> It's about the nukes. Europe doesn't want a world where a lot of countries have nukes so the role of the US in Nato was to provide Europe with a nuclear umbrella.
If anything, it has been proven that unless you have nuclear weapons, your country is at risk of being attacked by nations that have them.
Ukraine learned this the hard way, so did many other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere.
In its defence, Sweden does have lutfisk, that's a pretty potent deterrent. Not quite as nasty as Norway's strategic surstromming stockpile, but still enough to deter invaders.
Other first world countries. The global population overall is still slightly increasing because 3rd world countries have plenty of children.
As for the why: because historically that has always been a solution to lacking specialized talent or simply not having enough hands to perform a massive task. You don't want to pay domestic labor, so bring in foreign labor. This time it's a general problem.
> This and Canada are just kneejerk reactions against the chaos of the Trump administration.
As a Canadian, I can promise you that this not a "knee jerk reaction".
Replacing TRUMP with a democrat isn't going to solve it. Canadians have realized that relying on United States is a national security risk, hence the government been building larger trader alliances with both EU and China.
Any American thinking that this is just a TRUMP thing is missing the forest for the trees.
Anthropic is using the same playbook religious institutions have been using for centuries" "you will all die. and because i can protect you, you must follow me, you must do what i say" "this is the same psychological concept.
> - Threatened to exterminate Persians civilization, blown up bridges, killed children and destroyed civilian infrastructure
Iran threatens that all the time "Death to America" so if they don't like someone saying it back to them maybe they should stop?
If you want to make these kinds of body count claims, well for starters Iran killed over 30,000 of its own people recently (who knows maybe they've killed tens of thousands more over the years).
Iran also made the Iraq war worse by funding insurgents, which opposed the US and the government of Iraq (which is doing much better now as a country than it was under Saddam anyway) so they are partially responsible for some of those deaths.
But let's continue with this logic. While we're at it why don't we sanction China? Common estimates suggest 10s of millions dead from the Great Leap Forward (no it's not any different when you kill your own people, arguably much worse). Dramatic repression in places like Hong Kong, and continuing to threaten democratic Taiwan.
Why aren't you clamoring to sanction China if you're going to bring up Japan and Vietnam? Well that's because your logic is unsound, never mind the continued hyper-focus on being critical of the United States only. Maybe all of these deaths are actually on the hands of Europeans who partitioned these gulf states in the first place. Why was France in Vietnam? Why was the UN in Korea?
> Iran threatens that all the time "Death to America" so if they don't like someone saying it back to them maybe they should stop?
Have you ever thought to pause and wonder why they say that?
Suppose you discovered that a UK oil company on your soil had been robbing you blind, and so you decided to nationalise your oil industry. In response to this, the UK and the US overthrew your government and installed a puppet regime. In this situation, I’m sure you would form a highly unfavourable view of the United States.
> Have you ever thought to pause and wonder why they say that?
Yes I have, it's because authoritarian regimes need eternal, external enemies to mask their own failures as they pilfer the country. You talk about Iran being robbed blind, nobody forced them to spend all of their oil revenue funding militants in other countries that kill people while Tehran runs out of water and their people suffer.
You seem to have this Euro-centric view that countries like Iran aren't responsible for their behavior or that they must be innocent because of some activities going on 70+ years ago (never mind, well, general history +- 30 or more years) but given that there are only a select few countries who are experiencing such circumstances (Iran, North Korea, Cuba) while most countries are just getting along peacefully, it makes more sense to understand that these countries are simply by virtue of their repressive governments the ones who are the actual problem. Iran can stop trying to build nuclear weapons and funding militants and then their problems will be solved.
The world doesn't have to tolerate bad behavior now just because of alleged American or British bad behavior in the past. If you want to argue that Iran gets to be forever mad about 1953, then maybe the US gets to be mad at Canada for 1812?
Why does this sound as much about Team Trump's behavior as about Iran?
Also, Iran isn't as bad as you make it sound. Broadly, it's an okay-ish country.
It would likely have become a liberal country by now if not for the sanctions... Their leadership's lifestyles certainly don't suggest that they want to be living in a country dominated by religion – even if they maintain that for the masses still.
Being under attack makes people more conservative on average.
> Why does this sound as much about Team Trump's behavior as about Iran?
My guess would be because you're bringing in some prior baggage and over-indexing on Trump and not looking at the broader history and geopolitical situation. For example, Trump wasn't even president in 2023 when Iran launched an attack on Israel via it's proxies and later launched ballistic missiles at Israel. Now that's not absolving Israel of any wrongdoing or anything, but attacking them was never going to solve the problems in Palestine and it only pushed forward predictable responses. Diplomacy and international pressure are the only real options there, but once Iran attacked Israel you sort of lose that leverage as being peaceful.
To your point about Iran becoming a liberal country if not for the sanctions, I don't see evidence for that. The west really tried and while I think it's stupid we did the JCPOA only to find Iran was still behaving poorly, funding militants to destabilize countries like Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and more, never mind arguably still pursuing a nuclear weapon (remember they enriched uranium to 40% - 60%) under the JCPOA, again not that we should need a special snowflake agreement with Iran they can just not do these bad things.
Liberal, democratic protestors even prior to the US attacking were killed. Over 30,000 of them. The sanctions that are there are there for a reason, and unfortunately there doesn't appear to be much evidence that Iran was liberalizing.
> Being under attack makes people more conservative on average.
Maybe but what does that matter? You can be conservative, which means respecting traditions and having different views without being hostile since quite literally billions of people around the planet in many countries do that every day. Also being conservative isn't a bad thing by definition despite what arrogant liberals think (which is itself a self-inflicted wound and has led to many setbacks toward their own goals).
I'm liberal about some things, conservative about others and don't particularly align with either camp but I do reject these sorts of narratives.
But you can take a step back and ask, well, what's the guiding framework here?
Is it arbitrarily picking certain time periods to make a point? Why do we go back to "Japan" and World War II when Japan started the war and was massacring and colonizing people throughout east Asia?
Why wasn't Germany mentioned in the body count? Dresden is a popular one that comes to mind.
Why do we only focus on lives lost? Maybe America saved 10,000,000 Chinese from Japanese occupation so on balance we're saving lives?
Yeah lets take a step back to 1953 when the British overthrew their government for wanting more profits from their oil. This lead directly to the revolution in 79, in the meantime the western "aligned" leader had suppressed all opposition except religions leaders so they were able to take over.
Now you know why they shout death to America. Would you also like to know that al qaeda didn't just hate american "freedom"?
Why stop there? Why not go back to when the Greeks made Darius mad and started the Greco-Persian wars?
If you want the Iranian people to engage in a forever war against the West, this is the kind of attitude you must hold.
“Some arbitrary injustice done by dead people forever justifies us to do whatever we want” isn’t a viable political or culturally progressive route to go down. Vietnam got over it. Why can’t Iran? Do they need a nuclear bomb to get over it? Will they stop hanging gay people, helping Russia, and providing militia support to destabilize Arab countries once they get what they want (whatever that is)? What date or specific thing do they need?
Can anyone say?
Of course not. Because totalitarian regimes always have to obsess over past injustices, perceived or real, to drum up support for the regime so that it can continue to hold power against the best interests of their people. It masks their own failures, like Tehran running out of water because their government spent all their money bombing innocent people.
> Why stop there? Why not go back to when the Greeks made Darius mad and started the Greco-Persian wars?
People often ask these questions as if they're unanswerable or as if any answer would essentially be arbitrary.
What you need to do is look at contemporary global systems of inequality and consider their roots. For this it would seem British imperialism is often a sensible place to go to, in this case almost certainly.
That seems like a different kind of criticism, one that unfairly singles out the United Kingdom and ignores the global systems of inequality and injustice that were instantiated by broader colonial powers and conflict, whether that's the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Belgian, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, or Persian, for that matter.
We're not talking about global systems or inequality which have innumerable reasons, but talking about Iran and their specific bad behavior and how authoritarian governments point to random historical injustices to justify their own repression.
> one that unfairly singles out the United Kingdom and ignores the global systems of inequality
The UK was spoken of in the particular because of its long and violent history in Iran. We could point to any number of things like Anglo-Persian oil, the 1941 occupation or the 1953 which was previously mentioned.
Countries like Portugal and the Netherlands simply don't have that history in the Iranian context. Of course if we were speaking about somewhere like Indonesia then we would foreground other colonial powers.
There is also of course much that should be said about broader colonial history but the question above was why do we bring up British wrongdoing rather than ancient Persian history.
> but talking about Iran and their specific bad behavior
"Bad behaviour" is your terminology. We're talking about why they have sanctions imposed on them.
> and how authoritarian governments point to random historical injustices to justify their own repression.
No-one else was talking about this but you, and it feels like it was only raised in an attempt to undermine genuine concerns about legacy issues.
> The UK was spoken of in the particular because ...
> Countries like Portugal and the Netherlands simply don't have that history ...
Totally fair! But then you (or whoever made the point) can't drag in the US and Vietnam war or World War II into this and drum up some random body count and try to use that as a main point, nor can you bring up "global systems of inequality" and simultaneously try to limit additional discussion around an Iran context when we start talking about, well, global inequality and how other countries are huge contributors to that.
> "Bad behaviour" is your terminology. We're talking about why they have sanctions imposed on them.
I'm not following the distinction here. The reasons sanctions are imposed on them is because of their bad behavior. They're killing people in the region, trying to build nuclear weapons which we won't tolerate, and have been building up this capability to hold global oil supply hostage less they have some concessions that they want.
> No-one else was talking about this but you, and it feels like it was only raised in an attempt to undermine genuine concerns about legacy issues.
We're not speaking about historical facts for the sake of historical facts. You and others are speaking about why Iran is justified in some action, so it's fair to point out how those facts are weaponized.
Since you are doing that, it's fair game to also explain how those past injustices (which themselves are complicated and nuanced in ways that nobody here is discussing) are used by Iran and other authoritarian regimes to create external enemies to maintain power. This is extremely well understood.
You are trying to use events from antiquity to dilute or excuse events done within living timeframes. You realize lots of Iranians lived during the Iran-Iraq war, yes? You know the US supported Saddam as he was gassing them, yes? These are things people who still live experienced. I hope that provides some insight as to why Iran hates the US.
> Vietnam got over it. Why can’t Iran?
Vietnam hasn't been sanctioned for decades following the war. Why can't the US and Israel get over the Shah being overthrown?
> Vietnam hasn't been sanctioned for decades following the war. Why can't the US and Israel get over the Shah being overthrown?
We've tried but then they fund all these militias and kill lots of people and keep trying to build nuclear bombs. What if they stop doing those things?
> You are trying to use events from antiquity to dilute or excuse events done within living timeframes. You realize lots of Iranians lived during the Iran-Iraq war, yes? You know the US supported Saddam as he was gassing them, yes? These are things people who still live experienced.
By that logic Iran should thank us for getting rid of Saddam. Do you remember (or are you even aware) of things like the Atoms for Peace program? Why does/did Iran have F-14 fighter jets? Arab nations also supported Iraq during the war. You are over-simplifying and cherry-picking while ignoring the fact that international relations is a lot more complicated than "country did X, therefore enemies for all time". USS Cole, Lebanon, it's not like Iran is innocent. And before you go and say well what about 1953, well then you can just keep going back to some other slight or injustice. If you want to live in a world of forever wars, by my guest. I think we should give peace a chance but that requires Iran to stop certain activities that simply do not serve anyone but a tiny minority of theocrats and despots.
> I hope that provides some insight as to why Iran hates the US.
Iran and the Iranian people don't hate the US and we don't hate them. Iran's autocratic government hates us and they can't pursue a path of peace because authoritarian regimes need external enemies to direct popular anger against to cover up for their own shortcomings. It's a common playbook that we're all well aware of.
No we didn't. Well, we tried the JCPOA eventually, but that got nuked by Trump.
> By that logic Iran should thank us for getting rid of Saddam.
Yeah, thanks for killing the guy you used to gas and slaughter our people. All water under the bridge now, even though you provided that support for him to gas and kill us.
> Atoms for Peace program
How is this relevant?
> Why does/did Iran have F-14 fighter jets?
They seized them when they overthrew the Shah.
> I think we should give peace a chance
Then the US should show some good faith and release frozen funds and lift sanctions. To expect Iran to weaken themselves when the west has shown perfidy time and time again is, frankly, ridiculous. The war going on now has only made that more impossible.
> Iran and the Iranian people don't hate the US and we don't hate them.
They may not hate the average American, but they hate our ruling class. And I assure you, our ruling class hates them all. They are racist fascists, it's what they do. You are naive if you think people like Rubio or Trump give two shits about Iranians. They want to destabilize a regional power and exploit natural resources. The best way to do that would be to throw Iran into chaos so no one faction controls power. It would be another Iraq situation and millions of Iranians would die.
> No we didn't. Well, we tried the JCPOA eventually, but that got nuked by Trump.
Yes we did try. We shouldn't have needed a JCPOA, Iran should just not have pursued nuclear weapons. Atoms for Peace program, for example. Why did/does Iran have F-14s? Iran had the JCPOA and was still funding militants who were going around and killing people. Package deal.
> They seized them when they overthrew the Shah.
When did they overthrow the Shah?
> Then the US should show some good faith and release frozen funds and lift sanctions. To expect Iran to weaken themselves when the west has shown perfidy time and time again is, frankly, ridiculous. The war going on now has only made that more impossible.
We can do that once Iran commits to dismantling their nuclear weapons program among other things.
> They may not hate the average American, but they hate our ruling class. And I assure you, our ruling class hates them all. They are racist fascists, it's what they do. You are naive if you think people like Rubio or Trump give two shits about Iranians. They want to destabilize a regional power and exploit natural resources. The best way to do that would be to throw Iran into chaos so no one faction controls power. It would be another Iraq situation and millions of Iranians would die.
If you want to argue this point of view, then I would just argue that we don't hate Iran's people but we hate their ruling class. They're all murderous theocrats and they don't give two shits about peace they only want to destabilize the Middle East so they can export their mafia control over oil to enrich themselves. They want to destabilize the region so that they can exert power, enslave people, rape women, and murder at will.
Where does this get us? Forever war. Is that what you want? If so, maintain this perspective.
> It would be another Iraq situation and millions of Iranians would die.
Millions of Iraqis didn't die. Though many thousands did because of Iran. Iraq is a lot better off now than it was in 2002 before the war. They have a functioning parliament, for example.
> Yes we did try. We shouldn't have needed a JCPOA, Iran should just not have pursued nuclear weapons. Atoms for Peace program, for example. Why did/does Iran have F-14s? Iran had the JCPOA and was still funding militants who were going around and killing people. Package deal.
Are you trying to say that the AfP program and the F14 sale were the attempts to try? You realize those were done prior to the Islamic revolution, right? What attempts outside of the JCPOA have been tried during the rule of the current government?
> When did they overthrow the Shah?
You might want to do some basic research before you speak on a topic. The shah was overthrown in 79. After Atoms for Peace, after the F14s were delivered (79 of 80, the last not delivered because of the revolution).
> We can do that once Iran commits to dismantling their nuclear weapons program among other things.
They did when they committed to the JCPOA. Then the US backed out. Perfidy, same as the negotiations during this war.
> If you want to argue this point of view, then I would just argue that we don't hate Iran's people but we hate their ruling class.
Yes, I said that. Our ruling class and their cronies hate them because they are dirty savage muslims who embarrassed the US multiple times.
> They're all murderous
People adapt to the environments they are in. The US forces violence on these people, they are violent in return. Tit for tat.
> theocrats
Our Secretary of (losing) War has Deus Vult tattooed on him and is in an insane catholic fascist offshoot. They have referenced this war on Iran as being a religious crusade many times. Our ruling class is largely zionist and support them because of end time prophecies.
> and they don't give two shits about peace they only want to destabilize the Middle East so they can export their mafia control over oil to enrich themselves.
The only thing they are destabilizing is the US imperialism in the ME and the various fascist Arab rulers that support it. "Mafia control over oil" doesn't even make sense. States are entitled to control over territory and waterways near them. If you don't want them to assert their control don't start a fucking war.
> They want to destabilize the region so that they can exert power, enslave people, rape women, and murder at will.
Ah yes, there it is. Mask off chauvinism. Not that it was hard to tell to begin with. Funny, of course, coming from a citizen of the nation who still has slavery, exports death globally, and runs torture black sites (not to mention supports the Israelis who rape people with dogs).
> Where does this get us? Forever war. Is that what you want? If so, maintain this perspective.
The US can surrender and admit defeat. Food for thought.
> Millions of Iraqis didn't die. Though many thousands did because of Iran. Iraq is a lot better off now than it was in 2002 before the war. They have a functioning parliament, for example.
Please read, I said millions of Iranians. Nearly a million people died from the GWOT, and that was before genocide was deemed normal and kosher. The suffering will be greater.
Anyway, it's clear you think Iran should have no sovereignty or free will and should just acquiesce to any and all US demands. Not much else to be said here.
> Are you trying to say that the AfP program and the F14 sale were the attempts to try? You realize those were done prior to the Islamic revolution, right? What attempts outside of the JCPOA have been tried during the rule of the current government?
> You might want to do some basic research before you speak on a topic. The shah was overthrown in 79. After Atoms for Peace, after the F14s were delivered (79 of 80, the last not delivered because of the revolution).
What happened in 1953?
I'd encourage you to develop an understanding of the timeline of events before commenting further.
> They did when they committed to the JCPOA. Then the US backed out. Perfidy, same as the negotiations during this war.
That's partly because Iran was arguably not adhering to the JCPOA and even so they were still killing people in the region and undertaking other nefarious actions which called in to question adherence to the JCPOA. But all of that is pointless because we shouldn't have to have a special snowflake agreement with Iran to not build nuclear weapons. They can just not build them and then there's no need for this like pretty much every other country.
> Yes, I said that. Our ruling class and their cronies hate them because they are dirty savage muslims who embarrassed the US multiple times.
Ok then they're just at fault too and they weren't following the JCP
> People adapt to the environments they are in. The US forces violence on these people, they are violent in return. Tit for tat.
Iran forces violence on people in the region including the US so tit for tat again.
> Our Secretary of (losing) War has Deus Vult tattooed on him and is in an insane catholic fascist offshoot. They have referenced this war on Iran as being a religious crusade many times. Our ruling class is largely zionist and support them because of end time prophecies.
Ok then we should just pursue this holy war given both countries are intent and believe it is a holy war. Whatever.
> The only thing they are destabilizing is the US imperialism in the ME and the various fascist Arab rulers that support it.
No Iran's fascist and theocratic regime is actively attacking most other countries in the Middle East and destabilizing it. Everyone else is being peaceful.
> "Mafia control over oil" doesn't even make sense.
Sure it does. The profits flow to the IRGC.
> States are entitled to control over territory and waterways near them. If you don't want them to assert their control don't start a fucking war.
This just sounds like complaining. It's like if Iran doesn't want to get bombed stop building nuclear weapons. Ok.
> Ah yes, there it is. Mask off chauvinism. Not that it was hard to tell to begin with. Funny, of course, coming from a citizen of the nation who still has slavery, exports death globally, and runs torture black sites (not to mention supports the Israelis who rape people with dogs).
We don't have slavery so that's wrong. We don't export death globally.
> and runs torture black sites (not to mention supports the Israelis who rape people with dogs).
Well they deserve it then.
> The US can surrender and admit defeat. Food for thought.
Nah
> Please read, I said millions of Iranians. Nearly a million people died from the GWOT, and that was before genocide was deemed normal and kosher. The suffering will be greater.
I did read what you wrote. First Million != millions. Second Iran killed a lot of those people. Finally was no Genocide nor would millions of Iranians die. Iran does murder its own people though. Iraq is much better off now than it was, and the Iraqis themselves will tell you that since they can now that they have a functioning parliament and no longer live under the yoke of a despot like Iran does today.
> Anyway, it's clear you think Iran should have no sovereignty or free will and should just acquiesce to any and all US demands. Not much else to be said here.
No that's your own invention that has no basis in reality. Iran is a sovereign nation but being a sovereign nation doesn't entitle you to do whatever you want without repercussions. The Iranian people will do much better if they remove the despots who rule them. I'm cheering for them, despite you and your sycophantic behavior toward the IRGC.
Your argument is incoherent at this point. You think Iran should just bend over after the US attacked them, and if they don't they are morally wrong. Thinking that the Iranian government should fight to maintain its sovereignty means supporting an endless war. But the US not surrendering is a-okay. Iranians deserve no agency according to you.
Anyway, enjoy not being able to buy gas in a few weeks.
> Anyway, enjoy not being able to buy gas in a few weeks.
haha ok - exactly how many weeks? That way I can come back and tell you that you were wrong. :)
I'm rich and drive an EV anyway so I don't really care.
> Your argument is incoherent at this point.
No it's not.
> You think Iran should just bend over after the US attacked them, and if they don't they are morally wrong. Thinking that the Iranian government should fight to maintain its sovereignty means supporting an endless war. But the US not surrendering is a-okay.
The key difference here is that the US has no real care in the region besides making sure the oil continues to flow since that's important to the global economy. Iran is the only country in the region that is disrupting that for their own benefit. If they stop trying to build a nuclear weapon and stop funding militias which violate the sovereignty of other countries, nobody would be here. The way you know this is true is because other countries don't try to build nuclear weapons or fund militias which destabilize lots of other countries (perhaps outside of Africa) and so there is no conflict.
"The Arabs did this! Israel did this! USA did this!" No - that's just a tool used by autocratic regimes to mask their own failures as they steal money and stuff. This is well known and understood.
Notice how it's everyone's fault but little ole' Iran? Poor Iran, if only they didn't take all the money they had and give it to militias for the US and Israel to use as target practice Tehran would have running water and inflation wouldn't be turning their currency into toilet paper. Oh well, I guess you can chant death to America and have nuclear weapons facilities bombed if that's what you want. Whatever.
> Iranians deserve no agency according to you.
I'd prefer they have agency by removing their theocratic government who is murdering protestors and attacking everyone in the region.
But with sovereignty comes responsibility, and Iran cannot simultaneously have what they have today and then deny others their rights. My recommendation to their government is that they stop trying to build a nuclear weapon, stop their weapons programs, stop murdering innocent civilians in their country and elsewhere, and work with the United States and others to get their country back on its feat and leave the IRGC to rot in prison cells.
Your comment chain is rather laughable, full of falsities and showing an immense ignorance if history. It's like you're mainlining fox news or Zionism.
I don't watch Fox News or care about Zionism so that's false. The only comment chain that is laughable is yours. You don't know anything about history and your comments clearly reflect that. You didn't even know about 1953!!! lol
No I don't care about usernames. You can respond to the points and debate them or you can toss around ad hominem attacks and I'll just parrot them back to you. Up to you.
The United States have been effing up in the Middle East since 1947. We can’t seem to get anything right, and with every involvement, we just get weaker eventually like the British we’re going to run out of money and resources, and Russia is following the same path.
That’s a completely fair take. Countries are free to enact sanctions against the us just like they are free to enact sanctions against Iran if that’s what they want to do.
reply