Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Obama's Iran talks

politics Iran US Israel Obama Netanyahu

  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#41
BruceVC

BruceVC

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 4359 posts
  • Location:Johannesburg, South Africa
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

No, it isn't.  How many nuclear deals have the US and Iran agreed to already? A dozen/ How many of them have actually  done anything worthwhile? ZERO. Or else we wouldn't be talking about them making yet another deal. Plus, Iran is a country that mass murders their own  citizens,  have their hands in so many meat pies (probably just as much as the Great Satan in the ME), the fact they want to wipte entire nations off the map, etc., etc. Iran  gov't 9as opposed to the people) is pure garbage. Throw them in the garbage with NK, ISIS, and AQ.

 

Bottom line is that any deal 'made' with them will be broken by them or be so twisted that it will be completely infectual.

 

 

@Hurl What's ridiculous about it? You don't know Iran is number one terror sponsoring state, and their ideology is the same as AQ and IS, except it's the Shiite variety? Edit: It'll work about as well as the N Korean nuclear negotiations.

 

No you guys are horribly misinformed if you really consider Iran the same as ISIS or Al-Qaeda, there are many differences that include 

 

  • Firstly Iranians aren't even Arabs, they are Persians
  • Iran is a sovereign  and internationally recognized country, it has its own boarders and political aspirations. ISIS and AQ have none of these
  • Iran like every country has moderates and hardliners in its government. There are people in Iran that want peaceful  Uranium enrichment and an end to sanctions
  • ISIS and AQ have no reasonable political objectives that any government will agree to  

 

I'm not saying that Iran is is peaceful and benign country, there history and current activities have clearly demonstrated this is not the case

 

 But they really should  not be considered a country of irreconcilable Islamic extremists  because that view would be unhelpful to important peace negotiations 

 

The reality is you can negotiate with Iran and find compromise, you cannot negotiate with the likes of ISIS or AQ 



#42
Zoraptor

Zoraptor

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2670 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

The number 1 terror sponsoring state is Saudi Arabia, and by a fair distance. Which is jolly inconvenient, so generally ignored.


  • Rostere likes this

#43
BruceVC

BruceVC

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 4359 posts
  • Location:Johannesburg, South Africa
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

The number 1 terror sponsoring state is Saudi Arabia, and by a fair distance. Which is jolly inconvenient, so generally ignored.

 

I wish you would stop saying that, these types of posts imply that the current Saudi government is actively funding terrorism. Wealthy Saudis support and fund different types of extremism  but that's not the same thing as the Saudi government supporting them

 

Saudi Arabia has been an ally to the West in fighting Islamic extremism, they have arrested hundreds of extremists within there own country and given the West information about extremist plots. And yes its not because Saudi Arabia loves the West its about self-preservation as the House of Saud is also a target of the ideological objectives of AQ and ISIS

 

So in summary Saudi Arabia is a friend to the West in the War on Terror even though it may not seem like it is at times  :geek:


Edited by BruceVC, 10 March 2015 - 09:27 PM.


#44
Namutree

Namutree

    Compulsive Double Poster of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1711 posts
  • Location:Michigan
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

 

No you guys are horribly misinformed if you really consider Iran the same as ISIS or Al-Qaeda, there are many differences that include 

 

  • Firstly Iranians aren't even Arabs, they are Persians

I don't see the importance of this particular difference. 



#45
BruceVC

BruceVC

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 4359 posts
  • Location:Johannesburg, South Africa
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

 

 

No you guys are horribly misinformed if you really consider Iran the same as ISIS or Al-Qaeda, there are many differences that include 

 

  • Firstly Iranians aren't even Arabs, they are Persians

I don't see the importance of this particular difference. 

 

 

People think that Iran is the same ethnic group as other countries in the  Middle East, they aren't. They are Persians and do see themselves historically different and they have there own political agenda which is understandable 

 

So for example if you look at the original 9/11 hijackers not one of them was Iranian, this should tell us that when it comes to Iran we can't see them as following the same ideology as ISIS or AQ. That's why it is significant 



#46
Meshugger

Meshugger

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 5240 posts
  • Location:IRQ port 11
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

 

 

No you guys are horribly misinformed if you really consider Iran the same as ISIS or Al-Qaeda, there are many differences that include 

 

  • Firstly Iranians aren't even Arabs, they are Persians

I don't see the importance of this particular difference. 

 

 

French, German, same difference. 



#47
Rostere

Rostere

    Illuminatus of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1084 posts
  • Location:Stockholm
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

This new letter from Republicans implicitly addressed at the Iranian opposition (the people who do not endorse a deal), is ridiculous. It's like if Cold War Republicans had addressed SU hardliners, saying that it was no point negotiating with Kennedy about putting nukes on Cuba. Suddenly the charade that they actually want to solve a problem drops. When they make common cause with the most hardline nationalist forces in Iran, you know something is seriously wrong.

Pro-Western secular Iranians: Want an agreement on nuclear power.
Moderate Iranians: Want an agreement on nuclear power.
Hardline Nationalist Iranians: Want to sabotage the agreement on nuclear power.
Republicans: Want to sabotage the agreement on nuclear power.
Democrats: Want an agreement on nuclear power.

 

Great job Republicans.

OK, wait. It's unfair to lump all Republicans together. The culprits (who might already have thought about how stupid this letter was) are bought and paid for by the same guys who have repeatedly advocated bombing Iran in the past and originally advocated the Iraq war. The pro-Israel lobby, a.k.a. the "war on everything in the Middle East" mafia. When will people ever learn?
 

French, German, same difference.

 
The difference is more like between, say, Arabs and Greeks.
 

@Hurl What's ridiculous about it? You don't know Iran is number one terror sponsoring state, and their ideology is the same as AQ and IS, except it's the Shiite variety? Edit: It'll work about as well as the N Korean nuclear negotiations.

 

Oh boy.


  • BruceVC likes this

#48
HoonDing

HoonDing

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 9344 posts
  • Location:Absurdistan

 

 

No you guys are horribly misinformed if you really consider Iran the same as ISIS or Al-Qaeda, there are many differences that include 

 

  • Firstly Iranians aren't even Arabs, they are Persians

I don't see the importance of this particular difference. 

 

Persians are Aryans.



#49
BruceVC

BruceVC

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 4359 posts
  • Location:Johannesburg, South Africa
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Pro-Western secular Iranians: Want an agreement on nuclear power.
Moderate Iranians: Want an agreement on nuclear power.
Hardline Nationalist Iranians: Want to sabotage the agreement on nuclear power.
Republicans: Want to sabotage the agreement on nuclear power.
Democrats: Want an agreement on nuclear power.

 

 

 

This is an accurate  breakdown of the various political groups and there vested interests in the outcome of  the Iranian negotiations 


Edited by BruceVC, 11 March 2015 - 03:47 AM.


#50
Guard Dog

Guard Dog

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 603 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

Bruce, I honestly do not think Obama cares is Iran gets nuclear weapons or not. He just wants to be seen doing "something" about it. It makes no difference to him if the deal he agrees to is weak, non-binding, or if Iran is duplicitous. He just does not want history to say he did nothing. Obama is a perfect example of the modern bureaucratic dysfunction of the process being more important than the outcome.



#51
Zoraptor

Zoraptor

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2670 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

I don't see the importance of this particular difference.

There isn't one in this context- Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, Assad in Syria, much of Iraq's population and the protesters in Bahrain are all (broadly speaking) pro Iranian yet are also arab. Ethnicity is a factor in the regional rivalries, but it's far less so than the sectarian divide because arabs are far more likely to be persecuted by their own ethnicity following a different sect than by Persians. Conversely, there are some Sunni 'Persians' (well, Baluchi, but they're about as similar to Persians as a Morrocan Maghreb arab is to a Syriac arab is to a Bedouin arab) who are supported by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.



#52
Rostere

Rostere

    Illuminatus of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1084 posts
  • Location:Stockholm
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Bruce, I honestly do not think Obama cares is Iran gets nuclear weapons or not. He just wants to be seen doing "something" about it. It makes no difference to him if the deal he agrees to is weak, non-binding, or if Iran is duplicitous. He just does not want history to say he did nothing. Obama is a perfect example of the modern bureaucratic dysfunction of the process being more important than the outcome.

 

Then what do you propose?

 

There are a lot of people talking, most of which do not seem to have any knowledge about the process of acquiring nuclear weapons. First off, both the CIA and Mossad agree on the point that Iran does not appear to have a nuclear weapons program going on. If you think you have a more accurate source of intelligence on the matter, please share it with me. Otherwise, you should stop talking about "Iran getting nuclear weapons". These negotiations are about civilian nuclear power, and the logistics behind them, for all we know.

 

Yes, that includes parts which would shorten the time for Iran to build a nuclear bomb, should they choose to do so. But these are things many other countries also have - Romania, Germany, South Korea, formerly Sweden and also Slovakia, the list goes on. Only suddenly did it become important that Iran should not have those facilities. This is a red line which is drawn completely arbitrarily. You could as well talk about how a professorship in subatomic physics can shorten the breakout time for building nukes, and hype that we should "prevent Iran's university program" because that would be also be realistic and viable in Republican la la land.

 

It's ridiculous at this point - not only is the proverbial emperor naked, but he is also rubbing his **** in your face. I vaguely remember Ahmadinejad raging about US politicians still talking about "preventing Iran's nuclear program" when they in 2010 were already at such a point that they could enrich as much uranium as needed for several bombs a year.

 

The best you can do is to accept all civilian installations in good faith and then institute maximum surveillance of these sites under a treaty. It's either war, a treaty, or nothing. If you choose "treaty" over "nothing" the only potential downside is lost prestige for Obama if the treaty fizzles. Thus mindlessly choosing "nothing" over "treaty" is, quote: a perfect example of the modern bureaucratic dysfunction of prestige loss being more important than the expected outcome.



#53
Raithe

Raithe

    Lurking Caped One of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 3315 posts
  • Location:Deepest, Darkest, South of England
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

To counter-balance this with just a touch of humour..   <whistles innocently>
 
 

TEHRAN (The Borowitz Report)—Stating that “their continuing hostilities are a threat to world peace,” Iran has offered to mediate talks between congressional Republicans and President Obama.
 
Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, made the offer one day after Iran received what he called a “worrisome letter” from Republican leaders, which suggested to him that “the relationship between Republicans and Obama has deteriorated dangerously.”

“Tensions between these two historic enemies have been high in recent years, but we believe they are now at a boiling point,” Khamenei said. “As a result, Iran feels it must offer itself as a peacemaker.”
 
He said that his nation was the “logical choice” to jumpstart negotiations between Obama and the Republicans because “it has become clear that both sides currently talk more to Iran than to each other.”
 
He invited Obama and the Republicans to meet in Tehran to hash out their differences and called on world powers to force the two bitter foes to the bargaining table, adding, “It is time to stop the madness.”
 
Hours after Iran made its offer, President Obama said that he was willing to meet with his congressional adversaries under the auspices of Tehran, but questioned whether “any deal reached with Republicans is worth the paper it’s written on.”
 
For their part, the Republicans said they would only agree to talks if there were no preconditions, such as recognizing President Obama’s existence.


(and yes, I know, it's a satire news report but it is damn amusing)


Edited by Raithe, 11 March 2015 - 08:23 AM.

  • Rostere likes this

#54
Malcador

Malcador

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 7841 posts
  • Location:Someplace in Canada
  • Xbox Gamertag:Pft, consoles.
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Ah, trolling in international affairs :lol:



#55
Guard Dog

Guard Dog

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 603 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

To counter-balance this with just a touch of humour..   <whistles innocently>
 
 

TEHRAN (The Borowitz Report)—Stating that “their continuing hostilities are a threat to world peace,” Iran has offered to mediate talks between congressional Republicans and President Obama.
 
Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, made the offer one day after Iran received what he called a “worrisome letter” from Republican leaders, which suggested to him that “the relationship between Republicans and Obama has deteriorated dangerously.”

“Tensions between these two historic enemies have been high in recent years, but we believe they are now at a boiling point,” Khamenei said. “As a result, Iran feels it must offer itself as a peacemaker.”
 
He said that his nation was the “logical choice” to jumpstart negotiations between Obama and the Republicans because “it has become clear that both sides currently talk more to Iran than to each other.”
 
He invited Obama and the Republicans to meet in Tehran to hash out their differences and called on world powers to force the two bitter foes to the bargaining table, adding, “It is time to stop the madness.”
 
Hours after Iran made its offer, President Obama said that he was willing to meet with his congressional adversaries under the auspices of Tehran, but questioned whether “any deal reached with Republicans is worth the paper it’s written on.”
 
For their part, the Republicans said they would only agree to talks if there were no preconditions, such as recognizing President Obama’s existence.


(and yes, I know, it's a satire news report but it is damn amusing)

 

If Khamenei ever reads this he'll probably wish he'd thought of it!

 

 

Bruce, I honestly do not think Obama cares is Iran gets nuclear weapons or not. He just wants to be seen doing "something" about it. It makes no difference to him if the deal he agrees to is weak, non-binding, or if Iran is duplicitous. He just does not want history to say he did nothing. Obama is a perfect example of the modern bureaucratic dysfunction of the process being more important than the outcome.

 

Then what do you propose?

 

There are a lot of people talking, most of which do not seem to have any knowledge about the process of acquiring nuclear weapons. First off, both the CIA and Mossad agree on the point that Iran does not appear to have a nuclear weapons program going on. If you think you have a more accurate source of intelligence on the matter, please share it with me. Otherwise, you should stop talking about "Iran getting nuclear weapons". These negotiations are about civilian nuclear power, and the logistics behind them, for all we know.

 

Yes, that includes parts which would shorten the time for Iran to build a nuclear bomb, should they choose to do so. But these are things many other countries also have - Romania, Germany, South Korea, formerly Sweden and also Slovakia, the list goes on. Only suddenly did it become important that Iran should not have those facilities. This is a red line which is drawn completely arbitrarily. You could as well talk about how a professorship in subatomic physics can shorten the breakout time for building nukes, and hype that we should "prevent Iran's university program" because that would be also be realistic and viable in Republican la la land.

 

It's ridiculous at this point - not only is the proverbial emperor naked, but he is also rubbing his **** in your face. I vaguely remember Ahmadinejad raging about US politicians still talking about "preventing Iran's nuclear program" when they in 2010 were already at such a point that they could enrich as much uranium as needed for several bombs a year.

 

The best you can do is to accept all civilian installations in good faith and then institute maximum surveillance of these sites under a treaty. It's either war, a treaty, or nothing. If you choose "treaty" over "nothing" the only potential downside is lost prestige for Obama if the treaty fizzles. Thus mindlessly choosing "nothing" over "treaty" is, quote: a perfect example of the modern bureaucratic dysfunction of prestige loss being more important than the expected outcome.

 

Personally I think the notion that Iran is NOT trying to build nuclear weapons is a little naïve.  But as for what should be done about it I'm probably the last one on this board to ask because if it were up to me the US would involve itself in nothing east of Puerto Rico and west of Attu Island. If we did get dragged into a conflict outside those line it would end once the target country was utterly destroyed. None of this nation building madness. And US foreign aid would stop cold at both of those lines. If Israel was willing to take out Iranian facilities I would get out of their way and let them. I sure as hell would not threaten to shoot down allied aircraft the way the Idiot-on-the-Potomac did. But he never met an ally he loved or an enemy he hated.

 

If a treaty is useless, and most folks agree it is, why bother? If they di develop weapons and use them, and most agree if they had them they'll use them, then they will be wiped out. That at least would solve that problem.

 

Neville Chamberlain demonstrated for the whole world the value of a deal with the devil yet the same mistakes get made again and again.


Edited by Guard Dog, 11 March 2015 - 01:27 PM.


#56
Wrath of Dagon

Wrath of Dagon

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2157 posts
  • Location:Republic of Texas

No you guys are horribly misinformed if you really consider Iran the same as ISIS or Al-Qaeda, there are many differences that include

lol, we're horribly misinformed?
 

Firstly Iranians aren't even Arabs, they are Persians

I didn't say anything about their race, I was talking about ideology. Also Iran comprises many ethnic groups, not just Persians, including Arabs.

Iran is a sovereign  and internationally recognized country, it has its own boarders and political aspirations. ISIS and AQ have none of these

IS has plenty of aspirations, and Iran's hegemonic aspirations is exactly what make them so dangerous. Iran is only internationally recognized because it was a state before the current terrorist regime came to power. US has no diplomatic relations.

Iran like every country has moderates and hardliners in its government. There are people in Iran that want peaceful  Uranium enrichment and an end to sanctions

You're smoking too much of your favorite substance. Certainly a lot of the population does want peace, but that doesn't matter to their rulers.

ISIS and AQ have no reasonable political objectives that any government will agree to

Neither does Iran, even if the Clown in the White House can't figure that out.

I'm not saying that Iran is is peaceful and benign country, there history and current activities have clearly demonstrated this is not the case
 
 But they really should  not be considered a country of irreconcilable Islamic extremists  because that view would be unhelpful to important peace negotiations 
 
The reality is you can negotiate with Iran and find compromise, you cannot negotiate with the likes of ISIS or AQ

Burying your head in the sand because you can't handle reality isn't a solution. You can certainly negotiate with Iran, they'll just string you along and do what they want in the meantime. We even have the recent example of N Korea to look at, as I already mentioned.

Edit: Btw, as far as them not really wanting nuclear weapons. They can buy low enriched uranium for any peaceful purposes far cheaper than the billions they're spending on their nuclear program. The only reason to have an enrichment program like theirs is to make weapons-grade Uranium.

Edited by Wrath of Dagon, 11 March 2015 - 05:06 PM.


#57
Valsuelm

Valsuelm

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 421 posts
  • Location:New York, USA
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

So much irrational dislike for a nation that hasn't invaded anyone since before anyone currently living was born.



#58
Rostere

Rostere

    Illuminatus of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1084 posts
  • Location:Stockholm
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Edit: Btw, as far as them not really wanting nuclear weapons. They can buy low enriched uranium for any peaceful purposes far cheaper than the billions they're spending on their nuclear program. The only reason to have an enrichment program like theirs is to make weapons-grade Uranium.

 
This is part false and part true.

They DO need enrichment plants to enrich uranium for their needs, considering they mine their uranium themselves.

HOWEVER, buying low-enriched uranium from elsewhere would probably make more economic sense. Brazil suggested a deal like this some years ago, but was shot down by the US, who at that time advocated a complete shutdown of the Iranian nuclear program.

At this point there is really no meaning in discussing this any more. They have had the enrichment plants up and running since 2010 and if they had wanted to, they would have HEU for dozens of bombs today. So if you are really saying that they should shut off their enrichment facilities and you are under the impression that Iran wants to make a nuclear bomb, it is already too late. They could be hiding any amount of HEU anywhere. So dismantling the enrichment facilities means nothing, which it appears the Obama administration has finally realized.
 

Personally I think the notion that Iran is NOT trying to build nuclear weapons is a little naïve.

 
Personally, I think you appear more than a little naïve. Why would you think they are building nuclear weapons? When you have no proofs, who are you listening to?

Mossad has said they do not have one. CIA has said they do not have one. Oh look, Guard Dog thinking he knows better than the Israeli and American intelligence services. Great job.
 

Can you get it into your head that the same guys who are saying "Iran will have nukes in the next few years" have been saying so since the early nineties? And that these were the same who fabricated "evidence" about Iraq (for which they should be hanged, drawn and quartered for treason)? The exact same people are now hawking about Iran's "nuclear weapons" with zero evidence for everything. Geez, I guess Netanyahu wasn't fooling about when he said in 2001 that the US is easily influenced. The exact same people are trying the exact same trick on you for the second time. I'd like to (not) paraphrase GWB and say that if they can fool you once, then same on them. If they fool you twice, then you're just plain ****ing retarded.

Anyways, this is rapidly approaching idiot level when you make statements such as that without proof. Next you will be saying that you are sure that god exists.
 

If a treaty is useless, and most folks agree it is, why bother?

 
Wrong. If the treaty lets international inspectors inspect Iranian sites at will, then we can be sure that no military nuclear program is initiated in the future.

As I have already said, if you believe Iran has pursued a military nuclear program from the beginning, then they could already have all the materials they need for all the nukes they will ever need. So in that case, even a complete dismantlement of the Iranian nuclear program (which the Republicans have been calling a "good deal") will not be enough to be sure.

So as you see, a treaty like the current one is the best option because it is the only way we can learn to trust each other.
 

Neville Chamberlain demonstrated for the whole world the value of a deal with the devil yet the same mistakes get made again and again.

 

Yeah, because this is totally the same thing. The "good guys" postponing a war against the "bad guys". Nuanced American foreign policy insight at it's best :D.

The mere fact that you make this comparison, implicitly saying that Iran is "the devil" which cannot be dealt with peacefully demonstrates that you have more in common with the Iranian crackpot nationalists who are saying the same thing, than with moderates on either side.

Do you realize that "Neville Chamberlain demonstrated for the whole world the value of a deal with the devil yet the same mistakes get made again and again." is exactly the same argument that is made in Iran against this treaty?



#59
Guard Dog

Guard Dog

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 603 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

Wow Ros, I find your impassioned defense of Iran a little hard to understand. Maybe you're right and they are just harmless little fuzzy kittens and that whole state sponsorship of terrorism is nothing to worry about. But, whatever. Personally I could give a f--k what Iran thinks or does. I'd say the only two ways to deal with them is to wipe them out or leave them alone. Preferably the latter. IMO the US has no business involving itself in, as I stated, anything east of Puerto Rico or west of Attu. Treaty or no they'll either build weapons or they won't. If they do and use them that will probably be the end of them.



#60
Wrath of Dagon

Wrath of Dagon

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2157 posts
  • Location:Republic of Texas

Personally I think the notion that Iran is NOT trying to build nuclear weapons is a little naïve.

 
Personally, I think you appear more than a little naïve. Why would you think they are building nuclear weapons? When you have no proofs, who are you listening to?

Mossad has said they do not have one. CIA has said they do not have one. Oh look, Guard Dog thinking he knows better than the Israeli and American intelligence services. Great job.
 
Can you get it into your head that the same guys who are saying "Iran will have nukes in the next few years" have been saying so since the early nineties?

They said "they don't have one now". That's not the same thing at all as saying they're not working on one. That's the same faulty logic you use throughout. They have vastly more centrifuges now then they did in early 90's. Their economy is all but collapsing. Why would they acquire so many centrifuges if they weren't trying to make a bomb? The same people were also saying N. Korea would get a nuke, and guess what, they were right.

Edited by Wrath of Dagon, 12 March 2015 - 05:59 PM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: politics, Iran, US, Israel, Obama, Netanyahu

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users