• 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!

If you're keeping score on the US and Iran

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
58,043
Reaction score
29,465
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
US +1: 1953, overthrow Iran's government, install dictator, give him US-trained secret police force, SAVAK, to rule corruptly terrorizing the country for 25 years

US+1: Instigate Saddam attacking Iran for a nearly decade long war, while the US secretly pretended to be on both sides until caught near the end of the war, causing about a million Iranian casualties, including from WMD I suspect the US had a role in supplying

Neutral: Iran and US at odds as Shah overthrown in revolution, embassy taken hostage to prevent sabotage of revolution and new regime, not released to help Reagan win election, then released

US +1: US blocks UN action against rogue state for bombing Iranian consulate

US +1: Assassinated Iran's top general national hero on peace mission to Saudi Arabia

US +1: Supplied weapons for rogue state war on Iran

US +1: Committed diplomatic subterfuge of commitment to diplomacy to help rogue state attack of Iranian leadership

US +1: Bombed Iran's civilian nuclear energy facilities

This is a partial list, but it's awfully one-sided of a 75 year history of devastating US attacks on Iran, initially at the behest of Britain, later the behest of the rogue state. If they chant 'Death to America' - reportedly a cultural phrase used to criticize things - who can blame them? Would the US just chant that if they did that to the US?
 
Iran hasn’t killed Americans? Think Beirut 1983.

Iran taking US hostages for 444 days is “neutral”?
 
Iran hasn’t killed Americans? Think Beirut 1983.

Iran taking US hostages for 444 days is “neutral”?

While the taking of the hostages was of significance, it was the barracks bombing in Beirut that is of overriding significance. And it is rather good to see that very interesting summary provided in the OP, as that helps folks understand that style of thought processes.

I wonder why a nation needs to spend so much money on developing the ICBM capability, if their intent is to remain focused on regional issues. "Their" being Iran, by the way.

And I would be very interested in an 'edu' tagged document supporting that conclusion that chanting "Death To America" is simply a "cultural" sort of invective?
 
US +1: 1953, overthrow Iran's government, install dictator, give him US-trained secret police force, SAVAK, to rule corruptly terrorizing the country for 25 years

US+1: Instigate Saddam attacking Iran for a nearly decade long war, while the US secretly pretended to be on both sides until caught near the end of the war, causing about a million Iranian casualties, including from WMD I suspect the US had a role in supplying

Neutral: Iran and US at odds as Shah overthrown in revolution, embassy taken hostage to prevent sabotage of revolution and new regime, not released to help Reagan win election, then released

US +1: US blocks UN action against rogue state for bombing Iranian consulate

US +1: Assassinated Iran's top general national hero on peace mission to Saudi Arabia

US +1: Supplied weapons for rogue state war on Iran

US +1: Committed diplomatic subterfuge of commitment to diplomacy to help rogue state attack of Iranian leadership

US +1: Bombed Iran's civilian nuclear energy facilities

This is a partial list, but it's awfully one-sided of a 75 year history of devastating US attacks on Iran, initially at the behest of Britain, later the behest of the rogue state. If they chant 'Death to America' - reportedly a cultural phrase used to criticize things - who can blame them? Would the US just chant that if they did that to the US?
Strange how you leave out all the terror attacks conducted by Irans proxies.

It’s almost like you are peddling propaganda in your pathetic attempt to support Iran over the US.
 
Sorry, I’m not going to agree with this attempt to rationalize/excuse Iran’s terrorism and desire to murder Americans. Yes, American has engaged in some heinously counterproductive and at times immoral Middle East policy. But Iran is a “bad guy,” full stop.
 
Iran hasn’t killed Americans? Think Beirut 1983.

Iran taking US hostages for 444 days is “neutral”?

Awwwwww, poor hostages.

Did they just come out of the blue and take hostages? Or was that in retaliation for the USA toppling their elected government?

Totally understandable really.
 
Craig is only missing an Iran team sweater and a set of pom-poms.

(Smells like Jihadist spirit.)
 
Sorry, I’m not going to agree with this attempt to rationalize/excuse Iran’s terrorism and desire to murder Americans.

Well....its not REALLY "terrorism".....and its not REALLLLY "murder"....soooo.........



Yes, American has engaged in some heinously counterproductive and at times immoral Middle East policy. But Iran is a “bad guy,” full stop.


Hmmmmm. Thats some very interesting "logic" you have right there LMAO. Try to step outside your nationalism for a few seconds.
 
I wonder why a nation needs to spend so much money on developing the ICBM capability, if their intent is to remain focused on regional issues. "Their" being Iran, by the way.

You been in a coma for the last couple weeks? And also for the last 60 years?

Thats "why".
 
Well....its not REALLY "terrorism".....and its not REALLLLY "murder"....soooo.........






Hmmmmm. Thats some very interesting "logic" you have right there LMAO. Try to step outside your nationalism for a few seconds.
Well, it’s not “really” rape if she was too passed out to say “no” so I guess you’re right…in your own way.
 
And I would be very interested in an 'edu' tagged document supporting that conclusion that chanting "Death To America" is simply a "cultural" sort of invective?

Tour Guide Rick Steves went to Iran. He was talking to the Taxi Driver, who suddenly yelled "Death to Traffic!" at the congestion. Steves asked him about it and he said they say death to anything annoying them.

Oh, wait, you want more. Here's Google AI:

"In Iranian culture, the phrase "Death to..." (Marg Bar...) is often used as a political slogan and does not necessarily mean a literal wish for death. It's more of a strong expression of disapproval and opposition towards a specific entity, often a government or its policies. For example, "Death to America" is not typically interpreted as a desire to harm Americans, but rather as a condemnation of US policies or actions.
  • Not Literal Death:
    The phrase is often hyperbolic and used to express strong negative feelings about a particular target.

  • Political Context:
    It's frequently used in political rallies and protests, particularly against foreign powers or perceived enemies.

  • Criticism of Policies:
    The phrase is often directed at the policies or actions of the entity being criticized, rather than the people themselves, according to Iranian leaders.

  • Example: "Death to America":
    This slogan is a common example, and while it might sound harsh, it's often interpreted as a rejection of US foreign policy and influence, rather than a literal desire for the death of all Americans.

  • Other Examples:
    Similar slogans, such as "Death to the dictator" or "Death to Hezbollah," are used to express opposition to specific individuals or groups.
In essence, the phrase "Death to..." in Iranian political discourse is a powerful expression of strong disapproval and should not be taken as a literal threat of violence. "
 
Neutral: Iran and US at odds as Shah overthrown in revolution, embassy taken hostage to prevent sabotage of revolution and new regime, not released to help Reagan win election, then released

Really? Despite the poor translation from Farsi/Persian (that's not English), my impression of the taking of American hostages was a big +66 for Iran.

Do you have a score for 9/11? Are you one who proclaimed Osama bin Laden was right?
 
Well there goes your credibility on this topic :LOL:
Ironic - that challenges yours. Try to make your case, and learn when it is corrected.
 
Ironic - that challenges yours. Try to make your case, and learn when it is corrected.
You're going to school the IAEA on all the civilian applications for 60% enriched uranium? But hey, just for fun let's imagine a world in which you could actually do so: It's your thread, and a poster with a credible opinion on the topic would "make your case" as you put it, rather than asking others to fill in all those gaping holes themselves.
 
You're going to school the IAEA on all the civilian applications for 60% enriched uranium? But hey, just for fun let's imagine a world in which you could actually do so: It's your thread, and a poster with a credible opinion on the topic would "make your case" as you put it, rather than asking others to fill in all those gaping holes themselves.

You made the claim that Iran's nuclear programs are not for energy alone, but also for weapons. So, you make that case. Or is your entire argument that they have enriched above the level needed for energy, but short of weapons, to 60%? That is easily explained as a negotiating 'chip' to trade among all the nuclear negotiations and sanctions.
 
You made the claim that Iran's nuclear programs are not for energy alone, but also for weapons. So, you make that case. Or is your entire argument that they have enriched above the level needed for energy, but short of weapons, to 60%? That is easily explained as a negotiating 'chip' to trade among all the nuclear negotiations and sanctions.
Okay... and an often secretive quasi-military international negotiating chip is not a civilian nuclear programme, is it? So an honest and credible OP would not have described it as such.
 
Sorry, I’m not going to agree with this attempt to rationalize/excuse Iran’s terrorism and desire to murder Americans. Yes, American has engaged in some heinously counterproductive and at times immoral Middle East policy. But Iran is a “bad guy,” full stop.
There aren't exactly any 'good guys' here. It's an easily demonstrable fact that the USA has directly engaged in orders of magnitude more killing, invasions and slaughter than Iran has done in any capacity (directly or by proxy), so if Iran is a 'bad guy' the USA must genuinely be approaching 'great satan' levels of cartoon villainy 🤭



Neutral: Iran and US at odds as Shah overthrown in revolution, embassy taken hostage to prevent sabotage of revolution and new regime, not released to help Reagan win election, then released

Really? Despite the poor translation from Farsi/Persian (that's not English), my impression of the taking of American hostages was a big +66 for Iran.
Did you also re-evaluate Craig's number for the overthrow of Iran's democratic government?
 
There aren't exactly any 'good guys' here. It's an easily demonstrable fact that the USA has directly engaged in orders of magnitude more killing, invasions and slaughter than Iran has done in any capacity (directly or by proxy).




Did you also re-evaluate Craig's number for the overthrow of Iran's democratic government?
No, it's a mindless "death to America" rant. I thought "neutral" was cute.

Look what you made me do!!! Same ol' shit. Just from the other extreme.
 
Tour Guide Rick Steves went to Iran. He was talking to the Taxi Driver, who suddenly yelled "Death to Traffic!" at the congestion. Steves asked him about it and he said they say death to anything annoying them.

Oh, wait, you want more. Here's Google AI:

"In Iranian culture, the phrase "Death to..." (Marg Bar...) is often used as a political slogan and does not necessarily mean a literal wish for death. It's more of a strong expression of disapproval and opposition towards a specific entity, often a government or its policies. For example, "Death to America" is not typically interpreted as a desire to harm Americans, but rather as a condemnation of US policies or actions.
  • Not Literal Death:
    The phrase is often hyperbolic and used to express strong negative feelings about a particular target.

  • Political Context:
    It's frequently used in political rallies and protests, particularly against foreign powers or perceived enemies.

  • Criticism of Policies:
    The phrase is often directed at the policies or actions of the entity being criticized, rather than the people themselves, according to Iranian leaders.

  • Example: "Death to America":
    This slogan is a common example, and while it might sound harsh, it's often interpreted as a rejection of US foreign policy and influence, rather than a literal desire for the death of all Americans.

  • Other Examples:
    Similar slogans, such as "Death to the dictator" or "Death to Hezbollah," are used to express opposition to specific individuals or groups.
In essence, the phrase "Death to..." in Iranian political discourse is a powerful expression of strong disapproval and should not be taken as a literal threat of violence. "
Sorry but your pathetic excuse making falls rather short, especially if one doesn’t deny the reality of Iran using its proxies to continuously try and bring death to the Jews in Israel.
 
While the taking of the hostages was of significance, it was the barracks bombing in Beirut that is of overriding significance. And it is rather good to see that very interesting summary provided in the OP, as that helps folks understand that style of thought processes.

I wonder why a nation needs to spend so much money on developing the ICBM capability, if their intent is to remain focused on regional issues. "Their" being Iran, by the way.

And I would be very interested in an 'edu' tagged document supporting that conclusion that chanting "Death To America" is simply a "cultural" sort of invective?
Have you ever wondered why Iranians never chant “Death to France”, or “Death to Denmark”, or *“Death to Spain”? Why not Germany, Russia, or even the UK?


It’s always “Death to America.”


Every one of those powers was, at some point, a conquering force that set parts of the world on fire—colonizing, enslaving, and exploiting native populations. Yet the persistent hostility in Iran is focused on one nation: the United States.


Why? Because American meddling in Iran stretches back nearly a century, starting around World War I—and it has been relentless ever since.


If you think about it, Iran has had conflicts with many of its neighbors—like Turkey—yet it maintains relatively good relations with them today. The same goes for the UK, France, and other European nations. Iran has diplomatic or stable ties with countries like Vietnam, Russia, China, and Japan.


But when it comes to the United States—the hostility has never fully healed.


That’s a question worth asking. Why is it only the U.S.?

Is it us or is it them? if your answer is them, then the next question is why not others? what is unique about others like France, or Germany, Denmark, or even UK

food for thought!

Diving Mullah
 
No, it's a mindless "death to America" rant. I thought "neutral" was cute.

Look what you made me do!!! Same ol' shit. Just from the other extreme.
America's agents facilitated the overthrow of the previous government - seems like a no-brainer that they should be detained and prevented from interfering in the transition and fledgling months of a slightly more legitimate regime. Surely you're not suggesting that Iran should have just left America free to shit all over their internal politics again? If the 'right to self defence' is used a pretext for justifying the slaughter of tens of thousands of Palestinian innocents as "neutral," it sure as hell applies to temporarily detaining a few dozen agents of a hostile government!
 
America's agents facilitated the overthrow of the previous government - seems like a no-brainer that they should be detained and prevented from interfering in the transition and fledgling months of a slightly more legitimate regime. Surely you're not suggesting that Iran should have just left America free to shit all over their internal politics again? If the 'right to self defence' is used a pretext for justifying the slaughter of tens of thousands of Palestinian innocents as "neutral," it sure as hell applies to temporarily detaining a few dozen agents of a hostile government!
Surely I'm not.
 
Back
Top Bottom