O.o

That was a pretty dumb post, even for a pack_bryan

[Edited on December 27, 2011 at 12:53 PM. Reason : ]

12/27/2011 12:52:49 PM

yep, and while we're calling out people for saying retarded bullshit:

Quote :

"I'm really not expecting someone in the military to distinguish facts from propaganda. No offense but we've killed hundreds of thousands of civilians everywhere we've gone. I'm not talking about collateral damage either. A lot of it has been intentional. Even in the current wars, just less. Our military has always been a civilian-killing machine and we pretty much are the UN anyway."

Motherfucker, I assure you, I can distinguish facts from propaganda. I'm probably even more sensitive to it than most, because I am more aware, by virtue of having the "real" story sometimes, of when it's propaganda/bullshit/lies/disinformation.

Furthermore, I like how you've outed yourself as essentially a bigot, by trying to paint someone as simpleminded solely because of his profession, and not even in a case where that might be a reasonable characterization (i.e., I'm not a fucking garbageman. I was one of about 100 people in the USMC flying a $60,000,000 electronic attack jet). At best, your post(s) make you a simpleminded fucking dunce yourself. At worst, you're that plus a bigot.

as far as the rest of your drivel, "hundreds of thousands" of civilians is a gross exaggeration. Iraq might have topped 100k, but certainly not hundreds or anywhere close to it. A lot of that was sectarian violence, too, not people killed directly by U.S. (or coalition) combat operations. In Afghanistan, you're talking about a small fraction of even 100k.

Of those, there have been a few incidents where an individual (or a small group) snapped and murdered civilians. That is not acceptable, but it's to be expected under those circumstances. By and large, though, we go to extreme lengths to limit civilian casualties and discourage less-than-careful employment of our force. The allegation that the U.S. military intentionally targets civilians is laughable.


If you want to say that a thousand or ten thousand civilian casualties is way too many, then I would say that I agree, and that we should avoid going to war to begin with to the very maximum extent we can. That, however, is something you should take up with Capitol Hill and the White House, not the Pentagon. The military is going to great lengths to only kill bad guys, but you can't go to war in a large, dense city like fucking Baghdad and not kill and destroy people and things that you didn't really want to...especially when you're fighting an insurgency that masquerades as unarmed noncombatants.

12/27/2011 7:17:55 PM

The policies are intentional, though, and often for sinister purposes. I've frequently heard the horrors of war justified by the statement that collateral damage is part of war. It's circular logic. Collateral damage is only necessary if we choose to go to war. Furthermore, unjust wars can only be waged if there are soldiers willing to fight it. Ideally, soldiers would refuse to take up arms for unconstitutional military actions.

As I said in another post recently, I have no doubt that many soldiers serve honorably and do their best to not harm innocents. I would wager that the vast majority of soldiers hold that mindset. That says nothing about whether the soldiers should actually be there or whether I should be forced to subsidize their activities.

12/27/2011 7:33:51 PM

Rick Steve Lecture: What the Iranian people are really like

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtELk8S3dhU

I encourage any of you that perceive Iran as a "threat that must be dealt with" to watch this video.

The media and the politicians are pushing war with Iran. Taking military action against Iran would be entirely unacceptable. The sanctions we've put on them are just as bad.

12/28/2011 2:46:15 PM

Quote :

"Furthermore, I like how you've outed yourself as essentially a bigot, by trying to paint someone as simpleminded solely because of his profession, and not even in a case where that might be a reasonable characterization (i.e., I'm not a fucking garbageman. I was one of about 100 people in the USMC flying a $60,000,000 electronic attack jet). At best, your post(s) make you a simpleminded fucking dunce yourself. At worst, you're that plus a bigot"

I never stated or implied simplemindedness. I simply said that I wouldn't expect someone in the military to have the awareness. It has a lot more to do with wishful thinking than ignorance. Nobody wants to believe that their job is useless and that goes for any profession. Its escalated in the military because you aren't just spending your life doing this but you are RISKING your life and RISKING the lives of others. Nobody in their right mind would want to believe that they and all their coworkers were risking their lives for nothing. or even worse, risking their lives for a lie. So it is out of compassion, not pity that I don't expect anyone in the military to think a military action around the world is a complete waste of time and resources.

The fact that you aren't a garbageman and are a happy, well taken care of, higher ranking soldier, contributes even more to the fact that you are not going to think everything you are doing is bullshit. A garbageman actually MIGHT be able to understand as they don't have as much invested. You should also look up the meaning of the word bigot as you are using it in the wrong situation.

Quote :

"as far as the rest of your drivel, "hundreds of thousands" of civilians is a gross exaggeration. Iraq might have topped 100k, but certainly not hundreds or anywhere close to it. A lot of that was sectarian violence, too, not people killed directly by U.S. (or coalition) combat operations. In Afghanistan, you're talking about a small fraction of even 100k. "

These numbers are real and do not account for indirect deaths. If you were to count the number of people that have died indirectly because of the US then it would start to approach 1 million.
http://www.brussellstribunal.org/pdf/lancet111006.pdf

Nobody knows how many we have killed in Afghanistan but estimates are at 50k right now and its not even over. This is also not counting all of the people who are considered "enemy combatants" which is misleading since many areas have been hostile towards any occupying force. I'm sure we've intentionally killed a lot more than the 50k we didn't want to die.

Over 1 million in vietnam including war atrocities i won't mention and then there was Japan in which our thirst for civilian blood was unrelenting. When the going gets tough, we start mass murdering civilians to try and break the will of the enemy.

Quote :

"The allegation that the U.S. military intentionally targets civilians is laughable."

Enola gay disagrees.

Quote :

" then I would say that I agree, and that we should avoid going to war to begin with to the very maximum extent we can. That, however, is something you should take up with Capitol Hill and the White House, not the Pentagon. T"

That is exactly why I am in this thread. The problem is there are people like the people in this thread who think we should bully Iran until they submit.

Any time a nation is a loose cannon and goes to war for reasons other than defense, then it is true that they do not care about civilians dying.

Not only do we not care about civilians, we don't care about our soldiers or really anyone outside of the ruling class of oligarchs.

12/28/2011 7:05:58 PM

We gots an empire to maintain, son.

If some Iranians gotta die so that the US can continue to consume 25% of the world's resources while only accounting for 5% of the world's population, you can bet that will happen.

Why spend time on research and development when you can just pillage and plunder?

12/28/2011 9:03:01 PM

^Thats a good point. Theres never been a point in our history where we didn't prosper due to stealing resources or exploiting a resource from somewhere else to the point where it was virtually free.

12/28/2011 9:09:03 PM

It's easy to forget about it when you live in such luxury.

[Edited on December 28, 2011 at 9:26 PM. Reason : words]

12/28/2011 9:25:17 PM

Quote :

"At best, your post(s) make you a simpleminded fucking dunce yourself."

A reminder that you're dealing with an individual who thinks 9/11 was a CIA operation. Just saying is all.

12/28/2011 11:28:33 PM

I never said that and I don't believe it. I don't rule it out but I don't believe it either.

12/29/2011 2:06:00 AM

Iran Threatens to Block Oil Shipments, as U.S. Prepares Sanctions

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — A senior Iranian official on Tuesday delivered a sharp threat in response to economic sanctions being readied by the United States, saying his country would retaliate against any crackdown by blocking all oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for transporting about one-fifth of the world’s oil supply. The declaration by Iran’s first vice president, Mohammad-Reza Rahimi, came as President Obama prepares to sign legislation that, if fully implemented, could substantially reduce Iran’s oil revenue in a bid to deter it from pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Prior to the latest move, the administration had been laying the groundwork to attempt to cut off Iran from global energy markets without raising the price of gasoline or alienating some of Washington’s closest allies. Apparently fearful of the expanded sanctions’ possible impact on the already-stressed economy of Iran, the world’s third-largest energy exporter, Mr. Rahimi said, “If they impose sanctions on Iran’s oil exports, then even one drop of oil cannot flow from the Strait of Hormuz,” according to Iran’s official news agency. Iran just began a 10-day naval exercise in the area. In recent interviews, Obama administration officials have said that the United States has developed a plan to keep the strait open in the event of a crisis. In Hawaii, where President Obama is vacationing, a White House spokesman said there would be no comment on the Iranian threat to close the strait. That seemed in keeping with what administration officials say has been an effort to lower the level of angry exchanges, partly to avoid giving the Iranian government the satisfaction of a response and partly to avoid spooking financial markets. But the energy sanctions carry the risk of confrontation, as well as economic disruption, given the unpredictability of the Iranian response. Some administration officials believe that a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States — which Washington alleges received funding from the Quds Force, part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps — was in response to American and other international sanctions. Merely uttering the threat appeared to be part of an Iranian effort to demonstrate its ability to cause a spike in oil prices, thus slowing the United States economy, and to warn American trading partners that joining the new sanctions, which the Senate passed by a rare 100-0 vote, would come at a high cost. Oil prices rose above $100 a barrel in trading after the threat was issued, though it was unclear how much that could be attributed to investors’ concern that confrontation in the Persian Gulf could disrupt oil flows. The new punitive measures, part of a bill financing the military, would significantly escalate American sanctions against Iran. They come just a month and a half after the International Atomic Energy Agency published a report that for the first time laid out its evidence that Iran may be secretly working to design a nuclear warhead, despite the country’s repeated denials. In the wake of the I.A.E.A. report and a November attack on the British Embassy in Tehran, the European Union is also contemplating strict new sanctions, such as an embargo on Iranian oil. For five years, the United States has implemented increasingly severe sanctions in an attempt to force Iran’s leaders to reconsider the suspected nuclear weapons program, and answer a growing list of questions from the I.A.E.A. But it has deliberately stopped short of targeting oil exports, which finance as much as half of Iran’s budget. Now, with its hand forced by Congress, the administration is preparing to take that final step, penalizing foreign corporations that do business with Iran’s central bank, which collects payment for most of the country’s energy exports. The sanction would effectively make it difficult for those who do business with Iran’s central bank to also conduct financial transactions with the United States. The step was so severe that one of President Obama’s top national security aides said two months ago that it was “a last resort.” The administration raced to put some loopholes in the final legislation so that it could reduce the impact on close allies who have signed on to pressuring Iran. The legislation allows President Obama to waive sanctions if they cause the price of oil to rise or threaten national security. Still, the new sanctions raise crucial economic, diplomatic, and security questions. Mr. Obama, his aides acknowledge, has no interest in seeing energy prices rise significantly at a moment of national economic weakness or as he intensifies his bid for re-election — a vulnerability the Iranians fully understand. So the administration has to defy, or at least carefully calibrate, the laws of supply and demand, bringing to market new sources of oil to ensure that global prices do not rise sharply. “I don’t think anybody thinks we can contravene the laws of supply and demand any more than we can contravene the laws of gravity,” said David S. Cohen, who, as treasury under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, oversees the administration of the sanctions. But, he said, “We have flexibility here, and I think we have a pretty good opportunity to dial this in just the right way that it does end up putting significant pressure on Iran.” The American effort, as described by Mr. Cohen and others, is more subtle than simply cutting off Iran’s ability to export oil, a step that would immediately send the price of gasoline, heating fuel, and other petroleum products skyward. That would “mean that Iran would, in fact, have more money to fuel its nuclear ambitions, not less,” Wendy R. Sherman, the newly installed under secretary of state for political affairs, warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this month. Instead, the administration’s aim is to reduce Iran’s oil revenue by diminishing the volume of sales and forcing Iran to give its customers a discount on the price of crude. Some economists question whether reducing Iran’s oil exports without moving the price of oil is feasible, even if the market is given signals about alternative supplies. Already, analysts at investment banks are warning of the possibility of rising gasoline prices in 2012, due to the new sanctions by the United States as well as complementary sanctions under consideration by the European Union. Since President Obama’s first months in office, his aides have been talking to Saudi Arabia and other oil suppliers about increasing their production, and about guaranteeing sales to countries like China, which is among Iran’s biggest customers. But it is unclear that the Saudis can fill in the gap left by Iran, even with the help of Libyan oil that is coming back on the market. The United States is also looking to countries like Iraq and Angola to increase production. Daniel Yergin, whose new book, “The Quest,” describes the oil politics of dealing with states like Iran, noted in an interview that “given the relative tightness of the market, it will require careful construction of the sanctions combined with vigorous efforts to bring alternative supplies into the market.” He said that it would “add a whole new dimension to the debate over the Keystone XL pipeline,” the oil pipeline from Canada to the United States that the administration has sought to delay. “The only strategy that is going to work here is one where you get the cooperation of oil buyers,” said Michael Singh, managing director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “You could imagine the Europeans, the Japanese, and the South Koreans cooperating, and then China would suck up all of the oil that was initially going to everyone else.” A broader question is whether the sanctions — even if successful at lowering Iran’s oil revenue — would force the government to give up its nuclear ambitions. One measure of the effects, however, is that the Iranian leadership is clearly concerned. Already the Iranian currency is plummeting in value against the dollar, and there are rumors of bank runs. “Iran’s economic problems seem to be mounting and the whole economy is in a state of suspended expectation,” said Abbas Milani, director of Iranian studies at Stanford University. “The regime keeps repeating that they’re not going to be impacted by the sanctions. That they have more money than they know what to do with. The lady doth protest too much.” "

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/world/middleeast/iran-threatens-to-block-oil-route-if-embargo-is-imposed.html?_r=2


TL;DR version:

*Tryin' to get that oil, son

12/29/2011 6:14:38 AM

********************************************************************
Breaking...

Airliner Shot Down By Missile Near Iran...Hundreds of people believed dead. Doesn't look good.

New York Times: http://tinyurl.com/cneoszy

********************************************************************

12/29/2011 9:05:37 AM

Cute.

12/29/2011 9:48:31 AM

Quote :

"I never said that and I don't believe it. I don't rule it out but I don't believe it either."

Meaningless distinction in this case. I was actually talking about d357r0y3r.

12/29/2011 10:01:45 AM

Quote :

"blah blah blah i'm a shill for my employer"

-lazarus

12/29/2011 11:44:33 AM

Quote :

"Meaningless distinction in this case. I was actually talking about d357r0y3r."

Wait, let me get this straight. I believe that 9/11 was a CIA plot?

Listen, I get that when you've lost the debate, resorting to straight up lies and misinformation is the only thing left, at least in your mind. The problem is that this is a message board, so we actually have a record of everything I've ever posted. Surely you didn't think you'd be able to get away with posting this nonsense.

12/29/2011 12:03:33 PM

That we do.

Quote :

"With the death of Bin Laden, and the hazy facts surrounding the event itself, it made me start reading. Despite my best efforts to find convincing evidence that connects Bin Laden to 9/11, and checking out the timeline before and after 9/11, I have not been able to find any."

Quote :

"It's clear, though, that the government hastily assigned guilt to OBL in lieu of any hard evidence. Recent facts that have come to light make [a discussion about bin Laden's guilt] worth having."

Quote :

"[bin Laden's] original denials are well documented by mainstream sources. The confession is actually the suspicious part ... Honestly, this December 13th video seems fake. Writing with wrong hand? Wearing a metallic ring that would be prohibited by Islam? His beard is darker and he just looks slightly different. I'm not buying it, and this is the only place that he has actually confessed to 9-11."

Quote :

"When I took an honest look at the Osama videos, 10 years later, it's just not convincing. The only video where Osama actually admits to planning 9/11 is one where it just...doesn't look like him. Literally one day before 9/11 happened, the administration was drawing up plans to topple the Taliban. Within a few hours of the attacks, Rumsfeld "knew" that it was Al Qaeda, and those plans were set into motion."

My apologies. You are not of the "CIA did it" faction. You are merely of the "manufactured (by the CIA?) evidence/bin Laden was framed" contingent of Trutherism.

Then again, my point was only to remind theDuke666 that he's engaging in a discussion about the Middle East with a person who knows precisely nothing about the Middle East, a fact that is borne out in either case. Surely I can be forgiven for not bothering to keep track of which posters subscribe to which 9/11 theories.

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 3:16 PM. Reason : ]

12/29/2011 3:12:37 PM

Right. Every one of those statements fails to support the claim you made.

It's not really a secret that I'm skeptical of any government story, though. I proudly wear the mantle of "conspiracy theorist". Why? Because many "conspiracy theories" of the past ended up become...well, history. The government has lied many times in the past, especially with respect to foreign policy. What has changed? There's just more money in the pot now, that's it. There's more incentive to lie, because more is at stake than ever before.

It's impossible to separate truth from fiction at this point. Why we do know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that the government has been and continues to be co-opted by corporate interests. I'd have to be an idiot to trust the official story. Government officials have a vested interest in "selling" a story that paints them in a positive light.

Aside from the 9/11 business, to say I know nothing about the middle east is ridiculous. We disagree on policy, but you can't accuse me of being unfamiliar with the historical context. Every time someone supports action against Iran, they should be required to read this in its entirety:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_relations

Of course, you won't, because you don't actually care about the historical context or underlying issues. You don't believe in blowback or negative externalities.

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 3:58 PM. Reason : ]

12/29/2011 3:58:16 PM

^ what? you mean Iran has some legitimate reasons not to like us? man, that flies in the face of the "they hate us because of our freedom" claim that Fox & Fools tells me!

12/29/2011 4:06:37 PM

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/iran-missile-drill-results-exaggerated-images-photoshopped-010212

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/03/9910670-iran-warns-us-carrier-to-stay-out-of-persian-gulf

so tuff.

[Edited on January 3, 2012 at 11:07 AM. Reason : -]

1/3/2012 11:06:17 AM

Iran should put ships in the Gulf of Mexico.

1/3/2012 11:14:42 AM

Go for it, it's international waters.

1/3/2012 11:20:47 AM

Forgot about North Korea using GPS to take a US plane out of action last September.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/north-korean-jammer-forces-down-u-s-spy-plane/

I wonder if Iran used their hardware on the drone that went down.

1/3/2012 3:00:29 PM

Without much media attention, thousands of American troops are being deployed to Israel, and Iranian officials believe that this is the latest and most blatant warning that the US will soon be attacking Tehran.

https://rt.com/usa/news/us-troops-israel-iran-257/

if i didn't believe death is an illusion, i'd be pretty concerned

1/5/2012 4:35:27 PM

The scary thing is that every candidate for President, with the exception of Ron Paul and a few others that are much lower in the polls, are saying that they will attack Iran. Russia and China have warned the United States about attacking Iran.

This is how world wars start. How is it that Ron Paul is the "dangerous" one, when these other candidates are threatening to get us into another war? I don't like the direction that this is going in at all.

1/5/2012 4:43:47 PM

i wish the Occupy Movement would espouse more anti-war rhetoric and be more aggressively critical of Obama

1/5/2012 4:54:08 PM

Straits of Hormuz were always crazy to travel through. Iranians all around you trying to fuck with you while you are hauling ass around ~34 kts

1/5/2012 10:48:42 PM

Wow people....just wow.... are you not smart enough to understand that you do not understand everyone that isn't of your country? You all talk such big talk.. but you all do not understand what is happening no more than I do. Do any of you work directly within the governments or walk in the shoes of those you blindly despise? You all have no real understanding and walk the path of ignorance and shame. You boast this and that but you do not know anything. People are greedy... all people are greedy .... PERIOD!! These countries try to do the best with what they have. If they want to be faux communists let them, if they want to be Socialists bring it, if they want a elitist "democracy" why not... USA is not the only country with real issues... Just because you were told by someone who was told by someone that the Americans did this... why should you believe them.... or if the Chinese did that who cares.....Russia did what? Did they really?.... Too much blindness, greed, bias, and faith in the wrong people.... Learn for yourselves with open eyes... try to think what would drive you to do what they did... If you can't imagine that then do not judge..Human beings are flawed for a reason.. to learn ... to make better .. not worse like this crud... this is just sad... You probably did not even read this whole thing :S so sad.

1/6/2012 12:04:54 AM

1/6/2012 8:13:26 AM

"A Global Force for Good"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/world/middleeast/for-iranians-held-by-pirates-us-to-the-rescue.html?_r=2&hp

1/7/2012 7:20:01 PM

propaganda

1/7/2012 7:39:20 PM

Would a Ron Paul president continue to fund and support anti-pirate missions?

1/7/2012 8:23:00 PM

Defending our shipping is defense but you can't go out and kill/capture people that haven't committed crimes yet and you certainly can't declare war against a concept.

1/7/2012 9:35:57 PM

this is a little off subject, but I have heard from an E-2 navigator that they used to find pirate vessels, and the Russians, who had no givafuck and no mercy--would just come in and blow them all away, haha.

1/8/2012 12:49:12 AM

^ I've heard the same thing.

1/8/2012 1:31:23 AM

Going back to the Iranian people, I agree that in general they are pretty cool people. Many in Iran are pro western, especially the youth, and really have no hate of the west or the US. Obviously they are oppressed by a crushing theocracy. I really wish Obama had showed more moral support during the Iranian protests.

1/8/2012 1:49:18 AM

On my last deployment, we saved 8 Iranian fisherman. Talk about security. holy shit they locked the hangar bay down! All the doors had armed guards. ha

1/8/2012 1:53:05 AM

^^Obama would first have to start by showing moral support for American protests. American people are really pro-western and don't hate us.


Go ahead and add that the Iranian people would love to be a third world country without modern nuclear energy and no means to protect their sovereignty in a wild region. In fact, they'd like it if we could actually go ahead and replace their regime for them like we so kindly did before and they would certainly welcome our troops in with open arms.

1/8/2012 4:44:32 AM

Iran Sentences Alleged American Spy to Death

Quote :

" Iran has sentenced an American ex-Marine to death for espionage. A court convicted Amir Mirzaei Hekmati of "working for an enemy country," as well as membership in the CIA and "efforts to accuse Iran of involvement in terrorism," the semi-official Fars news agency reported Monday. The sentence came down five months after Hekmati's arrest. Iran's state-run news agency IRNA, on its English website, said the court found him "caught red-handed in armed struggle against God" and "corrupt on Earth.""

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/09/world/meast/iran-accused-spy/index.html

Well, this should make things worse.

1/9/2012 11:40:55 AM

Iran has no right to kill US citizens overseas. That's what our predator drones are for.

1/9/2012 3:56:36 PM

It seems like Iran is trying to provoke a military conflict.

Kind of a strange thing to do...

1/9/2012 7:08:35 PM

at least Iran gave him a trial.

we'd just detain him indefinitely.

1/9/2012 7:46:54 PM

Their goal is evil and world dominance. They must be stopped by the good guys!

1/9/2012 8:16:34 PM

The CIA has really hung this kid out to dry. It's possible we set him up for failure to help trigger war.

1/9/2012 8:53:47 PM

oh get the fuck outta here.

if he is actually CIA, then it's possible that the CIA is disavowing knowledge, or possible that we're just not publicly acknowledging. it's also possible that he's not CIA at all, in which case it's possible that Iran is either mistaken or deliberately making a false claim.

the idea that we are using him as a pawn to provoke war, though, is some silly ass bullshit that only someone like you would buy.

1/9/2012 9:58:27 PM

^
It's not so crazy actually

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch#Controversy_regarding_coverage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman

[Edited on January 9, 2012 at 10:12 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2012 10:03:44 PM

Neither of those is even close to the same thing as deliberately throwing a spy (or "spy") into the grinder to instigate a war.

1/9/2012 10:08:38 PM

Okay, let's say he really was on vacation. How much stupidity or bravado does it take for a U.S. Marine to think he can just hop off the plane and hang around Tehran for a few weeks without being hassled by the authorities? Maybe he did it intentionally, like that kid who landed a Cessna in Red Square back in the 80's. Homeboy wasn't counting on getting hanged, I'll bet.

1/9/2012 10:46:11 PM

OK, that's unrelated to your ridiculous original speculation.

*former Marine, too, just as a point of clarification

1/9/2012 11:27:46 PM

I was implying that a marine, of all people, should have known that he'd be a valuable target over there and a subject of immediate suspicion, unlike those dumb rich kids that got caught "hiking" the border earlier. After reading more it appears he had been given assurances that it wouldn't be a problem by the iranians when they granted him entry. Still seems a little foolhardy to me.

1/9/2012 11:37:44 PM