[budoslavic]

(01-01-2018 11:52 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 11:32 AM)budoslavic Wrote:  

A deal that we all found out later happened to be a fictional narrative that Ben Rhodes proudly and smugly made up.

What do you have against the Iran deal? As far as I can tell, it was a very reasonable agreement, praised by world leaders except for Bibi.

One word: inspections. Watch Ben Rhodes lied on CNN about it (around 1:10), which I never forget.

Iran would never allow any outside inspectors into their country to inspect their military nuke facilities. Sadly, they successfully tested their ICBMs last year.

24/7, anywhere, anytime inspections...how did that work out so far, Ben?

That's how bad (and one sided) the deal is.

[TigerMandingo]

(01-01-2018 01:07 PM)budoslavic Wrote:  

That's how bad (and one sided) the deal is.

Ok, let's say Iran develops nukes, ICBMs etc. How does that affect your life as an American citizen (assuming you are one) living 7,000 miles away? No one seriously believes that country poses any sort of threat to the US anyway. Or are you concerned for the safety of Israel?

If I wanted a President who'd continue saber-rattling the ME, I would have voted for Hillary. I was under the impression that the neocohenry would at least subside with Trump.

Immigration and infrastructure should be Trump's focus. Instead we get proclamations about Jerusalem and dancing with the Saudis.

[MMX2010]

TigerMandingo Wrote:

Ok, let's say Iran develops nukes, ICBMs etc. How does that affect your life as an American citizen (assuming you are one) living 7,000 miles away? No one seriously believes that country poses any sort of threat to the US anyway. Or are you concerned for the safety of Israel?

Iran is willing to sell nuclear weapons to North Korea, which will soon have the ability to hit the United States with nuclear weapons.

Quote:

Immigration and infrastructure should be Trump's focus. Instead we get proclamations about Jerusalem and dancing with the Saudis.

The President cannot accomplish "immigration and infrastructure" without the consent and cooperation of Congress. But the President can lead foreign policy with his words and actions, without the consent and cooperation of Congress.

This is why foreign policy is being accomplished quickly, while "immigration and infrastructure" are not.

[Samseau]

(01-01-2018 01:15 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 01:07 PM)budoslavic Wrote:  

That's how bad (and one sided) the deal is.

Ok, let's say Iran develops nukes, ICBMs etc. How does that affect your life as an American citizen (assuming you are one) living 7,000 miles away? No one seriously believes that country poses any sort of threat to the US anyway. Or are you concerned for the safety of Israel?

If I wanted a President who'd continue saber-rattling the ME, I would have voted for Hillary. I was under the impression that the neocohenry would at least subside with Trump.

Immigration and infrastructure should be Trump's focus. Instead we get proclamations about Jerusalem and dancing with the Saudis.

Literally on the last page you claimed the deal was good for the people. When everyone here points out that the deal sucked ass for the Iranian people, you've shifted to "You must be a Jew if you think Iran having nukes is bad!" No one even mentioned or cared about the nukes, we are talking about the quality of life for the people.

The Iran deal did jack shit for the people. It was a terrible deal. Doesn't take a NeoCon to figure that out.

Bigger question is what makes you so blind on this subject?

[TigerMandingo]

(01-01-2018 01:38 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

No one even mentioned or cared about the nukes, we are talking about the quality of life for the people.

So you're Mother Theresa now? Stop hiding behind the facade of "humanitarian" rights. You are not concerned about the Iranian people, and that's fine.

Let's be real here: the moves Trump is pulling here are indistinguishable from whatever Hillary would have done. Perhaps a bit more constrained, I'll give you that. I'm not writing Trump off because I think he can accomplish a lot domestically, but the guy has been Bush 2.0 on the foreign policy front. I don't care how cool/alpha/4D chess he might seem.

[Samseau]

(01-01-2018 01:47 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 01:38 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

No one even mentioned or cared about the nukes, we are talking about the quality of life for the people.

So you're Mother Theresa now? Stop hiding behind the facade of "humanitarian" rights. You are not concerned about the Iranian people, and that's fine.

Let's be real here: the moves Trump is pulling here are indistinguishable from whatever Hillary would have done. Perhaps a bit more constrained, I'll give you that. I'm not writing Trump off because I think he can accomplish a lot domestically, but the guy has been Bush 2.0 on the foreign policy front. I don't care how cool/alpha/4D chess he might seem.

We'd have been at war with Russia over Syria if Hillary got in. Which would have meant we'd have been at war with Iran in short order as well.

I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. Syria is doing better than ever since Trump go in and stopped funding ISIS.

[Beirut]

(01-01-2018 01:07 PM)budoslavic Wrote:  

Iran would never allow any outside inspectors into their country to inspect their military nuke facilities.

Except it does. Inspectors routinely and vigirously inspect all iranian nuclear sites.

What isnt inspected is regular military sites. Im sure you can appreciate why a country under threat of war wouldnt want that.

All inspectors including americans have said Iran is totally complying with inspections and that its subject to the most rigorous program yet.

Unless one wants to pull a Colin Powell/Hans Blix moment.


As for long range missiles, theyre not part of the deal.

[Beirut]

(01-01-2018 01:38 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 01:15 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 01:07 PM)budoslavic Wrote:  

That's how bad (and one sided) the deal is.

Ok, let's say Iran develops nukes, ICBMs etc. How does that affect your life as an American citizen (assuming you are one) living 7,000 miles away? No one seriously believes that country poses any sort of threat to the US anyway. Or are you concerned for the safety of Israel?

If I wanted a President who'd continue saber-rattling the ME, I would have voted for Hillary. I was under the impression that the neocohenry would at least subside with Trump.

Immigration and infrastructure should be Trump's focus. Instead we get proclamations about Jerusalem and dancing with the Saudis.

Literally on the last page you claimed the deal was good for the people. When everyone here points out that the deal sucked ass for the Iranian people, you've shifted to "You must be a Jew if you think Iran having nukes is bad!" No one even mentioned or cared about the nukes, we are talking about the quality of life for the people.

The Iran deal did jack shit for the people. It was a terrible deal. Doesn't take a NeoCon to figure that out.

Bigger question is what makes you so blind on this subject?

It was good for the people regardless.

First it empowered the more moderate Ruhani/Zarif branch of government as opposed to Khamenei as the revolutionary guard and more fundamental branch werent too keen on the deal.

Secondly opening Iran to business with european and other companies was good for iranians.

Now the corruption and fundamentalism remains a big problem, so is the poor economy, but none of those were caused by the deal and if anything a bit lessened.

And it was good for the region. Remember that the deal came after they failed to defeat Iran in Syria and Iraq. Obama didnt start his terms with the deal. He was backed into it by the failures in the middle east after intially escalating against Iran. So basically you either keep escalating against a potentially nuclear Iran which will be a problem for everyone, or you start a channel of communication.


This is basically the middle easts problem:

Does Israel/US acknowledge there are other people there and are ready to sit with them and work out deals? or they want to destroy everyone and have 100% of what they want.

If its the first, there will be peace tomorrow. If its the second, it doesnt matter if Iran and Syria and Hezballah disappear tomorrow, there will always be war in some way.

[TigerMandingo]

(01-01-2018 02:01 PM)Beirut Wrote:  

This is basically the middle easts problem:

Does Israel/US acknowledge there are other people there and are ready to sit with them and work out deals? or they want to destroy everyone and have 100% of what they want.

If its the first, there will be peace tomorrow. If its the second, it doesnt matter if Iran and Syria and Hezballah disappear tomorrow, there will always be war in some way.

Very well put. I think the entire world acknowledges that the US is a global superpower. The problem is you have to treat other nations with a modicum of respect and dignity. Talking to Iran/Syria/Russia whoever as if they're misbehaving 10 year old doesn't do anyone any favors.

The US wants full spectrum dominance. That's understandable for a military and economic goliath. But that doesn't mean you have to eat alone and worse, refuse other nations the right to eat.

"Those who want respect, give respect"

[worldwidetraveler]

(01-01-2018 02:12 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Very well put. I think the entire world acknowledges that the US is a global superpower. The problem is you have to treat other nations with a modicum of respect and dignity. Talking to Iran/Syria/Russia whoever as if they're misbehaving 10 year old doesn't do anyone any favors.

The US wants full spectrum dominance. That's understandable for a military and economic goliath. But that doesn't mean you have to eat alone and worse, refuse other nations the right to eat.

"Those who want respect, give respect"

So you're the Pope now? Let's not pretend you care if other countries respect us or not.

You have a rather simpleton view of the world if you truly believe these countries won't fuck with us if we leave them alone. I wish that was the case but history shows us otherwise.

[MMX2010]

Beirut Wrote:

It was good for the people regardless.

On Twitter, there are multiple videos of Iranian people chanting against the Iran Deal.

When you declare that, "The Iran Deal was good for the people regardless", how many Iranian people did you directly speak to before proclaiming this?

[LEMONed IScream]

I'm afraid that "why can't we all just get along and mind our own business" isn't really a prevalent, working guideline of International Relations

Conflict, tensions, paranoia, projection, falsehoods, truths, all play a part.

[ms224]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz

The US Navy keeps the seas open and markets flowing.

When some crackpots with nuclear weapons and missiles shut it down, I'm sure all of civilized Europe , ME and the rest of asia will either kiss the mullahs asses or come begging for US to solve this problem for them.

Anyways, fuck the mullahs, communists and other assorted vermin , if anyone from Iran is reading this Make Persia Great Again in the image we have shown the world. We, Americans, support all people who want proper societies.

[Higgs Bosun]

(01-01-2018 01:38 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 01:15 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 01:07 PM)budoslavic Wrote:  

That's how bad (and one sided) the deal is.

Ok, let's say Iran develops nukes, ICBMs etc. How does that affect your life as an American citizen (assuming you are one) living 7,000 miles away? No one seriously believes that country poses any sort of threat to the US anyway. Or are you concerned for the safety of Israel?

If I wanted a President who'd continue saber-rattling the ME, I would have voted for Hillary. I was under the impression that the neocohenry would at least subside with Trump.

Immigration and infrastructure should be Trump's focus. Instead we get proclamations about Jerusalem and dancing with the Saudis.

Literally on the last page you claimed the deal was good for the people. When everyone here points out that the deal sucked ass for the Iranian people, you've shifted to "You must be a Jew if you think Iran having nukes is bad!" No one even mentioned or cared about the nukes, we are talking about the quality of life for the people.

The Iran deal did jack shit for the people. It was a terrible deal. Doesn't take a NeoCon to figure that out.

Bigger question is what makes you so blind on this subject?

Me, I'll shamelessly admit I don't care one bit for the Iranian people, any more than I do for the African people, the Arab people, or just about any other people out there. If Iran were to collapse in 5 years time and succumb to the forces of "liberalization" I'd gladly use the opportunity to pack my carpet-bag and go there in search or profit and Persian pussy.

So in my mind, the effects of any particular American policy on the Iranian people is nigh on irrelevant. That is also the mindset supposedly underlying the Trump foreign policy. When was the last time Trump decried the waste of trillions of dollars on middle eastern wars, must have been just a day or two ago, right? "Imagine if we'd spent those trillions here in America" is basically what he has always said and keeps on saying, and I (as well as most guys here I'd imagine) fully agree with him on this.

Needless to say, it's a bit jarring when he immediately follows up such talk with aggressive anti-Iranian rhetoric. It doesn't matter whether the rhetoric is justified by WMD scaremongering (of the same type Trump ridiculed in the context of the Iraq war during the election) or crocodile tears on behalf of "the Iranian people." When I hear such talk, what I immediately think about is that I'm being actively sold a lemon: another sales push for spending trillions of dollars on a middle eastern war. This is the same shyster kvetching that was used to build up support for the Iraq war.

Now, hopefully nothing will come of the rhetoric. No way to know at this point. But just because nothing may come of it, doesn't mean I like it. Basically, I'm like a minor shareholder listening to the CEO give a sales-pitch for a thunderously stupid and destructive corporate initiative that will cost me thousands in wealth if it goes forward. Overall, I like this CEO, and he's done right by the shareholders so far, but boy oh boy do I wish he'd shut the fuck up about this particular dumbass initiative already because just talking about it is making me nervous.

[Matt Forney]

The people who are acting shocked over Trump's reaction to Iran really perplex me.

Trump's daughter and son-in-law are Jewish. He repeatedly proclaimed his support for Israel during the election. His vice president is involved with Christians United for Israel.

You helped elect a Zionist president, and now you're getting a Zionist foreign policy. Deal with it, because the alternative was Hillary Clinton's Coalition of the Fringes fitting you for FEMA death camp uniforms.

As part of that Zionist foreign policy, the mullahs of Iran will fall. As AnonBosch pointed out up-thread, be grateful that the Iranian people are removing their own government instead of American troops doing it.

It will also include more cold war against Russia. Arming Ukraine is just the beginning.* Expect more action in Azerbaijan and Georgia, and possibly Belarus. Zionists believe that Russia is Magog, destined to destroy Israel unless it is stopped. Think I'm kidding? When I worked in the North Dakota oil fields, I was part of an evangelical social circle where they openly talked about this. Evangelical TV channels regularly show maps of the Middle East with Magog superimposed over Russia.

You voted for this, so stop complaining. As Mencken might say, you knew what was best for you, and now you're getting it good and hard.

I personally think the Wall, increased deportations, tax reform/end of Obamacare, and all the positive changes that have occurred under Trump are worth Iran becoming a Zionist satrapy. If I were Iranian, I might feel differently, but I'm not, so America First. If it becomes easier for me to go to Iran and score a Persian flag, even better. So long as American troops stay off Iranian soil, I'm fine with what's going on.

I personally don't believe that Iran was anywhere close to building nukes. I don't care if they were. I have zero reason to care if the mullahs fall, given that they would gladly slit my throat for being an infidel. Just because they are supposedly enemies of globalism (supposedly: as mentioned upthread, it's kind of odd that Khomeini was freely allowed to organize his revolution in France) doesn't make them my friends. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend: he gets shot second.

It's the Zionists' world: we're just living in it. Make your peace with it.

* Contrary to the typical lazy analysis about Ukraine---and comparisons of the current upheaval in Iran to Euromaidan---there's lots of evidence that the current Ukrainian government has fallen out of favor with the globalists. They've been catering to nationalists more and more, most notably with the law mandating education in Ukrainian only (which pissed off Hungary, due to the large Hungarian minority in Zakarpattia Oblast, and spurred them to block Ukraine's European integration).

In particular, I think Mikheil Saakashvili is being used as a stooge for State Department interests in Ukraine. But that's a topic for another thread.

Just because Soros et al. are likely licking their chops right now at the events in Iran doesn't guarantee that they will be able to take or maintain control.

[Beirut]

Matt i apprieciate your post. Its very honest and informed and while we both see the same situation we come to different conclusions.

I think the wall and deportations and a few percentages less in taxes are not more important than this. Even if i was american (and before someone doubts that i apply the same reasoning to the state of my country).

Because the next president or the one after that can raise taxes and welcome immigrants in one signature.

Ultimately if you dont change the power structure nothing good will last. Your enemy isnt some old mexican lady crossing over. By all means deport her. and the muslim immigrants. But who brought them there? and why?

This is what a lot of Trump supporters and i disagree. They are mad at the symptoms but not at the cause.


And this is why they will never win. Theyre fighting the wrong enemy. Theyre busy killing the swarms instead of the hive mind.

[911]

(01-01-2018 01:50 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 01:47 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 01:38 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

No one even mentioned or cared about the nukes, we are talking about the quality of life for the people.

So you're Mother Theresa now? Stop hiding behind the facade of "humanitarian" rights. You are not concerned about the Iranian people, and that's fine.

Let's be real here: the moves Trump is pulling here are indistinguishable from whatever Hillary would have done. Perhaps a bit more constrained, I'll give you that. I'm not writing Trump off because I think he can accomplish a lot domestically, but the guy has been Bush 2.0 on the foreign policy front. I don't care how cool/alpha/4D chess he might seem.

We'd have been at war with Russia over Syria if Hillary got in. Which would have meant we'd have been at war with Iran in short order as well.

I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. Syria is doing better than ever since Trump go in and stopped funding ISIS.

ISIS didn't collapse because the US/NATO/gulf stopped funding them, the shipment of weapons hasn't abated last year, ISIS didn't lose because they run out weapons, they collapsed because the Russians and Syrians bombed the hell out of them. You can't control territory in a flat, arid land without air cover. Once the Russian air force started getting seriously involved, ISIS' days were numbered. Since the jihadis in Syria are universally hated by Christians and Muslims alike, they couldn't survive.

NATO was covering ISIS up to the latest battles in Raqqa, after which they helped evacuate thousands of their mercenary jihadis, instead of finishing them off right there. And this wasn't the first time that happened.

[Foolsgo1d]

If Irans government goes full anti-revolutiona mode it wont end well. Irans borders are long and adjacent to where large numbers of Sunni Muslims are so it wouldn't be long before the likes of ISIS are doing suicide attacks for the hell of it.

I'm sure Saudi Arabia will not hesitate to get a few punches in.

[Higgs Bosun]

(01-01-2018 07:05 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

snip

Nobody is acting perplexed. We can divide the RVF response to transpiring events into two camps: those who are bitching about it because they don't like it (I would fall into this camp) and those trying to convince themselves as well as the rest of us that what is happening is wonderful. If I'm feeling uncharitable, I'd say the latter group has literally fallen in love with Donald Trump and he simply can do no wrong as far as they are concerned. Policies which they would have abhorred prior to Nov 8, 2016 are now just grand because the God Emperor has seen fit to champion them. Regardless, literally nobody is shaking their head in confusion as to what is going on. We all know, and we all have staked out our position on whether we like it or not.

Your geopolitical analysis is correct and I don't dispute the majority of it. What I don't understand is why you are telling us to "make our peace with it." This is a discussion forum. In the context of this discussion forum, we can stake out our real positions and say what we want regardless of whether it's the zionists' world out there on terra firma. It's not the zionists' world within the cyberconfines of RVF, so I'm not sure why you're telling us to muzzle ourselves and comment on current events in anything other than honest fashion.

What I do disagree with you is that this is what we voted for. We voted for MAGA, not a return to neoconnery. Trump ran in professed contrast to interventionalism. Trump ran on a platform of detente with Russia. Sure, we always knew there was an element of zionist stoogery behind the curtains, but why do you exhort us to simply make our peace with it? That seems defeatist and counterproductive. I certainly see no actual advantage to be derived from just sitting on our haunches, sticking out our tongues and wagging our tails like good little shkotzim. Opposing Trump's more destructive policies doesn't mean we will get our way, but not opposing them ensures we won't.

[911]

(01-01-2018 01:38 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 01:15 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 01:07 PM)budoslavic Wrote:  

That's how bad (and one sided) the deal is.

Ok, let's say Iran develops nukes, ICBMs etc. How does that affect your life as an American citizen (assuming you are one) living 7,000 miles away? No one seriously believes that country poses any sort of threat to the US anyway. Or are you concerned for the safety of Israel?

If I wanted a President who'd continue saber-rattling the ME, I would have voted for Hillary. I was under the impression that the neocohenry would at least subside with Trump.

Immigration and infrastructure should be Trump's focus. Instead we get proclamations about Jerusalem and dancing with the Saudis.

Literally on the last page you claimed the deal was good for the people. When everyone here points out that the deal sucked ass for the Iranian people, you've shifted to "You must be a Jew if you think Iran having nukes is bad!" No one even mentioned or cared about the nukes, we are talking about the quality of life for the people.

The Iran deal did jack shit for the people. It was a terrible deal. Doesn't take a NeoCon to figure that out.

Bigger question is what makes you so blind on this subject?

There is no question that the economy of Iran would have been even worse without that deal. It's not like lifting their sanctions is what hurt Iran. The main difference in their economy was the collapse of oil price, which came about right after that deal was implemented:



If people are protesting the price of eggs in Tehran today, they might like a whole lot less the price of eggs after their country is plunged into civil war and chaos, their currency devaluated, agriculture and infrastructure disrupted, like what happened in Syria.

6 years ago in Syria you had protestors clamoring for less corruption and more freedom. A couple of years later, you had jihadis blowing up their cities and infrastructure. This is what you will be seeing a lot more of in Iran if the situation goes pear-shaped:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-3...t-protests

And if you're complaining about Muslim refugees flooding into Germany and Sweden, bear in mind that Iran's population is nearly 4 times the size of Syria's. You'd be looking at 10-15 million refugees flooding into Greece through Turkey, and they're not getting stopped at Thermopylae this time around.

[AManLikePutin]

I've seen a lot of videos today...Some things I noticed:

- Nearly all the protests happen after it's dark. It allows people to not be so visible for identification, and it's also when police aren't at their sharpest.
- Contrary 2009, there is no chants for reforms. In fact, one of the central chants is: "Principalist or Reformer it doesn't matter, your time is up"
- Unprecedented before, a lot of posters and imagery of both Khomeini and Khamenei is being ripped and set on fire.
- So far, the only major region where there's been very little activity is North West near Azerbaijan. One of the reasons is that the regime knows about their separatist tendencies, so they actually serve them, so standards of living and quality of life is greater than most other places, Tehran aside. Be interesting to see if they join the protests this week.
- Today, a great number of actors and actresses for the first time commented on the protests, almost all supporting the people and condemning IRGC violence. This may be a start to get the higher-class elite to join too. Reminder that average monthly in Tehran is over twice as much as average in other cities.
- I think this week the regime actually went quite easy on protestors (by their standards) hoping the protests would naturally die down. But IRGC is now set to take over control of the situation starting tomorrow and iron fist will be out.
- Saudi Arabia, as predicted, is trying to sponsor terror groups in Khuzestan. A propaganda video came out today with 5 arab men with Saudi accent, asking people of Ahwaz (capital of Khuzestan) to end "Persian occupation". I saw the clip, they looked like virgin teenagers. Just Saudis trying to stir the pot. But I saw many clips of Ahwaz protests, no mention of race/tribes in the chants.
- Son of Shah is being a lot more vocal and active on Twitter...and now there is a vacuum and void for leadership for opposition. If he has any serious intents of leading (He said he wants a secular parliamentary democracy and not a monarchy), this is his chance to make a stand.
- One of the biggest chants is: "Police forces, please join your people". In Iran, there are 4 level of parallel forces. The Army (mostly neutral and the ones most likely to support people), the IRGC (very much regime loyalists), the Basij (basically IRGC-lite), and day to day police officers. In a few cities, protests have been near the IRGC and Basij buildings, with people throwing rocks at the building and ripping apart their posters. IRGC and Basij are hated by most ordinary people, whereas the day-to-day cops and the army people are seen in a much better light.
- I've seen posters and posts online calling for a nation-wide strike at 12 noon tomorrow. I don't think there is much into it, but something to keep an eye out for. I am very interested to see how ruthless and brutal IRGC forces will be tomorrow.
- Just saw the detailed list of the budget. 18% INCREASE in budget for religious seminary of the most regressive and crazy cleric in the country. From a so called reformer president as well.

**Also one thing for Saudi Arabia.....a post-islamic united Iran is almost guaranteed to be extremely nationalist, vehemently anti-arab, and xenophobic. That's why Saudi is trying to push the separatist message through their proxies and social media. They are my biggest concern. I would hope that the people are smarter than to fall for Saudi's message. Luckily, one difference of Iran and Syria, is Iran has seen about 40 years of islamism and theocracy. No body will be fooled by the false songs of the ideas Saudi would like to promote.

[/url]

Just saw an interview with the one of regime's top 10 powerful guys, ex-head of parliament....when asked about the protests, he went out to say how shocked and surprised he was at pro-Reza Shah chants,..you could tell he was extremely triggered.

This is also a good thread discussing the depth and background story behind the protests. Funnily, the very first one was prompted up by principals Hardliners to be focused just on Rouhani (and not the regime), but then it got out of their control and has caught them by surprise.

[url=https://twitter.com/alihashem_tv/status/947974851129683969]

[Belgrano]

New Trump tweet:

[url=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/948164289591902208][/url]

He's not exactly wrong.

Regarding the zionist neocohen interpretation, sure, perhaps.

But is it so hard to believe that at the same time the Iranian people are pretty fucking pissed off with their theocratic Islamic government?

Think about it, you are young and maybe even well educated, yet you can't find a job, food is fucking expensive, you have no perspectives, all while your government is spending all that sweet oil and tax money to fund multiple wars abroad, support people that, political alliances and cash aside, still hate you and your people to the bone, spend a ridiculous amount of money on religious institutions, programs and clerics, with the rest of the wealth disappearing in a state within a state black hole and corrupt government cronies AND you can't even get drunk or party to distract yourself from the sad and enraging reality.

But, you know, Zionists and stuff...

[nomadbrah]

(01-01-2018 07:05 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

It's the Zionists' world: we're just living in it. Make your peace with it.

No, and your entire post borders on deliberate demoralization.

[Enoch]

With Iran in chaos this is a great time to implement the H10B visa program for beautiful Persian women seeking escape.

When they finally reach the US we then implement "Burkas 4 Bikinis", the other pillar of my middle-east immigration platform.

[Horus]

(01-02-2018 11:53 AM)Enoch Wrote:  

When they finally reach the US we then implement "Burkas 4 Bikinis", the other pillar of my middle-east immigration platform.

You'll also need to implement a comprehensive body hair removal program running parallel to that platform if it's to be palatable to the general public. Otherwise we could be in for a nasty surprise when the first burkas come off.