• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You think Iran is a peaceful Nation?

Do You think Iran is a peaceful Nation?


  • Total voters
    31

Wake

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
18,536
Reaction score
2,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't think so, tbh. Upon watching this YouTube video I found this quote in the comments below:

Disturbing images from Iran you rarely see - YouTube

I recall thursday we saved 12 Iranian fisherman from Somolian Pirates and now Iran is going to put to death a former Marine man for spying for the CIA when he was visiting his grandmother who happens to live there and Iran is a peaceful country? How about the pictures of women be hung for believing in witchcraft or just being killed for no reason. Kids being murdered for no reason? Thats peace?

Simply put, if a nation is going to put that man to death for supposedly spying, how exactly can Iran be considered peaceful?

To me, I think Iran is wanting to be nuked [and yes, I say this in humorously serious tone]. It could easily be eradicated if they decide to take further measures against the United States.
 
iran is as peaceful as the other ones..
 
America is just being a world tyrant as usual. What gives us the right to tell other countries what they can or can't do? Our military? Again, definition of a tyrant, which was the very government the pilgrims fled against in the first place.
 
I don't think so, tbh. Upon watching this YouTube video I found this quote in the comments below:

Disturbing images from Iran you rarely see - YouTube



Simply put, if a nation is going to put that man to death for supposedly spying, how exactly can Iran be considered peaceful?

To me, I think Iran is wanting to be nuked [and yes, I say this in humorously serious tone]. It could easily be eradicated if they decide to take further measures against the United States.

the u.s. puts retarded men to death.
 
I say they are violent.

Beyond their civil laws of stoning and cutting off of hands, they have terrorist groups that are dedicated to the destruction of Iran. They have had horrific wars with Iraq. I met members of the MEK while in Iraq. They were sophisticated, intelligent, and had family members in Iran. If Iran found out they joined the MEK, their family would be killed. Seems violent.
 
the u.s. puts retarded men to death.

At birth, or only when they become a danger to law-abiding citizens? Because as much as I support both, I think most people would agree that the latter is as morally justified as executing non-retarded violent criminals.

To answer the OP, the proper answer to the question is neither "yes" nor "no", but "mu"; the question is improperly formulated because it assumes that other nations are peaceful by default and implies that being a "peaceful nation" is desirable.
 
Last edited:
I don't think so, tbh. Upon watching this YouTube video I found this quote in the comments below:

Disturbing images from Iran you rarely see - YouTube

Simply put, if a nation is going to put that man to death for supposedly spying, how exactly can Iran be considered peaceful?

To me, I think Iran is wanting to be nuked [and yes, I say this in humorously serious tone]. It could easily be eradicated if they decide to take further measures against the United States.

Well, if one is talking about the Iranian people? Yes, I think they are peaceful. They're just doing the best they can and trying to find happiness like every American family.

If one is talking about their government, then I'm not sure. But I know they're not complete idiots and won't be starting what they can't finish anytime soon. And they can't finish much. I think the United States has shown a willingness to help topple regimes. The powers that be in Iran have probably learned from that. And I just know they want to continue being the powers-that-be.
 
What do you mean by peaceful?
If you mean they dont go around invading other nations and putting their form of government on other people; then yes they are peaceful.
If you mean domestic policy? Well they are about as peaceful as the US.
 
Iran as a country is not a nation...it is a geographical location identified as a 'country'. Iranians is the label assigned to its citizens but like the citizens of the US cant be described as 'peaceful' or otherwise. The people are most appropriately described as Muslim, and again...cannot be described as peaceful or warring.

Is Iran's leader a hate monger and does he demonstrate violent tendencies in his verbiage? Yes. Most Iranians are students, family members, workers, etc...and like every other citizen in every other country will get swept into any armed conflict their leader eventually manages to drag them into.
 
absolutely
iran has not initiated a war against another sate in the past 200 years

let's see what our secretary of defense had to say about their purported development of nuclear arms:
Panetta admits Iran not developing nukes | The Raw Story

That only shows that Panetta is either an idiot or feels he must lie.

As to th question, I have no idea why those who actually run the country allows Imacrazyguy go around saying the things he does but they aren't as stupid as the things Imacrazyguy says.

They have no incentive to attack anyone.
 
Um?

What do you base this off of? Are you in such denial to the fact that our media isn't really true media at all? I would hope people would learn this by now.

Media is probably spinning it so we can get more military influence in the region, to exploit resources for our gain. Simple as that.
 
Another way to examine this situation is to see how Iran's neighbors view them. In a study done by the "Arab American Institute six Arab nations poll show real concern with Iran’s current and future role in the region."

The poll surveys six Arab nations’ attitudes towards Iran and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) issues. The key finding is that a substantial majority of Arabs believe that Iran plays a negative role in both Iraq and the Arab Gulf region.

Executive Summary

• Most Arabs look askance at Iran's role across their region, with substantial majorities seeing Iran playing a negative role especially in Iraq, Bahrain and the Arab Gulf.

• Iran's favorable ratings have dropped significantly in recent years. It is seen as not contributing to "peace and stability in the Arab World" and there is scant support for Iran's nuclear program.

• Significant majorities desire that the Middle East become a "nuclear free zone". When asked if they "had to choose one nation other than Israel to be a nuclear power in the Middle East" - for most Arabs, Egypt is the preferred choice, followed by Turkey.

• There is regional support for the GCC's new and more assertive role in Bahrain, Yemen, and in their concern with Iran's nuclear program.

• Lebanon's attitudes toward Iran differ from the rest of the region, revealing a troubling sectarian divide.

• Overall, Turkey receives the highest favorable ratings in most Arab countries, with the U.S. Receiving the lowest rating in every country but Saudi Arabia, where Iran is lowest.

Arab Attitudes Toward Iran: 2011 | The Arab American Institute
 
America is just being a world tyrant as usual. What gives us the right to tell other countries what they can or can't do?

When they aggressively pursue interests to enrich a surpassed amount of Uranium beyond the recognizable limits needed for civilian use (which clearly is being enriched for the express purpose of amassing an arsenal of nuclear weapons), when their leaders and citizens constantly chant "death to America, death to Israel, and death to the west", and when they constantly abuse civil liberties, minority rights, and when they constantly threaten, jail, or kill Americans or American sympathizers and political opponents in Iran. Oh, did I forget to mention their threat to close a body of water that they have no right to blockade, which will further disrupt the global economy?
 
Last edited:
When they aggressively pursue interests to enrich a surpassed amount of Uranium beyond the recognizable limits needed for civilian use (which clearly is being enriched for the express purpose of amassing an arsenal of nuclear weapons),
would really want to see a cite proving this to be factual

when their leaders and citizens constantly chant "death to America, death to Israel, and death to the west",
we toppled their elected government and replaced it with the shah when we feared their democratically elected government was going to take possession of the iranian oil fields that were being exploited for the benefit of our oil companies
we have subjected them to embargo
and those citizens such as yourself seek to instigate war on a nation that has fought only defensively for two centuries - never as the aggressor
and then you have the temerity to accuse them of talking bad about the actions of the USA and our government
you only prove that Santayana was correct

... and when they constantly abuse civil liberties, minority rights,
you mean like our ME partner, saudi arabia, whose oppressive government we defend

... and when they constantly threaten, jail, or kill Americans or American sympathizers and political opponents in Iran.
individuals who are seeking to overthrow their elected government ... is that who you are complaining about

Oh, did I forget to mention their threat to close a body of water that they have no right to blockade, which will further disrupt the global economy?
and expressed only when the likes of the israelis and the USA - with the wink of assent by the house of saud - speak of initiating an unprovoked attack on the sovereign land of iran to warn those would be attackers that there will be consequences for such warlike actions

these are the people you oppose, while the israelis have never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty - but iran has. and has complied with its provisions. now, which nation is being more complicit with the expectations of the international community
 
I'm not that sure they're not trying to develop one.

It makes perfect sense for them to have one, that's how the MAD theory works. There's a consensus about that.

And if we let some nations violate treaties and develop nuclear weapons, then it is hypocritical to prevent others from getting one. Everyone should be aware of this.

However we should pay more attention to the rhetoric used by the leaders of certain nations, including Iran. Threatening to use force against another nation is already violation of international law.

Unfortunately, "international law" seems to be mostly the law of the powerful, and if the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan had not been costly failures, I'm not sure Ahmadinejad would still be alive.

And to reply to the question, Iran is a dictatorship and we should promote democracy instead of threatening to bomb them; but they have never attacked anyone and it's not in their interest to actually attack anyone (however they do support terrorist organizations, and that's also a violation of international law; but that goes both ways, it seems like "someone" is using the very same methods to kill Iranian scientists).

There's been a lot of anti-West rethoric, but that's just like the anti-Iran speeches in Western countries: they just say things like that to get popular support, to make people think about something else than the actual (socio-economic) problems.

So there's no "black and white", and if one considers Iran to be an "aggressive nation", then he must also realize that "we" are much less peaceful.
 
Last edited:
When they aggressively pursue interests to enrich a surpassed amount of Uranium beyond the recognizable limits needed for civilian use (which clearly is being enriched for the express purpose of amassing an arsenal of nuclear weapons), when their leaders and citizens constantly chant "death to America, death to Israel, and death to the west", and when they constantly abuse civil liberties, minority rights, and when they constantly threaten, jail, or kill Americans or American sympathizers and political opponents in Iran. Oh, did I forget to mention their threat to close a body of water that they have no right to blockade, which will further disrupt the global economy?

I think your argumentation does not stand, because it is one-sided. Do we not threaten to bomb them? Do we not kill their scientists? Did we not support the invasion of their country 30 years ago?

As for the blockade, are they actually doing it? Even if they did, our response should be proportional to the actual damage, and could not be violent (= we can't nuke Teheran)
 
the u.s. puts retarded men to death.

No, the United States does not put retarded men to death. In fact, the United States rarely puts anybody to death. We live in a Republic, and things like criminal justice and the impostion of sentences for crimes is left to each state, with few exceptions. If you're going to rip the United States, at least get the right target.
 
What do you mean by peaceful?
If you mean they dont go around invading other nations and putting their form of government on other people; then yes they are peaceful.
If you mean domestic policy? Well they are about as peaceful as the US.

What is with this love affair that the Far Left has with despotic regimes? I understand it's not all despotic regimes - just the ones that are our enemies. I really would like to know. Is it that you love them more or that you hate us more?
 
Last edited:
What is with this love affair that the Far Left has with despotic regimes? I understand it's not all despotic regimes - just the ones that are our enemies. I really would like to know. Is it that you love them more or that you hate us more?

this is the result when you displace democratically elected governments with dictators we prefer:
Abacha, General Sani - Nigeria
Amin, Idi - Uganda
Banzer, Colonel Hugo - Bolivia
Batista, Fulgencio - Cuba
Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal - Brunei
Botha, P.W. - South Africa
Branco, General Humberto - Brazil
Cedras, Raoul - Haiti
Cerezo, Vinicio - Guatemala
Chiang Kai-Shek - Taiwan
Cordova, Roberto Suazo - Honduras
Christiani, Alfredo - El Salvador
Diem, Ngo Dihn - Vietnam
Doe, General Samuel - Liberia
Duvalier, Francois - Haiti
Duvalier, Jean Claude - Haiti
Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz, King - Saudi Arabia
Franco, General Francisco - Spain
Hassan II - Morocco
Marcos, Ferdinand - Philippines
Martinez, General Maximiliano - El Salvador
Mobutu Sese Seko - Zaire
Noriega, General Manuel - Panama
Ozal, Turgut - Turkey
Pahlevi, Shah Mohammed Reza - Iran
Papadopoulos, George - Greece
Park Chung Hee - South Korea
Pinochet, General Augusto - Chile
Pol Pot - Cambodia
Rabuka, General Sitiveni - Fiji
Montt, General Efrain Rios - Guatemala
Salassie, Halie - Ethiopia
Salazar, Antonio de Oliveira - Portugal
Somoza, Anastasio Jr. - Nicaragua
Somoza, Anastasio, Sr. - Nicaragua
Smith, Ian - Rhodesia
Stroessner, Alfredo - Paraguay
Suharto, General - Indonesia
Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas - Dominican Republic
Videla, General Jorge Rafael - Argentina
Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed - Pakistan
 
Your point is what? That the United States is evil and every time we have any relations with any country, they suffer? Yeah, I think I already figured out the position of the Far Left with respect to the United States. Every dictator and tinpot regime in the world is ultimately our fault. Got it.

I ask this question in all seriousness. If this country is such a source of the world's misery, why do you stay here? If I felt that way, I'd get the next boat to Cuba or Venezuela or North Korea or some other place not yet corrupted by us.
 
Last edited:
What is with this love affair that the Far Left has with despotic regimes? I understand it's not all despotic regimes - just the ones that are our enemies. I really would like to know. Is it that you love them more or that you hate us more?

Ahh come on.. How am i supporting this "despotic regime"?
Get by the my country right or wrong bull****...
 
Well, you clearly consider the United States a greater force for evil in the world than Iran. Therefore, in a confrontation with Iran, you would choose to support the despotic fundamentalist theocracy.

1 + 1 still equals 2.

And no, I don't support my country right or wrong. On the other hand, neither do I believe my country is always wrong. Which sadly seems to be the position of the Far Left.
 
Well, you clearly consider the United States a greater force for evil in the world than Iran.
I consider imperialism done by any country, even my own, evil.

Therefore, in a confrontation with Iran, you would choose to support the despotic fundamentalist theocracy.
No i dont.
I never said that.
I would support neither side. I would support peace.


1 + 1 still equals 2.
I'm glad you can do math.


And no, I don't support my country right or wrong. On the other hand, neither do I believe my country is always wrong. Which sadly seems to be the position of the Far Left.
Wrong.
:doh
 
Back
Top Bottom