Jordan and Egypt are not developing nukes because the US and USSR didn't want competition on that front, and was very likely given guarantees that the Israelis wouldn't engage in any First Strike activities with them

It seems that you agree that any Iranian drive towards a nuclear weapon is driven by security considerations, and that by tamping down tensions, the need for Iran to be a nuclear or nuclear-threshold state will also be eliminated.

Pakistan got sold nukes because India was a more dominant country and civilization, and managed to build a real country.

There would have been not as much of a need for them to get nukes if India hadn't.

I never said Shia Islam was invented in Yemen by the Iranians...

So what did you mean by that comment? Those people are already there. They weren't happy with their lot in Yemen. Iran makes use of that like USAID does. It hardly means that Iran directs everything the Houthis do. Hell, it could not get Hezbollah to fire on Israel during the 12 day war.

Your line of argumentation did sound like 'evil America', in that not only was every conflict with Iran the Americans fault, but also every action taken in response was legitimate.

Maybe it did, but all I'm trying to do is to get you to adopt a more balanced view, particularly in a time when "evil Iran" is being used to start a new war, which will destroy Europe. If you had been single-mindedly focused on all the bad stuff America had done, then I might point out that this is also not the full story. I do think that on balance, America has done way worse things to Iran than vice versa.

Particularly the Beirut Bombing. The big reason I brought that up is that the US wasn't significantly invested in the conflict, and was operating off of international co-operation. Though we preferred the government and Christians, the whole conflict was instigated by Iran.

The civil war in Lebanon began before the revolution in Iran.

This is because Iran considers itself to be in a permanent state of war with the US.

Even if true: any reason why?

"Well, but maybe those Marines had it coming" (I know that's not a direct quote, but it's the implication you made) is a wild statement when you accept the context,

I appreciate that. To be clear, the point isn't that I glory in those Marines dying. Or any. Or any soldiers. Not American, not Israeli, not Russian, not Ukrainian. It's just that the people who order them around brought them in a place where they had no business being at all. This is all the more applicable with the insuregency that Iran allegedly backed (even though the major insurgency was Sunni). It's as if China invaded Mexico and Canada, and then complained about the US backing anti-Chinese groups that blew up Chinese.

but you admitted you refuse to accept that context and are assuming some kind of openly malicious intent by everyone involved to...

Not malicious. Just self-interested. I definitely don't buy the idea that great or even minor powers are in it to help.

Even if the US were to have gotten directly involved in the Lebanese Civil War, it would probably have done so to protect a government more interested in US interests, and protect the Christian population of the country.

Frankly, I have not much confidence in the US protecting any Christian anywhere, though they may do it if it's in their interests - for the same reason Israel allied with the Falangists.

Jordan and Egypt are not developing nukes because the US and USSR didn't want competition on that front, and was very likely given guarantees that the Israelis wouldn't engage in any First Strike activities with them

It seems that you agree that any Iranian drive towards a nuclear weapon is driven by security considerations, and that by tamping down tensions, the need for Iran to be a nuclear or nuclear-threshold state will also be eliminated.

Pakistan got sold nukes because India was a more dominant country and civilization, and managed to build a real country.

There would have been not as much of a need for them to get nukes if India hadn't.

I never said Shia Islam was invented in Yemen by the Iranians...

So what did you mean by that comment? Those people are already there. They weren't happy with their lot in Yemen. Iran makes use of that like USAID does. It hardly means that Iran directs everything the Houthis do. Hell, it could not get Hezbollah to fire on Israel during the 12 day war.

Your line of argumentation did sound like 'evil America', in that not only was every conflict with Iran the Americans fault, but also every action taken in response was legitimate.

Maybe it did, but all I'm trying to do is to get you to adopt a more balanced view, particularly in a time when "evil Iran" is being used to start a new war, which will destroy Europe. If you had been single-mindedly focused on all the bad stuff America had done, then I might point out that this is also not the full story. I do think that on balance, America has done way worse things to Iran than vice versa.

Particularly the Beirut Bombing. The big reason I brought that up is that the US wasn't significantly invested in the conflict, and was operating off of international co-operation. Though we preferred the government and Christians, the whole conflict was instigated by Iran.

The civil war in Lebanon began before the revolution in Iran.

This is because Iran considers itself to be in a permanent state of war with the US.

Even if true: any reason why?

"Well, but maybe those Marines had it coming" (I know that's not a direct quote, but it's the implication you made) is a wild statement when you accept the context,

I appreciate that. To be clear, the point isn't that I glory in those Marines dying. It's just that the people who order them around brought them in a place where they had no business being at all. This is all the more applicable with the insuregency that Iran allegedly backed (even though the major insurgency was Sunni). It's as if China invaded Mexico and Canada, and then complained about the US backing anti-Chinese groups that blew up Chinese.

but you admitted you refuse to accept that context and are assuming some kind of openly malicious intent by everyone involved to...

Not malicious. Just self-interested. I definitely don't buy the idea that great or even minor powers are in it to help.

Even if the US were to have gotten directly involved in the Lebanese Civil War, it would probably have done so to protect a government more interested in US interests, and protect the Christian population of the country.

Frankly, I have not much confidence in the US protecting any Christian anywhere, though they may do it if it's in their interests - for the same reason Israel allied with the Falangists.

Jordan and Egypt are not developing nukes because the US and USSR didn't want competition on that front, and was very likely given guarantees that the Israelis wouldn't engage in any First Strike activities with them

It seems that you agree that any Iranian drive towards a nuclear weapon is driven by security considerations, and that by tamping down tensions, the need for Iran to be a nuclear or nuclear-threshold state will also be eliminated.

Pakistan got sold nukes because India was a more dominant country and civilization, and managed to build a real country.

There would have been not as much of a need for them to get nukes if India hadn't.

I never said Shia Islam was invented in Yemen by the Iranians...

So what did you mean by that comment? Those people are already there. They weren't happy with their lot in Yemen. Iran makes use of that like USAID does. It hardly means that Iran directs everything the Houthis do. Hell, it could not get Hezbollah to fire on Israel during the 12 day war.

Your line of argumentation did sound like 'evil America', in that not only was every conflict with Iran the Americans fault, but also every action taken in response was legitimate.

Maybe it did, but all I'm trying to do is to get you to adopt a more balanced view, particularly in a time when "evil Iran" is being used to start a new war, which will destroy Europe. If you had been single-mindedly focused on all the bad stuff America had done, then I might point out that this is also not the full story. I do think that on balance, America has done way worse things to Iran than vice versa.

Particularly the Beirut Bombing. The big reason I brought that up is that the US wasn't significantly invested in the conflict, and was operating off of international co-operation. Though we preferred the government and Christians, the whole conflict was instigated by Iran.

The civil war in Lebanon began before the revolution in Iran.

This is because Iran considers itself to be in a permanent state of war with the US.

Any reason why?

"Well, but maybe those Marines had it coming" (I know that's not a direct quote, but it's the implication you made) is a wild statement when you accept the context,

I appreciate that. To be clear, the point isn't that I glory in those Marines dying. It's just that the people who order them around brought them in a place where they had no business being at all. This is all the more applicable with the insuregency that Iran allegedly backed (even though the major insurgency was Sunni). It's as if China invaded Mexico and Canada, and then complained about the US backing anti-Chinese groups that blew up Chinese.

but you admitted you refuse to accept that context and are assuming some kind of openly malicious intent by everyone involved to...

Not malicious. Just self-interested. I definitely don't buy the idea that great or even minor powers are in it to help.

Even if the US were to have gotten directly involved in the Lebanese Civil War, it would probably have done so to protect a government more interested in US interests, and protect the Christian population of the country.

Frankly, I have not much confidence in the US protecting any Christian anywhere, though they may do it if it's in their interests - for the same reason Israel allied with the Falangists.