← Back to context

Comment by mupuff1234

16 hours ago

[flagged]

> Tell that to the 30k+ iranian protestors that were killed. > Are you actually using "in good faith" and the current horrendous iranian regime in the same sentence?

If US needs to intervene, why are they are not intervening in Ukraine? Far worse things has been happening there for 4 years.

  • I don't think the Ukranian people are being supressed by their own gov

    • Is the argument that the U.S. should only militarily intervene when conflicts are internal within another country, as opposed to when it’s one country invading another? As that’s the opposite of the established international laws around prohibiting one state from attacking another vs the principle of non-intervention.

    • 1. The Russian position in 2014 was that the Ukrainian people in Donbas were being oppressed by the new Ukrainian central government.

      2. There's a lot of domestic political/information suppression in Ukraine but I consider this somewhat normal for a nation in a pretty existential conflict.

      3. The Ukrainian military is 70-80% conscripts, increasingly of the "forcibly mobilized" variety (look up "TCC busification" for examples), with almost all military-age males banned from leaving the country. Dudes are getting beaten up, stuffed into vans, and sent to trenches to eat Russian artillery and FABs (air-to-ground bombs)....against their will. I think that definitely counts as suppression.

      3 replies →

  • My point is saying that the iranian regime is doing anything "in good faith" is just beyond absurd.

    They have long lost the ability to claim that any of their actions are in good faith.

  • why are they are not intervening in Ukraine?

    Russia is already a nuclear power. They are also diminishing as a nation almost as fast as China.

> Tell that to the 30k+ iranian protestors that were killed

in general, "protestors" that are armed by foreigners and actively killing police officers and other government officials aren't "protestors".

And can you tell us where this 30k came from?

It's nothing to do with Iran being bad or good. US and Iran were negotiating. You don't attack mid negotiation when you're supposedly still trying to fix things by talking.

You might think Iran isn't owed the courtesy of fair negotiation but that's very shortsighted. Next country will not take US's negotiations seriously and will be, frankly, at some level justified in shooting first.

  • > Next country will not take US's negotiations seriously and will be, frankly, at some level justified in shooting first

    Then they get levelled. Forgetting that America is a superpower is one way that Iran's negotiators, if they were engaging in good faith, fucked up on.

  • That is utter BS. If you stop negotiating in order to attack, then you are giving the enemy the advantage of knowing exactly when you will attack. This is one of the most incompetent takes I have ever heard - so much that I have to wonder if you are an Iranian agent

US sanctions, US/Moss instigates, makes the Iranis desparate. Irani regime (that is the result of US intervention decades ago) digs in and toughens up.

People die in the streets.

Who's to blame? The Irani regime? C'mon...

It's like crashing your car into a tree and and blaming the tree.

Also: you really think the US/Moss care about dead Iranis in the streets, other than it being a useful pretext to go to war?

  • Oh the US forced Iran to murder 30k civilians, it's our fault somehow.

    • Sanctions, instigations (admitted) lead to protests that lead to violent crack downs.

      Yes. Without those sanctions + instigations the crack downs would not be needed. That's beyond obvious to me.

      4 replies →