Iran under Sanction Pressures – Reaction?


View Poll Results: Oil Sanction
Is the West right to impose sanctions -Morally -Legally 5 29.41%
Is the West wrong to impose sanctions-Morally -Legally 4 23.53%
Will this cause War 1 5.88%
Will this force/persuade Iran to negotiate Nuke Program 1 5.88%
Iran will find other markets-India-China etc 7 41.18%
This will lower the price for Iranian Oil exports 3 17.65%
Is this a positive step by the West 7 41.18%
Is this a negative step by the West 3 17.65%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 17. You may not vote on this poll

ironsides
#331
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Who supplied Hitler during his build up of armaments? Who knew that he was building his war machine? Who knew what his intentians were? Who and what set the stage for Hitler to take power in Germany?

The world was in a recession and we need a good war to pull us out. Germany was set up to take the fall. Britain planned that war years before it started. The Yanks profited from both sides, the American people did not want any part of it but the government did but it wasn't until Pearl Harbour, which was very convenient, that popular opinion was swayed to allow the government to declare war. A little too convenient. Only oil refineries that were not co-owned by British and American companies were bombed. How convenient!

I could go on, but, I don't think Hitler was the only demon responsible for WWII. I think the west is just as responsible. There is no way that Hitler could have invaded NA and there was never a threat of it.

What oil refinaries in contentinal Europe were not destroyed?

I won't debate rumors because they cannot be proven. Just that your last statment is wrong, he had plans of doing it. Whether it would have worked is questionable.
 
Cliffy
#332
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

What oil refinaries in contentinal Europe were not destroyed?

I won't debate rumors because they cannot be proven. Just that your last statment is wrong, he had plans of doing it. Whether it would have worked is questionable.


Ya, I have plans to go to Turkey one day too, but the likely hood that I could ever afford to is highly unlikely.

Hitler could not have mustered the manpower or other resources to cross the Atlantic to even start an invasion and there would have been no way to sustain control. He was too full of himself and his invasion of Russia proved that he had become mentally unbalanced. It killed any hope of world domination. Hitler was freakin' fruit loop from the start and the Allies were counting on his instability, knowing full well that he was not the threat they were telling us he was.
 
Spade
+2
#333
The American Civil War and the World War 2 were not about emancipation or the Shoah. That latter was about containment (invasion of Poland) and the former about preservation of the Union. Both wars were beginnings for the Blacks and the Jews. But at horrific cost.

More murder of Iranian scientists: still terrorism? - Salon.com (external - login to view)
Last edited by Spade; Jan 14th, 2012 at 02:07 PM..
 
Goober
#334
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Ya, I have plans to go to Turkey one day too, but the likely hood that I could ever afford to is highly unlikely.

Hitler could not have mustered the manpower or other resources to cross the Atlantic to even start an invasion and there would have been no way to sustain control. He was too full of himself and his invasion of Russia proved that he had become mentally unbalanced. It killed any hope of world domination. Hitler was freakin' fruit loop from the start and the Allies were counting on his instability, knowing full well that he was not the threat they were telling us he was.
[/FONT]

Why not answer the questions -

Spade I agree.
 
Cliffy
#335
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Why not answer the questions -
.

I'm sorry that you didn't like or understand my answer. Should I go to the corner now or later?
 
Goober
#336
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

I'm sorry that you didn't like or understand my answer. Should I go to the corner now or later?

No it is not that I did not like the answer. I asked a question and you failed to answer.Western and Eastern Europe under the Nazi's what would have been the repercussions.

Very simple question if the US - Canada had stayed out of the war. Britain would have sued for peace or been invaded.
Can you answer that and stay on that very topic without going off with the wind?
 
Cliffy
#337
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

No it is not that I did not like the answer. I asked a question and you failed to answer.Western and Eastern Europe under the Nazi's what would have been the repercussions.

Very simple question if the US - Canada had stayed out of the war. Britain would have sued for peace or been invaded.
Can you answer that and stay on that very topic without going off with the wind?

And I am saying, if the allies had not been complicit with Hitler's build of of his war machine, there would not have been a war in the first place. From what I can see, the allies wanted a war, they go a war and the outcome was pre-ordained. Things went according to plan and there really was no danger. We were involved because we were hood winked into believing the whole thing was a surprise. You may think otherwise but that does not negate what I said. My data base is obviously different from yours and my point of view is too. That only makes me wrong in the eyes of those who agree with you, but believe me, I am not the only one who see things this way.
 
ironsides
#338
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

The American Civil War and the World War 2 were not about emancipation or the Shoah. That latter was about containment (invasion of Poland) and the former about preservation of the Union. Both wars were beginnings for the Blacks and the Jews. But at horrific cost.

More murder of Iranian scientists: still terrorism? - Salon.com (external - login to view)

Somebody said "Never again" guess they meant it. Wouldn't want it to happen again either.
 
MHz
#339
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

No it is not that I did not like the answer. I asked a question and you failed to answer.Western and Eastern Europe under the Nazi's what would have been the repercussions.

Very simple question if the US - Canada had stayed out of the war. Britain would have sued for peace or been invaded.
Can you answer that and stay on that very topic without going off with the wind?

The Germans would have deported the Jews to Madagascar just like they proposed to the Rothschild bankers when they were first approached, they refused and Britain agreed to the giving of Palestine to the Jews, that is why they didn't lose either war.
 
Goober
#340
BBC News - China angry at US sanctions on oil firm Zhuhai Zhenrong (external - login to view)

China has criticised sanctions imposed by the US on a Chinese firm for selling refined petroleum products to Iran.

China's foreign ministry said imposing unilateral sanctions on Zhuhai Zhenrong based on US law was "unreasonable".

The US said on Thursday Zhuhai Zhenrong was one of three international firms to be punished for dealing with Iran.

It comes as Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visits Arab oil-producing nations amid fears of major sanctions-related disruption to Iranian oil exports.

Mr Wen visited Saudi Arabia - China's biggest source of imported oil - on Saturday.
 
Goober
#341
Now consider in the future, Iran with Nukes and they make threats. Or state that portions of other countries, in fact were illegally absorbed by other countries and are now considered Iran, territorial disputes are now over and these lands, waters are now Iranian and as such part of Iran.


Iran threatens Arab neighbours over oil sanctions | News | National Post

Iran warned Gulf Arab neighbours on Sunday they would suffer consequences if they raised oil output to replace Iranian crude facing an international ban.

In signs of Tehran’s deepening isolation over its refusal to halt nuclear activity that could yield atomic bombs, China’s premier was in Saudi Arabia probing for greater access to its huge oil and gas reserves and Britain voiced confidence a once hesitant European Union would soon ban oil imports from Iran.

Major importers of Iranian oil were long loath to embargo the lifeblood of Iran’s economy because of fears this would send oil prices rocketing at a time – amidst debt and deficit crises and high unemployment – when they could least afford it.

But strong momentum for oil sanctions has been created by a U.N. watchdog report saying Iran appeared to have worked on designing an atom bomb.

A new U.S. law signed by President Barack Obama on New Year’s Eve would freeze out of the U.S. financial system any institution dealing with Iran’s central bank – which processes its oil revenues.

If fully applied, the law would make it impossible for most countries to buy Iranian oil. Washington is offering waivers to countries to let them keep buying Iranian oil for now, but demanding they gradually cut their imports back.
 
Cliffy
#342
Perhaps it is time for the UN to place an embargo of US and British Heroin and Cocaine supplies thus ending their terrorization of other countries using their ill got gains to finance illegal wars and support of brutal dictatorships. Such a bold move would cripple the economies of these two countries and free their populations from slavery to these drugs.
 
ironsides
#343
It's unlikely that President Barack Obama intends to go to the polls in November with the United States engaged in a hot war with Iran, but there is a growing danger that events could conspire to make the decision for him. The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that "U.S. defense leaders are increasingly concerned that Israel is preparing to take military action against Iran, over U.S. objections, and have stepped up contingency planning to safeguard U.S. facilities in the region in case of a conflict." Besides planning for the contingency of being dragged into a war started by Israel, the Journal reported that Administration officials from President Obama on down have urged their Israeli counterparts to refrain from unilateral military action. The Israeli response, says the paper, has been "non-committal." Indeed, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey is due to visit Israel on Thursday with the purpose, according to Israeli reports, of ascertaining Israel's intentions.
The Iranians would likely hold the U.S. accountable for any Israeli military action, and any retaliation against U.S. assets (or even attacks on Israel) might prompt the U.S. to escalate the confrontation in order to disable Iran's military capability -- and perhaps strike at its nuclear program in the process. Israel's leaders would certainly prefer the U.S. to do the job, because its capacity to sustain an air assault on Iran is far greater than Israel's is. But Israeli leaders have long warned that should Washington fail to stop Iran's nuclear progress, they might be compelled to take military action alone. Israeli media outlets reported Sunday that a massive joint exercise between the Israeli and U.S. military to simulate countering an Iranian missile attack on Israel will be postponed by Washington, in order to ease the dangerous level of tension that has built up with Tehran in recent weeks. (See pictures of people around the world protesting Iran's election.) (external - login to view)

War with Iran: A Conflict Obama Hopes to Avoid May Be Imposed on Him - Yahoo! News (external - login to view)
 
Goober
#344
I think that Israel will not take any action. They can only cause a minimal amount of damage to facilities. Do not have the ability to make continuous strikes. the Saudi's would turn a blind eye, but not repeatedly regarding overflights.

Long term sanctions - In particular the recent ones regarding oil and their Central bank will punish the country. If they go nuclear, then increase the sanctions. They are working - Oil production can be ramped up - long term the Saudis would need more infrastructure - they say they can export 15 mill Barrels a day - Doubt that.

Iran advises Saudi officials against making injudicious remarks - Tehran Times (external - login to view)

TEHRAN – Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has advised Saudi officials against making injudicious remarks about boosting oil production amid European countries’ efforts to impose oil sanctions on the Islamic republic.


“We expect the countries in the Persian Gulf region, particularly Saudi Arabia, with which we have always called for the best relations, to avoid injudicious discourses,” Salehi said on Tuesday in response to Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi, who has said that his country will make up for any shortfall in the world’s oil supply caused by sanctions against Iran.


“If Saudi officials’ recent remarks are to be regarded as their official view, we advise them to respond more thoughtfully and sensibly to regional issues because all these stances will affect bilateral relations” Salehi said.


He went on to say that Iran is the anchor of security, stability, and peace in the Persian Gulf region and believes that regional countries should work collectively to maintain the security of the region.


Al-Naimi told CNN on Monday that his country could increase production by two million barrels “almost immediately” if sanctions are imposed on Iran’s oil industry.


Iran exports roughly 2.5 million barrels per day.


The Saudi minister also expressed his doubts that Iran could successfully close the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway through which one-fifth of the world’s oil is shipped.


Iran has threatened a blockade in response to any oil embargo. “I personally do not believe that the strait, if it were shut, will be shut for any length of time,” al-Naimi said.
 
Goober
#345
Iraq played the same game, obfuscation - Lies - Inability to communicate / be trusted and we had a War.

Now Iran is / has Interfered with duties assigned to the IAEA - Yet many swore by the IAEA only a few years ago that Iran was not developing nuke wpns. Now the IAEA requires clarification.
If Iran does not provide the information how would you interpret that stance?


Iran warns Arab neighbours: 'Dangerous position' in aligning with United States on Strait of Hormuz | News | National Post

IAEA SAYS MUST WARN WORLD ABOUT IRAN

The International Atomic Energy Agency chief said it was his duty to warn the world about possible military aspects to Iran’s nuclear energy program, keeping the heat on Tehran ahead of a rare visit by senior IAEA officials for talks on January 29-31.

“What we know suggests the development of nuclear weapons,” he was quoted as saying in comments published in the Financial Times Deutschland on Thursday. “We want to check over everything that could have a military dimension.”

An IAEA delegation, to be headed by Deputy Director General Herman Nackaerts, is expected to seek explanations for intelligence information indicating Iran has engaged in research and development relevant for nuclear weapons.

Tehran denies it is after atom bombs, saying it is refining uranium only for power generation and medical applications.

With EU foreign ministers preparing to approve a phased ban on imports of Iranian oil at a meeting on January 23, Salehi said on Wednesday that the Islamic Republic was in touch with world powers to reopen talks frozen for a year.

Washington and the EU quickly denied this, saying they are still waiting for Iran to show it wanted serious negotiations addressing fears that it trying to master ways to build atom bombs behind the facade of a civilian nuclear energy program.

TARGETING IRANIAN CENTRAL BANK

In addition to an embargo on Iran’s economically vital oil exports, EU diplomats said member governments had agreed in principle to freeze assets of Iran’s central bank, but had yet to agree how to protect non-oil trade from sanctions.

Iranian politicians said Obama had expressed readiness to negotiate in a letter to Iran’s clerical supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

“In this letter it was said that closing the Strait of Hormuz is our [U.S.] ‘red line’ and also asked for direct negotiations,” the semi-official Fars news agency quoted lawmaker Ali Mottahari as saying.

Washington denied there were any new discussions under way about resuming talks with Iran, but declined to comment on whether Obama had written to Khamenei.

“There are no current talks about talks,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said on Wednesday.

What we are doing, as we have said, is making clear to the Iranians that if they are serious about coming back to a conversation, where they talk openly about their nuclear program, and if they are prepared to come clean with the international community, that we are open to that,” she said.

The Islamic Republic has wanted to discuss only broader international security issues with the powers up to now.
 
Goober
#346
Bush's CIA Director - Attacking Iran a bad idea

Bush (external - login to view)

President George W. Bush's administration concluded that a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would be a bad idea -- and would only make it harder to prevent Iran from going nuclear in the future, former CIA and National Security Agency (NSA) chief Gen. Michael Hayden said Thursday.

"When we talked about this in the government, the consensus was that [attacking Iran] would guarantee that which we are trying to prevent -- an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon and that would build it in secret," Hayden told a small group of experts and reporters at an event hosted by the Center for the National Interest.

Hayden served as director of the NSA from 1999 to 2005 and then served as CIA director from 2006 until February 2009. He also had a 39-year career at the Air Force, which he ended as a four-star general.

Without an actual occupation of Iran, which nobody wants to contemplate, the Bush administration concluded that the result of a limited military campaign in Iran would be counter-productive, according to Hayden.

"What's move two, three, four or five down the board?" Hayden said, arguing that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities was only a short-term fix. "I don't think anyone is talking about occupying anything."

Hayden then said he didn't believe the Israelis could or even would strike Iran -- that only the United States has the capability to do it -- but either way, it's still a bad idea.

"The Israelis aren't going to [attack Iran] ... they can't do it, it's beyond their capacity. They only have the ability to make this [problem of Iran's nuclear program] worse. We can do a lot better," he said. "Just look at the physics, the fact that this cannot be done in a raid, this has to be done in a campaign, the fact that neither we nor they know where this stuff is. [The Israelis] can't do it, but we can."

Hayden then went into some detail about how a U.S.-led strike on Iran's nuclear facilities could be accomplished, and why it would not solve the Iranian nuclear threat. There would first be a movement of aircraft carriers into the area, Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile strikes, a diplomatic effort to get Gulf states to give access to their airspace, and "then you would pound it [with airstrikes] over a couple of weeks," Hayden explained.

But he also said that efforts to slow down the nuclear program, through mostly clandestine measures and encouraging internal dissent, is the better course of action.

"Could we go back to July 2009 and see where that could have led?" he said, referring to the Green Movement protests that raged through Iran then but ultimately failed to alter the regime's course. "It's not so much that we don't want Iran to have a nuclear capacity, it's that we don't want this Iran to have it ... Slow it down long enough and maybe the character [of the Iranian government] changes."

Hayden's comments track closely with the argument made by Colin Kahl, the recently departed head of Middle East policy at the Pentagon, who opposed a military strike on Iran in an article this week in Foreign Affairs.

"Even if a U.S. strike went as well ... there is little guarantee that it would produce lasting results," Kahl wrote. "[I]f Iran did attempt to restart its nuclear program after an attack, it would be much more difficult for the United States to stop it."
 
darkbeaver
#347
Goober must own a chunk of the holy land. What did you do goober? Buy a square meter that Moses actually pissed on?
 
Goober
#348
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Goober must own a chunk of the holy land.

Nope - I make my own living - I do not exist living off the hard work of others. When i made my will i made sure I put some stringent quailifers in it.
 
darkbeaver
#349
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Nope - I make my own living - I do not exist living off the hard work of others. When i made my will i made sure I put some stringent quailifers in it.

I was only expecting a tiny haha not true confessions, have you been drinking this evening
 
Goober
#350
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

I was only expecting a tiny haha not true confessions, have you been drinking this evening

Yes. And I hope to set up a trust fund for my grandchildren and yes if one or both turn out badly as adults they will receive SFA.

They will not receive any funds till age 30 and only a portion. Then it will be graduated after that. Based on 5 year intervals.

And yes i am enjoying a great homemade beer.
 
L Gilbert
#351
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Yes. And I hope to set up a trust fund for my grandchildren and yes if one or both turn out badly as adults they will receive SFA.

They will not receive any funds till age 30 and only a portion. Then it will be graduated after that. Based on 5 year intervals.

And yes i am enjoying a great homemade beer.

Wouldja put your beer in your will for me? I like tasting beers new to me.
 
Goober
#352
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Wouldja put your beer in your will for me? I like tasting beers new to me.

Done.
 
L Gilbert
#353
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Done.

Slainte! Skal! Salud! Prost! Chtob vse byli zdorovy! Naz Drave!
 
darkbeaver
+1
#354
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Yes. And I hope to set up a trust fund for my grandchildren and yes if one or both turn out badly as adults they will receive SFA.

They will not receive any funds till age 30 and only a portion. Then it will be graduated after that. Based on 5 year intervals.

And yes i am enjoying a great homemade beer.

Buy them a farm, drink the rest, the grandkids should be free to do what they want to you crazy old buzzard
 
Goober
#355
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Buy them a farm, drink the rest, the grandkids should be free to do what they want to you crazy old buzzard

Oh I am crazy, certifiable as well. But good planning is good planning. And they will grow up to do what they want, or wish to be.

Now back to the Planation. Harvest time is here.
 
MHz
#356
What are you harvesting, ... Iran and Syria??
 
Goober
+1
#357
Clear that Iranian Officals are trying to tar the IAEA.

Iran: Israel must be 'punished' for assassinating nuclear scientist, accuses IAEA of role in death | News | National Post

Iran demands Israel be ‘punished’ for nuclear scientist’s death, accuses IAEA of role
BLAMING THE IAEA

The UN nuclear watchdog rejected on Friday Iranian suggestions it may have been partly to blame for the assassination of a nuclear scientist last week by leaking information about him, saying it did not know him.

Iran said on Thursday that the assassins who killed Ahmadi-Roshan, 32, on January 11 may have used information obtained from the United Nations.

Iran’s deputy U.N. ambassador Eshagh Al Habib told the Security Council on Thursday that Ahmadi-Roshan recently met IAEA inspectors, “a fact that indicates that these U.N. agencies may have played a role in leaking information on Iran’s nuclear facilities and scientist.”

But IAEA spokeswoman Gill Tudor said in an e-mail: “The Agency has not released this man’s name. We do not know him.”

Iran has in the past accused the IAEA of leaking the names of nuclear scientists, making them potential targets for the security services of Iran’s foes in the West and Israel. IAEA officials have dismissed the allegations.

SARKOZY WARNING

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Friday that time was running out to avoid a military intervention, however, and he appealed to China and Russia, veto-wielding UN powers who have been reluctant to back tightening Western embargoes let alone military force, to support new sanctions.

“Time is running out. France will do everything to avoid a military intervention,” Sarkozy told ambassadors gathered in Paris. “A military intervention will not solve the problem, but it will unleash war and chaos in the Middle East.”
 
MHz
#358
Isn't tap laptop showing up intact and holding all that information, including names and addresses, in the same realm of odds as a passport surviving a high-speed impact of a big machine into a very solid object on the morning of 9/11?
The blow-back is 700 students wanted their degrees changed over to nuclear sciences. 30 years down the road you may have somebody willing and capable of doing just what is feared. Right now all you have is capable and not willing. They are more interested in getting a fat power-lines out to all the new ski resorts where texting and fast slopes will kill more than any terrorist network could ever hope to do via explosives.

Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

SARKOZY WARNING

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Friday that time was running out to avoid a military intervention, however, and he appealed to China and Russia, veto-wielding UN powers who have been reluctant to back tightening Western embargoes let alone military force, to support new sanctions.

“Time is running out. France will do everything to avoid a military intervention,” Sarkozy told ambassadors gathered in Paris. “A military intervention will not solve the problem, but it will unleash war and chaos in the Middle East.”

Hyped up terror is the next best profit machine over actual war, the cold war shows that endless spending for useless equipment can be done perpetually.

With Hezbollah now the Gov in Lebanon is France in danger of losing out in all that UN money for having it's troops in the 'buffer-zone'? Perhaps they are hoping that Syria will fill the demand for some troops that are about to be fired. If Italy is give Libya the Turkey should get Syria for 'policing activities' and the bill going to the UN and eventually some poor smuck tax-payer. Maybe this is an attempt by France to increase the UN presen$e they with France pocketing a lot of the coin being spent. Lots sent but very little used in actual services and supplies.

If changes are in the works how about the Vatican Bank take over from the Rothschild Group. Since the RCC bans women from preaching give female members of the RCC full control over the world's finances. They can even set the wages for the Priests that like to chase children around while they sprout a boner. I don't know any mother that would take that any lighter than if it was her being chased around. That being said marriage should be allowed for Priest, women bankers can have up to 6 husbands but only if they are from the priest ranks, choosing from the pews limits them to one/customer, same as everybody else.

Did I mention all Gentiles in the world will be entitled to interest free loans and only the rich and corporations pay interest on their loans, a very modest interest rate as overhead has been cut way down now that the top executives can pass off the mundane duties off to their male wives (who mutter 'father told me there would be days like this' more than a few time/day.
Last edited by MHz; Jan 20th, 2012 at 07:15 PM..
 
Goober
#359
Neither side has much room to maneuver on these threats. Both the US and the Iranian Mullahs are playing to their supporters - The US is headed into an election. Time to make a deal.

Closing the strait - Then we will have a war.

All options on the table if Iran threatened: UN envoy - Tehran Times (external - login to view)

TEHRAN – The Iranian ambassador to the United Nations has said that the Islamic Republic has no decision to block the Strait of Hormuz unless Iran is threatened seriously.

“There is no decision to block and close the Strait of Hormuz unless Iran is threatened seriously and somebody wants to tighten the noose,” Ambassador Mohammad Khazaii said on the U.S. television network PBS’ Charlie Rose show on January 19, AFP reported.

Iran would not try to block the Strait of Hormuz unless a foreign power seeks to “tighten the noose,” he stated.

“All the options are or would be on the table.”

Iran renews threats of shutdown as EU joins U.S. in banning oil imports | News | National Post

BRUSSELS/TEHRAN — Iran has warned it could strike U.S. targets worldwide if Washington used force to break any Iranian blockade of a strategically vital shipping route.

The European Union banned imports of oil from Iran on Monday and imposed a number of other economic sanctions, joining the United States in a new round of measures aimed at deflecting Tehran’s nuclear development program.

In Iran, one politician responded by renewing a threat to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, an oil export route vital to the global economy, and another said Tehran should cut off crude shipments to the EU immediately.

“We believe that the Strait of Hormuz should be the strait of peace and stability,” the Iranian ambassador said “But if foreign powers want to create trouble in the Persian Gulf, of course it would be the right of Iran as well as the rest of the countries in the region to try to defend themselves.”

Elsewhere in the interview, Khazaii commented on the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program, saying that the growing tension must end through “peace, dialogue, and stability.”


In the interview, the ambassador also accused the Zionist regime of involvement in the assassinations of Iran’s nuclear scientists.


He also said that he does not think Israel would try to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. “There are enough wise politicians around the world to advise them in case if they want to do that not to do it.”
 
ironsides
#360
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

People, especially children, will die because of sanctions. Do you think it is morally right to kill Iranian citizens because you have a hate on for their government? You are the one doing the deflecting.

Who says anyone will die because of the sanctions, no country has not even suggested a total blockade of Iran. Just cut their ability to sell oil. That but it will kill little baby's and baby chicks just won't do it. New question, who is the government?
 

Similar Threads

no new posts