Why deny Iran a Nuclear weapon.? Israel has one.? There are other countries with Nuclear weapons?!,This denial does not make any sense. ?!?

[Andrew_Jackson_FTW]

The Arabs that live in Israel, dumbass! The eastern side of Jerusalem is 100% Arab. Nukes don't respect lines on the map.

Stop!!! You got caught ,

Killing all of their Arab brothers who live in and around those cities also?


You are uneducated on this topic. Iranian’s are not the Arab brothers of Palestinians….Iranians are Persian.

Goodness pick up a history book!

 

[GLASNOST]

Pick up a history book and get educated ! Iranians are Persians not Arabs.

I don't think they teach world history in American schools.

 

[Andrew_Jackson_FTW]

I don't think they teach world history in American schools.

It’s especially Rich because the poster in question goes around acting like he’s some kind of a grand scholar.

 

[GLASNOST]

Stop!!! You got caught , Killing all of their Arab brothers who live in and around those cities also? You are uneducated on this topic. Iranian’s are not the Arab brothers of Palestinians….Iranians are Persian. Goodness pick up a history book!

I don't think they teach world history in American schools.

It’s especially Rich because the poster in question goes around acting like he’s some kind of a grand scholar.

Oh, I didn't realize it. Yes, that does make it worse for sure.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Pick up a history book and get educated ! Iranians are Persians not Arabs.

Are you dense? I am talking about Arabs living in Israel? I was a teacher so I know all this and apparently more than you.

 

[MarathonMike]

True.

True.

False.

An understatement.

False.

True.

It's not nuts. It is an unfortunate necessity and it is the West that is responsible for it. You yourself prove it by the tone of your statement. A large proportion of Iran's woes will be remedied by achieving nuclear strength ... and that is your fault.

History is interesting but is irrelevant to setting current policies. Eighty percent of the IRANIAN PEOPLE reject the Mullahs and their regime. They routinely murder their own people protesting against the Regime. Allowing them to have nuclear weapons is insanity. I won't even acknowledge your childish accusation.

 

[GLASNOST]

History is interesting but is irrelevant to setting current policies.

No, it is not irrelevant to setting current policies.

1). The CIA destroyed the Democratic government of Iran.
2). The US then put in their Fascist puppet Shah. He rutinely murdered his own people who protested against him.
3). The Islamic Revolution threw the Americans out of their country led by Khomeini.
4). Khomeini was good for his population in some aspects but not so good in other aspects.
5). Khomeini none-the-less tried to normalize relationships with US ON MANY OCCASIONS but the US refused.
6). At the time of the attack on 7/11 Iran offered to assist the US in locating Osama bin Laden but the US refused Iran's help.
7 to infinity). Iran has tried to cooperate with the US but the US has refused each and every time.

THE BOTTOM LINE: History is not irrelevant to setting current policies.

Allowing them to have nuclear weapons is insanity.

It is an absolute necessity for Iran to have nuclear weapons.

I won't even acknowledge your childish accusation.

I suggest that you don't. You won't be getting any sleep anyway.

 

[Andrew_Jackson_FTW]

No, it is not irrelevant to setting current policies.

1). The CIA destroyed the Democratic government of Iran.
2). The US then put in their Fascist puppet Shah. He rutinely murdered his own people who protested against him.
3). The Islamic Revolution threw the Americans out of their country led by Khomeini.
4). Khomeini was good for his population in some aspects but not so good in other aspects.
5). Khomeini none-the-less tried to normalize relationships with US ON MANY OCCASIONS but the US refused.
6). At the time of the attack on 7/11 Iran offered to assist the US in locating Osama bin Laden but the US refused Iran's help.
7 to infinity). Iran has tried to cooperate with the US but the US has refused each and every time.

THE BOTTOM LINE: History is not irrelevant to setting current policies.

It is an absolute necessity for Iran to have nuclear weapons.

I suggest that you don't. You won't be getting any sleep anyway.

This is an interesting viewpoint. The question is what sort of a negotiation was going on between Iran and the USA. Surely both sides were receiving offers they did not like.

The thing is that the First Reza Shah went on a grand operation of modernizing Iran in the early to middle 20th century. Interestingly enough during World War II, the United States, British and the Soviets accused Iran of siding with the Germans, which arguably Iran wasn’t doing as Iran was neutral in World War II. So this led to the Soviets and the British teaming up to invade Iran and remove the Shah…all of this occurred before the Mossagh government which allegedly was overthrown with help from the CIA. Point is Reza Shah was admired for attempting to modernize Iran in the early 20th century as he made some advancements. Things were going ok actually for Iran but unfortunately World War II put a stop to that..

Interestingly it was the British and Soviets in 1941 who replaced Reza Shah with his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi(who would hold onto power until 1979)…



But also perhaps more importantly to the points being made. Here is the thing Persian society historically was many times open, liberal, very strong. Now the drawback with the current Iranian government Is for example it is oppressive toward women. Forcing them to cover their hair. Now the thing is interestingly enough they could still be a paternalistic society without having that sort of a conservative harsh law regarding clothing and female modesty. Even back during that era of the Shah Iranian women were feminine , honorable and yes many of them did dress very pretty.

There have been arguments from Iranian people most of them saying they do not like the so-called Islamic government. They would even say that the cleric’s go against Islam. I’ve spoken with many Iranians most say they prefer the era of the Shah OR they simply want the clerics to be replaced with a different government.

 

[GLASNOST]

This is an interesting viewpoint. The question is what sort of a negotiation was going on between Iran and the USA. Surely both sides were receiving offers they did not like.

The thing is that the First Reza Shah went on a grand operation of modernizing Iran in the early to middle 20th century. Interestingly enough during World War II, the United States, British and the Soviets accused Iran of siding with the Germans, which arguably Iran wasn’t doing as Iran was neutral in World War II. So this led to the Soviets and the British teaming up to invade Iran and remove the Shah…all of this occurred before the Mossagh government which allegedly was overthrown with help from the CIA. Point is Reza Shah was admired for attempting to modernize Iran in the early 20th century as he made some advancements. Things were going ok actually for Iran but unfortunately World War II put a stop to that..

View attachment 1104272

View attachment 1104275

Interestingly it was the British and Soviets in 1941 who replaced Reza Shah with his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi(who would hold onto power until 1979)…



But also perhaps more importantly to the points being made. Here is the thing Persian society historically was many times open, liberal, very strong. Now the drawback with the current Iranian government Is for example it is oppressive toward women. Forcing them to cover their hair. Now the thing is interestingly enough they could still be a paternalistic society without having that sort of a conservative harsh law regarding clothing and female modesty. Even back during that era of the Shah Iranian women were feminine , honorable and yes many of them did dress very pretty.

There have been arguments from Iranian people most of them saying they do not like the so-called Islamic government. They would even say that the cleric’s go against Islam. I’ve spoken with many Iranians most say they prefer the era of the Shah OR they simply want the clerics to be replaced with a different government.

There are several holes in the info provided by your link but let us not get bogged down. Not yet. Mossedeq's government was Democratic >>> the CIA was tasked to regime change it and shoe-in the Fascist Shah. Why? Because the West, (most notably the UK & USA) had to relinquish control of Iran's oil resources. I suggest you start with Operation TP Ajax and take it from there. If you still feel that pre-Mossedeq/Democracy is important then bring it up by all means. Me personally? I think Democracy is the most important achievment man has ever introduced so I always focus on that point in Iran's history whenever explaining the situation there today.

 

[MarathonMike]

No, it is not irrelevant to setting current policies.

1). The CIA destroyed the Democratic government of Iran.
2). The US then put in their Fascist puppet Shah. He rutinely murdered his own people who protested against him.
3). The Islamic Revolution threw the Americans out of their country led by Khomeini.
4). Khomeini was good for his population in some aspects but not so good in other aspects.
5). Khomeini none-the-less tried to normalize relationships with US ON MANY OCCASIONS but the US refused.
6). At the time of the attack on 7/11 Iran offered to assist the US in locating Osama bin Laden but the US refused Iran's help.
7 to infinity). Iran has tried to cooperate with the US but the US has refused each and every time.

THE BOTTOM LINE: History is not irrelevant to setting current policies.

It is an absolute necessity for Iran to have nuclear weapons.

I suggest that you don't. You won't be getting any sleep anyway.

Looks like you have a special affection for the number one Terrorist sponsor in the world. Interesting. The Iranian Regime won't light off the first nuclear weapon, they will hand it off to one of their many Terrorist proxies. That is how they operate.

 

[GLASNOST]

Looks like you have a special affection for the number one Terrorist sponsor in the world.

Looks like a waste of time treating you like an adult.

 

[Andrew_Jackson_FTW]

There are several holes in the info provided by your link but let us not get bogged down. Not yet. Mossedeq's government was Democratic >>> the CIA was tasked to regime change it and shoe-in the Fascist Shah. Why? Because the West, (most notably the UK & USA) had to relinquish control of Iran's oil resources. I suggest you start with Operation TP Ajax and take it from there. If you still feel that pre-Mossedeq/Democracy is important then bring it up by all means. Me personally? I think Democracy is the most important achievment man has ever introduced so I always focus on that point in Iran's history whenever explaining the situation there today.

I understand that but it was under the Reza Shah that Iran had an opportunity to regain its glory of the Persian empire. And this is a different chapter and its history compared to Mossadagh or Mohammad Pehlavi. Well the first foreign intervention ran in World War II was arguably much more historic and consequential compared to that of the foreign intervention to remove Mossadagh.

If the Soviets and British did not team up to invade Iran in 1941, who knows perhaps today, Persia would be huge bigger than it is and what are the most powerful countries in the world. But then again also during World War II the Persian corridor was very important as a supply route for the allies. So maybe the invasion was necessary.

I’m saying that before Mossadagh it seems that Iran under Reza Shah was on course to be strong.

Interesting that Mossadagh served in the government of Reza Shah. And there’s plenty of criticisms to be had to the involvement of United States in overthrowing governments around the world, including in South America.

Btw there is also another line of argument that in fact Mohammad Pahlavi also wanted to nationalize Iran’s oil and get the Western interests out of Iran’s oil in the 1970s. And that the west was upset with this so they allow the so-called Islamic revolution to oust the Shah.

W/e the case may be the clerics of Iran have been able to do pretty much nothing in terms of getting back the glory of the Persian empire. That really only came close in the early to mid 20th century due to the work of Reza Shah.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Stop!!! You got caught ,

Killing all of their Arab brothers who live in and around those cities also?


You are uneducated on this topic. Iranian’s are not the Arab brothers of Palestinians….Iranians are Persian.

Goodness pick up a history book!

But the religion is their identity. Iran is a Muzzy THEOCRACY. The goal of Islam is to wipe off the face of the earth all competing religions. They have no problem promoting their religion by the sword.

I will choose sides. Judaism and Christianity over Islam. I will even choose Catholicism over Islam. Hinduism over Islam. Islam worships death.

 

[GLASNOST]

... there is also another line of argument that in fact Mohammad Pahlavi also wanted to nationalize Iran’s oil and get the Western interests out of Iran’s oil in the 1970s. And that the west was upset with this so they allow the so-called Islamic revolution to oust the Shah.

This makes no sense and considering you certainly know a lot about Iran's history I am sure you agree with me that this version of conspiracy stinks to high heaven. What it sounds like is another one of those "sour grapes" concoctions made up by the CIA similar to "Oh, those missiles we had in Turkey were old anyway" (Cuba missile crisis) and "We have never lost a single war in our entire history because we didn't declare war on Vietnam in the first place" (Vietnam war) ..... if you know what I mean.

 

[Andrew_Jackson_FTW]

But the religion is their identity. Iran is a Muzzy THEOCRACY. The goal of Islam is to wipe off the face of the earth all competing religions. They have no problem promoting their religion by the sword.

I will choose sides. Judaism and Christianity over Islam. I will even choose Catholicism over Islam. Hinduism over Islam. Islam worships death.

Not the Muslims who supported the Shah ….

They were the traditional, masculine type a paternalistic society. There are many of them in the Arab Nationalist world …those who followed Nasser in the 20th century for example or Ataturk in Turkey.



Your thinking of taliban type Muslims.

 

[Andrew_Jackson_FTW]

This makes no sense and considering you certainly know a lot about Iran's history I am sure you agree with me that this version of conspiracy stinks to high heaven. What it sounds like is another one of those "sour grapes" concoctions made up by the CIA similar to "Oh, those missiles we had in Turkey were old anyway" (Cuba missile crisis) and "We have never lost a single war in our entire history because we didn't declare war on Vietnam in the first place" (Vietnam war) ..... if you know what I mean.

Ok no problem, but disagreeing. But one of the important elements of the around history that people in the west often don’t know about or cover of would be Iran in the early 20th century. Before Mossadagh and Mohammad Pahlavi .., this was arguably Iran’s opportunity to regain the glory of the Persian empire. But it was halted by World War II.


As for the point you’re responding to well this is the belief of many Iranians who are pro Shah….they believe that the west either engineered or allowed the downfall of the Shah.

Sadly some younger. Americans have no idea who the Shah is and they perhaps believe that Iran was always this sort of totalitarian dystopian society ran by clerics.

Older Americans are mostly aware Iran was previously home to a modernized western Society.

 

[GLASNOST]

As for the point you’re responding to well this is the belief of many Iranians who are pro Shah….they believe that the west either engineered or allowed the downfall of the Shah.

I certainly don't know what they believe. My barber was one of those but I managed to stick to other subjects, such how best to prepare basmati rice. Anyway, he retired several years ago and I had to find another. There are dwindling protest "meets" on one of the centre squares in town every Sunday or maybe it's Saturday. A couple of them carry the royal flag so I assume they are pro Shah. I don't want to mix with them so I have never asked them what they want. I’m sure I’ve mentioned it before but I was in Iran during the Islamic Revolution. I was there in late 1979 and I crossed the border into Pakistan (through Isfahan) just a couple of days before the American embassy was ransacked and the hostages were taken. I didn’t understand why all of that took place so my knowledge of the whole thing is from studying it a few years later.

Sadly some younger. Americans have no idea who the Shah is and they perhaps believe that Iran was always this sort of totalitarian dystopian society ran by clerics.

The ones I've interacted with think that the US and the Shah brought Democracy to Iran! I can't even talk with people who believe that crap.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Your thinking of taliban type Muslims

Im thinking of the Koran believing Muslims. You're very naive

 

[Andrew_Jackson_FTW]

Im thinking of the Koran believing Muslims. You're very naive

Iranian and Arab Nationalists believe in Islam and the Koran and the Hadiths.

I know you don’t like Muslims. That’s too bad. I like Jews and Muslims. And I don’t need to lie about your views.
Here is what you said,

The goal of Islam is to wipe off the face of the earth all competing religions. They have no problem promoting their religion by the sword.

Lols imagine someone saying

The goal of Judaism is to wipe off the face of the earth all competing religions. They have no problem promoting their religion by the sword.

you constantly have to lie about my views.

Carl idc that you keep ignoring counterpoints ….buddy have another veggie burger. Your to feminist

 

[Carl in Michigan]

ols imagine someone saying

Imagine someone telling you what the Quran says and you get triggered by it