Iāve avoided commenting after the drone attacks.
But this popped up on FB
Repatriating tourists fir Thomas Cook is one thing, but 500k Brits from the Gulf?
Never saw a post/news article like this before
Donāt see it myself(are they that desperate?).
They pulled out of the nuclear deal for one reason and that had nothing to do with nuclear. It was all about missiles(hypersonic, like Russia) and wholly at israels behest. Just look at the demands, itās the missile tech thatās the fear.
Thereās a whole network of resistance thatās been building for decades and the foundation of that is Iran. The reprisals to attack/false flag might be more than expected.
Donāt agree with all of this, but he knows the region far better than i ever will.
Thereās also the massive multiple billion deal just signed with China, that fucks the dollar off(look that one up, itās huge).
Bit worried about that.
Heās learning from his mates. but he by no means the first US President to implement a policy of assassination. It is a bit of a worry when the so-called leader of the free world is adopting tactics inspired by their mates in the Knesset.
Iran has had a proxy war in Syria as well, biased bollocks.
I have to ask, @Barry-Sanchez. What part of my tweet indicated that Iran did not engage in proxy wars.
Back to school for basic comprehension for you, my lad.
I suspect it has been superseded by your need to have a go.
Equally you omitted then which is totally biased, Iran did not should be has not, suspect should be replaced by suppose also.
Poor grammar and still biased shite son.
What does āaggressor stateā mean to you, @Barry-Sanchez?
For me, itās a country that invades other countries outside international law. Iran has been in one war since 1979, and that was when it was defending itself from a Western-backed Iraqi invasion.
Not as if anyone argued that destroying Iraq would strengthen Iran.
3 months of threatening to hit Tankers in the Straits of Hormuz cutting off a lot of the oil flow & the lights go out
1 Like
What about sponsor of terrorism? I suppose youāre quick to condemn the Saudis?
I think we both know what this is really about.
First off, according to Wesley Clark, Iran was always on the list. Iād argue thatās because Iran is a relatively stable and strong state compared to the brittle standards of its neighbours.
Second, there are a couple of other countries in the region which really donāt like that.
Unlike the Iraqis, they have proper support from allies that rely on the oil you speak of. This inevitable belligerence has been on their radar for some time, which is why the Chinese are investing in a New Silk Road. They will either not be affected, or will be incredibly miffed if they are.
Russia and Syria are already staunch allies of the Iranian regime, and theyāve just spent nigh on a decade in combat, against the same forces that might array themselves against Iran now.
The fact that this General could be so well connected in Iraq is a point worth considering in itself. Since the 2003 invasion, the country that has provided the most actual aid to Iraq has been Iran, not forty years after the former invaded the latter.
There will come a point where the US will pull out of that region, and I suspect that point is coming soon.
If they picked on the wrong country when they went after Syria, they have definitely picked the wrong country in going after Iran.
If Western troops leave the middle east sectarian warfare like never before will take place. Israel and Saudi will win out also. The best you can hope for in that region until they drop their backward practice of faith rulers for democracy is a stalemate.
I am honestly not sure that it will, or that it needs to. If you look at the time when that region was last really at peace, youāre looking at the Ottoman Empire, a bloc comprising of many races, creeds and faiths.
I think the ultimate plan of the hawks driving these events is to create a balkanised Middle East with a panoply of tinpot dictators keeping things running for them.
Their worst nightmare therefore, is those folks uniting in a common cause and achieving some kind of unity. Somewhat counter-productively, Western intervention has given them something in common; they donāt like Western intervention.
If Western forces leave the Middle East, the USA will be alright barring some Islamic Republic springing up in Central America. Weāll probably be alright. Island nation, big moat, etc.
Not sure about Europe, like.
What was the official religion of said Empire?
I think the general practice is more important, mate.
This was an empire that looked after people of other faiths well, tolerating communities of different faiths for centuries.
Really? Aside from that sweeping statement, religious tolerance isnāt acceptance.