea will come to their aid. Which I doubt will happen...Iran has become something like the red-headed step child...they really don't have massive reserves to offer in barter to a "big brother" protector so...these other countries would only get involved if they are trying to engage the USA indirectly. With Patriot missile technology and even more advanced anti- "ICBM" technology....they cannot hurt us at home...not only can we shoot their warheads down, we can probably detonate them remotely at the source...yes...scarey thought isn't it...you prepare to launch and we overide and just blow your own nukes up in your own silos and countries...yes...I am theorizing but with modern hacking capability...I am sure this is a functioning part of our defensive strategy...would be mine...

I doubt there will ever be a nuclear exchange in the middle east. A nuclear exchange would leave the oil reserves useless...and despite the religious rhetoric...all those countries like the money from oil...so none of them are going to threaten any of it...warfare will... and should... remain conventional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On one hand, I don't think Iran wants to pick a fight with us. They stood on the sidelines and watched us tear Iraq apart in...for the most part...a few days...their military was obliterated extremely fast...the rest of the time has been insurgency, terror cells and "humanitarian" efforts...Iran doesn't even have the military might that Iraq did...they know they don't have a chance...

But I think they are desperate...the sanctions are killing them and now they are trying to do anything to break free of them...desperation makes people do really crazy crap sometimes...I think their hope is someone like China, Russia or North Korea will come to their aid. Which I doubt will happen...Iran has become something like the red-headed step child...they really don't have massive reserves to offer in barter to a "big brother" protector so...these other countries would only get involved if they are trying to engage the USA indirectly. With Patriot missile technology and even more advanced anti- "ICBM" technology....they cannot hurt us at home...not only can we shoot their warheads down, we can probably detonate them remotely at the source...yes...scarey thought isn't it...you prepare to launch and we overide and just blow your own nukes up in your own silos and countries...yes...I am theorizing but with modern hacking capability...I am sure this is a functioning part of our defensive strategy...would be mine...

I doubt there will ever be a nuclear exchange in the middle east. A nuclear exchange would leave the oil reserves useless...and despite the religious rhetoric...all those countries like the money from oil...so none of them are going to threaten any of it...warfare will... and should... remain conventional.

I agree that no one there would want to contaminate their primary source of income. But religious zealots by their nature act irrationally occasionally. Even rational political types need make only a single miscalculation. If you've never read Isaiah 17 in the Old Testament give it a quick read. It is a prophecy from about 1000 BC saying that Damascus Syria would become a "heap of ruins" overnight. Damascus is one of the oldest continually inhabited cities on earth and this destruction has never happened. I believe it could be brought on by Assad attacking Israel with chem/bio weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I think they are desperate...the sanctions are killing them and now they are trying to do anything to break free of them...

Indeed. Everyone keeps referring to what we are doing as an inducement to war. It is not, no more than a franchise moving into a small town area is a war with the local store owners. 95% of the time, the tiny locals simply do not have the power or the resources to do anything about it, and instead of finding an alternative to survival, they refuse whatever offer has been made to them and tend to go down fighting, wasting the precious few resources they have.

Is it unfair? Is it immoral? Are both claims utterly subjective? Of course. It isn't about fairness or morality. It is about behaviour. The pack that controls the most territory ("controlling" not to be mistaken with "living in") isn't going to let some piddly little upstart dictate the rules of the forest. They will either fall in line or they will be dealt with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. Everyone keeps referring to what we are doing as an inducement to war. It is not, no more than a franchise moving into a small town area is a war with the local store owners. 95% of the time, the tiny locals simply do not have the power or the resources to do anything about it, and instead of finding an alternative to survival, they refuse whatever offer has been made to them and tend to go down fighting, wasting the precious few resources they have.

Is it unfair? Is it immoral? Are both claims utterly subjective? Of course. It isn't about fairness or morality. It is about behaviour. The pack that controls the most territory ("controlling" not to be mistaken with "living in") isn't going to let some piddly little upstart dictate the rules of the forest. They will either fall in line or they will be dealt with.

No, your analogy is flawed to say the least.

In your scenario, the franchise moves in and the tiny local shops cannot compete because they do not have the advantage of the larger overhead of the franchise.

In reality, to use your scenario actual context, the franchise moves in and immediately builds brick walls in front of the entrances to all the tiny local shops thus restricting any commerce from taking place there.

Sanctions are an act of trade warfare.

You would be singing a different tune if Iran held veto power at the U.N. and imposed sanctions on the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, your analogy is flawed to say the least.

In your scenario, the franchise moves in and the tiny local shops cannot compete because they do not have the advantage of the larger overhead of the franchise.

In reality, to use your scenario actual context, the franchise moves in and immediately builds brick walls in front of the entrances to all the tiny local shops thus restricting any commerce from taking place there.

Sanctions are an act of trade warfare.

You would be singing a different tune if Iran held veto power at the U.N. and imposed sanctions on the USA.

If I understand Aquatus1 the point is not whether the behavior is just or unjust but rather that it is the nature of those with power to influence, coerce even control those without as much power. In short it's just human nature. And to your point - YES Americans would be upset if they were being controlled by foreign powers but today that isn't the reality. Tomorrow, who knows. Sanctions are the least destructive means left to attempt to curb behavior that is NOT conducive to peaceful coexistence in the region. Iran's rhetoric lead to this outcome. If A'jad had not repeatedly denied the holocaust, demonized Israel and made reference to cleansing the region of this stain(paraphrasing) then the international community would never have imposed sanctions - it's just bad for business. This process has been ongoing for years and still Iran insists on it's rights while hiding and sheltering it's means of enriching fuel. If bombing their facilities will delay them testing a nuke for a couple of years then it's worth it IMO. The aftermath will probably be a nightmare but NOT to act would be worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What, what? No longer using the giant credit card in the sky to fill up our Ford Excursions and Cadillac Escalades? Now that's just "kooky". :w00t:

.

The Ford Excursion hasn't been produced since 2005.

But don't let facts stand in the way of rocking your meme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ford Excursion hasn't been produced since 2005.

But don't let facts stand in the way of rocking your meme.

Oh that's right, we live in a world where only cars 2006 and newer use gasoline. How could such a fact have escaped me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to say this, but everything is tilting towards a war. Iran is soon to start their complex for Uranium enrichment we will see what happens then. In my country people are saying " Why does US have nuclear weps, and doesn't allow Iran to have, the same IF they are actualy going to build one ". But the news that they've tested medium range missile is abit distrubing. I don't want any wars, but that isn't our call...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot a saber rattling but I'm hoping cooler heads prevail. The US doesn't want another war and I doubt Iran wants one either, unless they think Russia and China will step in and protect them. What will be interesting to see is how the other Middle Eastern countries react to Iran taking this action. Could be that they decide to deal with Iran themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I understand Aquatus1 the point is not whether the behavior is just or unjust but rather that it is the nature of those with power to influence, coerce even control those without as much power. In short it's just human nature. And to your point - YES Americans would be upset if they were being controlled by foreign powers but today that isn't the reality. Tomorrow, who knows. Sanctions are the least destructive means left to attempt to curb behavior that is NOT conducive to peaceful coexistence in the region. Iran's rhetoric lead to this outcome. If A'jad had not repeatedly denied the holocaust, demonized Israel and made reference to cleansing the region of this stain(paraphrasing) then the international community would never have imposed sanctions - it's just bad for business. This process has been ongoing for years and still Iran insists on it's rights while hiding and sheltering it's means of enriching fuel. If bombing their facilities will delay them testing a nuke for a couple of years then it's worth it IMO. The aftermath will probably be a nightmare but NOT to act would be worse.

It's remarkable how one can think that sharing a region with nuclear rogues and being surrounded by foreign military powers who also have nuclear weapons is only conducive to peaceful coexistence so long as one doesn't have the bomb! I'd love to read that thesis: How nuclear deterrence isn't nuclear deterrence. With that kind of logic, we should give away all of our nukes to Brazil, Columbia and Cuba and be at peace, but with the foreign bungling Iran has been putting up with for the past 60 years they're little likely to give up anything. Threats of war and acts of war aren't going to change that but to reinforce it.

Everyone's an upstart before they're not. While it's the people who always rule in the end, seeing that governments not grant special treatment to big business (too big to fail) and other countries by virtue of their nuclear status is the least we should do in the meantime. We've shown the world that there's a way to tolerate and negotiate with nuclear powers and a way to bully and refuse to negotiate with non-nuclear powers. It's probably too late to save face with Iran; they've caught that drift. But the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and other powers will aspire to and eventually achieve nuclear bombs no matter how big our self-destructive temper tantrums get over it. By destroying Iran's nuclear energy facilities we'd probably delay their acquisition of the bomb no matter what their intent, and preempting suppositional threats seems to be good enough for the war mongers to make their cases politically over the past 10 years. I say probably because suppose they get angry we attacked them and buy a few nukes from Pakistan? Shouldn't someone get some bandaids to cover for that supposition too? Ushering in a, as you call it, "probable nightmare" that's worth no longer being scared of another pack of lies.

Let's explore one of the lies here, specifically the nonsense that Ahmadinejad repeatedly denies the Holocaust.

The Holocaust didn't happen...in the Middle East. The media never finishes the sentence. Ahmadinejad has provided explanations numerous times but the punditry is more interested in propagating lies for the masses to believe than informing the public and telling the truth. If rhetoric is the reason for sanctions then there is no reason. Ahmadinejad never repeatedly denied the Holocaust. The media repeatedly claims that he did.

The Holocaust didn't happen...to Jews only. Hitler exterminated between 10 and 11 million civilians of which about half were Jewish. Why should we only remember half? Nazis were abhorrent bigoted fascists but why should their bigotry against Jews monopolize our understanding of the Holocaust? Is it because dead Jews are the scapegoats who attend to a certain nationalistic movement that we must be goaded into supporting? Or is the better reason to remember the horrors of the Holocaust to assure that we don't tolerate cases where a state violently imposes power over innocent peoples' lives that it considers less worthy than other groups it prefers? When Gypsies get evicted from their homes in the 21st century, when Gays aren't allowed to marry, why don't we evoke the Holocaust to voice our opposition over that? Mind you, I'm not pushing for any homeland here, I'm merely asking for equal treatment under the law. What in the blazes would happen if Jews couldn't get married somewhere?

We don't have to agree with Ahmadinejad's statements or even appreciate that he likes to ask about the details such as where the Holocaust happened or who the Holocaust happened to. It's so much easier to spread BS that he denies it than to listen to his questions, much less ask our own. And what of Holocaust memorials that aren't held in Iran? Is it alright to ask politically incorrect questions at those? Are they "denying it" just for talking about it too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahmadinejad is just the political face and voice of the Ayatollah. In most practical terms, he cannot do much of anything without the spiritual leaders blessings and approval. On one hand, if you put aside our cultural, spiritual and religious differences...the President of Iran has a really crappy job. He doesn't have any real power and he is left to try and turn iconic religious beliefs into a political position on the world stage...probably a frustrating place to be...

Not trying to sympathize with the guy but at some level, if you step back and look at this thing through non-religion based glasses...it is a lose-lose proposition for them and the rest of the world trying to negotiate with them. How can you (us) as a country with a separation of church and state deal with someone where church IS the state...not easily.

His comments over the Holocaust and wanting to wipe the Jews off the earth is just psycho-babble and I am yet to understand this part of the Middle Eastern problems...I just have never understood it and probably never will...Jews, Christians and Muslims all acknowledge the God of Abraham as "THE" creator...yet they bicker and fight over how to worship, pay homage and who will be the "messiah"...the Jews reject Jesus as the messiah and are...to them...waiting on the first coming...The Muslims believe Jesus was a great prophet and will fight alongside their "savior" in the end battle...I have never understood this need to kill in the name of One god...and it is the same God...why do they fight so much? No wait...don't even try to explain it...it makes my head hurt if I try to expend thought on it...I choose to not go there...

And about the sanctions...well...whether it is an act of war or not depends on which side of the blockade you ar sitting on...I am sure if I was locked in and my child needed medicine I could not get because of political sanctions...I'd consider that an act of war...regardless of the details...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's my theory that the closer two religions are the more their followers want to kill each other. I mean the old Catholic Church didn't care about Hindus. Jews? Try to convert them or kick them out of the country. Muslims? Wars and a bit of slavery. Protestants? BURN THEM!!!

I wouldn't call the sanctions a blockade since Iran has no trouble trading with Russia or China.

Edited by Corp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.