That's ironic, that you have a problem with casuality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_rel...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_rel...

Yep, the US did terrible things to Iran 67 years ago. How much time has to pass before it's no longer appropriate? Would it have been appropriate for the US congress to chant "death to Japan" in 2008? The Islamic Revolution was 41 years ago. Should the South Korean parliament be chanting "death to China"?

As if the US has stopped harming Iran 67 years ago.

And at the same time the US still imposes embargo on Cuba, 60 years after the nationalization of the property of American companies [0]. How much time has to pass before it's no longer appropriate?

"In October 1960 a key incident occurred: Eisenhower's government refused to export oil to the island, leaving Cuba reliant on Soviet crude oil, which the American companies in Cuba refused to refine. This led the Cuban government to nationalize all three American-owned oil refineries in Cuba in response. The refinery owners were not compensated for the nationalization of their property. The refineries became part of the state-run company, Unión Cuba-Petróleo.[19][20] This prompted the Eisenhower administration to launch the first trade embargo—a prohibition against selling all products to Cuba except food and medicine. The Cuban regime responded with nationalization of all American businesses and most American privately-owned properties on the island. No compensation was given for the seizures, and a number of diplomats were expelled from Cuba."

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_...

So because they chanted "Death to America," you are in favor of imposing sanctions that will cause the death of Iranians?

If someone communicates that they want to kill you, I think refusing to do business with them is an incredibly subdued response.

Even though refusing to do business with them will cause some of their family to die of starvation or lack of medicine?

Yes. It's the same reason I don't shop at Hobby Lobby despite a boycott potentially causing innocent workers to lose their livelihood.

They can find new jobs, the people you've killed for disagreeing with your foreign policy are dead forever.

I've found myself in an awkward position defending sanctions I don't really agree with anyway. I'm not sure these differences of opinion are reconcilable. Some people think the appropriate response to death threats is to ignore them, and others like me think the appropriate response is a cruise missile.

You realize that "Death to America" is not remotely a death threat? At worst it wants to see the fall of America and most Iranians say they just want the end of America's imperialist policies.

And you're against sanctions because they don't kill enough people.

Even a cursory Wikipedia-level glance at the US's actions in Iran over the past century should bring understanding of why people might feel that way toward us. The solution is not to punish such sentiments but address our historical misbehavior and demonstrate it won't continue in the future. We are doing neither.