TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Those pesky Iranians at it again.
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »

Recent Russian intelligence report on American military build-up around Iran:

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html

Russian intelligence sees U.S. military buildup on Iran border

quote:

MOSCOW, March 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday. "The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched. He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost." He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future. A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf. The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006. The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.

Also:

http://en.rian.ru/world/20070330/62861432.html

quote:

U.S. ready to strike Iran in early April - intelligence source -1 MOSCOW, March 30 (RIA Novosti) - Russian intelligence has information that the U.S. Armed Forces have nearly completed preparations for a possible military operation against Iran, and will be ready to strike in early April, a security official said. The source said the U.S. had already compiled a list of possible targets on Iranian territory and practiced the operation during recent exercises in the Persian Gulf. "Russian intelligence has information that the U.S. Armed Forces stationed in the Persian Gulf have nearly completed preparations for a missile strike against Iranian territory," the source said. American commanders will be ready to carry out the attack in early April, but it will be up to the country's political leadership to decide if and when to attack, the source said. Official data says America's military presence in the region has reached the level of March 2003 when the U.S. invaded Iraq. The U.S. has not excluded the military option in negotiations on Iran over its refusal to abandon its nuclear program. The UN Security Council passed a new resolution on Iran Saturday toughening economic sanctions against the country and accepting the possibility of a military solution to the crisis. The source said the Pentagon could decide to conduct ground operations as well after assessing the damage done to the Iranian forces by its possible missile strikes and analyzing the political situation in the country following the attacks. A senior Russian security official cited military intelligence earlier as saying U.S. Armed Forces had recently intensified training for air and ground operations against Iran. "The Pentagon has drafted a highly effective plan that will allow the Americans to bring Iran to its knees at minimal cost," the official said. Russian Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week the Pentagon was planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future. "I have no doubt there will be an operation, or rather an aggressive action against Iran," Ivashov said, commenting on media reports about U.S. planned operation against Iran, codenamed Operation Bite. A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf. The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006. The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region. Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, however, was rather optimistic about the situation and said he ruled out a military resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem. "We are constantly working on how to resolve the situation around the Iranian nuclear program and other conflicts peacefully," Lavrov said. "This policy is unchanged and we will pursue it in the future." Russia and the U.S. are two of the six negotiators on Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran says is aimed at generating energy.

Lets get ready for yet another major fuckup by the Americans in the middle east but this one is gonna hurt them for a looooooooong time.

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse Why is the UK pissed that video of the detained sailors and marines was shown on TV? They're concerned this was "coerced". Now, while the one girl's statement was obviously written by the Iranians, they were clean, being fed, apparently not abused, and also being held together in their own uniforms (apart from her headscarf). I find it odd that they're pissed, yet enemy combatants get held in Gitmo for years, without trial, charge, access by their consular officials...hell, they even get flown around the world on an unmarked plane while they get beaten! Also, how well has the intel resulting from US coercion worked for them? The hypocracy on both sides of this situation is absurd.

Well:

1) It's the US not the UK who run Gitmo.

2) We stated we were against it many times. (but we have terror laws which are pretty bad in some ways but you get a lawyer and so on... 'rendition' flights do pass through the UK.. but I've got a feeling the US has many flights that pass through with similar status but don't have people on board)

3) We are pissed because it's against international law to breach someones human right by parading them around and using them for political ends when they under your care (i.e. you are holding them).

The thing thats started to solidify my opinion on this is that the female was going to be released and then because "the people in London are arrogant" and "they are trying to get other nations against us" (going to the UN... since it was UN business they were on...) she was kept.

Now tell me if I'm wrong but if they were all "guilty" why release only one? If you are going to release one but change your mind because of political reasons... how can you say your actions are based upon justice?

Whatever happened to name, rank and serial number?

When you have a rouge state not playing by international rules, what does one do?

quote:

Whatever happened to name, rank and serial number? By Defence Correspondent - More by this author � Last updated at 08:36am on 30th March 2007 Comments Comments (9) The sight of Faye Turney reading a statement on Iranian television starkly illustrates the shift in military doctrine over how British prisoners should behave. Until the last few years UK personnel were ordered to reveal only their name, rank and number if captured � the minimum required under the Geneva Convention. Scroll down for more... Faye Turney Faye Turney: 'She has to try to placate her captors' But in the post-Cold War world a more subtle approach to 'Conduct After Capture' has been adopted, designed to fit the kind of operations UK armed forces now carry out. Today's servicemen and women are more likely to be captured by fanatical insurgents or a rogue state faction with no interest in obeying international law, rather than the professional armed forces of a foreign state. A British prisoner must still avoid betraying secrets, but is now trained to co-operate with their captors if they think it will help. The extent to which captured personnel choose to co-operate is a matter for their own judgment, according to defence insiders, depending on the circumstances they face. Whatever the advantages, the new doctrine makes it easier for captors to exploit prisoners for propaganda purposes. Mrs Turney was paraded on television on Wednesday and made to read a Wednesday and made to read a statement 'apologising' for supposedly trespassing into Iranian territorial waters � a false confession according to British officials. She praised her Iranian captors as 'friendly and hospitable', although body language analysts believe she was acting under duress. With the latest statement said to be issued on her behalf � calling on Britain to withdraw from Iraq � the Iranians may believe they have scored a propaganda victory. But UK defence sources claimed yesterday that such blatant exploitation of prisoners may backfire and provoke anger and distaste among neutral observers. In 1991, there was international disgust as two RAF officers John Nichol and John Peters were captured after their Tornado bomber was shot down over Iraq. They were paraded on Iraqi television clearly showing injuries from being beaten by their captors and forced to read out prepared statements. Yesterday, Mr Nichol said he felt 'a sense of depression' when watching Mrs Turney on television, and recalled his sense of shame at 'letting the side down' when he was forced to make a similar broadcast. He said: 'You can see she doesn't want to be saying those things. It's a very difficult position. She has to try to placate the people who have captured her and try to keep the whole group safe. It's fallen on her shoulders at this time.' During the Second World War and the Cold War personnel were most likely to be captured on the battlefield and held by a foreign power which � broadly speaking - observed the Geneva Conventions. However, Iraqi insurgents or the Taliban in Afghanistan, can be expected to torture and kill any captives. Unpredictably hostile countries such as Iran may not go so far, but they will break international laws by parading prisoners in public. During a full-scale war the traditional aim is to keep silent for at least 48 hours, after which any information on current operations is out of date and harmless. But in this situation there is no secret about HMS Cornwall's mission � the details are published on the Ministry of Defence website � and little to be gained from confrontation with the Iranian captors. The real priority is the safety of the prisoners themselves. Admiral Sir Alan West, former head of the Navy, said this week: 'Our guidance to anyone in that position would be to say what they want you to say. 'Don't tell them secrets, clearly, but if they tell you "Say this", well if that's going to get you out, then do it. It means absolutely nothing, what they say, to be honest.' In fact, Mrs Turney and the other sailors have had virtually no training in Conduct After Capture � probably only a lecture or video. The Marines will have had at least two days' training including a mock interrogation..

>>Source<<

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Lets get ready for yet another major fuckup by the Americans in the middle east but this one is gonna hurt them for a looooooooong time.

And yet, the amount of mistakes America makes pales in comparison to those made by Iranian officials.

Personally I'll take Bush anyday over Ahmedanijad, but hey if you support Iran so much you're welcome to move there. None of us will miss you

To be fair with Iran, so far from what I've read Iran is only asking for an apology from UK and a promise that such border aggression will not happen again, or an apology and provide Iran with documentation that says that UK marines were in Iraqi waters, not Iranian (much more complex).

If UK agrees to this, then Iran says they will release the marines and hand them over to UK. Not too much to ask, I guess, except Iran wants to gain a political victory here and gain domestic support ...

This whole situation is convoluted to hell, because we're dealing with a bunch of people that no one can trust.

I don't *know* the Iranian government, only what I see on TV, and the difference between the truth from their side, the truth from our side, and the actuality of the situation, is completely subjective.

Blair has openly stated that they weren't in Iranian waters. IF they were, would he let the media know?

WHY were those soldiers in Iranian waters? You don't send troops into countries you do not declare war on.

I will note that the United States has been sending troops into Africa...

That's the question I want to know the answer to, but can't, which would put all of this into proper perspective. However, it is rather strange that the UK doesn't just apologize and get their men back...

As of now, instead, all I've got is an incident that for all I know is a planted catalyst for some sort of planned future altercation.

Iran - a hellhole, backwards, ignorant, uber-religious country

U.S., Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe - great places to live in with tolerance, steady economies, and where both sexes are treated equally.

All Iranian lovers/anti-western lovers are urged to move to Iran ASAP. Oh, and try not to let the door hit you on your way out

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Iran - a hellhole, backwards, ignorant, uber-religious country U.S., Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe - great places to live in with tolerance, steady economies, and where both sexes are treated equally. All Iranian lovers/anti-western lovers are urged to move to Iran ASAP. Oh, and try not to let the door hit you on your way out

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles hey if you support Iran so much you're welcome to move there. None of us will miss you

So you are actually this ignorant that you can't even stop and look at what you just typed out to us objectively?

I understand that you're from Tenneesee, and my expectations for you are not high at all, but please, please, please tell me what fucked up definition of "tolerance" you have been using in that pretty little head of yours?

Last I checked, tolerance wasn't the act of telling people you disagree with to leave "your" country. LOL

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Iran - a hellhole, backwards, ignorant, uber-religious country U.S., Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe - great places to live in with tolerance, steady economies, and where both sexes are treated equally. All Iranian lovers/anti-western lovers are urged to move to Iran ASAP. Oh, and try not to let the door hit you on your way out

lol how much do they pay rednecks like you down there to say bullshit like this?

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Personally I'll take Bush anyday over Ahmedanijad, but hey if you support Iran so much you're welcome to move there. None of us will miss you

I dont support the regime you yank,I support the people,at the end of the day it is the people that will pay the price for all this,the mullahs will take all their money and will wear a tie and a suit and will take their shit elsewhere.

You can support Bush all you want but it is your own money that is getting flushed down the toilet and being wasted on the war on terror.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer lol how much do they pay rednecks like you down there to say bullshit like this?

$5.40 p/hr. + benefits

Sorry guys, not originally from the South, and I work in Real Estate, AND I'm working on my Masters in Business Management.
Oh yeah, and I lean more on the liberal side then I do on the conservative side. That means that I support abortion, gay rights, and all sorts of other rights the people of Iran fear much more then this country's right-wing leaders.
Besides, there's way more trash in Iran compared to the so called redneck/white trash culture of the South. And believe it or not those rednecks are wayyy more intelligent and open minded then your typical Iranian.
Don't give me this crap about the poor people of Iran. You guys constantly talk about how the U.S. helped the Shah back in the day, who was supposedly keeping the people down. Well, those fucked up, clueless, Iranian bastards of the 70s had a revolution and the so called people decided to instill an ultra-conservative government. They then took how many innocent Americans hostages at the embassy???? Yeah, exactly.

Like I said, you guys want to support Iran, be my guest. No one is forcing you to stay in Canda, the U.S., Holland, or wherever it is you've taken up refuge. This is not a Democrat versus Republic issue this IS a culture issue. You want to live in a society that's open to other views and tolerates you? That still doesnt mean those countries will automatically approve of you. Prove it that you can keep an open mind rather then trying to sneakily shove your personal beliefs on others.

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Sorry guys, not originally from the South, and I work in Real Estate, AND I'm working on my Masters in Business Management. Oh yeah, and I lean more on the liberal side then I do on the conservative side. That means that I support abortion, gay rights, and all sorts of other rights the people of Iran fear much more then this country's right-wing leaders. Besides, there's way more trash in Iran compared to the so called redneck/white trash culture of the South. And believe it or not those rednecks are wayyy more intelligent and open minded then your typical Iranian. Don't give me this crap about the poor people of Iran. You guys constantly talk about how the U.S. helped the Shah back in the day, who was supposedly keeping the people down. Well, those fucked up, clueless, Iranian bastards of the 70s had a revolution and the so called people decided to instill an ultra-conservative government. They then took how many innocent Americans hostages at the embassy???? Yeah, exactly. Like I said, you guys want to support Iran, be my guest. No one is forcing you to stay in Canda, the U.S., Holland, or wherever it is you've taken up refuge. This is not a Democrat versus Republic issue this IS a culture issue. You want to live in a society that's open to other views and tolerates you? That still doesnt mean those countries will automatically approve of you. Prove it that you can keep an open mind rather then trying to sneakily shove your personal beliefs on others.

You've been watching too much FOX News, bud. If I disagree with certain political developments in my country in favour of something else, its a neo-conservative method to tell the person to shut up or show the door or tell them to move to another country.

The reason why the events of the 1979 Iranian revolution took place is from Operation Ajax in 1953 that USA/UK used to overthrow a democratically elected pro-western leader by instead installing a harsh dictator that terrorized Iran for over 20 years. Revolution was only a matter of time. As one might've expected, the wrong people took control. If Mossadeq was not overthrown and allowed by UK/USA to nationalize his oil/gas fields, today we'd probably see a democratic Iran.

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Sorry guys, not originally from the South, and I work in Real Estate, AND I'm working on my Masters in Business Management. Oh yeah, and I lean more on the liberal side then I do on the conservative side. That means that I support abortion, gay rights, and all sorts of other rights the people of Iran fear much more then this country's right-wing leaders. Besides, there's way more trash in Iran compared to the so called redneck/white trash culture of the South. And believe it or not those rednecks are wayyy more intelligent and open minded then your typical Iranian. Don't give me this crap about the poor people of Iran. You guys constantly talk about how the U.S. helped the Shah back in the day, who was supposedly keeping the people down. Well, those fucked up, clueless, Iranian bastards of the 70s had a revolution and the so called people decided to instill an ultra-conservative government. They then took how many innocent Americans hostages at the embassy???? Yeah, exactly. Like I said, you guys want to support Iran, be my guest. No one is forcing you to stay in Canda, the U.S., Holland, or wherever it is you've taken up refuge. This is not a Democrat versus Republic issue this IS a culture issue. You want to live in a society that's open to other views and tolerates you? That still doesnt mean those countries will automatically approve of you. Prove it that you can keep an open mind rather then trying to sneakily shove your personal beliefs on others.

Personally, I'm waiting for more information, because I don't know enough to make a judgement without being wrong. My own government and media? I know them... but Iran? Never been... it's really all just hearsay, but that doesn't mean I think anyone is innocent or guilty.

But just for arguments sake, are you trying to suggest that I should move to Iran because allegedly I'm unamerican since I question the sincerety of people who are paid to lie?

Think.

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Sorry guys, not originally from the South, and I work in Real Estate, AND I'm working on my Masters in Business Management.

Are we suppose to be impressed by this?

quote:

Besides, there's way more trash in Iran compared to the so called redneck/white trash culture of the South. And believe it or not those rednecks are wayyy more intelligent and open minded then your typical Iranian.

wtf do you think you know about a typical Iranian you ignorant prick?you think Ahmedinejad is your typical Iranian?

Rednecks intelligent?now I know for sure you are on crack?are you into the whole havning sex with your sister thing?I wouldnt be surprised.

quote:

Don't give me this crap about the poor people of Iran. You guys constantly talk about how the U.S. helped the Shah back in the day, who was supposedly keeping the people down. Well, those fucked up, clueless, Iranian bastards of the 70s had a revolution and the so called people decided to instill an ultra-conservative government. They then took how many innocent Americans hostages at the embassy???? Yeah, exactly.

Go learn your history you retard,who do you think was responisble for the revolution?the U.S was fearing the shah and his growing power so they got Ayatollah khomaini to take over,and once again they are fucked now and want to change the regime because their power in the region is growing.

quote:

Like I said, you guys want to support Iran, be my guest. No one is forcing you to stay in Canda, the U.S., Holland, or wherever it is you've taken up refuge.

or how about you go join your coward of a presidents war and die in Iraq and protect your country.

quote:

This is not a Democrat versus Republic issue this IS a culture issue. You want to live in a society that's open to other views and tolerates you? That still doesnt mean those countries will automatically approve of you. Prove it that you can keep an open mind rather then trying to sneakily shove your personal beliefs on others.

you are a racist and you need some serious help.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer who do you think was responisble for the revolution?the U.S was fearing the shah and his growing power so they got Ayatollah khomaini to take over,and once again they are fucked now and want to change the regime because their power in the region is growing.

i'm really trying to understand you, HT, but c'mon dude! do you really believe that?

who tells you this stuff? i'd really like to pick his/her brain.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i'm really trying to understand you, HT, but c'mon dude! do you really believe that?

what I do believe is this,shah was becoming a huge super power in the region and the Brtish and the Americans werent really happy about that idea,they introduced Ayatollah khomaini to Iran and they were the ones that got him out of the exile.

The reason why the Iranian people supported the revolution is because they wanted change badly and wanted freedom of religion and other thing that shah didnt allow them to have and thats what khomaini promised them but once khomaini took over power everything changed,they went against the west and took away peoples freedom.

I mean look at what they are doing to Iran right now,they are funding millions of dollars for a regime change in Iran every year.

As usual, it's blame the West with hardcore trancer. His twisted views of the 1970s are laughable at best.
The Iranian people are responsible for their shit, nowadays as much as ever. No one forced them to vote for their current president into office. You say he has no real power, yet everyone will agree he's way more extreme then his predecessor. He's very open about his views, and constantly tries to pick a fight with the world's richest most successful countries. There were no outside western aggressors in this picture when he was voted into office, and the people of Iran still chose him.
Iran's problems are the country's own faults, and it's trying to blame the West for it.

Iran needs to free the British sailors NOW, and to comply with the U.N. Time is running out for their leaders if they do otherwise and they know it. If they pick a fight with the U.K. they'll automatically be at war with pretty much all of Europe, not to mention America, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc. Iran will try to seek help from Russia and Venezuela, but the real wild card will be what China decides to do. From what I can tell, China plans on staying out of this, and for the most part Russia will too.
If war is declared on Iran, then Iran is fucked. Plain and simple.

Oh yeah, and it's a good thing they ousted Mossadeq back in the 50s. The Shah was smart to remove him via the help of the CIA - Mossadeq didn't know how to play politics. He called the UK an enemy, and had cut all ties with it. Real smart move to make, great way to make LOTS of enemies both at home and abroad. This was merely 7 years after the end of World War II, and at a time when there was heightened tensions between the good West and the AWFUL Soviet Union. The British weren't gonna have any of this Mossadeq shit, and they did the right thing by taking Mossadeq down. He's not all that different from the current bastard of a leader of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez.
Mossadeq became more and more of a dictator during his final days in power, so don't give me any BS about what great of a man he was.

As for the Shah, he was way more tolerant then many other monarchs at the time. He was also a far better leader then any of those super villains who were heading up the Soviet Union - you know, the ones responsible for killing tens of millions of their own people who were against Communism.

I am so happy Russia is no longer a communist country, but it's sad that there are still remnants of its Soviet past. The country needs to start looking up to the West, rather then challenge every move the West makes.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono 1. I already talked about the double standard.

Yeah, what are you going to do about it though?

...rhetorical question, or maybe not.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono 2 Are you trying to justify Iran's abuse of prisoners (if there is any going on) with the way the US treats theirs? I hope not.

Uhhh... no. Neo, how long have you been on PDD? Longer than I have, and we amongst others were here before it degenerated in to what it is now. You should know me better than that by now dude.

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles The Iranian people are responsible for their shit, nowadays as much as ever. No one forced them to vote for their current president into office.

Do you even know how he got the votes?he went after the poor to win voted,just like how gets all his voted from the south aka the not so rich and educated people.

quote:

You say he has no real power, yet everyone will agree he's way more extreme then his predecessor. He's very open about his views, and constantly tries to pick a fight with the world's richest most successful countries.

so just because he is against the U.S. he is against the world? wow

quote:

There were no outside western aggressors in this picture when he was voted into office, and the people of Iran still chose him. Iran's problems are the country's own faults, and it's trying to blame the West for it.

Remember when Bush wont the elections the firt time with cheating?do you blame the American people for that too?

quote:

Iran needs to free the British sailors NOW, and to comply with the U.N. Time is running out for their leaders if they do otherwise and they know it.

Nobody wants to go to war with Iran except Israel,U.S really and this situation would be a perfect excuse for them to rage a war.

quote:

If they pick a fight with the U.K. they'll automatically be at war with pretty much all of Europe, not to mention America, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc. Iran will try to seek help from Russia and Venezuela, but the real wild card will be what China decides to do. From what I can tell, China plans on staying out of this, and for the most part Russia will too. If war is declared on Iran, then Iran is fucked. Plain and simple.

No fucktard the whole region is fucked if there is a war with Iran.Cant you see that?
Iran will become another battle ground just like Iraq and that wont achieve nothing but instability for the whole region and essentially other countries in the world.

Your arguments are very weak.
Iran has been not only anti-Bush but anti-West for a long time now, but especially nowadays.
I think going after Iran will actually BRING STABILITY to the Middle East, not the other way around. The country needs to be split up ASAP - the Kurds should be given their own country in Iran, Iraq, and later Turkey, and part of Iran should just be renamed Persia (where Persians are the majority). The Bahaii faith should be given its own autonomous region, as well as other people found within Iran.

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles I think going after Iran will actually BRING STABILITY to the Middle East

Now where have I heard similar sentiments like this before? Hmmm, let me think a moment......some other country involved, I think....same area....dang, can't put a finger on it.....

quote:

The country needs to be split up ASAP - the Kurds should be given their own country in Iran, Iraq, and later Turkey, and part of Iran should just be renamed Persia (where Persians are the majority). The Bahaii faith should be given its own autonomous region, as well as other people found within Iran.

Yahoo, brother! I can't wait to drop a few thousand cluster bombs and some bunker-bustin' nukes to fulfill this ideal dream of ours! Of course we might have a few problems with all those darn civilians here and there, and pretty much the rest of the world that kinda sorta hates our fucking guts for going to war on false pretenses and making an absolute cluster-fuck outa one place already, and we might have a teensy weensy little credibility problem as a result of everything our little Bush touches, but fuck 'em! If we can do a kick-ass job like we did in Iraq, then why the hell can't we do the same to Iran?

Lead the way, brother! Show those Shiite bastards what us Americans mean by the words, "we'll stabilize you guys by bombing the fuck outa ya!" Woohoo!!!

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Your arguments are very weak. Iran has been not only anti-Bush but anti-West for a long time now, but especially nowadays. I think going after Iran will actually BRING STABILITY to the Middle East, not the other way around. The country needs to be split up ASAP - the Kurds should be given their own country in Iran, Iraq, and later Turkey, and part of Iran should just be renamed Persia (where Persians are the majority). The Bahaii faith should be given its own autonomous region, as well as other people found within Iran.

you should be the next president of America,you got the required knowledge and the will to destroy the world.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.