Liked ur debate.
@mvineyard thanks I had fun!
I would state that his position about Iran being a terrorist regime and that it should have sanctions on it, sanctimonious at best. No mention of Saudi Arabia, whom actually assists in global networking of terrorism by spreading the doctrine of Muhammad Abdul Wahab (Wahhabi) by funding and building madrassas thru-ought the Middle East and SE Asia and yet the United States continually aids them with military means and funding and calls them an ally. And Saudi Arabia does indeed repress their citizens and also has supported slavery to the current day.
@adam_fitzgerald You make points that are somewhat valid - but Saudi Arabia is modernizing far more than Iran. Consider that Saudi Arabia is NOW approaching what Iran was before the 1979 revolution that deposed the Shah of Iran and replaced him with a mullah-ocracy that is now a harsh and oppressive country. OTOH - the recent new Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia is dealing with Israel (not shouting 'death to Israel, death to the USA')...and he is trying to moderate the religion in Saudi Arabia and get away from Wahhabism.Hardly sanctimonious....but realistic. And SA has not tried to get nuclear weapons (unlike Iran)...and not having them...isn't threatening to use them to bring back the 13th Imam (something that Iran is wanting to do...)BUT - I would see nothing wrong with having tough sanctions on any/all Middle East countries that don't treat women as equal to men, that don't have equal rights to other religions, etc.
@mvineyard Iran actually had a secular government with Mohammed Mossadeqh as president, and the CIA & United Kingdom Secret Services Commitee enacted a coup which saw Iran enter turmoil. The U.S. overthrow of Mosaddegh served as a rallying point in anti-US protests during the 1979 Iranian Revolution. This primarily because Great Britain was deposed as an enemy under the Mossadegh leadership, and would lose out in the oil export industry of Iran. Under the new president Theodore Rooselevlt, Winston Churchill had falsely accused Iran of becoming closely aligned to communist ideals. This led to the formation of his sudden ousting under the Intelligence agencies plan to have him arrested, while his closest advisors and supporters were arrested and some hanged.As for the "death to America' chants, yeah cant blame them actually for degrading their country thru somemof the hareshest financial sanctions in the late 70's early 80s which gave way to the Mullahs and Iranian sectarian Shi'ites which we helped by creating these sanctions in the first place which saw the religious sector give false hope and promise to a suffering masses.The United States cannot say they are fighting a war in terrorism when you have Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as allies in the region. At least Iran doesnt promote the Wahhabi ideology and finnace the dozens and dozens of Sunni extremist groups like the House of Saud does as well as Pakistan.
@adam_fitzgerald Mossadeqh was no more a 'people's choice' and a friend of liberty than Allende was in Chile. OTOH - the Shah was more beneficial to the people than Mossadegh ....and did far more for liberalization (just like Chile's Pinochet was for Chile)....with the promise of becoming a modern and free state (realized in Chile - unrealized in Iran with the Mullahs.)AND - the death to America chants are hardly from a free people - but a paid mob. There were lots of Iranian people praising Trump on the internet after he dropped out of the JCPOA (of course - on the internet - they were doing a lot to try to preserve their anonymity....let the hard line leaders round them up and put them in prison.)https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-08/iran-nuclear-deal-s-end-frees-trump-to-fight-for-iranian-freedom
@mvineyard They have been paying the Iranians since 1980 im guessing? Because in 1979 you had the Iranian revolution as you well know. By backing out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (or J.C.P.O.A.) it was a clever move by the Trump administration, because it gave way to levying fines against the European nations who do business with Iran thus literally forcing them to pull out their buisneses in Iran and from doing future deals with the beleaguered Iranian state. Need anymore proof this was simply just another way to levy economic sanctions upon Iran consider this....Richard Grenell, a Trump loyalist, said, on Twitter, “German companies doing business in Iran should wind down operations immediately.” https://i.redd.it/i1o4b23fyuw01.pngAs for the moral compass between Mossadegh and Shah Mohammed i think this is a moot point. Incidentally in March 1951, the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) voted to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and its holdings, leaving Great Britain holding an empty sack. But lets be honest, Shah Mohammad was favorable to the United States and relied on its military to stay in power. I don't think we would disagree on much when it comes to Islamic militancy, but rather our views of the United States and their purported allies differ slightly. I thought you and Justin had a very good debate which i viewed before i went off to work, was a very good conversation between you two.
@mvineyard I've lived in the region and interacted with both Iranians and Saudis... believe me Iranian people are far far far more progressed, educated etc.. and despite the stupid rhetoric and propaganda as far as I know they haven't been involved in a terrorist attack on US soil..it's pure politics and whatever serves the US interests rather than logic