• 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!

A question to the American Political Left regarding Iran and Russia

Are Iran and/or Russia enemies of the United States?

  • Russia is an enemy of the U.S. and should be treated as such, but not Iran

    Votes: 2 6.3%

  • Iran is an enemy of the U.S. and should be treated as such, but not Russia

    Votes: 3 9.4%

  • Both Iran and Russia are enemies of the U.S. , and should be treated as such

    Votes: 19 59.4%

  • Neither Iran nor Russia are enemies of the U.S., and should not be treated as such

    Votes: 2 6.3%

  • I do not know/I need more information

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 6 18.8%
  • Total voters
    32
Iran is controlled by religious zealots who are intent on destroying anyone who is not of their Muslim faction. They feel justified and obliged to use any means to achieve that goal. They are enemies to most of the world.

The USSR used to be a super power. However they were dismantled mostly due to efforts from the US. This left Russia with a pathetic economy and unable to compete with the big boys on the world stage. They dream of being relevant again. The biggest obstacle to this dream is the US and NATO. They will align with anyone who opposes the US. Russia will never militarily oppose the US because that would expose them for the paper tiger they are. However they are more than happy to profit from arms sales to anyone who will buy their second rate junk. Making them the enemy of anyone seeking stability in the Middle East.
 
Felis Leo said:
1. Russia is an enemy of the U.S. and should be treated as such, but not Iran
Click to expand...
This is the stance I take. The reason is due to the context of the US' historical relationship with Russia vs. Iran.

I see Russia, and the Soviets, as having viewed the USA and the Western world with hostility and as an enemy for nearly a century. Russia has pursued military actions against the West without substantial justification, other than it saw the West as an adversary. I believe the Russian government to be an enemy of the USA.

Edit: I would also note that I strongly support demilitarization and nuclear disarmament. I would not support taking up military action against Russia.

However the Islamic State of Iran as it is today is in no small part the result of unwarranted meddling and foreign policy ****-ups made by the United States. Starting with the instigation of the 1953 coup, which was an action against the Soviets by proxy. If I were Iranian—I could see myself having ill-feelings towards the United States for more than a few reasons.

Had we kept our noses cleaner with respect to Iran, I do not believe we'd have such poor relationships with them. Nor do I believe that the Iranian government would be as anti-Western and fundamentalist as they currently are.
 
Last edited:
bradt99 said:
What is wrong with having Russia as an ally to help with conflict in the middle east? The Soviet War was over a long time ago.
Click to expand...

Nothing in theory but they are unlikely to help us much considering everything that has happened since the cold war. We could have done better as far as helping them. We as a country decided not to. Sad really, but it will be a better day when all the cold war generation politicians are finally gone and their supporters off to the margins. Even now all this "Russia is the boogeyman which is the only reason why Trump won!!!!!" nonsense is their last effort to rekindle the dying flames of the cold war.
 
lurchadams said:
To suggest that "the left" is only now hostile to Russia because they helped trump win in 2016 is malarkey. Russia, for almost a century has been an enemy of the Western world. My feelings toward Russia have not changed since 2016. My feelings towards trump has since he persists in insulting our allies while embracing Putin. This makes the Western world weaker - which should be obvious to anyone with a brain. Russia will never be interested in peace with the U.S. Their goal is world domination.

Iran is a terrorist state and will continue to be that way until we and our allies can find some way to make peace with them. This would involve easing up the economic sanctions and some stark, mutual displays of goodwill.
Click to expand...

These are difficult times. Unfortunately we have the wrong person in the White house. Trump is a disaster. Does Iran need another hotel?
 
redrover said:
These are difficult times. Unfortunately we have the wrong person in the White house. Trump is a disaster. Does Iran need another hotel?
Click to expand...

If they did trump might be their useful idiot, as well as Putin's.
 
Cougarbear said:
So, there was no interference in our elections by Russia. Iran didn't bribe Obama for the 150 billion dollars. Therefore, the entire impeachment is just a hoax as we always have known.
Click to expand...

For 2 there is evidence, the Russian interference and the impeachment of that Orange oaf. However all we have to go on for your claim that Obama was bribed by Iran is just good old fashioned Obama hatred. The man has not been president for almost 3 years and the conservatives still cannot forgive him for beating their good old boys in the election and that he is still a better liked and more respected former president than the current idiot in the WH can ever be.

But coming back to Russia/Iran, both are our enemies. But the level of danger that comes from Russia on a global scale is much larger than the purely local powerhouse Iran.
 
Cardinal said:
No. There was also the war in Chechnya, the persecution of gays, the murder of political rivals and the invasion of Crimea and the proxy war in Ukraine. Many negative events preceded their interference in the 2016 election to help Trump.
Click to expand...

I am glad to hear it.

Cardinal said:
You are. There isn’t “sympathy toward Iran.” Iran is a regional foe who was in a position that they could be negotiated with to align more with our long term goals (unlike, say, North Korea). The Iran deal achieved some of the largest long term goals. Then trump reneged on the deal which is why they started their nuclear program back up. And now he’s committed an act that is very likely to escalate into a large scale conflict that nobody wanted, and it’s just as likely that Trump considered none of the ramification of that act and has no long term strategy or policy. But this has nothing to with “sympathy toward Iran.” We’re well aware that they’re a regional adversary with goals that are antithetical to our interests and the interests of our regional allies.
Click to expand...

There I think you are wrong Cardinal. I do not think I have yet read a single thread touching on the United States-Iran in which someone on the political left did not express sympathy towards the Iranian regime as a stand-in for the collective wounded dignity of the Iranian people (I shall not drag other members into this thread unless and until they choose to join). That somehow, the Iranian regime is taking back power for Iran on the world stage after it suffered a coup in 1953 and the western-backed installation of the Shah...all the while ignoring the fact that the Revolutionary regime co-opted the 1979 revolution and is more torturous, tyrannical and brutal not merely towards Iran's neighbors but towards Iranians themselves. So the sympathy is clearly there to some degree, but to what degree, I do not know.

It reads identically in tone and substance to those who claimed that the rise of Nazi Party in Germany and Adolf Hitler's remilitarization of Germany as simply being the natural outgrowth of German indignity towards the allegedly-Carthaginian Peace imposed by the Western Entente Allies on Germany at Versailles after the First World War, rather than as a result of the murderous criminality and scheming of the Nazi Party with conservative elements of the German political establishment who thought they could co-opt and control the Nazi movement by making the Adolf Hitler Chancellor. In other words, ignoring the nature of the Nazi regime and the brutality they unleashed in order to push a simplistic narrative which hides complex truths. Sometimes the reasons for pushing this narrative are out of simple ignorance and the regurgitation of common received wisdom, and sometimes the reason for repeating this narrative are far more sinister.

Cardinal said:
Different strokes for different folks. North Korea could never be attacked because they were too militarily entrenched. Sanctions were really our only negotiation card. This is similar to Iran only in the sense that we don’t (until two days ago, I guess) have the stomach for getting embroiled in yet another large scale ME conflict. Obviously Russia is a tougher nut to crack because...you know...giant nuclear arsenal and all that. All you can really do there is sanctions (think Magnitsky Act), shutting down embassies and arming allies to make them less attractive prospects for invasion (which is the leverage Trump used to get Ukraine to open an investigation into his political rival).
Click to expand...

Well, North Korea cannot be attacked simply not because of entrenchment; they possess mainly 1960s-era Soviet-brand military technology. They mainly are untouchable because of their small but nonetheless dangerous nuclear arsenal.
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
I am glad to hear it.



There I think you are wrong Cardinal. I do not think I have yet read a single thread touching on the United States-Iran in which someone on the political left did not express sympathy towards the Iranian regime as a stand-in for the collective wounded dignity of the Iranian people (I shall not drag other members into this thread unless and until they choose to join). That somehow, the Iranian regime is taking back power for Iran on the world stage after it suffered a coup in 1953 and the western-backed installation of the Shah...all the while ignoring the fact that the Revolutionary regime co-opted the 1979 revolution and is more torturous, tyrannical and brutal not merely towards Iran's neighbors but towards Iranians themselves. So the sympathy is clearly there to some degree, but to what degree, I do not know.

It reads identically in tone and substance to those who saw the rise of Nazi Party in Germany and Adolf Hitler's remilitarization of Germany as simply being the natural outgrowth of German indignity towards the allegedly-Carthaginian Peace imposed by the Western Entente Allies on Germany at Versailles after the First World War, rather than as a result of the murderous criminality and scheming of the Nazi Party with conservative elements in Germany who thought they could control the Nazi movement. In other words, ignoring the nature of the Nazi regime and the brutality they unleashed in order to push a simplistic narrative which hides complex truths. Sometimes the reasons for pushing this narrative are out of simple ignorance and the regurgitation of received wisdom, and sometimes the reason for repeating this narrative are far more sinister.
Click to expand...

It seems really unlikely to me that sympathy toward Iran is a common left leaning trait you’ve run into. Is it possible you’re thinking of comments concerning the Irani leadership’s treatment of its civilians?



Well, North Korea cannot be attacked simply not because of entrenchment; they possess mainly 1960s-era Soviet-brand military technology. They mainly are untouchable because of their small but nonetheless dangerous nuclear arsenal.
Click to expand...

We couldn’t attack North Korea since Nixon. NK shot down a US plane (can’t recall offhand if it was civilian or military), and Nixon did...nothing. 1960’s Soviet era weaponry or not, they had enough Howitzers to level Seoul. In addition, they had tunnels leading into SK which they could use to instigate a wave of terror using chemical and biological weapons. Attacking NK would have guaranteed an unthinkable death toll. A nuclear arsenal just means they can now extend the reach of their threat globally.
 
RetiredUSN said:
The left is full of ****, and always has been regarding Iran.

Obama cut a nuclear deal with known terrorists (Iranian Mullah's) while their henchman general was killing American soldiers.

Obama and Kerry knew it, and kept dealing anyways to save Obama's legacy.
Click to expand...

Carter froze Iranian assets in response to taking hostages.

Reagan sold weapons to Iran to try and secure the release of American citizens who were being held by terrorists groups Iran had influence over, then used the profits to fund the Contras (in direct violation of Congress's law)

George H. Bush unfroze Iranian assets in 1989, totaling $567 million in the hopes of securing the release of American hostages under the guise of trying to figure who owed what to whom in the whole assets seizure in conjunction with Iran's claims that we took their money and never delivered military goods during the Shah's reign.

Bill Clinton did practically the same thing as Bush, to the tune of $400 to $500 million.

George W. Bush, to his credit, didn't really unfreeze any assets to pay Iran....but he IS responsible for opening up talks with Iran to broker a deal over nuclear production and provided the deal blueprint that the Obama administration used. The one that Trump hates so much and canceled...was largely created by the Bush administration.

Obama released $400 million that was part of what was paid to us by Iran for hardware we never gave to them while the Shah was in power. The reason why Obama did that was because the Hague (international court) was going to rule that we needed to give Iran $1.8 billion in interest. By giving back the original sum, we were able to avoid the interest payment as mandated by international courts. Side note: Obama did NOT release $150 billion for three reasons. First, that was the inflated estimate given by Iran that no one agrees to. Second, it was the Security Council, not Obama, who wanted to give back more money to the Iranians. Third, the accounts that were frozen that were to be released were in foreign, not American, banks and we have no power over those banks.

So, to say that the left is “full of ****” in regards to Iran is not entirely correct...the right also made payments, and one GOP administration (Reagan) did so in an outright, illegal manner. And another (W's) can be held responsible for the majority of the nuclear deal that Obama wound up securing.

Facts. They can be a b!tch sometimes....
 
Last edited:
redrover said:
All this assassination means is next man up. And right now rockets are being fired into the Green zone. Unlike the United States Iran doesn't have just one evil man capable of creating chaos.
Click to expand...

LOL......what a POS statement.
 
Jason Warfield said:
Carter froze Iranian assets in response to taking hostages.

Reagan sold weapons to Iran to try and secure the release of American citizens who were being held by terrorists groups Iran had influence over, then used the profits to fund the Contras (in direct violation of Congress's law)

George H. Bush unfroze Iranian assets in 1989, totaling $567 million in the hopes of securing the release of American hostages under the guise of trying to figure who owed what to whom in the whole assets seizure in conjunction with Iran's claims that we took their money and never delivered military goods during the Shah's reign.

Bill Clinton did practically the same thing as Bush, to the tune of $400 to $500 million.

George W. Bush, to his credit, didn't really unfreeze any assets to pay Iran....but he IS responsible for opening up talks with Iran to broker a deal over nuclear production and provided the deal blueprint that the Obama administration used. The one that Trump hates so much and canceled...was largely created by the Bush administration.

Obama released $400 million that was part of what was paid to us by Iran for hardware we never gave to them while the Shah was in power. The reason why Obama did that was because the Hague (international court) was going to rule that we needed to give Iran $1.8 billion in interest. By giving back the original sum, we were able to avoid the interest payment as mandated by international courts. Side note: Obama did NOT release $150 billion for three reasons. First, that was the inflated estimate given by Iran that no one agrees to. Second, it was the Security Council, not Obama, who wanted to give back more money to the Iranians. Third, the accounts that were frozen that were to be released were in foreign, not American, banks and we have no power over those banks.

So, to say that the left is “full of ****” in regards to Iran is not entirely correct...the right also made payments, and one GOP administration (Reagan) did so in an outright, illegal manner. And another (W's) can be held responsible for the majority of the nuclear deal that Obama wound up securing.

Facts. They can be a b!tch sometimes....
Click to expand...

OMG....the security counsel that he controls? What kind of crap response is that? And I don't care what Reagan did 30 odd years ago.

FACT is.......the money should have went to the troops that were killed and maimed by Iran. There is nothing anyone could have done about it either.

Obama's foreign policy was a complete failure, and he broke his promises to end the wars. He ended up bombing 7 countries instead, killing innocents with drones, and made deals with terrorist Mullah's allowing them nuke technology...........while all the two faced liberals said nothing.

Obama's appeasement of crazy theocratic Mullah's was all that needs to be said. Bearded crazy men sitting around waiting on the 12th imam.
 
Peter King said:
For 2 there is evidence, the Russian interference and the impeachment of that Orange oaf. However all we have to go on for your claim that Obama was bribed by Iran is just good old fashioned Obama hatred. The man has not been president for almost 3 years and the conservatives still cannot forgive him for beating their good old boys in the election and that he is still a better liked and more respected former president than the current idiot in the WH can ever be.

But coming back to Russia/Iran, both are our enemies. But the level of danger that comes from Russia on a global scale is much larger than the purely local powerhouse Iran.
Click to expand...

Obama was a goofball! The Wall Street Journal caught Obama’s and Biden paying off Iran in the middle of the dark. Everyone from the UN to any literate person knows Obama-Biden gave back the $150 billion and you know it. Obama-Biden are spineless and weak bastards who have sold the U.S. down the tubes. They tried to appease terrorists and terrorist countries like Iran and Syria. You don’t care about Russia and what they do bad. If you did you would reject Obama and Biden for their support for Russia supported Iran and Syria. Hypocrites.

As far as the dead Iranian General, he was ordered by international law through the UN to not leave Iran. But, he did while plotting to attack our embassy and kill more Americans and Muslims who didn’t agree with their caliphate. He broke the law while in Iraq. Of course liberals don’t like boarders and probably felt he wasn’t breaking international law. Hypocrites!
 
Felis Leo said:
This is a question to my fellow Americans, primarily those who consider themselves to be on the political left (whether left-leaning, openly liberal, progressive, socialist, general Democrat-voter, etc.) in light of the United States' targeted killing of Iranian Revolutionary Guards General Qasem Soleimani. The question is regarding the ideological consistency of those here on the political left regarding our nation's adversaries.

I know some seem to be deeply hostile to Russia, but it seems that they are only hostile towards the country for helping Donald Trump win the 2016 election, rather than out of a general sense of principle. Much of the sympathy towards Iran I see from the left also seems to be purely partisan and not based on principle as well. But that is my reading, and I could be totally off-base as towards most of the political left. What I want to know from you is the following: Whether you consider Russia and/or Iran are enemies of the United States, and whether we should treat them as enemies*.

The choices are:

1. Russia is an enemy of the U.S. and should be treated as such, but not Iran
2. Iran is an enemy of the U.S. and should be treated as such, but not Russia
3. Both Iran and Russia are enemies of the U.S. , and should be treated as such
4. Neither Iran nor Russia are enemies of the U.S., and should not be treated as such
5. I do not know, I need more information
6. Other

If you consider Russia to be an enemy of the United States for its actions towards us, but not Iran, please explain your reasoning why. If Iran is an enemy, but not Russia, please explain your reasoning. If neither are enemies, again, I ask that you please explain your reasoning.

WHAT I AM NOT ASKING: I am not asking whether the United States or its allies deserves or merits the hostility that either Russia or Iran has displayed towards the United States (if indeed you believe they have engaged in any hostile action towards us). My only question is whether you believe Russia and Iran are our country's enemies.

*NOTE: By "enemies" I mean they are hostile to the United States and its interests, and actively seek to undermine and damage those interests when possible. I do not mean we are in a state of declared war with them, which we are not.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't characterize either as an enemy, but they definitely aren't friends. They are more like rivals. Its interesting that we are so much softer on Russia and North Korea than we are on Iran.
 
Felis Leo said:
This is a question to my fellow Americans, primarily those who consider themselves to be on the political left (whether left-leaning, openly liberal, progressive, socialist, general Democrat-voter, etc.) in light of the United States' targeted killing of Iranian Revolutionary Guards General Qasem Soleimani. The question is regarding the ideological consistency of those here on the political left regarding our nation's adversaries.

I know some seem to be deeply hostile to Russia, but it seems that they are only hostile towards the country for helping Donald Trump win the 2016 election, rather than out of a general sense of principle. Much of the sympathy towards Iran I see from the left also seems to be purely partisan and not based on principle as well. But that is my reading, and I could be totally off-base as towards most of the political left. What I want to know from you is the following: Whether you consider Russia and/or Iran are enemies of the United States, and whether we should treat them as enemies*.

The choices are:

1. Russia is an enemy of the U.S. and should be treated as such, but not Iran
2. Iran is an enemy of the U.S. and should be treated as such, but not Russia
3. Both Iran and Russia are enemies of the U.S. , and should be treated as such
4. Neither Iran nor Russia are enemies of the U.S., and should not be treated as such
5. I do not know, I need more information
6. Other

If you consider Russia to be an enemy of the United States for its actions towards us, but not Iran, please explain your reasoning why. If Iran is an enemy, but not Russia, please explain your reasoning. If neither are enemies, again, I ask that you please explain your reasoning.

WHAT I AM NOT ASKING: I am not asking whether the United States or its allies deserves or merits the hostility that either Russia or Iran has displayed towards the United States (if indeed you believe they have engaged in any hostile action towards us). My only question is whether you believe Russia and Iran are our country's enemies.

*NOTE: By "enemies" I mean they are hostile to the United States and its interests, and actively seek to undermine and damage those interests when possible. I do not mean we are in a state of declared war with them, which we are not.
Click to expand...

:mrgreen:Like that old wiseman (Darrell Waltrip) once said ::lamo

Dale Earnhardt is my "frenemie"


Russia is kinda like that I suppose.
 
Cougarbear said:
Obama was a goofball! The Wall Street Journal caught Obama’s and Biden paying off Iran in the middle of the dark. Everyone from the UN to any literate person knows Obama-Biden gave back the $150 billion and you know it. Obama-Biden are spineless and weak bastards who have sold the U.S. down the tubes. They tried to appease terrorists and terrorist countries like Iran and Syria. You don’t care about Russia and what they do bad. If you did you would reject Obama and Biden for their support for Russia supported Iran and Syria. Hypocrites.

As far as the dead Iranian General, he was ordered by international law through the UN to not leave Iran. But, he did while plotting to attack our embassy and kill more Americans and Muslims who didn’t agree with their caliphate. He broke the law while in Iraq. Of course liberals don’t like boarders and probably felt he wasn’t breaking international law. Hypocrites!
Click to expand...

It must be great to live in a fact free world like some conservatives live in.

1. what 150 billion? Estimates of the money gained by Iran are much lower

2. he did not give back, Obama did not have that money, it just gave the Iranians access to the OWN money

3. it was a good deal to keep Iran from creating a nuclear weapon until that idiot Orange Oaf violated the agreement.

4. Obama had intelligence when it came to foreign affairs, Trump is too busy kissing the asses of most awful dictators. Some even worse than the Iranian ayatollah's and even less trustworthy.

5. I don't care what Russia does? That comment is utterly stupid. I am Dutch, I deeply despise/hate the Russian leadership and all their misdeeds. As do many on the "left"

6. The US is not the UN's police force, Iran and Iraq had no problems with him visiting his neighboring country.

7. It is highly dubious to name international law when it seems the killing itself was also a breach of that law (and not talking about Iraqi laws and airspace).

But please live in a fact free existence (FoxNews universe so to speak) we on the left do not have that handicap (even if some on the left are also living with blinkers).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom