The point was that Iran, under its theocratic rulers, is not a peace-loving nation that keeps to itself. That is the case regardless of whether Iran's rulers choose Mahatma Gandhi or Genghis Khan to be their great satan.
The point was that the US, under its theocratic rulers, is not a peace-loving nation that keeps to itself. That is the case regardless of whether Iran's rulers choose Mahatma Gandhi or Genghis Khan to be their great satan.
Americans worry about theocracy when the right wing SCOTUS bans abortion. Iran hangs people for apostasy *
Different strokes for different folks, but to me, drawing an equivalence of the US, even with its current deplorable (I could search for other adjectives, but why reinvent the wheel) government, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is "pass the bong" territory.
Grammatically, "under its theocratic rulers" is parenthetical to "is not a peace-loving nation that keeps to itself" in these sentences. Arguments about degrees of theocracy aside, the US engages in constant outward violence without peace-loving motive, including sometimes extrajudicially and against civilians.
The comment to which I replied appears to draw an equivalence of the US and the IR, both in terms of theocracy and pugnacity.
The former charge (ie: that the US and the IR are similarly theocratic) was the more satisfying to rebut, since it's so straightforward.
The latter charge (ie: that the US and the IR are similarly warlike) is less wrong. In a HN comment thread on the internet, my chances are slim of convincing someone who believes it to be spot-on that it isn't.
