• 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!

Iranian official on nuke deal: 'We did not agree to dismantle anything'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Montecresto said:
I see. So you have something to say about the polls findings?
Click to expand...
Nope. I made a suggestion that perhaps the disagreement was over the relevance of the poll.
 
Montecresto said:
I understand. Had the poll found that Iran was the greatest threat to world peace we'd be very interested in what they think. But as it turned out, a mere 4% found Iran menacing! Feature that, just doesn't square with the hawks meme.
Click to expand...

I never said I wasn't interested, I said I don't care. You also are conflating two separate things. Plenty of people see Iran as menacing and are opposed to its nuclear program even to the point of military intervention. That does not exclude the possibility that many people also dislike or cast blame on the United States for its foreign policy posture.

Also from Pew/Gallup:

Global Views of Iran Overwhelmingly Negative | Pew Global Attitudes Project

Majorities in Egypt, the US, France, Germany, Britain, Lebanon (surprisingly), and most of the GCC would support military intervention of other methods failed.
 
Sherman123 said:
I never said I wasn't interested, I said I don't care. You also are conflating two separate things. Plenty of people see Iran as menacing and are opposed to its nuclear program even to the point of military intervention. That does not exclude the possibility that many people also dislike or cast blame on the United States for its foreign policy posture.

Also from Pew/Gallup:

Global Views of Iran Overwhelmingly Negative | Pew Global Attitudes Project

Majorities in Egypt, the US, France, Germany, Britain, Lebanon (surprisingly), and most of the GCC would support military intervention of other methods failed.
Click to expand...

But the Gallop poll is specific to who the world views as the greatest threat to world peace. The poll understands Iran can't threaten the peace of the whole world, but the US can and does.
 
Cole said:
Or vice versa. Hence the dilemma...
Click to expand...

My point being that the U.S. started the cycle.

Though Iran was already being dominated by Britain, we were friendly from the 1920s until the 1950s when the U.S. (as a half-baked extension of the Cold War) overthrew their government, which led directly to Khomeini in 1979.

Iran is far more victim than villain here. It is perfectly reasonable for them to want parity by having a nuclear deterrent.

The notion that they would strike first in the face of the immediate retaliation is the same kind of paranoid nonsense that created this situation.
 
WillyPete said:
My point being that the U.S. started the cycle.

Though Iran was already being dominated by Britain, we were friendly from the 1920s until the 1950s when the U.S. (as a half-baked extension of the Cold War) overthrew their government, which led directly to Khomeini in 1979.

Iran is far more victim than villain here. It is perfectly reasonable for them to want parity by having a nuclear deterrent.

The notion that they would strike first in the face of the immediate retaliation is the same kind of paranoid nonsense that created this situation.
Click to expand...


Pop quiz: What was Khomeini specifically objecting to when he began calling for the overthrow of the government?







Answer: The Shah was trying to give voting rights to women and equal rights to minorities and non-Muslims. That monster.

Khomeini didn't care about the safety of the Iranian people. He was orders of magnitude more brutal a ruler than the Shah ever was. Khomeini opposed the westernization of Iranian culture, so Khomeini was always going to happen in a secular, west-allied Iran. In other words, the only way Khomeini doesn't start a revolution is if Iran already had a brutal, repressive theocracy in place.
 
jmotivator said:
Pop quiz: What was Khomeini specifically objecting to when he began calling for the overthrow of the government?
Click to expand...

And how long did it take the U.S to grant those same right to women? Was it after an outside power created a coup, and then started pushing for aggressive social reform?

Sometimes it takes time to get the public behind the right policy.

Iran is a perfect example of what happens when you force people to do the right thing without convincing them it's the right thing first.
 
WillyPete said:
And how long did it take the U.S to grant those same right to women? Was it after an outside power created a coup, and then started pushing for aggressive social reform?

Sometimes it takes time to get the public behind the right policy.

Iran is a perfect example of what happens when you force people to do the right thing without convincing them it's the right thing first.
Click to expand...


Kind of ironic that you make such an argument given the massive changes in Iranian culture following the fall of the Shah, and the general opposition of the people of Iran to those changes. When the Shah fell the national polls supported him over the Khomeini revolutionaries. The people saw Khomeini as the threat. This continues to this very day with the majority of Iranian people supporting modernization while the brutal theocracy continues to beat them down.

So no, the Iranian people were ready for the reforms, it just happened that the most bloodthirsty and brutal faction in Iran wasn't ready and never would be.
 
WillyPete said:
And how long did it take the U.S to grant those same right to women? Was it after an outside power created a coup, and then started pushing for aggressive social reform?

Sometimes it takes time to get the public behind the right policy.

Iran is a perfect example of what happens when you force people to do the right thing without convincing them it's the right thing first.
Click to expand...

The CIA's 1953 covert operation had nothing to do with humanitarian missions. Nor does any US policy in the ME. But the hawkish ones always seek to justify US aggression on it!
 
jmotivator said:
Kind of ironic that you make such an argument given the massive changes in Iranian culture following the fall of the Shah, and the general opposition of the people of Iran to those changes. When the Shah fell the national polls supported him over the Khomeini revolutionaries. The people saw Khomeini as the threat. This continues to this very day with the majority of Iranian people supporting modernization while the brutal theocracy continues to beat them down.

So no, the Iranian people were ready for the reforms, it just happened that the most bloodthirsty and brutal faction in Iran wasn't ready and never would be.
Click to expand...

Those attitudes had started changing before the coup. The coup empowered and legitimized those radicals. The coup was a UK\USA venture triggered because the Mohammad Mosaddegh was planning to nationalize their oil industry, and vague fears of Communist influence. That Iranian monster had to be stopped!

If we had left well enough alone in the '50s, they may well have placed those reform on their own by now. The West created the situation we face today.

<Link>
 
WillyPete said:
Those attitudes had started changing before the coup. The coup empowered and legitimized those radicals. The coup was a UK\USA venture triggered because the Mohammad Mosaddegh was planning to nationalize their oil industry, and vague fears of Communist influence. That Iranian monster had to be stopped!

If we had left well enough alone in the '50s, they may well have placed those reform on their own by now. The West created the situation we face today.

<Link>
Click to expand...

I don't know why it is, it's unfortunate, but Americans don't due well when the focus comes back on US wrong doing. I wish that weren't the case. We may have a better chance at our own reforms if it were.
 
WillyPete said:
My point being that the U.S. started the cycle.

Though Iran was already being dominated by Britain, we were friendly from the 1920s until the 1950s when the U.S. (as a half-baked extension of the Cold War) overthrew their government, which led directly to Khomeini in 1979.

Iran is far more victim than villain here. It is perfectly reasonable for them to want parity by having a nuclear deterrent.

The notion that they would strike first in the face of the immediate retaliation is the same kind of paranoid nonsense that created this situation.
Click to expand...


Believe that statement is a little naive. If Iran has nuclear capability Israel certainly has reason to be concerned. Muslim extremists aren't known for rational thought. And there are "means of delivery" for a bomb that would not need to come from Iranian airspace...
 
Oh, damn! Are you telling me that using an unqualified community organizer as President has screwed us again??? Who could've predicted that?
 
WillyPete said:
And how long did it take the U.S to grant those same right to women? Was it after an outside power created a coup, and then started pushing for aggressive social reform?

Sometimes it takes time to get the public behind the right policy.

Iran is a perfect example of what happens when you force people to do the right thing without convincing them it's the right thing first.
Click to expand...

Yes, they've only had a few thousand years to mull it over.
 
Cole said:
Believe that statement is a little naive. If Iran has nuclear capability Israel certainly has reason to be concerned. Muslim extremists aren't known for rational thought. And there are "means of delivery" for a bomb that would not need to come from Iranian airspace...
Click to expand...

Hype and fear mongering. Iran hasn't the war history of Israel or the US.
 
Cole said:
Believe that statement is a little naive. If Iran has nuclear capability Israel certainly has reason to be concerned. Muslim extremists aren't known for rational thought. And there are "means of delivery" for a bomb that would not need to come from Iranian airspace...
Click to expand...

People can disagree, but it's arguably just as naive to think that Muslims are so different from other humans that they would commit national suicide.

Even if the religious leaders are crazy enough to place the order, I don't believe their military leadership would push the button. Military men (of all nationalities) tend to be realists.
 
Anthony60 said:
Yes, they've only had a few thousand years to mull it over.
Click to expand...

Whereas the U.S (or anywhere else) was created in a state of perfection?

Sakes alive man, you're in Jersey!
 
Anthony60 said:
Oh, damn! Are you telling me that using an unqualified community organizer as President has screwed us again??? Who could've predicted that?
Click to expand...

If managing to avoid another war (even if temporarily) is screwing "us" again, I suppose. But I would imagine that at best it hurts the MIC of war profiteers. And maybe pisses off bored soldiers and hawks, but that's about it.
 
Montecresto said:
How many innocents have been murdered by the US. I assure you FAR more than Hezbollah if we're keeping count.
Click to expand...

MURDERED? Zero, unless you can post info proving that murdering innocents was ever a matter of official policy. We'll be waiting.
 
j-mac said:
Tell that to the Greeks....
Click to expand...

Wow!! You have to time travel to that end to point to Persian aggression. Modern day Iran is no warmongering country, and for the chief power abusers of the century to be pointing at anybody is not legitimate.
 
apdst said:
MURDERED? Zero, unless you can post info proving that murdering innocents was ever a matter of official policy. We'll be waiting.
Click to expand...

If in the pursuance of their interests innocent civilians get killed and YOU wish to define that as murder, then when the US kills innocent civilians in pursuant of our interests, it too must be murder. The point being apdst, the label you attach to the death is meaningless to the Iraqi, Pakistani, Afghani, Yemeni civilians dying by US aggressions in their neighbourhoods. It's murder when they do it and its always foreign policy when we do it.
 
WillyPete said:
People can disagree, but it's arguably just as naive to think that Muslims are so different from other humans that they would commit national suicide.

Even if the religious leaders are crazy enough to place the order, I don't believe their military leadership would push the button. Military men (of all nationalities) tend to be realists.
Click to expand...

You are right about the part that people can disagree. You and me in the case.

Muslim extremists are different that other humans. Reference thousands dead from suicide bombers in churches, schools, police stations. And they aren't acting from a national/majority collective. But a small minority still constitutes many hundreds that will carry out murderous atrocities....
 
Montecresto said:
Wow!! You have to time travel to that end to point to Persian aggression.
Click to expand...


Wasn't it you who time traveled back to settlers of this nation, and the early US to highlight our own illegitimacy as a nation? I see, only you can do that right?

Modern day Iran is no warmongering country, and for the chief power abusers of the century to be pointing at anybody is not legitimate.
Click to expand...

No one is warmongering...It would be nice though if we didn't just drop our pants and lay prostrate in hopes that our enemies will somehow like us...Your contempt of your own nation noted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom