861–870 of 891 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vast majority of the world including the ICC and the UN does not consider Israel to be defending itself. By your own logic, Israelis are culpable for the genocide and land theft committed by their government.
I believe “vast manority” may be a stretch; do you happen to know if there’s a way to quantify that? In my bubble, almost everyone that I personally know and who generally has reasonable beliefs, is on the Israel’s side of this conflict.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Democrats in the US have Superdelegates effectively vetoing candidates. So is the media and funding apparatus and the deep state by holding potential blackmail material. To be clear, I am not defending their system. I am suggesting democracy is not a panacea that automatically guarantees prosperity. Far from it.
You're muddling the line between democracy and dictatorship. In a democracy if you control all the votes of people you should be able to make changes in the government that the incumbent may not want. You can't do this in Iran.
How are you sure about this? What evidence or statistics do you have that there have been enough people who want an alternative that is sufficiently different? It appears the regime is great at persuading people they want some sort of "light reform" and propagandized the populace to hate taking a risk for real change. It appears lots of people talk the talk but are comfortable where they are and in fact resist change when it happens. Otherwise you should have seen some level of unrest given the lack of water and electricity and the regime at its weakest.
Vice versa, how sure are you about it being true in other countries? Looking at various elections in parliamentary systems like Germany, France, or Canada, it does appear that even a strong opposition has a really hard time competing with the status quo in a "democratic" setup. The system resorts to all trickery including importing voters and creating unnatural coalitions to enforce the establishment agenda. And that is not including physical elimination of the opponent which was attempted in the United States.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strange that a massive revolution would break out in a country in the midst of such a golden era.
Strange that the mighty USSR broke down 10 years after that. In retrospect, the astute mind would recognize the two may have just been interrelated. In fact, one may have been part of the plan to accomplish the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strange that the mighty USSR broke down 10 years after that. In retrospect, the astute mind would recognize the two may have just been interrelated. In fact, one may have been part of the plan to accomplish the other.
Got it, the Iranian revolution was part of the US’s plan to bring down the Soviet Union, makes total sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll put the blame on the sanctioned countries' leadership. If Iran wants to avoid sanctions, all they have to do is not flirt with nuclear weapons.
As of March 2025, the US intelligence had assessed that Iran was neither building nor pursuing a nuclear a weapon. [1] Claims to the contrary can from Netanyahu who is increasingly obviously an unstable individual. Notably the 'flip flop' when Trump decided to invade Iran was precipitated on very careful language that Iran could have a weapon if they chose to pursue it, under a likely exaggerated timeline. It's not r…
I don't want us directly interfering in the Middle East, but I also don't want us supporting regimes that are diametrically opposed to our own ways of life. And sanctions are the way to do this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As of March 2025, the US intelligence had assessed that Iran was neither building nor pursuing a nuclear a weapon. [1] Claims to the contrary can from Netanyahu who is increasingly obviously an unstable individual. Notably the 'flip flop' when Trump decided to invade Iran was precipitated on very careful language that Iran could have a weapon if they chose to pursue it, under a likely exaggerated timeline. It's not r…
And then they got new intel. Iran is also the primary sponsor of international terrorism, and the entire EU is aligned on sanctioning Iran. I know history of western intervention in the Middle East is full of terrible mistakes, but that doesn't mean we should turn the other cheek. I'd argue we've been to lenient on that front, in many ways. I don't want us directly interfering in the Middle East, but I also don't wan…
The reason the US acts the way it does in the US is not based on any immediate logic. There's a great paper, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that describes US foreign policy in extremely straight forward language. It was written during Bush's era, but many of the people with their names on it are part of the effectively permanent political establishment.
Their goal was (and perhaps if they're delusional - still is) to maintain hegemonic control over the entire world. The main motivation for things like attacking Iran is 'projecting force.' It's supposed to work to intimidate other countries into deference and compliance without having to actually get involved in a battle with them. Basically mimicking how school bullies work.
So you're looking for a reasonable explanation based on superficial pretexts, but there is none. The same is true of Iraq. It's not like we really thought there were WMD. But it was simply an opportunity to project power and keep the military industrial complex churning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I meant sanctions which are bombing russian refineries. So they stories no fuel in Russia are just propaganda?
Oh, makes sense. Depends on the claim - some are, some aren't. The problem obviously exists, but the coverup is good enough to make lots of people think that the war happens on another planet and doesn't affect them (e.g. gasoline export ban).
This story is getting better and better.
The above quite is from Malcontent News.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And then they got new intel. Iran is also the primary sponsor of international terrorism, and the entire EU is aligned on sanctioning Iran. I know history of western intervention in the Middle East is full of terrible mistakes, but that doesn't mean we should turn the other cheek. I'd argue we've been to lenient on that front, in many ways. I don't want us directly interfering in the Middle East, but I also don't wan…
No, they did not get new intel. The reason the US acts the way it does in the US is not based on any immediate logic. There's a great paper, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that describes US foreign policy in extremely straight forward language. It was written during Bush's era, but many of the people with their names on it are part of the effectively permanent political establishment. Their goal was (and perhaps if…
I'm all for sanctioning Iran until they capitulate. The end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I wrote that the US is at war with an enemy _state_. The state represents its people, but it is not _all of_ the people. I always see people derailing these discussions in this manner when it's always patently obvious that we aren't conflating the two.
> And I wrote that the US is at war with an enemy _state_ The US toppled it's democratically elected leader in the 50s, installed a brutal "king" dictator, and when they finally overthrew him it armed their neighborhood Iraq to wage war on them killing millions, then enforced global sanctions to it (causing tremendous damage to its economy and operation), and still meddles in the region. Them saying some slogans like…
Iranians are playing victims, and they are, but they're victims to their own government's actions, being the foremost funder of anti-west terrorism and sentiment.
If they want things to change, I'd look at the closer threat -- their theocratic government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't police other people's language.
*until someone says something about something I identify with personally Is always the subtext to statements like yours.