I know zikzak said 200 years, but w/e, what's the case for calling Iran imperialist post 1979?

I'm not saying there isn't one. They support Hezbollah, Hamas, and Assad. Not imperialist the way the British were imperialist, but more in the American way of trying to install or uphold friendly governments as in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen....

hmmmmm, refusal to relinquish occupied territory is aggressive imperialism.
Shall we play a game.

eta: should have read, removal of occupiers is aggressive imperialism

Nothing about that time Iran arrested a boat? It seemed to be of dramatic importance to Gamblor a few months ago.

I actually wrote that also, but edited it out because lolzikzak.

Yes

Lol, you are bad at this

Yes, events only have effects for 6 months. Good post.

you mean because I edited my post without ninja deleting the original inaccurate text. Or is it that I fix my mistakes rather than double down on stupid for pages and pages (thousand and thousands of $$$$$$$ of value, lol at you)

That's not why you are bad at this.
Edited because why bother

It's only a complex issue to you. You chose to use an example of a border skirmish post WW2 as a definitive Iranian aggression policy. If I were to post that your mother Israel did the same you'd claim it was for security, and NOT an imperial aggression.

But you are a one trick hasbara pony, intellectual honesty is not available to you.

FIVE examples of Gamblor once again just blatantly ****ing lying.

lol cognitive dissonance is a bitch

Confirmed HASBARA

Boy #TeamIran not doing well here.

cuz there is nothing to refute. even your #1 supporter is against you.

Gamblor I'm curious how much weight you give to the possibility that you're outrageously biased towards everything Israel. Like when you see people so hopelessly partisan in politics to the point where you can't take anything they're arguing very seriously because no matter what the parameters they'd always end up on the one side of the argument, have you considered that might be you just with a country instead of political party?

Like I'm genuinely curious, have never interacted with you but have obviously seen a lot of your posts.

What does this even mean? Generally speaking? Are you asking if I am biased toward my own best interests and those of my own country?

Um, probably?

The real question is what exactly you think my "positions" are, especially on Iran. In fact, if you link me to a post in which I describe my preferred policy on Iran, perhaps I could explain it further.

None of this even addresses zikzak's hilarious 200 year lie, or that Iranian military history before 1979 is completely irrelevant. Nor does it address that it is indisputable that Persia/Iran has indeed attacked other countries without military provocation, outside its own borders, on several occasions in the last 200 years to expand its influence, and actively works with designated terrorist organizations to commit terrorist atrocities against American, Israeli, British, and other civilians around the world.

No my question has nothing to do with specific positions you have or this thread. Like in your post you treat the concept of being biased to your own country as trivial and not worth discussing. I find that interesting, does it not bother you that you could have spent thousands of posts essentially spewing about a single topic because of a bias and not because you rationally agree with all the positions you take? Every conversation I've ever seen involving Israel (in the politics forums) will eventually involve you showing up and vehemently arguing pro-israel, as well as constantly ****ting on any country they're in conflict with. You're probably the most rabid supporter of a country I've seen in the forums.

You've missed my point - I asked what posts I've written that take positions.

Calling out and laughing at bad logic and bad facts where I feel like it is pretty normal for a forum. Feel free to show me where I've taken strong positions on an American foreign policy. You have no idea what my policy positions are, but you see something that doesn't fit yours, I'm BIASED.

Pretending Iran doesn't undertake aggressive imperialist activities - both military and otherwise - is sheer idiocy. You can argue that the US has its own faults, or whatever and we can argue that all day, but I just came to lol at zikzak characterizing Iran as benign, or inward focused, and that 200 years line was a laugher.

But of course I'm the most WARMONGERING WARMONGER that has never once suggested going to war itf and blah blah blah.

The real question is why my constantly pointing out these things means I am ALL ABOUT ISRAEL. You know that there are people in Israel that disagree with me too, right? Are they any less pro-ISRAEL than me?

And there are Americans who are nuts and want to just go to war in Iran but couldn't give a **** about Israel. Are they all about Israel?

Smokey,

There's a steady stream of ignorant and/or antisemitic posters attacking Israel. So, he defends Israel a lot. Not "rabid" at all in the sense of considering Israel perfect or calling for expulsion of Arabs or anything like that.

BTW, is anyone itt a rabid Iran supporter? I don't really think so myself, but if you just tallied posts supportive or critical of Iran, you'd think a lot of posters here are rabid supporters of Iran.

Oh ****, microbet confirmed HASBARA operative.

This whole discussion is fascinating, since GAMBLOOOOOOR didn't even bring up Israel itt.

Very interesting post. So by your logic microbet, calling out falsehoods levied against Israel is correcting avowed anti Semites who are speading lies. But if the same is done about another country, region, people, Iran in this case, we are a bunch of rabid Iranian zealots.

Fascinating. One would think it would depend on the nature of the falsehood, the arguments, the proposed policy solution. But no. That is too nuanced for some people.

Right, what I'm getting at is that almost all the 'bad logic' I see you calling out is related to Israel. This thread has thus far had nothing to do with Israel, but Iran is obviously related.

Like if you were to assess the Bayesian probability that you argue against the nuclear deal, show up in a thread about a country in a conflict with Israel as vehemently as you've just done, got in a tiff about Palestinians pooping in the streets or whatever, went hard about that boat thing, keep going until you add up basically every argument of yours in this forum, what are the odds that you're not wildly biased?

Seems like we're talking past each other though. Btw your last sentence is wrong, I don't really hold many policy positions and certainly not when it comes to things you post about. I'm not trying to discredit you because I disagree with your positions.

Obviously I'm more interested in bad facts and logic that, if spread, harm my interests. There are scores of nutcases who want to drop a bomb or two and drop 500,000 boots in Tehran and will think that solves something. Fortunately we have zikzak here to call them NEOCONS or whatever and scare them off.

I often don't mean to go hard on this stuff - I just came to point out how lol that 200 year meme is, or the Maersk ship debacle. I didn't even have a plan for policy or whatever - I like embarrassing LAG posters like zikzak because it's fun and their ideas are hilariously simple-minded.

But then zikzak and PP and the rest of the foreign policy experts reply with the lols, and then it's just too much fun to stop.