Iranian warship sunk by the US was sailing home after taking part in an exhibition hosted by India

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

GALLE, Sri Lanka (AP) — An Iranian warship that was sunk by a U.S. submarine near Sri Lanka had participated in naval exercises hosted by India before heading out into international waters in the Indian Ocean on its way home, New Delhi said.

The sinking underscored the scope of the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran and its spread in the Middle East and beyond. It also ignited a debate in India about maritime security in the Indian Ocean — a region where New Delhi maintains a significant naval presence.

On Wednesday, Sri Lanka's navy recovered 87 bodies and rescued 32 Iranian sailors from the IRIS Dena, which sank in international waters off the coast of the island nation — a rare instance of a submarine torpedoing a ship since World War II.

Sri Lanka’s navy said it had responded to a distress signal from the IRIS Dena, but by the time it reached the location, there was no sign of the ship, just patches of oil and sailors floating in the water. The rescued mariners were taken to a hospital in the town of Galle, on Sri Lanka’s southern coast.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/iranian-warship-sunk-us-sailing-111923309.html

[EX500rider]

1. They should have made up an engine problem and stayed in Port

It wasn't like the US was going to let them get back to join the war

[Melon]

3. Or gone to any port....or dropped their flag and flown a white flag.

As you said, unless they surrendered the vessel to a port to wait it out, they were doomed as they got closer to Iran.

[Blues Heron]

9. Don't blame the victim, this was an act of terrorism by the us

[Melon]

16. It was a warship...on its way back to the conflict area

Victim? 20 other large vessels were already sunk. I’m sure they were aware that they are a target.

[Blues Heron]

18. We're all targets now thanks to trumps illegal and immoral murder mission- totally unjustified killing

[EX500rider]

29. Apparently there was a 2nd Iranian naval vessel at the Maritime exercise...

Last edited Thu Mar 5, 2026, 10:28 PM - Edit history (1)

.....this one was smart enough to develop "engine troubles"

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/5/sri-lanka-evacuates-crew-of-second-iranian-vessel-after-us-sunk-iris-dena

[Melon]

38. Why would Iran, knowing that it's in tense diplomatic times with 2 aircraft carriers at its door

Send two of its small navy to a war excercise? Then they stayed an extra 2 days after the conflict started. Weird stuff.

[EX500rider]

46. I assume it was planned way earlier and they thought they could bluff their way thru the talks

Plus they must have known their only real useful weapons were going to be missiles & drones, their navy & air force were just going to be targets

[Blues Heron]

2. Cowardly sucker punch, another 80 murders for Trumps peace prize account

[EX500rider]

5. What do you suggest , the submarine surface first?

The object of combat isn't to make it fair for the other side

[Blues Heron]

6. I suggest not murdering to cover up the Epstein files. Blowing that ship up is a piece of shit move

[EX500rider]

7. Letting it get in range of a US Carrier Group to use its anti-ship cruise missiles would have been a worse idea

ymmv

[ruet]

10. Disgusting!

[sarisataka]

11. Frigates are not unarmed ships nt

[hardluck]

13. Very highly unlikely that it was unarmed

The Dena participated in Milan 2026, which included live fire exercises:

The MILAN exercises kicked off with a presidential fleet review at sea. presided over by the Honorable President of India. It showcased indigenous platforms, including INS Vikrant, India's first domestically built aircraft carrier. Visakhapatnam-class destroyers, Nilgiri-class stealth frigates, and Arnala-class anti-submarine warfare corvettes also participated, reflecting India's transformation into a "builder's navy."

As per the Indian Navy, the primary goals of MILAN 2026 included "operational interoperability, advanced warfare training." These focused on the "sea phase" (February 21–25), which included live-fire drills, anti-submarine warfare, and complex electronic warfare scenarios.

https://japan-forward.com/why-were-indias-milan-2026-naval-exercises-important/]

Here's video of a Russian warship participating in the live fire portion of Milan 2026:

?si=EyLRerNqhFeECeNl]

And the US did not pull out of Milan 2026. The US participated in both the harbor phase as well as the sea phase with a P-8 conducting ASW training. There was a US destroyer, the USS Pinckney, that was set to participate but, ultimately, did not as it was diverted to Singapore.

https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/display-news/Article/4417628/us-navy-concludes-participation-in-multilateral-exercise-milan-2026/]

Pretty much all of this guy's facts are wrong.

[Kingofalldems]

15. Internet trolls still defend it.

[EX500rider]

21. Internet trolls pretend it was a unarmed warship

[WarGamer]

53. the real internet trolls spread Iranian propaganda.

I guess they support religo-nazis and killing protestors.

[EX500rider]

17. How was a Iranian navy vessel "unarmed"?

As per Iranian Navy Commander Hossein Khanzadi, the ship carried a significantly greater armament compared with the frigates of the same-class. Dena was equipped with a vertical launching system, a first for an Iranian ship.
The ship was equipped with surface-to-air and anti-ship missiles.
It had an armament of four Ghader anti-ship missiles, a 76 mm Fajr-27 naval gun, a 40 mm Fath-40 AA cannon, a 30 mm Kamand anti-aircraft defense cannon, two 20 mm Oerlikon cannons, two 12.7 mm heavy machine guns, and two triple 324mm anti-submarine torpedo launchers
Doesn't sound very unarmed to me


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

[sarisataka]

20. More and more posts are claiming fantasy as facts

And there are a growing number of accusations that those who correct false information are "supporting" the war.

[EX500rider]

22. You know, one of those "unarmed warships", you've heard of those right?

[WarGamer]

54. The nonsense was flying yesterday about the US running short of Tomahawk missiles...

Standard US inventory is publicly available... it's 3500-4000 units.

400 were used in the opening days of the war and Tomahawks are only used BEFORE air supremacy is achieved.

The Iranian propaganda is thick right now

[BannonsLiver]

68. Noted Iranian propagandist Mark Hertling, who knows more than you do, seems concerned about overall munitions stock.

He seems to disagree with you and Whiskey Pete Hegseth that everything is fine. But hey, he's probably getting a check from some mullah!

(On edit: The "I told you so" fun for me in the coming weeks, months, years as this thing drags on and on with the folks who didn't learn a thing from Iraq and other entanglements is going to be off the charts. )

[WarGamer]

78. Don't get me wrong... this could turn into Shrub's iraq... or maybe not.

I don't know... all I'm saying is all this social media hype about how the Iranians are "devastating" it's neighbors is silly.

[AloeVera]

30. Yet some are defending it.

I'm so shocked!

[EX500rider]

47. It being a "unarmed warship" is pure BS

Once it left port and headed back to the warzone is was a danger to the US carrier group in the Arabian Sea.
I don't see how letting it kill a bunch of US sailors and then being sunk is a better outcome, YMMV

The other Iranian vessel stayed in Sri Lanka with "engine problems" and is fine.

[EX500rider]

19. "Blowing that ship up is a piece of shit move"

Smarter move then letting it get with in striking distance of the US carrier group operating in the Arabian Sea.
She had 4 sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles with 200 kilo warheads and 300k range.

[Blues Heron]

23. What ever happened to warning shots across the bow? This seems needlessly vicious. No help to the survivors either

Do the supporters of this ginned up war want wwiii to break out? Because that is a distinct possibility here. Let that sink in.

[EX500rider]

24. How does a sub do a "warning shot" across the bow?

Very dangerous for a sub to let a frigate know it's there, the Iranian warship carried homing torpedos with a 15k range.

How does WWIII break out?
Zero major powers are going to step in to help Iran.
Actually the longer they try to block the Straights of Hormuz, the more likely other powers will step in to help open the straights.

Key Destinations and Percentages (via Strait of Hormuz):
Asia (Total): ~82%
China: ~37.7% (Also, ~90% of Iran's specific exports)
India: ~14.7%
Other Asia: ~13.9%
South Korea: ~12.0%
Other (Europe/USA): Remaining ~18

India relies on the Middle East for about 60% of its oil imports.
More than 90% of Japan's crude oil imports come from the Middle East.

[Blues Heron]

32. I'm hearing it was unarmed, having participated in joint exercises requiring ships to be unarmed

After the fog of war clears, this will be revealed to be a serious war crime, I have no doubt.

[EX500rider]

33. nonsense, they literally have live fire exercises during naval maneuvers

Any real news org saying that or just some nobody troll on X?

[EX500rider]

34. here:

As per the Indian Navy, the primary goals of MILAN 2026 included "operational interoperability, advanced warfare training." These focused on the "sea phase" (February 21–25), which included live-fire drills, anti-submarine warfare, and complex electronic warfare scenarios.

[sarisataka]

37. There is no reason ships in such an operation

Would be required to be unarmed. They may not have been at combat readiness but they would still have their standard weapons load.

Also not even Iran has said the ship was unarmed; I believe they know more about their ships than "sources"

[Melon]

77. The excercise it was in had live fire......

[Blues Heron]

80. Well then by all means blast away! Send those poor bastards straight to Davey Jones locker!

Kill ‘em all and let god sort em out amirite?

[EX500rider]

28. How does a sub help survivors?

She has neither lifeboats or room/provisions for 32 prisoners.

The Iranian frigate got off a SOS and had life rafts.

[Happy Hoosier]

31. That ship sailed.

Trump starting this war to cover up Epstein is despicable. But out folks are now engaged. This ship was sailing to the conflict zone. With hostilities underway, that ship was a legit target. It should have remained in port.

[Blues Heron]

39. that's blaming the victim, this was pure Trumpian bloodlust on display.

[EX500rider]

48. I doubt Trump was anywhere in the decision making

The Admiral commanding the carrier group would be derelict in his/her duty if they allowed a enemy combatant with anti-ship assets to get anywhere near the carrier group.
No doubt the attached attack sub was sent that way to make sure it didn't.

If the Iranian captain had any brains he would have developed some "engine trouble" like the other Iranian warship did, instead he got most of his crew killed for nothing.

[lame54]

14. Totally - like when...

A bank robber shoots a guard for daring to pull a gun on him
All's fair

[EX500rider]

25. Is a US navy sub protecting it's carrier group a "bank robber" somehow?

[lame54]

42. If your in the middle of an illegal act...

Any harm you do is attached to it
This war is illegal

[EX500rider]

43. So in your mind the sub should allow the Iranian War vessel to try to sink the US carrier that somehow better to you?

[lame54]

44. In your mind...

Their meeting was happenstance and our carrier didn't fucking hunt it down

[EX500rider]

45. The carrier is conducting air ops in the Arabian Sea, the Iranian warship was headed that way

Last edited Fri Mar 6, 2026, 12:05 AM - Edit history (1)

The carrier most likely detached her attack sub to go stop it getting closer.
The Iranian warship had anti-ship cruise missiles with 300k range, letting it get closer would be stupid.
If the Iranian warship didn't want to take part in the war she could have just stayed where she was.

You know who didn't get sunk?
The other Iranian warship that stayed in Sri Lanka

[lame54]

55. Maybe you can be...

Hegseth's lawyer
https://www.rawstory.com/pete-hegseth-2675597881/

[EX500rider]

56. Sinking enemy warships during a war is rarely a war crime

And the ship wasn't unarmed that's BS

And I don't even know why they mention international waters like thats some kind of safe zone for enemy ships, news flash it's not

[sarisataka]

57. It is an ironic inversion

The narrative presents it as if international waters is some kind of safe zone; however attacking the ship in another country's territorial waters would be a violation of sovereignty.

[lame54]

58. It's all fruit of a poison tree...

We should not be in this war therefore we should not be in a position to sink sovereign nation ships

[EX500rider]

60. Doesn't make it a war crime

For it to be a war crime it'd have to be a declared and marked hospital ship or have surrendered and then be sunk etc

Wars started for dubious reasons do not mean all the combat that takes place during that war are war crimes

[B.See]

4. Epstein.

[Torchlight]

12. The craven excuses are almost as bad as the act itself

Leavitt was failing in her attempt to turn water into orange juice as she rationalized Operation Forget Epstein.

[Easterncedar]

26. No woke rules of war, for sure

[NoMoreRepugs]

27. Some serious bloodlust here.

"In a social media post, former Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal said there was no way that the Iranian ship could have been perceived as any kind of military threat."

� 'I am told that as per protocol for this exercise ships cannot carry any ammunition,' he wrote. 'It was defenseless... The attack by the US submarine was premeditated as the US was aware of the Iranian ship�s presence in the exercise to which the US navy was invited but withdrew from participation at the last minute, presumably with this operation in mind.' "

A bit like targeting a girls school?

[hardluck]

36. Both statements are BS

First, Milan 2026 had live fire exercises so there was no was no protocol that ships could not carry ammunition. Second, the US participated in the exercises, both the harbor portion and the at sea portion - P-8's practiced ASW.

See my prior post at #13.

[EX500rider]

51. "US navy was invited but withdrew from participation at the last minute" not

A U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft (MPRA) from Patrol Squadron (VP) 4 concluded their participation in the multilateral naval exercise MILAN 2026, Feb. 17-26, 2026.

https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/display-news/Article/4417628/us-navy-concludes-participation-in-multilateral-exercise-milan-2026/

And there was literally a live-fire exercise as part of the operation so the vessels weren't "unarmed"
The Indian guy is talking BS

[OC375]

35. The Iranian Captain Needed to Know How to Read the Room

It literally just came from practicing how to kill enemies, so it could do that better if there's a war. Constant improvement, that's what militaries do all day.

There's now a war and it's an enemy ship headed to a war zone. Further, that ships country shoots at anything that seemingly floats these days, so I have no idea why everyone is adding "international waters" to this, like it's some shocker. That's a lot of bad choices.

It was literally the part in the movie where Eastwood tells everyone who doesn't want to get shot better leave... and reminds everyone that you'd best be armed (permanently) if you do wicked stuff... They headed right in.

Also, we don't tell the enemy stuff like "We're here. Stand and deliver you cur!", anymore. You just shoot them.

I suppose if Iran were to start firing warning drones that deliberately missed oil tankers, military bases and Amazon data centers, we should consider warning shots.

[Blues Heron]

40. We are being told by our government that this is actually not a war. This was a terrorist act by the US

Can’t have it both ways bro

[OC375]

41. Don't care what Trump says, bro

[EX500rider]

49. So if the Iranian warship got in range and fired her missiles at US ship also a terrorist act?

Or a act of war?
Can’t have it both ways bro

[Blues Heron]

50. Self defense, duh

We are the aggressors here, do you understand that?

[EX500rider]

52. most wars have a aggressor on one side, that hardly makes it "terrorism"

Terrorism is the premeditated use of violence or threat of violence by non-state actors or clandestine agents against civilians, property, or infrastructure to create fear, intimidate populations, or coerce governments to advance political, religious, or ideological goals.

[Blues Heron]

62. It's worse than terrorism, it's state sponsored terror.

[EX500rider]

64. Yeah no, it's just regular warfare

One Naval warship attacking another Naval warship during a war is hardly "terror"
It's called combat and if the Iranian ship wanted to avoid it it could have stayed in port like the other Iranian vessel did

[Blues Heron]

65. It's like if you break into someone's house they can shoot you, it's self defense, you shoot them it's murder.

We broke into their house and set off bombs, it’s a crime. They fight back, it’s self defense. Sinking their ship was yet another crime. Sorry, that’s just how most normal people see this, it’s why there’s substantial outrage over this.

[EX500rider]

66. "In my opinion" is how you should have ended that

[Blues Heron]

67. In my opinion, yes

[EX500rider]

69. "how most normal people see this, it's why there's substantial outrage over this."

And by normal people you mean a few posters here and maybe code pink?

Less people seem outraged by it in this thread and understand how naval warfare works then otherwise.
ymmv
Considering the alternative was to let it get within missile range of a US carrier and maybe kill a bunch of American sailors and then still get sunk I don't see how this is the worst outcome

[Blues Heron]

70. Mostly trolls, obviously.

[EX500rider]

72. Oh I wouldn't go that far, no one has called you a troll, you're allowed your own opinion even if it's wrong

Basically there were 2 choices and all the "illegal war!" "Burglar!" etc cries are too late once hostilities begin.

At that point the US Admiral in command of the USN carrier group could either:

A. Let a hostile warship in missile range and risk potentially losing ships and many sailors & then sinking the enemy vessel or

B. Sink it while it is still out of range.

There really isn't a choice C., if the Iranian warship didn't want to fight it would have stayed in Sri Lanka like the other one did.

Any Admiral who picked A. would be rightfully court marshaled for dereliction of duty in force protection.

[ColoringFool]

82. Like Pearl Harbor was "just regular warfare"? WE ILLEGALLY BOMBED IRAN.....

What about INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIMES do you not get??

Iran was not a belligerent, not a combatant, not a declared war enemy.....

It was, in fact, a sovereign nation as Iraq was when we ILLEGALLY ATTACKED her.

[Jedi Guy]

86. Yes, Pearl Harbor was regular warfare.

Sneak attacks are part of warfare. There's no rule stating that wars have to be declared before hostilities commence. Nowhere is it written that they have to send a telegram or a bloody glove or something.

Declaring war before the attack would have undermined the entire point of the attack from Japan's point of view. They wanted to cripple the Pacific fleet and lock America out of being able to project force in the western Pacific Ocean. Catching the fleet at anchor allowed them to target them all in one place. If they'd declared war in advance that opportunity would have been lost.

You can make an argument that the attack on Pearl Harbor was cowardly but the point of war is to win, not look super cool and brave.

This warship was on its way to an active combat zone. Taking out enemy reinforcements before they get into position to be effective is also part of war. The fact that it was in international waters means absolutely nothing.

As it turns out, war is hell. I seem to recall some military type saying that once upon a time.

[EX500rider]

90. Iran is a evil terrorist supporting theocracy who recently killed 10,000 to 30,000 of her citizens just for protesting

Didn't want to get bombed could have given up their nuclear weapon program.
The possibility of them using or suppling nukes to Hezbollah or Hamas or the Houthis is chilling IMO
I shed no tears for the Ayatollahs and hope the Iranian citizens come out on top.

[OC375]

59. Iran is shooting at all nations ships

They don’t get to keep their warships heading towards the front where they are actively shooting at ships. We sink them before they sink anyone. That’s how it’s always worked.

[sarisataka]

61. Interesting how that doesn't get called out...

And it is all nations ships, even their own.
The tanker Skylight was hit by the Iranians, even though it is under sanction for being part of the shadow fleet which smuggles Iranian oil.

[Blues Heron]

63. If you say so bro

[ColoringFool]

83. So you defend Japan's kamikaze attacks post-Pearl Harbor? ......

Attack first. Then accuse the victim state of being in the wrong.

[OC375]

87. I don't have to defend Japan

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion.

[Jedi Guy]

91. What do Japanese kamikaze attacks have to do with anything regarding the war with Iran?

And while Iran didn't start this war, let's not frame it as if they're totally innocent here by calling them the "victim state". Framing this in the same terms as Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine is wildly disingenuous.

They're a regional power with ambitions of being something greater and they're a huge destabilizing influence on the Middle East. They support Shia militias such as the Houthis (who have attacked unarmed merchant vessels in the Arabian Sea) and Hezbollah (who have repeatedly launched missiles into Israel from Lebanon). They have a wide network of intelligence operatives across the region. They paid bounties to Taliban-aligned fighters in Afghanistan for killing US personnel.

Internally, Iran is a theocracy that punishes its own people with ruthless indifference to their human rights. Just this year they've killed thousands of their own citizens for the crime of daring to engage in free speech. Their theocratic bullshit is horrifically repressive to women in particular. The killing of Neda Agha-Soltan is just one example

All that being the case, I'd still prefer we hadn't attacked Iran and I think Trump has made a huge error in doing so. The stated justifications for the attack change by the hour and there's obviously no clearly defined objective or desired end state.

Both things can be true at the same time. Iran can be a bad actor in the geopolitical affairs of the Middle East and the US military action against it can be a terrible idea. They're not mutually exclusive.

[sarisataka]

92. This comparison makes utterly zero sense

Who is defending Kamikazes and why do they need to be defended? It was a desperation attack Japan freely chose.

Victim state- was Japan the victim in WW2?

[ColoringFool]

84. So this is the part where further Japanese aggression post-PH is acceptable?

[OC375]

88. You're defending the attack on Pearl Harbor as acceptable?

That was easy, but really, strawmen is a poor debate style. Just say what you mean, don’t hide behind that canard. We’re talking Iran.

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. For everyone's information - the ship that was sunk was not on its way back to Iran, or "the carrier group"

On the 26th Feb, it had requested permission to enter a Sir Lankan port from the 9th to 13th of March, as had the IRINS Bushehr (a naval auxiliary, so without significant armament) and another ship*. The ships were already very close to the Sri Lankan national maritime zone. The Sri Lankan government thus saw it as an unusual request, and so didn't immediately say yes or no. Then the Dena was sunk early on the 4th, still close to Sri Lanka (19 nautical miles from the port of Galle). The Bushehr docked on the 4th at Trincomalee (not the main commercial port of Colombo, where the Sri Lankans didn't want it).

Link to tweet

*The 3rd ship may have been the Lavan, a "Landing Ship Heavy" also in the Review, which asked India on Feb 28th to dock, saying it had technical issues; India said yes on the 1st, and it docked at Kochi on the 4th.

https://www.deccanherald.com/india/days-before-iris-dena-was-torpedoed-india-gives-safe-harbour-to-iranian-ship-in-kochi-3922522

Again basically unarmed (it has room to land a helicopter on it, but whether it sails with one, I can't tell): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hengam-class_landing_ship

[EX500rider]

73. Highly unlikely the sub knew anything about that

Iranian war vessel at sea, potential danger to carrier group is all the sub would have known

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. I think subs can tell which direction a ship is going, and its speed

so no, I think it's highly likely it knew it was not sailing towards your sacred carrier group, or into the zone of conflict. Plus in this day and age, I also suspect that US intel would have had the info about its movement for the past few days, and Navy top brass would have taken them into account when giving orders to sink it.

If one were demanding "unconditional surrender", one would be saying "it's a potential danger to our carrier group", and saying "sink the bastard, it's Iranian".

[EX500rider]

75. "sink the bastard, it's Iranian" That's generally how wars go, yes.

Since it sounds like the Sri Lanka had not yet given permission for it do dock how do you know what direction it was heading?

[muriel_volestrangler]

76. It had been just outside their maritime zone for days. It wasn't going anywhere.

If it's war, it's illegal - Congress has not authorised it. "I was only obeying orders" is what the Democrats reminded the military they can't use as an excuse when the orders are illegal.

[EX500rider]

79. "If it's war, it's illegal - Congress has not authorised it" Might want to read the War Powers Act

Gives the president's power to commit the armed forces to armed conflict without congressional consent. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops into hostilities, limiting their stay to 60–90 days unless authorization is granted.

It wasn't going anywhere.
So it was motionless? Anchored?
Doubtful, most likely she was moving in some direction.

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. The War Powers Resolution is not to allow a president to wage general war for 60 days

without any discussion beforehand.

It requires the president to consult with Congress where hostilities are thought "imminent". Trump clearly did not; he built up forces in the area, did no consultation, and pretended to be interested in negotiation. Then he launched the attack without warning, when nothing had changed (and no, the idea that Israel decided to attack and therefore the USA was forced to attack at the same time doesn't cut it). This is clearly against the Wars Power Resolution. You can't use it as an excuse for an attack 2000 miles away from the fighting.

You want to regard the killing of dozens of people as a form of Grandmother's Footsteps - if a ship twitches, 2000 miles away, then blast away. Are you inspired by Squid Game?

[Hugin]

89. There's allegedly video of the sinking.

I haven’t seen it.

How’d that happen? Was there coordination between the submarine and other units? Could those other units have implemented rescue operations after the sinking instead of only shooting video?

[sarisataka]

93. If you saw the video

you would see it was taken by the submarine

[ColoringFool]

85. Is This The Time To Roll Out The Perjury About "Yellow-Cake.....

Uranium," "Mobile Bio-warfare Labs," "Hidden WMDs," and "Saddam Won't Let Overseers In"?

ALL EFFING LIES, EVERY ONE, AND THEIR LIARS: BUSH; RICE; POWELL; WOLFOWITZ.

And yet---AND YET---there are actually those who take THIS unutterably corrupt and criminal Republican Administration's words as somehow being related to the truth and reality, when in fact they are not in the same UNIVERSE.

Well, as was said by a US Major ( not Gen. Westmoreland) back in Vietnam: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

Mark it: Cuba is next. Gotta bring back the good old criminal days of Batista. Think of the Trump Resorts and Golf Courses!