Opinions on Iran

[Loco]

I'm Iranian, but live in America. Was wondering what the worldview on Iran is and if there are any other Iranians on here? What do you think of Iranian policies, history, politics etc. Curious if everyone is as blind as Rubio and Cruz...

I also role-play as an Iranian

[kflores72]

Very interesting thing to talk about but I don't know to much about Iran though gotta do some research.

[Roman]

I dislike any country's leaders that are heavily ruled by religion.

But I didn't agree on the embargo America put on Iran.

I also think it's insane that the republicans in America sent the Ayatollah a letter asking him to not listen to Obama when he wanted to discuss Irans nuclear program.

I don't know much about the new president but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seemed pretty insane so I'm glad he doesn't rule anymore.

From what I've heard Iran is ready to fight against ISIS and if that's true then I say go for it, but it could also be a tactic to get more influence in Syria/Iraq etc. So it's a tricky situation.

[Heroz_Nick]

I dislike any country's leaders that are heavily ruled by religion.

But I didn't agree on the embargo America put on Iran.

I also think it's insane that the republicans in America sent the Ayatollah a letter asking him to not listen to Obama when he wanted to discuss Irans nuclear program.

I don't know much about the new president but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seemed pretty insane so I'm glad he doesn't rule anymore.

From what I've heard Iran is ready to fight against ISIS and if that's true then I say go for it, but it could also be a tactic to get more influence in Iraq so it's a tricky situation.

I disagree with your first statement. A mans faith and choices in life is his own just like anyone else's. being a part of a free society regardless if you disagree with them, that is your right and everyone else has theirs.

However if you are referring to religious extremism/censorship then obviously I condemn that along with other rational religious/spiritual people or anyone else.

Politics is fickle, its business but with peoples lives. Dont need a masters degree to figure that one out. lol

Unless you achieve "financial freedom" your life is just another dot on a database, its just the way the world works whether you like it or not :l

[Scooter]

First off we never should have overthrown the initial Iranian government in order to place in a pro-American tyrant, which is what we did and a large reason that the Iranians hate us. We practically created the problems we have today with this. We should have never placed in the Shah or financed him when he practically destroyed the country's culture and did whatever he wanted and stole money from the Iranian people. This factor is one of the main reasons the present day Iranians hate us, which it is partially our fault.

There is no excuse for the events that happened at the US Embassy in Tehran. What they did was a terrorist act and shouldn't be praised by anyone and even though it was partially our fault that it happened, we shouldn't forget what they did and simply the fact we started it doesn't excuse anyone to do something like they did. However, countries change over time and that was part of a revolution when the country was in chaos so many things are going to happen.

I like Iranian culture and their people but I do not support the theocracy currently in place as it uses religion as a mean of control on its people. However, this was a direct result of our aided coup that happened so many years ago. I believe in freedom of religion and being a Christian myself I see many similarities between Christianity and Islam, however that doesn't mean that it is alright what the Iranian government does to their people. The government is totalitarian and needs to ease up on many of the things they do which are largely motivated by religion.

However one of the things I do like about Iran is the way they stand up to Wahhabism in the Middle East that is practiced by terror groups such as ISIL and the FSA and countries such as Saudi Arabia. Many of the groups in Syria that our government supports have the same morals as the Saudis and ISIL and commit war crimes such as killing women, executing homosexuals, and killing non-believers of Islam, yet we fund these people to overthrow the Syrian government which is much more moderate than the so-called "moderate opposition" of extremists that we fund. It is very assuring to at least know that countries such as Iran and Russia are stopping jihadists in Syria which want to create another Shariah-controlled territory. Not to mention that groups such as the FSA and Al-Nusra aim to kill of the Christians of Syria which make up about 10 percent of the country's population. With Iran's support, the jihadists are being pushed back further and further everyday and will eventually be defeated unless our government decides to drop terrorists more humvees and rocket launchers, which in that case the struggle will only be worse.

All of that being said, I very much support what Iran is doing by trying to help Syria and not let it fall to the Saudis and corrupt politicians. We are literally trying to overthrow one of the most democratic countries in the Middle East (Syria) with the help of a totalitarian monarchy which executes more people for crimes against Islam, than ISIL. I would like to see the tensions between us and Iran become more peaceful, however this will take time, as I do not fully trust the Iranian government as many of them would like to see our country destroyed. I think there needs to be some reforms in the Iranian government the bring more democracy and there should be more rights to other religious groups in Iran, however, I would take Iran over Saudi Arabia any day.

[gherig]

I do not mind anyone who has any type of religion as long as it doesn't harm anyone. But when a leader makes his land I think we all don't like

that beacause not everyone agrees with religions and no one should be forced into something they don't agree on.

[Vic]

My Uncle/GodFather came from Iran to the united States and became a successful insurance salesman. Honestly, the people are hard working and the culture is a beautiful one.

[Surviving Man]

I dislike any country's leaders that are heavily ruled by religion.

But I didn't agree on the embargo America put on Iran.

I also think it's insane that the republicans in America sent the Ayatollah a letter asking him to not listen to Obama when he wanted to discuss Irans nuclear program.

I don't know much about the new president but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seemed pretty insane so I'm glad he doesn't rule anymore.

From what I've heard Iran is ready to fight against ISIS and if that's true then I say go for it, but it could also be a tactic to get more influence in Iraq so it's a tricky situation.

I disagree with your first statement. A mans faith and choices in life is his own just like anyone else's. being a part of a free society regardless if you disagree with them, that is your right and everyone else has theirs.

There's a difference between personal religious freedom, practicing that religion and having your faith influence state policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

For example; if a nation's leader wants to practice religion and go to Church - of course that is acceptable; but if that leader uses that faith as a reason to prohibit the personal freedoms of that nation's populace - that is unacceptable. Policies and laws over sexual health (abortion, same sex marriage, safe sex education) are frequently influenced by religious beliefs or standards that only exist because of the religious/spiritual implications.

[Major]

Scooter's analysis is really spot on, and it's unfortunate that Iran is run by a regressive theocracy dominated by Shia Islam, which I consider to be the lesser of the two evils in terms of the two branches of Islam. Wahhabism and Sunni radicalism as funded by the al-Saud family of Saudi Arabia and the US supported Gulf States have done arguably more damage to the state of security in the Middle East than any other regressive theocracy, Iran and Shi'ism have its own brand of radicals which have its own set of effect and consequences.

 

In comparison to other Middle Eastern countries, Iran is fairly tolerant of women and other religions outside of Islam. Christians are eradicated in Saudi Arabia and have no place to go. Same can be said for Libya, Iraq, and in parts of Syria where legitimate governments have been ousted by foreign gov'ts. (Syria is an exception for now). Iranian Christians are able to celebrate Christmas and other religious holidays, much the same as in Syria and Lebanon where western colonies were once maintained. Funny how places where western colonial powers had land across the world aren't shit holes in comparison to the surrounding nations. (Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Iran, India to a certain extent, etc) I think that Iran would be better off in the long term if they would throw off the Ayatollahs and reject this Theocracy which can get them killed for questioning the state, religious texts, or the place in society that Islam should have, much as Western society has developed separation of Church and state, empiricism, private property rights, voluntarism, philosophy, and free thought largely unhindered now by interference or coercion from the State or the Church. Much as how Christianity developed out of a regressive state controlled enterprise and into the enlightenment era, so to must Islam which is behind the western world by about a millennia in terms of how it treats women and the role theology has in society, most Islamic societies overwhelming approve of Sharia law which advocates many practices regarded as archaic and regressive by western standards. A nation which is allowed to question its institutions and popular beliefs held by the press and state usually are better off. Many Muslim reformers are also ironically targeted by members of their own faith and considered blasphemers, many so-called “liberals” also attack such reformers as being intolerant, but that is a topic for another day.

Iran’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon and Palestine has not improved the conflict over Gaza and the West Bank, regardless of who you think is at fault here. Iranian missiles are fired by Hamas at Israel, after which the IDF retaliates and undoubtedly kills both terrorists and innocent children. Children in Palestine are shown Sesame Street style cartoons that essentially teach kids that it is glorious to kill as many Israelis as possible. This type of education is mainstream and commonplace within this society. Iran has pursued the US military over the past decades, which is partially because of America’s problematic history with Iran. This is not an attempt to forgive Iran but is merely a brief study on cause and effect. Of course the US soldiers and sailors killed by Iran have nothing to do with this, and yet these are the men and women who pay the price for the policy of global hegemony and divide and conquer and that is currently being pursued by the EU and the US government. Notice that the countries that have fallen prey to this strategy do not have an IMF monetary fund and are not reliant on Central banking (these nations have independent banks). See General Wesley Clark here on this.

[video=youtube]

Iran’s involvement in the Syrian Crisis has been regarded negatively by the West, although I will argue that the effect of Iran’s support of the Syrian government and its institutions and people has prevented the fall of Syria as a state. Both Iran and Russia have undoubtedly prevented further destabilization and are actively contributing to the restoration of Syria’s statehood in areas capturing by militants. Iran’s support for Syria is public and has been fully acknowledged by the Syrian government. You mentioned Rubio and Cruz as being blind, I am sure that their sight is fine, although I doubt Cruz has as much interest in getting rid of the Iranian government as Rubio does, as Cruz supports a non-intervention policy. The problem with Iran is that they are very vocal about wanting Israel wiped off the map. Israel includes all atheists, Christians, Jews, and Muslims that live there for those out there who ascribe to identity politics. The question isn’t if the Iranians are capable of this nuclear feat, the question is are they stupid enough to risk retaliation from Israel’s fully armed and operational arsenal of nukes. I don’t want either populace of either country eradicated in a brown mushroom cloud. I also don’t think that a military strike on Iran would help the fragile state of affairs in the US, a strike will undoubtedly be done in the last minute by the IDF if the Iranians are prepping nukes. On the issue on Iran’s dealings with the Gulf States, I would say that in this Sunni-Shia conflict a balance has to be maintained, and Iran is crucial in this balance, although I do not approve of the methods or activities of either side. Iran’s modern development has also been quite significant in terms of technology, and regressive ideals tend to go away when access and technology are brought in. No doubt harmed by embargoes and sanctions, I also cannot help to think that the Ayatollahs are not partially to blame for this. Aside from the Islamic theocracy that rules Iran, I would say that it is on my top 5 list of Middle Eastern nations I’d like to visit as a tourist at some point, preferably without being held hostage by the IRGC and put on Iranian State TV. Best wishes for Iran.

PS: If you disagree with my analysis, or on my stance here, please pm me. Don't turn this thread into a back and forth ideological argument, I understand that some people are sensitive to Islam or to the conflicts I have listed.

[Nolan]

I dislike any country's leaders that are heavily ruled by religion.

I disagree with your first statement. A mans faith and choices in life is his own just like anyone else's. being a part of a free society regardless if you disagree with them, that is your right and everyone else has theirs.

However if you are referring to religious extremism/censorship then obviously I condemn that along with other rational religious/spiritual people or anyone else.

Roman is referring to the fact that Iran is a non-secular state with religious laws that restrict the freedom of its inhabitants, Iranian examples being that homosexuality, blasphemy, apostasy, adultery and alcohol consumption are illegal (with death penalties for all after a certain amount of 'offenses' with them, or even upon first 'offense'). In any case, a country should never be ruled by a person's religion, though a leader (and their people) should always be free to be a part of one.

[Loco]

There is no excuse for the events that happened at the US Embassy in Tehran. What they did was a terrorist act and shouldn't be praised by anyone and even though it was partially our fault that it happened, we shouldn't forget what they did and simply the fact we started it doesn't excuse anyone to do something like they did. However, countries change over time and that was part of a revolution when the country was in chaos so many things are going to happen.

Thank you everyone for commenting i'm glad to see a positive view of Iran. 

The only comment so far is to this. While I can't condemn the storming of the embassy, I can definitely tell you what let to this which many people are somewhat unaware of. 

While many perceive the kidnappings as a senseless act of violence against the US for "puppeting" Iran for the last 30 years, this was not the course Iranians wanted to take. There are two big reasons this happened.

1. As the Shah left Iran, he was diagnosed with Cancer and was allowed stay in the US to receive treatment. He stayed two months, and the new Iranian Regime demanded the Shah be returned to Iran to stand trial. The US denied the requests, and decided to honor the friendship to the shah and protect him against Iranian demands.

2. The Shah also held billions of dollars in US banks, over 100 billion dollars of Iranian money was held in US banks owned by the Shah that the US refused to return to Iran. In fact, this is the money that the US is giving back to Iran right now in the Nuclear deal, which the US has held for 35 years. Years and years of negotiating would not permit Iran to receive the money back, but now with the US almost desperate to get a deal, they are giving it back.

Like I said not condemning the hostage crisis, but the Iranians are not senseless people. Iran had to take matters into their own hands to get results, and they did as the US asked the Shah to leave the country.

[Jowad Berekdar]

Straight off the bat, I can tell you that I do not dislike any population in particular, as that wood be an extreme case of generalizing. However, I both like and dislike Iran. I like its people from what I've heard about them, but I also really dislike a certain part of the population that I hear about frequently. I hate going into debates about religion and politics, but in the end I'm not quite sure what to think as I've never been there and haven't had personal experiences with it and its people.

[Heroz_Nick]

=

There's a difference between personal religious freedom, practicing that religion and having your faith influence state policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

For example; if a nation's leader wants to practice religion and go to Church - of course that is acceptable; but if that leader uses that faith as a reason to prohibit the personal freedoms of that nation's populace - that is unacceptable. Policies and laws over sexual health (abortion, same sex marriage, safe sex education) are frequently influenced by religious beliefs or standards that only exist because of the religious/spiritual implications.

Yes mate I know the difference between freedom of choice and forcing someone to change their ways.

I agree with separation especially nowadays, but remember what your asking of that "leader" your asking him to change his ways, for the benefit of other people. you see?

They may think in their version of the truth, that what you are trying to do to them, is completely wrong. For example North korea-US. Both very head strong, both wont back down, cultural aversion, petty differences. recipe for disaster 

Truth is a matter of perspective. Not my opinion its just the way it is. Make the world a better place, then start by making them feel like they are your friend, not your enemy. prime example, "always blame the Russians and the Chinese" etc

---

Heroz_Nick

-

-

[Alex]

I have a friend from Iran. He's a sick lad. Speaks Persian, annoys the fuck out of me.

[Fackmos]

I like every one.

[Surviving Man]

=

There's a difference between personal religious freedom, practicing that religion and having your faith influence state policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

For example; if a nation's leader wants to practice religion and go to Church - of course that is acceptable; but if that leader uses that faith as a reason to prohibit the personal freedoms of that nation's populace - that is unacceptable. Policies and laws over sexual health (abortion, same sex marriage, safe sex education) are frequently influenced by religious beliefs or standards that only exist because of the religious/spiritual implications.

Yes mate I know the difference between freedom of choice and forcing someone to change their ways.

I agree with separation especially nowadays, but remember what your asking of that "leader" your asking him to change his ways, for the benefit of other people. you see?

They may think in their version of the truth, that what you are trying to do to them, is completely wrong. For example North korea-US. Both very head strong, both wont back down, cultural aversion, petty differences. recipe for disaster 

Truth is a matter of perspective. Not my opinion its just the way it is. Make the world a better place, then start by making them feel like they are your friend, not your enemy. prime example, "always blame the Russians and the Chinese" etc

I'm asking a leader of a nation to seperate their personal ideals from influencing their rulings on policy and law. When a leader steps into office, they should set aside their personal proclivities aside. The prominence of their nation and it's citizens should rank higher than creating their own versional of nirvana.

If a leader wants to be a Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Heaven's Gatist, that's fine - but don't impose those fundamentals on a populace just because of a holy text. If that leader can't see beyond his own personal world view - if that leader lacks empathy for a populace which is always diverse (socially, economically, culturally and religiously). Then they are not fit to be a leader.

If a leader cannot see outside of their own worldview, experience and cultural background - and imposes their ideals upon a populace - they're not a leader, they're a dictator. 

Don't imply that I'm oppressing somebody from practicing their religion or beliefs when that person wants to use those same ideals to impose very impractical laws upon their nation.

[Heroz_Nick]

-

I'm asking a leader of a nation to seperate their personal ideals from influencing their rulings on policy and law. When a leader steps into office, they should set aside their personal proclivities aside. The prominence of their nation and it's citizens should rank higher than creating their own versional of nirvana.

If a leader wants to be a Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Heaven's Gatist, that's fine - but don't impose those fundamentals on a populace just because of a holy text. If that leader can't see beyond his own personal world view - if that leader lacks empathy for a populace which is always diverse (socially, economically, culturally and religiously). Then they are not fit to be a leader.

If a leader cannot see outside of their own worldview, experience and cultural background - and imposes their ideals upon a populace - they're not a leader, they're a dictator. 

Don't imply that I'm oppressing somebody from practicing their religion or beliefs when that person wants to use those same ideals to impose very impractical laws upon their nation.

Yes mate I agree with what your saying. but the reality is, the leader is number 1. yes? He is the boss.

You can either oust him by a democratic vote or by force. 

It doesn't matter what our opinion is and how much we agree or if we are categorically correct and god himself is on our side lol. When has a dictator ever in the history of man stepped down by their own choice?...very rare.

Im not saying your oppressing anyone, in my eyes oppression is everywhere and in many different forms just like slavery.

The final point is, how are you going to convince these "leaders" and politicians to see eye to eye and not be absolved by petty differences.

On that note.