To be fair, the United States by virtue of having a massive standing army and an entire terrorist organization puppeteered by it (namely NATO) and pushing smaller countries around is essentially interfering in the lives of their citizens. Retaliatory violence is always justified and thus, it would be justified for Iran/Russia/Ukraine/Serbia/any country we're bullying to try and get a president elected who will not absolutely destroy them.
Not that I like this scenario, but you have to consider all perspectives.
Everything that Iran has become is a DIRECT result of US, Israeli, and Saudi pressure. Virtually every move they've made can be justified in terms of protecting their national sovereignty.
Just because you believe homosexuality is acceptable doesn't mean everyone does, nor does it mean everyone has to.
It is in fact in the best interest of any nation, any state, and any religion to suppress degeneracy like homosexuality.
This may sound cruel to you, but to those who hold oppossing views allowing society and individuals to be openly proselytized towards such corruption is itself a cruelty.
Do not make the mistake of the modern liberal in being unable to see things outside of the teeny tiny box that Modern Politik allows in the West.
This is debatable, not that NATO or the US interfere in Iran but if overall NATO had a positive global impact or not.
What is not debatable is that Iran hates Trump for reasons I understand. The middle eastern treaties that have been signed have been around Saudi Arabia and Israel having a common enemy in Iran. Trump is also very much in favor of Israel. On the other hand Obama gave them free money.
But lets not make saints of poor Iran, they are not exactly blameless. They are a threat to Saudis and they are a threat tot the US and they are a threat to Irak and a threat to Israel. They also seem to have a lot of ties to terrorism. You do not get there by accident.
When a country is sanctioned by the US, the Treasury adds the country and even individuals (civilians or government employees) to the OFAC (Office of Foreign Asset Control) list. Banks are not allowed to do business with or to facilitate transactions with entities specifically on OFAC or to countries listed. If you were a Iranian national and you had a bank account with a US bank at the time the sanctions were placed on Iran your bank account was completely frozen. The same goes for Iranian corporations or even government accounts.
When Obama signed the nuclear treaty with Iran the sanctions were lifted. Those funds once frozen were now unfrozen, after years. The Iranian delegation requested those unfrozen funds to be transferred immediately in cash, so Obama delivered. Obama didn’t give them free money, he returned what was theirs all along.
I did not know that, thank you. I knew they gave them pallets of cash but is that all? I remember saying it was like almost 2 bilion in cash plus some hundreds of bilions extra. How come Iranians had so much cash invested in US banks? That seems like a good chunk of their GDP. And if this money included average citizens how in the world did they handle giving cash back to individuals rather then a transfer to a bank of their choosing, it seems fishy.
My idea still stands, you have one president that united Iran's enemies and another that gave them cash, even if it is just cash back. So it makes sense to me that they would go against Trump. All I was saying was that I may not like current day Iran but that does not stop me for agreeing with them here.
I do like Persian myth and history although I do not know enough about it, the little I do I find fascinating.
Obama didn’t give them free money, he returned what was theirs all along.
If what you say is true, then he gave individuals' money to the Iranian government. Did the pallets of cash also come with some sort of manifest for how it should be distributed and who owned it? Do we have an audit trail that we can inspect to make sure that all the people injured by the sanctions were restored? I'm going to guess "no", and I'm also going to guess that there was no oversight whatsoever to how it was spent.
So in reality, the Iranian government got free money, and everything you just said is hollow words.
Government would be privy to the accounts sanctioned. So account holders could claim their funds I imagine. I don’t know how the Iranian government operates, just banks.
To be fair, the United States by virtue of having a massive standing army and an entire terrorist organization puppeteered by it (namely NATO) and pushing smaller countries around is essentially interfering in the lives of their citizens. Retaliatory violence is always justified and thus, it would be justified for Iran/Russia/Ukraine/Serbia/any country we're bullying to try and get a president elected who will not absolutely destroy them.
Not that I like this scenario, but you have to consider all perspectives.
The Iranian leadership deserve to be destroyed. Nothing they do to prolong their tyranny is justified, especially not violence.
What tyranny?
Everything that Iran has become is a DIRECT result of US, Israeli, and Saudi pressure. Virtually every move they've made can be justified in terms of protecting their national sovereignty.
Really. How does giving homosexuals the choice of castration or execution protect Iranian national sovereignity?
Because that's their religious culture.
Just because you believe homosexuality is acceptable doesn't mean everyone does, nor does it mean everyone has to.
It is in fact in the best interest of any nation, any state, and any religion to suppress degeneracy like homosexuality.
This may sound cruel to you, but to those who hold oppossing views allowing society and individuals to be openly proselytized towards such corruption is itself a cruelty.
Do not make the mistake of the modern liberal in being unable to see things outside of the teeny tiny box that Modern Politik allows in the West.
This is debatable, not that NATO or the US interfere in Iran but if overall NATO had a positive global impact or not.
What is not debatable is that Iran hates Trump for reasons I understand. The middle eastern treaties that have been signed have been around Saudi Arabia and Israel having a common enemy in Iran. Trump is also very much in favor of Israel. On the other hand Obama gave them free money.
But lets not make saints of poor Iran, they are not exactly blameless. They are a threat to Saudis and they are a threat tot the US and they are a threat to Irak and a threat to Israel. They also seem to have a lot of ties to terrorism. You do not get there by accident.
When a country is sanctioned by the US, the Treasury adds the country and even individuals (civilians or government employees) to the OFAC (Office of Foreign Asset Control) list. Banks are not allowed to do business with or to facilitate transactions with entities specifically on OFAC or to countries listed. If you were a Iranian national and you had a bank account with a US bank at the time the sanctions were placed on Iran your bank account was completely frozen. The same goes for Iranian corporations or even government accounts.
When Obama signed the nuclear treaty with Iran the sanctions were lifted. Those funds once frozen were now unfrozen, after years. The Iranian delegation requested those unfrozen funds to be transferred immediately in cash, so Obama delivered. Obama didn’t give them free money, he returned what was theirs all along.
I did not know that, thank you. I knew they gave them pallets of cash but is that all? I remember saying it was like almost 2 bilion in cash plus some hundreds of bilions extra. How come Iranians had so much cash invested in US banks? That seems like a good chunk of their GDP. And if this money included average citizens how in the world did they handle giving cash back to individuals rather then a transfer to a bank of their choosing, it seems fishy.
My idea still stands, you have one president that united Iran's enemies and another that gave them cash, even if it is just cash back. So it makes sense to me that they would go against Trump. All I was saying was that I may not like current day Iran but that does not stop me for agreeing with them here.
I do like Persian myth and history although I do not know enough about it, the little I do I find fascinating.
If what you say is true, then he gave individuals' money to the Iranian government. Did the pallets of cash also come with some sort of manifest for how it should be distributed and who owned it? Do we have an audit trail that we can inspect to make sure that all the people injured by the sanctions were restored? I'm going to guess "no", and I'm also going to guess that there was no oversight whatsoever to how it was spent.
So in reality, the Iranian government got free money, and everything you just said is hollow words.
Government would be privy to the accounts sanctioned. So account holders could claim their funds I imagine. I don’t know how the Iranian government operates, just banks.
Get bent you pick fucking bitch.