We tore it up, because we didn't want it. Also, Israel didn't want it.
Iran is our enemy specifically because they have been conducting irregular warfare against the US since the shaw fell and they have shown literally no signs of stopping, ever. We made up with the Taliban faster than we made up with the Ayatollah. Iran really was the largest terror threat until Al-Qaeda and ISIS, and with those out of the way, Iran comes back to the top. Piracy, assassinations, insurgencies, civilian terror attacks, bombing military targets, you name it, the Iranians have done it, continue to do it, and are not interested in stopping.
We tore it up, because we didn't want it. Also, Israel didn't want it.
Who is 'we'? You may not wanted it, because it stopped proliferation. But for people who think that fewer countries should have nukes, stopping the spread of nuclear weapons is good. Netanyahu and Israel were continuously pressuring Trump to cancel the deal, and it didn't help that Trump went "OBAMA'S NAME IS ON IT, WORST EVER".
Iran really was the largest terror threat until Al-Qaeda and ISIS, and with those out of the way
[Syria has entered the conversation.]
Piracy,
Like?
assassinations, insurgencies, civilian terror attacks, bombing military targets, you name it, the Iranians have done it
Jeez, bombing military targets? Did they bomb Fort Bragg? Where were those military targets? Perhaps in a place where you had no business being to begin with?
Where were those insurgencies? In neighboring countries that you had invaded? Yeah, those bastards, putting their country right in the middle of countries you wanted to invade. (In fact, there is very little evidence for this, and this was just the Bush administration deflecting from its disastrous policy in Iraq.)
Oh, and if you want to argue that 'supporting insurgencies' is a bad thing, guess who comes out as a really bad guy?
the Iranians have done it, continue to do it, and are not interested in stopping.
Given the fact that the US coup'ed Iran's government in 1953, supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in the 1980s (then supplied him with chemical weapons to use against the Iranians, and provided him with diplomatic cover), and has had sanctions to try to wreck as much havoc as possible in Iran...
Who is the greater offender and who the greater victim?
Just because "you had no business being there" is your argument against US military intervention, it doesn't mean that if those forces are somewhere, that Iran has the right to hunt them down and kill them, then take over the country for themselves. In the Marine Barracks Bombing, US troops were invited there as a peacekeeping force to prevent Lebanon from descending to a Civil War. They were even placed under the command of non-US troops. They were killed, needlessly, because the Iranians were invading Lebanon with proxy forces, and intended to take over the country. The Americans pulled out any
Iran has basically been in a Cold War with the US since the Ayatollah came to power. Yes, Iran is absolutely the worse offender because the Ayatollah is an occupying government over the Persians, and then decided to wage a multinational war for regional dominance.
Didn't seem like it. The people who wanted it canceled, are the same people who at the time adamantly insisted that it would not lead to war, and who championed the war when it came.
Syria is operating at our behest.
No kidding. But you talked about the decline of Al Qaeda.
Piracy like around the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea.
Iran did that? Give me an example.
Just because "you had no business being there" is your argument against US military intervention, it doesn't mean that if those forces are somewhere, that Iran has the right to hunt them down and kill them, then take over the country for themselves.
Considering that the US government uses murderous insurgencies as an ordinary tool of statecraft, it can hardly cry "TERRISM" when someone else does it.
In the Marine Barracks Bombing, US troops were invited there as a peacekeeping force to prevent Lebanon from descending to a Civil War
There is always a noble cover for raw Realpolitk, so I don't believe this for a moment. That said, American interests clearly weren't great or you wouldn't have cut and run.
Furthermore, admitting arguendo that it was Hezbollah and that Hezbollah was acting on Iran's behalf, this clearly didn't stop you from sending weapons to Iran later on in the very same decade, so you can hardly use this as a justification for another war decades later - like the US did for Iraq gassing the Kurds with American chemical weapons 15 years later.
They were killed, needlessly, because the Iranians were invading Lebanon with proxy forces, and intended to take over the country.
Take over the country? I haven't seen any evidence for that. I'll also point out that the bombing occurred in 1983. This was after Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 - it only withdrew in 2000 or so.
Yes, Iran is absolutely the worse offender because the Ayatollah is an occupying government over the Persians,
To use 'occupation' in this sense is to strip the word of its meaning. Also, even if he were, this has absolutely no bearing on whether actions by the US or Iran are more responsible for causing the enmity between the two countries.
and then decided to wage a multinational war for regional dominance.
The "Iran Nuclear Deal" by Obama gave Iran atomic weapons as an end goal. It facilitated their drive to make them, it is perhaps the worst "deal" Obama made, and that's really saying something!
It "placed restrictions" which were immediately violated. It placed trade barriers as punishments for violations but Obama let everything slide & left big fat loopholes too.
It said that after X years (10, iirc) they "deal" would be "re-negotiated" to for sure make Iran not have nuclear weapons... except by then they'd be well on the road with no turning back and NO incentive to "deal" with anyone.
The "Iran Nuclear Deal" by Obama gave Iran atomic weapons as an end goal. It facilitated their drive to make them, it is perhaps the worst "deal" Obama made, and that's really saying something!
I'm completely unsurprised that you believe that, given the fact that you supported war with Iran and that you even, in 2025, supported the Iraq War and even claim there were WMD there. You do seem to have a little penchant for supporting wars based on lies about weapons of mass destruction.
It "placed restrictions" which were immediately violated. It placed trade barriers as punishments for violations but Obama let everything slide & left big fat loopholes too.
Piffle. It was the USG and Europe that violated the deal, not Iran. Iran even continued to uphold it for years after Trump pulled out. Iran war supporters kept posting graphs of Iranian enrichment which showed very low levels on enrichment during the deal years. Anyone can easily discover this. Who do you think you're fooling?
It said that after X years (10, iirc) they "deal" would be "re-negotiated" to for sure make Iran not have nuclear weapons... except by then they'd be well on the road with no turning back and NO incentive to "deal" with anyone.
After 10 years, they'd be three weeks from a nuclear weapon like they have been for the past 30 years?
supported the Iraq War and even claim there were WMD there
Because there were. When Bush said it, Saddam hadn't sent them to Syria yet. The UN said there were even after the war was over.
550 tons of yellowcake wasn't found in a bakery, ok? It is the starting block for nuclear weapons. That's a part of a WMD PROGRAM which was banned by the treaty.
You also are mistaking "the sizzle" for the "steak" ok? You believe the selling points are important, they are not, they're just there to dazzle your eyes. The fact is: Saddam violated the Cease Fire treaty & thus it was legally "war on!" for everyone involved. That takes too much thinking though, so a buzzphrase was made. Do not mistake the map (sizzle, slogan) for the terrain (steak, reality), ok?
PFFT! How can other nations "violate the treat" but Iran didn't? Mental gymnastics! You should go to the Progressive Olympics! 😸
No, after 10 years (or whatever the number was, the X means unknown, like in maths, duh!) they would be free to say "No thanks!" and openly pursue nuclear weapons with NO restrictions. Like Pakistan and India did.
No, after 10 years (or whatever the number was, the X means unknown, like in maths, duh!) they would be free to say "No thanks!" and openly pursue nuclear weapons with NO restrictions.
They can already do that now, dumbass. And I think they will. They'll be right to, because it's the only way to avoid being bombed by the US and Israel.
But thanks for trying!
If you want to act smug, you should at least not fail so miserably.
And why is Iran your enemy again? Trump tore up the Iran nuclear agreement because Israel wanted that.
We tore it up, because we didn't want it. Also, Israel didn't want it.
Iran is our enemy specifically because they have been conducting irregular warfare against the US since the shaw fell and they have shown literally no signs of stopping, ever. We made up with the Taliban faster than we made up with the Ayatollah. Iran really was the largest terror threat until Al-Qaeda and ISIS, and with those out of the way, Iran comes back to the top. Piracy, assassinations, insurgencies, civilian terror attacks, bombing military targets, you name it, the Iranians have done it, continue to do it, and are not interested in stopping.
Who is 'we'? You may not wanted it, because it stopped proliferation. But for people who think that fewer countries should have nukes, stopping the spread of nuclear weapons is good. Netanyahu and Israel were continuously pressuring Trump to cancel the deal, and it didn't help that Trump went "OBAMA'S NAME IS ON IT, WORST EVER".
[Syria has entered the conversation.]
Like?
Jeez, bombing military targets? Did they bomb Fort Bragg? Where were those military targets? Perhaps in a place where you had no business being to begin with?
Where were those insurgencies? In neighboring countries that you had invaded? Yeah, those bastards, putting their country right in the middle of countries you wanted to invade. (In fact, there is very little evidence for this, and this was just the Bush administration deflecting from its disastrous policy in Iraq.)
Oh, and if you want to argue that 'supporting insurgencies' is a bad thing, guess who comes out as a really bad guy?
Given the fact that the US coup'ed Iran's government in 1953, supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in the 1980s (then supplied him with chemical weapons to use against the Iranians, and provided him with diplomatic cover), and has had sanctions to try to wreck as much havoc as possible in Iran...
Who is the greater offender and who the greater victim?
We, is "the Americans", for simplicity sake.
Syria is operating at our behest.
Piracy like around the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea.
Insurgencies & military targets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism
Just because "you had no business being there" is your argument against US military intervention, it doesn't mean that if those forces are somewhere, that Iran has the right to hunt them down and kill them, then take over the country for themselves. In the Marine Barracks Bombing, US troops were invited there as a peacekeeping force to prevent Lebanon from descending to a Civil War. They were even placed under the command of non-US troops. They were killed, needlessly, because the Iranians were invading Lebanon with proxy forces, and intended to take over the country. The Americans pulled out any
Iran has basically been in a Cold War with the US since the Ayatollah came to power. Yes, Iran is absolutely the worse offender because the Ayatollah is an occupying government over the Persians, and then decided to wage a multinational war for regional dominance.
Didn't seem like it. The people who wanted it canceled, are the same people who at the time adamantly insisted that it would not lead to war, and who championed the war when it came.
No kidding. But you talked about the decline of Al Qaeda.
Iran did that? Give me an example.
Considering that the US government uses murderous insurgencies as an ordinary tool of statecraft, it can hardly cry "TERRISM" when someone else does it.
There is always a noble cover for raw Realpolitk, so I don't believe this for a moment. That said, American interests clearly weren't great or you wouldn't have cut and run.
Furthermore, admitting arguendo that it was Hezbollah and that Hezbollah was acting on Iran's behalf, this clearly didn't stop you from sending weapons to Iran later on in the very same decade, so you can hardly use this as a justification for another war decades later - like the US did for Iraq gassing the Kurds with American chemical weapons 15 years later.
Take over the country? I haven't seen any evidence for that. I'll also point out that the bombing occurred in 1983. This was after Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 - it only withdrew in 2000 or so.
To use 'occupation' in this sense is to strip the word of its meaning. Also, even if he were, this has absolutely no bearing on whether actions by the US or Iran are more responsible for causing the enmity between the two countries.
Iran hasn't invaded a country in 250 years.
The "Iran Nuclear Deal" by Obama gave Iran atomic weapons as an end goal. It facilitated their drive to make them, it is perhaps the worst "deal" Obama made, and that's really saying something!
It "placed restrictions" which were immediately violated. It placed trade barriers as punishments for violations but Obama let everything slide & left big fat loopholes too.
It said that after X years (10, iirc) they "deal" would be "re-negotiated" to for sure make Iran not have nuclear weapons... except by then they'd be well on the road with no turning back and NO incentive to "deal" with anyone.
So Trump tore it up? TWICE? GOOD!
I'm completely unsurprised that you believe that, given the fact that you supported war with Iran and that you even, in 2025, supported the Iraq War and even claim there were WMD there. You do seem to have a little penchant for supporting wars based on lies about weapons of mass destruction.
Piffle. It was the USG and Europe that violated the deal, not Iran. Iran even continued to uphold it for years after Trump pulled out. Iran war supporters kept posting graphs of Iranian enrichment which showed very low levels on enrichment during the deal years. Anyone can easily discover this. Who do you think you're fooling?
After 10 years, they'd be three weeks from a nuclear weapon like they have been for the past 30 years?
Because there were. When Bush said it, Saddam hadn't sent them to Syria yet. The UN said there were even after the war was over.
550 tons of yellowcake wasn't found in a bakery, ok? It is the starting block for nuclear weapons. That's a part of a WMD PROGRAM which was banned by the treaty.
You also are mistaking "the sizzle" for the "steak" ok? You believe the selling points are important, they are not, they're just there to dazzle your eyes. The fact is: Saddam violated the Cease Fire treaty & thus it was legally "war on!" for everyone involved. That takes too much thinking though, so a buzzphrase was made. Do not mistake the map (sizzle, slogan) for the terrain (steak, reality), ok?
PFFT! How can other nations "violate the treat" but Iran didn't? Mental gymnastics! You should go to the Progressive Olympics! 😸
No, after 10 years (or whatever the number was, the X means unknown, like in maths, duh!) they would be free to say "No thanks!" and openly pursue nuclear weapons with NO restrictions. Like Pakistan and India did.
But thanks for trying!
lol. I'm really glad you keep quadrupling down on that, because it shows how seriously you should be taken.
Let me explain to you. Iran did abide by its obligations under the treaty, and Europe and America didn't.
What branch of mathematics is that?
They can already do that now, dumbass. And I think they will. They'll be right to, because it's the only way to avoid being bombed by the US and Israel.
If you want to act smug, you should at least not fail so miserably.