Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
gollum

Covert missions in Iran

356 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Babs

zep...you wrote:

"In fact, whether we are okay with the present Iranian government or not is irrelevant"...

I think it is relevant and would like to know what the people think.

And you wrote:

"The West needs to earn the trust of the Iranian people since a lot depends on this trust, not only for the Iranians, but also for the whole world."
...

This is good, but what if the Iranian people are controlled by a bad regime?

Edited by Babs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
warden
zep...you wrote:
"In fact, whether we are okay with the present Iranian government or not is irrelevant"...

I think it is relevant and would like to know what the people think.

And you wrote:

"The West needs to earn the trust of the Iranian people since a lot depends on this trust, not only for the Iranians, but also for the whole world."
...

This is good, but what if the Iranian people are controlled by a bad regime?

482381[/snapback]

Controlled is the word i have been useing,it seems to be a bad word around here blink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mekorig

And how put the USA in the moral higher ground to say what goverment is good or bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer
This is good, but what if the Iranian people are controlled by a bad regime?

482381[/snapback]

What would you suggest Babs? Sanctions that will likely fail in preventing further nuclear development, and at the same time further isolate Iran…or would you prefer war…or covert ops to overthrow the government…or what?

A nuclear Iran is serious, in my opinion, but so is any action against Iran. What would the immediate benefits/consequences be to any of the options? What would the benefits/consequences be 6 months afterwards? A year afterwards? 10 years? There is so much to consider, that blindly wanting to take action simply because you don’t like the current situation is a recipe for disaster, in my opinion.

For the record, I oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, but I don't support any military action to prevent it either. If all diplomatic efforts have failed, and Iran acquires nuclear weapons, I think it would be bad policy to not embrace Iran, and share technology that would better safeguard the nukes. Including Iran in Middle East affairs and treating Iran like a partner would do better for long term security than starting an unneccessary war that would make Iraq look like Disney World, possibly erupting the entire region into war(Almost the entire Middle East is in range of Iranian missiles), just to stop them from further development of their nuclear ambitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mekorig

Homer, has i said in other post, you are some of the few razonable guys from the USA i have read in these forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babs

Homer...I think sanctions are coming up.

What you say is reasonable. I do have a question, what if we embrace Iran and it turns out to be a big mistake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

The we have a repeat of Iraq, including those who argue that we are responsible for embracing the regime ten years ago and those who ferverently support the invasion and democratization of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babs
The we have a repeat of Iraq, including those who argue that we are responsible for embracing the regime ten years ago and those who ferverently support the invasion and democratization of the country.

482535[/snapback]

Yes. Wow. Thank you for answering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babs

Well, Homer are we going to do that dance all over again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer
Homer, has i said in other post, you are some of the few razonable guys from the USA i have read in these forums.

Thank you Mekorig, I appreciate that original.gif

Homer...I think sanctions are coming up.

What you say is reasonable. I do have a question, what if we embrace Iran and it turns out to be a big mistake?

Personally I don’t agree with sanctions. Iran seems to already have the ingredients for a nuclear weapon, and it’s simply putting the peaces together. What good would sanctions do except to prevent/limit Iran from stockpiling what it has already acquired?

What if embracing Iran turns out to be a mistake? Although providing an example would be nice, I don’t pretend to know the answers to the various scenarios.

A possible example would be a nuclear armed Iran wants concessions from another Persian Gulf nation. We didn’t stop Iran from acquiring nukes, and now they are bullying their neighbors. What do we do now?

There is no absolute answer, and throughout history there has always been consequences to one’s actions or lack of actions. In the above example, Iran is bullying its neighbor. What would Iran do if its neighbor didn’t concede? Saddam is finished and Iran/U.S. relations are somewhat friendly, so the Middle East should be at least more stable than it is today. We know Iran won’t nuke its neighbor, and it’s doubtful they would risk a costly conventional war. Perhaps they would threaten a missile attack? Personally I think friendly U.S./Iran relations would be a stabilizing factor in the region, and Iran having nukes only ensures their involvement in Middle East affairs, and not arm them for conquest.

I don’t have the answers Babs, but it seems to me by your posts that you are basing your opinions on your emotions, and not looking at any long term effects of what you apparently want to have done.

The we have a repeat of Iraq, including those who argue that we are responsible for embracing the regime ten years ago and those who ferverently support the invasion and democratization of the country.

Iraq is an excellent example, but I don't think anyone says we embraced the Iraqi regime 10 years ago. But using the past U.S./Iraq relations an example, the U.S. previously supported Iraq up until the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The U.S. did not support this act of agression and even though relations with Iraq were previously warm, we took steps to remove Iraqi's from Kuwait and punish the Iraqi regime. Obviously not everything worked the way it was planned, but it did work to an extent. Unfortunately, there isn't going to be a perfect ending regardless of the choice that is made.

I'm not saying my opinion is the right choice, but I am saying it seems the warmongers haven't thought everything out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babs

Hey aquatus! Stay with us. I know you have a lot to say on this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer

Babs, your last 4 posts on this thread are:

I do have a question, what if we embrace Iran and it turns out to be a big mistake?

Yes. Wow. Thank you for answering

Well, Homer are we going to do that dance all over again?

Hey aquatus! Stay with us. I know you have a lot to say on this subject

But you are clearly avoiding my question:

What would you suggest Babs? Sanctions that will likely fail in preventing further nuclear development, and at the same time further isolate Iran…or would you prefer war…or covert ops to overthrow the government…or what?

First of all, I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. I'm saying you have to look at a much larger picture, and don't make decisions based on your emotions.

Socondly, you don't need aquatus1 to answer for you. I'm not arguing my point, but merely posting my opinion and I have explained why I have that opinion. My question again is, what do you suggest we do, and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gmac1000

STOP LYING!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gollum

Yes Babs, I am interested to know what you think is needed and your reasons for thinking it.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gollum

January 2, 2005

Iranian past holds lessons for Iraq's future

By Fariborz S Fatemi

The controversy raging over Iran and the pending election in Iraq will be better understood if these events are seen through the historical prism of what happened in Iran some 50 years ago. That was a time when state and religion had great coherence in Iran and when, sadly, the United States helped the British overthrow a freely elected constitutional government. The implications of that heinous act have echoed across half a century of Middle East history and present real lessons for the US role in Iraq, in its relations with Iran and the future of democratic rule in the region.

This can be best illustrated through the life and times of a national hero of Iran, Dr Hussein Fatemi. He was the leader of a generation of pious Muslims who brought coherence, constitutional government, free elections and the rule of law back to the people of Iran. He was a founder of the National Front Party that brought Dr Mohammed Mossadegh to power in 1951, and he was the inspiration for nationalizing Iran's oil so that its revenues could be used to benefit the people of Iran.

Not since the short-lived constitutional revolution of the early 1900s had the people of Iran been so in control of their own destiny as when Dr Fatemi lived. The freely elected constitutional government he was part of, led by Mossadegh, governed in harmony with nationalism and democratic values enshrined in the Holy Koran.

For believers, the Holy Koran is a blueprint for conducting one's life. For governing, it points out, govern with the consent of the governed. These values are as old as Islam itself, and that is how Mossadegh governed. That government was overthrown by a coup and was replaced by the hated regime of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, which ended with the Islamic Revolution of 1979. November 10 marked 50 years since Dr Fatemi was murdered by the Pahlavi regime. Yet today he is alive, as part of every Iranian striving for a better life.

As with Iran some 50 years ago, the depressing truth is that everything this US administration has done in Iraq has turned out to be either wrong or woefully mismanaged. Because of this, more than 1,200 brave American servicemen have died and countless others have been grievously wounded.

As the teeth-gnashing goes on about holding free elections in Iraq, as imperfect as that may be, it would serve US policymakers well to recollect that government of Iran some 50 years ago. The issues for the people of Iraq have always been sovereignty, legitimacy, occupation and promises unfulfilled. Remembering US actions in Iran, Iraqis desperately need to believe that the United States does not have any long-term designs on their country.

The interim governments fashioned by the United States lack credibility and legitimacy, and Americans are seen as occupiers. No government can claim legitimacy unless it is freely elected. That is why it is important to stick with the January date for the election. Delay only means more death and destruction.

The Iraqi people ask: "Where are the jobs, the promised electricity, water, sewers and reconstruction?" More of the same policies only mean that those who want to kill Americans will continue to do so with impunity. And the United States in turn will destroy Iraq in order to save it.

When the election takes place and majority rule, which may have religious ties, is established, it would be well to remember the Iranian model. That model was a powerful, irrefutable case, proving that democracy in harmony with Islam can work.

The United States must allow the Iraqis to develop that model to govern themselves. Only such a government will be seen as credible and legitimate by the Iraqi people, and only such a government will be able to end the insurgency and occupation. All along, this is what Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has always advocated.

Clearly, when the US administration talks about transforming the Middle East by bringing democracy to the area, people remember Iran. And as long as no lessons are learned from the consequences of destroying a freely elected constitutional government and how that has affected generations of Iranians, any US initiative for the area will lack credibility, legitimacy and will remain what it is, just talk.

So deep is the animosity about that overthrow of some 50 years ago, that there is hardly a large gathering in Iran today where you do not see the portraits of Dr Mossadegh and Dr Fatemi held aloft by people who are at least a generation removed since they lived. They are reminding the world of an era that was filled with so much promise.

In the past 25 years, hundreds of books and articles have been written and numerous Internet sites have been established about these heroes of Iran. Their names adorn buildings and highways all over that country.

In the years before his death at the age of 32, Dr Fatemi was Iran's youngest prime minister, foreign minister and member of parliament. During this time, he was awarded the highest civilian medal declaring him "a patriotic son of Iran". But his proudest achievement was as editor and publisher of the daily newspaper Baktar Emrouz, which was the voice and conscience of a generation. By his pen and his speech, he could move people to action and challenge the many domestic and foreign intrigues that had become daily occurrences.

If that freely elected constitutional government, in harmony with Islam, had been allowed to flourish, surely the Middle East would not have been dominated by armed societies masquerading as democracies and client states governed by authoritarian dictators.

Democracy is that form of government which a free people elect freely, as Iran did some 50 years ago. When policymakers in the United States are willing to accept that as the gold standard, and promote it by their deeds, only then will their initiatives in Iraq and the region gain credibility and legitimacy.

Fariborz S Fatemi is a former professional staff member with the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babs

Sorry Homer. I had to go. Let me go over your post again. I have to study this. I don't have to have aquatus answer for me rofl.giflaugh.gif . You guys are really killing me, here. I can't laugh and post too, not as hard as you guys have got me laughing.

A question for you Homer...why don't you want aquatus to post? blink.gif And I didn't know I was emotional about this. That's interesting.

Okay, I have to go again, but I will read your post and get back to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gollum
Sorry Homer. I had to go. Let me go over your post again. I have to study this. I don't have to have aquatus answer for me rofl.gif  laugh.gif . You guys are really killing me, here. I can't laugh and post too, not as hard as you guys have got me laughing.

A question for you Homer...why don't you want aquatus to post? blink.gif And I didn't know I was emotional about this. That's interesting.

Okay, I have to go again, but I will read your post and get back to you.

482626[/snapback]

*Starting to see a pattern emerging here*.

I don't mean to bait you or tease you Babs, but do you actually have a genuine opinion or thought on anything that you post in?

I am being completely serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gollum

I found this doing a quick search. Slightly off topic but it does have implications and concequences in Iran.

January 2, 2005

Iranian past holds lessons for Iraq's future

By Fariborz S Fatemi

The controversy raging over Iran and the pending election in Iraq will be better understood if these events are seen through the historical prism of what happened in Iran some 50 years ago. That was a time when state and religion had great coherence in Iran and when, sadly, the United States helped the British overthrow a freely elected constitutional government. The implications of that heinous act have echoed across half a century of Middle East history and present real lessons for the US role in Iraq, in its relations with Iran and the future of democratic rule in the region.

This can be best illustrated through the life and times of a national hero of Iran, Dr Hussein Fatemi. He was the leader of a generation of pious Muslims who brought coherence, constitutional government, free elections and the rule of law back to the people of Iran. He was a founder of the National Front Party that brought Dr Mohammed Mossadegh to power in 1951, and he was the inspiration for nationalizing Iran's oil so that its revenues could be used to benefit the people of Iran.

Not since the short-lived constitutional revolution of the early 1900s had the people of Iran been so in control of their own destiny as when Dr Fatemi lived. The freely elected constitutional government he was part of, led by Mossadegh, governed in harmony with nationalism and democratic values enshrined in the Holy Koran.

For believers, the Holy Koran is a blueprint for conducting one's life. For governing, it points out, govern with the consent of the governed. These values are as old as Islam itself, and that is how Mossadegh governed. That government was overthrown by a coup and was replaced by the hated regime of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, which ended with the Islamic Revolution of 1979. November 10 marked 50 years since Dr Fatemi was murdered by the Pahlavi regime. Yet today he is alive, as part of every Iranian striving for a better life.

As with Iran some 50 years ago, the depressing truth is that everything this US administration has done in Iraq has turned out to be either wrong or woefully mismanaged. Because of this, more than 1,200 brave American servicemen have died and countless others have been grievously wounded.

As the teeth-gnashing goes on about holding free elections in Iraq, as imperfect as that may be, it would serve US policymakers well to recollect that government of Iran some 50 years ago. The issues for the people of Iraq have always been sovereignty, legitimacy, occupation and promises unfulfilled. Remembering US actions in Iran, Iraqis desperately need to believe that the United States does not have any long-term designs on their country.

The interim governments fashioned by the United States lack credibility and legitimacy, and Americans are seen as occupiers. No government can claim legitimacy unless it is freely elected. That is why it is important to stick with the January date for the election. Delay only means more death and destruction.

The Iraqi people ask: "Where are the jobs, the promised electricity, water, sewers and reconstruction?" More of the same policies only mean that those who want to kill Americans will continue to do so with impunity. And the United States in turn will destroy Iraq in order to save it.

When the election takes place and majority rule, which may have religious ties, is established, it would be well to remember the Iranian model. That model was a powerful, irrefutable case, proving that democracy in harmony with Islam can work.

The United States must allow the Iraqis to develop that model to govern themselves. Only such a government will be seen as credible and legitimate by the Iraqi people, and only such a government will be able to end the insurgency and occupation. All along, this is what Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has always advocated.

Clearly, when the US administration talks about transforming the Middle East by bringing democracy to the area, people remember Iran. And as long as no lessons are learned from the consequences of destroying a freely elected constitutional government and how that has affected generations of Iranians, any US initiative for the area will lack credibility, legitimacy and will remain what it is, just talk.

So deep is the animosity about that overthrow of some 50 years ago, that there is hardly a large gathering in Iran today where you do not see the portraits of Dr Mossadegh and Dr Fatemi held aloft by people who are at least a generation removed since they lived. They are reminding the world of an era that was filled with so much promise.

In the past 25 years, hundreds of books and articles have been written and numerous Internet sites have been established about these heroes of Iran. Their names adorn buildings and highways all over that country.

In the years before his death at the age of 32, Dr Fatemi was Iran's youngest prime minister, foreign minister and member of parliament. During this time, he was awarded the highest civilian medal declaring him "a patriotic son of Iran". But his proudest achievement was as editor and publisher of the daily newspaper Baktar Emrouz, which was the voice and conscience of a generation. By his pen and his speech, he could move people to action and challenge the many domestic and foreign intrigues that had become daily occurrences.

If that freely elected constitutional government, in harmony with Islam, had been allowed to flourish, surely the Middle East would not have been dominated by armed societies masquerading as democracies and client states governed by authoritarian dictators.

Democracy is that form of government which a free people elect freely, as Iran did some 50 years ago. When policymakers in the United States are willing to accept that as the gold standard, and promote it by their deeds, only then will their initiatives in Iraq and the region gain credibility and legitimacy.

Fariborz S Fatemi is a former professional staff member with the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

You and I must have been there at the same time because I was just reading that. tongue.gif

It's a shame that we don't seem to learn from our mistakes. What was done to those people so that America and Britain could get control of the oil was horrendous. crying.gif It's no wonder that they don't trust us...I wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gollum
You and I must have been there at the same time because I was just reading that. tongue.gif

It's a shame that we don't seem to learn from our mistakes. What was done to those people so that America and Britain could get control of the oil was horrendous.  crying.gif It's no wonder that they don't trust us...I wouldn't.

482655[/snapback]

laugh.giflaugh.gif Great minds think alike eh Michelle? wink2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
morpheas

-Post removed-

Edited by morpheas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny

In my opinion, there are so many young people in Iran(40% under 30???) that are more liberal than the folks in charge that it is just a matter of time before the changes start happening in Iran from the inside. There are very big differences between the mindset of the current leaders of Iran, and the future leaders...

I don't see a need to get involved in a military manner in Iran; it is rediculous to think that we can walk into Iran like we did Iraq; Iran has not been experiencing years of blockades and financial hardships...

It is unfortunate that the current US leadership feels the need to want to be so agressive with anybody it sets it's sites on...

It is a mistake.

Khatami: Iran Would Be Hell for Attackers

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran - A month after President Bush (news - web sites) warned that the United States hasn't ruled out military action against Iran, President Mohammed Khatami responded Thursday that his country would turn into a "scorching hell" for any possible attackers.

Khatami's comments, before a crowd of tens of thousands gathered on a snowy square in Tehran to mark the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, came amid an escalating exchange of rhetoric between the United States and Iran. Washington accuses Tehran of maintaining a nuclear weapons program, which Iran says is for peaceful energy purposes.

"Will this nation allow the feet of an aggressor to touch this land?" Khatami asked at the crowd. "If, God forbid, it happens, Iran will turn into a scorching hell for the aggressors."

His statements drew chants of "Death to America!" from the crowd.

Khatami is widely recognized as a leader of a moderate faction in Iran. Indeed, Khatami himself indicated in his speech that the talk of a possible U.S. invasion was pushing him into a united camp with Tehran's hard-liners against foreign meddling.

"The Iranian nation is not looking for war, violence and confrontation," Khatami said.

"But the world should know that the Iranian nation won't tolerate any aggression and will stand united against aggression despite differences," he said, referring to the internal divide in Iranian politics between reformers and the more conservative clerics.

Last week, Bush accused Iran of being "the world's primary state sponsor of terror," and last month he said his administration won't rule out using military force against Iran over its nuclear program.

Until Khatami's statements, some had pointed to a possible softening in Iran's position in recent comments made by Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Hasan Rowhani, who said that his country wants to resolve its differences with the United States.

But in his speech Thursday, Khatami was adamant that Iran won't scrap its nuclear program. Iranian scientists worked hard to develop nuclear technology on their own and will not stop due to "the illegitimate demands of others," he said.

"We have decided to move toward scientific progress, including peaceful nuclear technology and we will continue this path," Khatami said.

Thousands of Iranians traveled through heavy snow to listen to Khatami's speech on Azadi, or Freedom, Square on the anniversary of the revolution that toppled the pro-U.S. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and brought the hard-line clerics to power.

The speech is the most recent volley in a war of words between U.S. and Iranian officials that did not seem to ease even after comments made by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) last week that a military strike against Iran is "simply not on the agenda at this point."

Rice, in Luxembourg for talks with European Union (news - web sites) diplomats, again assured the Europeans that the United States has no plans to attack Iran, but warned that Washington will accept no foot-dragging in Tehran during nuclear talks.

Khatami said Iran's decision to suspend uranium enrichment in November was a voluntary sign of good will that should be reciprocated by the International Atomic Energy Agency and European negotiators pressing Iran for concessions on its nuclear program.

The suspension, policed by the IAEA, is aimed at building trust and avoiding U.N. Security Council sanctions.

Under an agreement reached with Britain, France and Germany, who negotiated on behalf of the European Union, Iran will continue suspension of its enrichment activities during negotiations with the Europeans about economic, political and technological aid. Iran has said it will decide in three months whether to continue its suspension.

Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer
A question for you Homer...why don't you want aquatus to post? blink.gif

482626[/snapback]

I would prefer if everyone would answer the question I asked you, but I don't want anyone answering for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babs
Babs, your last 4 posts on this thread are:

I do have a question, what if we embrace Iran and it turns out to be a big mistake?

Yes. Wow. Thank you for answering

Well, Homer are we going to do that dance all over again?

Hey aquatus! Stay with us. I know you have a lot to say on this subject

But you are clearly avoiding my question:

What would you suggest Babs? Sanctions that will likely fail in preventing further nuclear development, and at the same time further isolate Iran…or would you prefer war…or covert ops to overthrow the government…or what?

First of all, I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. I'm saying you have to look at a much larger picture, and don't make decisions based on your emotions.

Socondly, you don't need aquatus1 to answer for you. I'm not arguing my point, but merely posting my opinion and I have explained why I have that opinion. My question again is, what do you suggest we do, and why?

482609[/snapback]

I am not interested in aquatus answering for me. Where did I say that? grin2.gif I am interested in what he has to say, he has a military background and I agree with his views. And it would be nice if it wasn't a group of 'you guys' against one_'me'. ohmy.gif Aquatus was on a political thread not long ago and I was learning a great deal from him and wunarmdscissor came on and started baiting, arguing and flaming him. Aquatus left. sad.gif This upset me because I thought we could all learn a lot from aquatus. I can ask you the same question why would you not want someone like aquatus to come back? blink.gif

Anyway, as I have stated before, I don't have a thought-out program for Iran. I haven't formulated any ideas yet, except, maybe a peaceful take-over by their own people (with a little help from us). (Minimum military involvement). I do not want to spread our troops too thin or hurt innocent people. Are you calling me a warmonger?.......and are you saying I am emotional?...Interesting. geek.gif

This is why I am so interested in talking to zep. I would like to know what's going on over there. I still have to read the rest of gollum's articles so it is hard to talk about covert ops. Let me catch up here and I will get back to you. I have a couple of threads that I'm on_ and a life, so I can't read everything. tongue.gif Give me some slack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer

Babs,

First of all, thank you for replying, I appreciate it original.gif

Secondly, I think aquatus1 is incredibly intelligent, and I not only respect him, but admire him as well(at least I think it's a him, as I hardly know anybody anymore laugh.gif ). I replied the way I did because you were asking aquatus1 to stick around, without answering my question to you. So I would like aquatus1, and anyone else, to post here.

Thirdly, I'm not against you Babs, nor am I attacking you. If that is how it appeared, then I apologize. I simply posted my opinion, and the reasons for it, and asked you what your opinions were, and the reasons for it.

Lastly, you don't need to reply in more detail if you don't want to. From what you posted, I assume you are for diplomacy, and would like the U.S. to assist in a regime change if neccessary. You can always correct me if I'm wrong.

Babs, your posts from various threads have all indicated you are a warmonger, and that you are too emotional, without thinking things through(this comment is not to single you out, as I think there are others who fit this description as well). This is not meant to be an insult, but a personal observation. Ask anyone but warden, and you will probably get the same answer.

Regarding any action you might think is neccessary, if you have thought clearly about all the possible scenarios, weighing the pros and cons for the immediate future as well as long term future, and still feel that as a last resort, war with Iran is the lesser of the evils, then I will respect your opinion. That is not to say I would agree with it, but I respect anyone's opinion provided they think it through.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.