I wish society required manufacturers to provide reclamation of the resources used in their discarded products. Ie when I’m done with my car battery the lithium is reclaimed from it for future use by someone with all the info and resources necessary to do it efficiently. Make the regulation such that recycling is factored into the design process.
The people of Bolivia have recently learned this to their great misfortune. The USA government hasn't even been shy about its support for that coup against a democratically elected leader who lifted so many out of poverty. The regime who took over celebrated the fact that they are white Christians and not brown natives.
The USA issued statements supporting the ousting of Morales. That was the extent of USA's involvement. That does not really make it a "USA backed coup". Unless you believe it just because that's what Morales claimed.
We might strongly suspect it, based only on the fact that CIA has done this in dozens of nations since the episode described in TFA. Or, you know, we could just pay any attention at all to actual journalism [0].
One hope is for more stability. But I can imagine a duality where countries developed enough for EVs will decouple somewhat from countries developing on oil. This assumes oil remains vastly cheaper for under developed regions.
Just about all applications of oil and natural gas have similar features as their use in the transportation sector: other energy sources could be used, but they are more expensive.
There are no circumstances in sight that would make oil/gas extraction uneconomical, especially in light of the rise of demand from developing countries.
So we'll have to arrange for the oil extraction reductions using international agreements.
It's not about oil necessarily. It's about energy source or more generally - a valuable resource. If lithium batteries become the new "oil", then lithium rich countries will become targets and oil countries will be ignored. But I think oil will be valuable for many decades to come. Oil use is projected to increase worldwide by every regulatory body.
As long as oil is valuable, we'll fight over it. If lithium becomes valuable, we'll fight over it. Times change, but sadly people remain the same. Especially the greedy elite.
We'll still be dependent on materials like plastic. Entire categories of good production, like corn processing, depend on using parts of processed oil. Ships burn oil and they're not going to switch to electric any time soon.
Our oil dependency isn't just about the cars we drive.
I think we are not that dependant on oil right now either and we are just used to continue the same failed tactics if the past. The people who make these decisions are just not making them economically and they are just used to continue the same policies.
Iran is in Israel's and Saudi Arabia's cross hairs. It is my feeling that the US is mostly antagonistic to Iran because of the influence of these two regional rivals of Iran.
> Mossadegh thought he was in the clear, but Roosevelt hadn't given up. He orchestrated a second coup, which succeeded. Mossadegh was placed on trial and spent his life under house arrest.
Most western people are very negative about countries like Iran, China and Russia because they are the 'bad guys'.
Well this article again shows that there are few countries that will not gain power over dead people. It's sad but true.
Now imagine you were living in Iran and came to know about the work of the CIA. Whould you think the USA is the greatest country in the world and democracy is the way to go?
I think it would be best if we look at people in other countries without judgement and try to understand their point of view. Leaders are to blame but most of the people in this world are just living their life.
How do you assess the POV of someone under a regime of control and propaganda from dictators or tyrants? Assume they’re suffering and just hoping for a better tomorrow and you might be wrong. Hostages are known to grow emotions for their captors, after all. And outside attacks on groups lead to in-group insulation and doubling down on beliefs. Studying cultists has shown this trend.
So I don’t know. One thing a lot of these regimes have in common is oil wealth. Oil wealth tends to drive any other industries out of a country, insulate power around the ruling class, and lead to dictatorships and similar. Definitely getting humanity to use non oil energy sources ASAP would help lower the pressures, I hope.
What if you are under a regime without healthcare, loads of homeless people, extreme border patrol and police, and all you hear is that it's the land of opportunities where you can make it?
The above might sound unfair but think about it. I believe there is propaganda in almost every country.
And when oil is gone there will be something else. Probably Artificial Intelligence. Also check out a current trending item in HN about the US limiting the export of AI.
Yes, but to a broader perspective the western world has at least 'some' degree of freedom. The same cannot be said for many parts of the world including much of the middle east
Freedom is basically capital, because the US is a plutocracy. You're either lucky enough to inherit economic freedom, or you can buy it - if you make enough money to be free of all debt and acquire substantial capital.
The opportunities to do this are strictly limited and anyone starting cold is against very tough odds. And the activities that are rewarded are strongly biased towards rent-seeking and monopolistic market exploitation over less aggressively self-serving provision of goods and services.
Obviously it's not impossible. But if you want true economic freedom, your personal and professional choices are - ironically - very tightly constrained.
China is harassing all of its coastal neighbours and trying to politically infiltrate just about every major country on the face of the earth.
Russia is invading neighbours, actively escalating military tensions and sabre rattling.
They don't really fit the same profile as Iran currently does.
Feel free to walk me through the 'good guy' point of view of the people who invaded my home country, shot down a passenger plane, and got away with complete impunity.
There are no good or bad guys. All the superpwers are dicks, that's how they got to being superpwers.
"...Russia is invading neighbours, actively escalating military tensions and sabre rattling..."
Count how many times US has invaded other countries since 1949 and then come to your senses. I personally know a couple who came to my country from Ukraine because the Ukrainian fascists supported by the US were bombing their neighbourhood and killed their relatives. It was an orchestrated effort to spite Russia using Ukraine as an instrument. Who is loading the Eastern Europeran borders with Russia with arms and NATO personnel? Syria was saved by Russia as the jihadists were supported by yours trully US puppet.
Please stop this nonsense. Use your brain.
Nonsense is “Ukrainian fascists shelling locals”. It’s been long suspected and has been confirmed in recent years that “local donbas militia” routinely shelled locals to turn them against Ukrainian army.
The whole conflict started when Russian GRU officer brought a team of Russian military, captured some local buildings and started a revolt. It’s all public info for gods sake, there’s no longer need to spread propaganda about Ukrainian nazis anymore.
> Feel free to walk me through the 'good guy' point of view of the people who invaded my home country, shot down a passenger plane, and got away with complete impunity.
Both are bad. Let's punish both. Are you up for the task? Ready to start sanctioning the US? And as long as first one gets away the others would do the same. This is how it works. Has nothing to do with good/bad because on that high level they're all big bad guys and had caused and keep causing lots of people die and suffer. They do not really give a shit as long as it advances their goals.
Alas you won't find an audience willing to provide such countenance to the mainstream Western narrative so easily.
Its a very untidy and uncomfortable discussion to have. All you have to do, is gain an understanding of the people who have been victimised by the Wests' illegal wars.
All other political biases fall to the side when confronted with an armless orphan who has been carried across Europe by her younger brother.
Geographically, Americans do not have the wherewithal to deal with this reality. American tourists don't go to the refugee camp facilities - they'd rather see the concentration camp museum.
If they did, indeed, have an idea of what life is like as a war refugee, say .. as a Yemeni or Syrian or Libyan or Iraqi child .. I believe the American people would finally arrest their war criminals. That is really the only way for the people of America to redeem themselves, and yet it gets harder and harder every day ..
Not to dispute your point, but this strikes me as a rather wrong stick to measure countries' "badness". There's no difference between mistreating people within and outside of one's borders. Compared to the millions China is keeping in concentration camps the border tensions aren't even worth mentioning.
Also, how does Iran not fit the same profile? It's currently #1 world news that their top official got bombed by the US while busy meddling in Iraqi affairs.
> Compared to the millions China is keeping in concentration camps the border tensions aren't even worth mentioning.
It's millions now? Seems like every day, the propaganda keeps increasing the number.
> It's currently #1 world news that their top official got bombed by the US while busy meddling in Iraqi affairs.
So the country on the other side of the world that is bombing Iraqis is not meddling? Was it the general of a neighboring country the one that was "meddling" or was the US the one that is "meddling".
You rarely see a twofer. An anti-china and anti-iran propaganda straight from the pentagon talking point.
"In war, truth is the first casualty." -- Aeschylus
> Seems like every day, the propaganda keeps increasing the number.
That's been "the number" for a while now. E.g. Shohrat Zakir, chairman of Xinjiang, said during a press conference, when asked about the number of affected persons 一些媒体称新疆教培中心学员“有上百万甚至两百万”，纯属捏造、毫无根据 "Some media claim that Xinjiang's education centers hold 'a million or even two" students, this is completely made up and baseless." However, he failed to provide an alternative number, so "millions" is the best estimate available.
So Iran being active IB its geopolitical area is meddling, but the US causing the death of a million Iraqis, flying drones over Iraqi air space, bombing people in Iraqi airports is not?
Americans have already decided they cannot possibly be held responsible for the war crimes of their state, nor do they have any interest in putting their own leading war figures in the appropriate places (i.e. The Hague) - so you can expect no collective agreement from the HN scene.
But I just wanted to let you know, I have only one upvote to give, but I'll take the downvotes along with you.
We must not stand for the Western aggression to go unacknowledged, nor must we civilised people with the luxury of functioning society (i.e. bridges not yet bombed) allow the war criminals to escape justice.
Every single time the people of the USA assassinate another sovereign entities citizens around the world, it makes itself another few million enemies who would gladly shun Americans, individually, for the deeds of their state.
It is a terrible state of affairs - but rest assured, not everyone sees war as inevitable. We must resist.
Americans, you need to understand this - and well: we do not compare China's concentration camps with your kiddy jails.
We compare it with the million innocent people America slaughtered in its illegal wars, and which it continues to slaughter with impunity, under the cover of its heinous "Coalition" quasi-sovereign joint task forces, which exist solely to let Americans get away with murder, while none of us are looking/able to witness the horror.
Now, on top of that, like - really seriously here - America has actual concentrations camps of its own: it's prisons.
Which nation on Earth has the highest portion of its population working as indentured slaves for less than $1 a day in a for-profit complex run by a cabal?
It is not China, or at least .. it could be.
But hey, lets solve one problem at a time. Want to bomb China into letting its slaves free, or maybe pay more attention to the local, at home policies which produce the same conditions, different brand ..
> Russia is invading neighbours, actively escalating military tensions and sabre rattling.
In the specific case of Crimea, it's much more complicated than that. It is an invasion, but there's much more about it than just "Russia invading neighbors", you're oversimplifying things.
Russia invaded the Crimean Oblast within Ukraine, rather than all of Ukraine.
In the Soviet Union, Crimea was an Oblast of the Russian SFSR. First secretary Nikita Khrushchev, who was of Ukranian origin, transferred the governance of the Crimean oblast from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954 as a "symbolic gesture".
But after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many Russians (an ethnic majority inside Crimea) were not satisfied with the resulting situation.
This thread is not about Ukraine, but, if we must ...
The protests in Kiev and other cities were violent and out of control. Ukraine was 6 months away from an election which they could have normally voted out their president, but, the people overthrew the government instead. Since then, the country has been so much worse off economically and socially. People have barely any money to pay their gas bills or buy luxury food items such as almonds. The GDP is currently one of the lowest of any countries in the world.
Other regions in the country such as the Donbass also never wanted to overthrow their president, which is why they began their separatist movement which led to its current civil war.
Crimea got a lucky break that it had the history that it does, and that all the Russian speaking population was there, and that there was Russian military presence there to enforce peace.
Maybe pre-sociology shows 38% pre Ukrainian protests in 2012, but, a lot changed in 2 years during that complete anarchy in most Ukrainian cities such as Kiev, Odessa, and the atempted Anarchy in Donetsk. The people of Crimea very simply just want stability and peace, like most people do.
> 97 percent vote for integration of the region into the Russian Federation with an 89 percent voter turnout.
Technically that’s true, but it’s important to remember the protest was peaceful for couple months. Then police started the violence. People have a right of self-defense.
> the country has been so much worse off economically and socially
> which is why they began their separatist movement which led to its current civil war
Neither of that is true. The “separatists” for the “separatists movement” were Russian military personnel or special forces. The war ain’t civil, there’re tons of factual evidence of direct Russian army involvement.
>Technically that’s true, but it’s important to remember the protest was peaceful for couple months. Then police started the violence. People have a right of self-defense.
Violent protest is not the answer, not when they had an election coming up very soon.
> Despite Ukraine have been fighting Russian army for almost 5 years now, what you’re saying is not true:
Millions of people have fled the country to work abroad in countries like Poland and Russia, among other countries in Western Europe. The common people do not have enough money to pay their gas bills, to pay for their heating in brutal winters. Your graph displaying some growth "per capita growth", have a look at this graph showing the value of their currency
In terms of socially, absolutely it is worse. No one can afford to buy any import goods. There are dozens of reports of mass emigration, and the people that stay now almost all own guns in fear. You can't tell me that this is socially better than how Ukraine was before the revolution.
>Not true. Ukraine is near the median, doing better than India or Philippines:
Ukraine was a developed nation. It had all the potential to be a manufacturing and tech powerhouse. It was a country filled with brilliant minds, engineers and hardworking people. Many of which have now fled the country. If you seriously want to compare Ukraine to India (where they don't have access to clean water or sanitation) and make that the bar for Ukraine then this discussion with you truly is fruitless.
>Neither of that is true. The “separatists” for the “separatists movement” were Russian military personnel or special forces. The war ain’t civil, there’re tons of factual evidence of direct Russian army involvement.
I think it's pretty clear that the Donbass separatists are backed with Russian aid. No one is disputing that. But it is not Russian Military doing the fighting, which is a difference.
It's the people of the Donbass fighting for their own rights. The people on the front lines are people of the Donbass. USA sends military personnel to train the Ukrainian Army, and Russia probably trains people of the Donbass as well. At the end of the day it's the people of the Donbass on the front lines fighting for their rights.
This tit for tat argument needs to end. Seriously, people in Ukraine are so much worse off today than they were before the revolution.
Too bad the old Ukrainian government didn’t know it, and started to use violence against it’s own people.
> Millions of people have fled the country to work abroad
The economy is global, air travel is cheap, Internet simplified things a lot. Ukraine is no exception. Globally, 258 million people, myself included, are living outside their country of birth.
> Your graph displaying some growth "per capita growth", have a look at this graph showing the value of their currency
That graph is in USD after adjustments for purchasing power. Currency exchange rates are irrelevant.
You're now fighting with me on two different conversation threads, what seems like just for the sake of fighting at this point.
Violent protest is always greeted with crowd control. In Every Country. You seem to be forgetting that the Ukrainian population caused a revolution, instead of waiting for the election for a few more months.
Have a look at the violence from protestors just before it all fell apart.
The people are worse off today than they were before. Not everyone supported their revolution, and you can deny that all you want, but, the people in the Donbass don't want to be a part of the circus that is Ukraine in its current state.
> Currency exchange rates are irrelevant.
Clearly I'm beating a dead horse. I don't know where to begin explaining to you that currency is not irrelevant.
About the mass emigration, these are people who have not filed for citizenship with other countries because in a lot of circumstances they cannot. No one is coming to Ukraine looking at it as a desirable place to live at the moment. There are less jobs in Ukraine, there is less trade in Ukraine, people have no choice but to work abroad.
Yes, I am also aware of the cases of some defected ex-Russian military helping the Donbass fighters, but, again you keep ignoring the fact that 99% of the population enlisted in fighting are citizens of the Donbass...
How can you honestly argue that the status quo is better than it was before the revolution? What are you even arguing?
Apart from the stuff mentioned in the sibling comment, the numbers don't even pass a smell test.
That's 89% turnout, with international observers being denied entry. Compared to presidential election 2010 where Crimea had only 63.1% voters that bothered to act.
If there was another referendum today, and the people were given an option today, what do you think they would vote for?
You never hear from Crimeans complaining about the referendum result in any way.
Those people dodged a huge bullet and they know that. Ukraine is a mess, and perhaps one day when the fighting in Ukraine ends, when the corruption ends, someone should ask those people what they want to do.
> If there was another referendum today, and the people were given an option today, what do you think they would vote for?
Depends on how you define “the people”. Are you going to ask Russians who moved to Crimea after the annexation? Are you going to ask Ukrainians who were unhappy with the shenanigans, and fled their homeland?
> You never hear from Crimeans complaining about the referendum result in any way.
You're seriously just arguing for the sake of arguing and it's absurd.
Sure, I will clarify what I meant to you. Ask the same people that lived in Crimea at the time the original referendum took place.
>Lack of complains can’t be interpreted as a sign as support, because many people were imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed for such complains:
Lots of footage in Crimea during that time. There were no protests against the referendum. Vice News was filming the whole thing, along with other members of the press. No one was tortured to join Russia as you say. There was a vote, with some minorities that were upset by the outcome.
Economically speaking the people of Crimea caught a huge break. Ukraine has to realize that it needs to work with all neighbours. Look to countries that are successful by example. Do you see France boycotting Germany? Do you see China boycotting Japan? Fighting is the problem. Not listening to your people is the problem. Using scapegoats and boogymen instead of fighting internal corruption is the problem. Ignoring economic development is the problem.
You're myopically selecting a single incident out of a multitude of hostilities and invasions such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War which by the way included a prototype 'field test' of the disinformation strategy that was later wielded against US and EU with terrifying effectiveness.
I'm sure if one tries hard enough, they can find some kind of justifications for a lot of Russia's actions, but the bigger picture remains unchanged: Russia is a giant dick and most of its neighbours are afraid of it. Hence NATO.
The Iranian regime helped kill at least half a million people in Syria - possibly more, the UN simply stopped counting a few years ago - and is busy killing protesters over half the middle east including in its own country. All while sabre rattling against Israel and the Arab Gulf state.
The only reason Iran doesn't entirely fit your profile is because it's not a real superpower but merely a wannabe empire, not able to entirely get away with the evil stuff it does.
Your last sentence hits it right on the head. Also want-to-be superpowers are dicks which leads to issues, often for them.
It seems like there should be a better system globally but right now it's like a struggle of ant hills and maybe this is how the human race got to the level it is at. Through struggle and selection.
Iran has been treated badly by the west no doubt. But their hands are not clean either. Was not this commander killed in Iraq organizing pro Iranian militias? From the point of view of the US can they allow Iran to become the dominant power in this oil rich world crossroads region? They can't and they won't. It's really that simple. "Right" only marginally enters into this equation. I guess I'd feel much more badly had the commander been killed in Iran organizing soup kitchens for the poor. But he was poking a bees nest and the results were as expected.
That was the closest we ever were to a democracy. However, democracy is very fragile, specially at the beginning.
And it was shattered and to this day, we never got as close. Tyrant regimes come and go and we still think what might've been. We could've easily been another France in middle east.
In that regard, the current offensive action may as well be viewed as a breath of fresh air.
If blood must be shed to end tyranny, perhaps it is a worthwhile gamble. The Iranian people gain nothing from allowing the current regime to grow. A US-Iran war would almost certainly result in a democratic Iran, with a connected and educated populace capable of maintaining it. I think one of the main flaws in Iraq and Afghanistan was simply assuming that you could establish democracy anywhere and then the citizens of the country would come together to form a functional democratic government. Iran's populace is much better equipped for democracy. They have already started begging for it [1].
I don't really believe the air strike was conducted with good intentions. But it may end up having a positive side effect for the Iranian people if the current government is ousted.
I'll end this by posting something I wrote earlier on reddit:
"I mean, it's really an interesting conundrum, when is war with anyone ever a good idea?
And yet over the course of history there are several wars we have fought that are more or less universally accepted as being good ideas: the Revolutionary War, World War I, and World War II.
So obviously, at some point, the calculation must be worth it. But I don't know if it is possible for any human being to perform that calculation with the mental capacity we are all given. What I do know is that the Iraq war absolutely ended the suffering of people under Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, and the Afghanistan war somewhat ended the suffering of people under Taliban rule (the Taliban unfortunately still exists but is definitely not as strong as it used to be). What I don't know, and I don't think anyone can really know, is if the loss of those governments and introduction of our armed forces led to a general improvement on quality of life of Iraqi and Afghani citizens. I know the gut reaction is "obviously not" but neither of us are likely living in those countries at the moment, and so we really don't know how life has changed for them.
The million dollar question is: will toppling Iran's government and ending the suffering of its citizenry under it be a net benefit for its people, or is the status quo shielding them from an even worse fate? How can you really know?"
You think waging war is the way to bring democracy to Iran?
Iran is a country next to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. It's an enemy to _both_ Saudi Arabia and Israel.
And you think destabilizing it will be followed by a democratic government and not a rush of ISIS-Taliban-Al-whatever?
Iran is made of dozens of different ethnicities. What if it became a Libyia and different regions started a civil war?
This is sickening. You _saw_ what the U.S. did to Iraq and Afghanistan and you're "still" thinking the way to bring democracy to the country next to them is bombs?
Don't you think you should be more responsible than that?
What if you are wrong? What if another Iraq came out of this?
By withdrawing from Iran's nuclear deal, U.S. practically destroyed any chance of a peaceful path for Iran to democracy.
JCPOA was the last chance for reformers in Iran to have a say. After the U.S. withdrawal, they have 0 credibility left with the people. Now hardliners have all the power and noone talks about reform anymore. Diplomacy is dead.
Iran's populace is much better equipped for democracy. They have already started begging for it.
U.S. is basically suffocating Iran with it's sanctions and people are hungry. These are not people who want democracy or freedom of press or separation of powers. They are people who are burning banks and want blood. No democracy is coming out of this.
This [0] is an organization of Iranians in diaspora, trying to form a council to help Iran have a proper transition in case the Islamic Republic fails and even their current CEO believes at the moment, the chance of a peaceful transition are not high and Iran becoming Syria is far more likely.
In that regard, the current offensive action may as well be viewed as a breath of fresh air.
I know that you are not responsible for these actions and you are probably a normal software engineer or something and probably a nice person. But U.S. is a democracy and people who do have the power, get their power from your thoughts and your vote.
So I do hold you responsible for the actions of your government. Therefore,
if you find another war "fresh", please, fuck off. Your ignorance is harmful.
"And you think destabilizing it will be followed by a democratic government and not a rush of ISIS-Taliban-Al-whatever?"
ISIS is Sunni, while nearly all Iranian citizens are Shia. Taliban is a Pakistani proxy organization which also hates Shia. They have zero chance of succeeding in Iran under any and all circumstances. It's funny that you criticize the OP for ignorance, while making at least as ignorant arguments.
Anyway, both of you are coming in with a mistaken assumption: That the US actually wants to take down the Mullah's regime. That was never the case - all US administrations since 1980 have always tried to change the regime's behaviour and not to overthrow it. There never was even a plan to overthrow the regime.
The US has tried both containment and negotiations to change the mullah's behaviour. What we found out after JCPOA was that there was no meaningful difference between 'hardliners' and 'reformists'.
Both support the theocracy and oppose democracy. Both support executing people for overstepping religious laws - or merely for not being 'straight'. Both are perfectly fine with expanding this system outward, and sending out troops and terrorists outside Iran's borders. Both support killing protesters to maintain their rule, and both support killing hundreds of thousands of Syrians to maintain their influence.
So if the not-really-'reformist' political future is shot, there's no reason to care. If negotiations and JCPOA brings nothing (its nuclear provisions were laughable, and everything else Iran did was allowed), then it will be containment all the way.
Trump has just shown he's willing to out-escalate the regime in response to any provocation, and there's no economic way out for them.
Even if (hopefully) Trump is not reelected, he's shown that the regime is much weaker than it appears to be. The only way out for the regime is to make concessions, like stopping attacks on other countries, agreeing to inspections unlimited by time and so on.
Since I ignored the Shia/Sunni situation, you assumed that was due to my ignorance.
I'm an Iranian (Actually a Jewish Iranian, hence, much more information about religion dynamics in Iran).
I agree that Shia/Sunni dynamic is unlikely to cause instability in Iran, there are many more dynamics that can be exploited:
1. Iran is very diverse regarding ethnicity. A dozen different ethnicities live in Iran which makes a Libya situation possible (Although unlikely)
2. A civil war, where government fight armed people, like Syria. I'm pretty much sure many countries would love to do what they did to Syria by arming worst possible forces.
> Even if (hopefully) Trump is not reelected, he's shown that the regime is much weaker than it appears to be.
Iran is under heaviest of sanctions. Economy is crushed. Yet, they control Iraq, they destroyed a U.S. drone, seized a British tanker, attacked Saudi oil causing major damage to Aramco's IPO (Biggest in history) and caused the bigger disruption in flow of Oil in the past decades and they got almost 0 reactions back and you are saying me they are considered weaker because a general was killed?
That you are supposedly informed makes this worse, because if true, you know ISIS/Al-Qaeda have zero chances of prospering in Iran yet still made that argument.
Anyway, as I said, the US never did intend to overthrow the regime, so that scenario isn't relevant - unless the Iranian people make a go for it, but that's not up to us.
As for the regime being weak, the key point is that the regime's military counter-pressure plan has failed.
All the wild attacks you cite are tactical victories but strategical failures - they have failed to affect the sanctions or even world oil prices (barring small insignificant blips), yet have led much of the world to see Iran as a threat.
By shooting and failing to win, the regime lost the deterrent value of these threats. When the US showed it is not afraid to escalate, Iran lost that threat too.
What's left? Continuing a strategically failed campaign? Massive escalation, which will lead to the regime getting crushed?
Another important point to remember is that Suleimani wasn't just a general, but the de facto vice-Supreme Leader, the one leader with significant popularity the regime had. It's a huge domestic loss.
> That you are supposedly informed makes this worse, because if true, you know ISIS/Al-Qaeda have zero chances of prospering in Iran yet still made that argument.
You seem to assume ISIS penetrated Iraq because Iraq was Sunni and people accepted ISIS.
ISIS would penetrate _anywhere_ that is unstable enough to be penetrated.
ISIS is a terrorist organization without heavy weapons or real logistical capability. It can't take over in an environment which is almost 100% non-Sunni (no local recruits) and so far from its home bases or international routes (no logistics).
The Baluchi cause (the subject of all your links) is a nationalist cause sometimes pretending to be a religious cause. If a Baluchi group ever got any significant power it would be a massive headache for Pakistan but it's not really a concern for the West.
ISIS and al-Qaeda never managed to make much headway in the Kurdish areas. What's left? Ahvaz? Which borders Basra and is controlled with an iron fist?
>And you think destabilizing it will be followed by a democratic government and not a rush of ISIS-Taliban-Al-whatever?
From what the media sources I follow has told me about the Iranian people, they are all fairly educated and the country has an established scholarly system that enables most citizens to achieve greater education. As I saw further down in the thread that you are actually an Iranian yourself, please correct me if I am wrong.
>This is sickening. You _saw_ what the U.S. did to Iraq and Afghanistan and you're "still" thinking the way to bring democracy to the country next to them is bombs?
I was 4 years old when the Iraq war began. I did not "see" anything about the war and all the information I have has been provided to me by news organizations and various social media that I try to follow to educate myself on the topic. I have not been in Iraq myself nor spoken to Iraqi people so I have no way of knowing what the war has done to them other than what the media says. And since the media does not provide a unified narrative, it is rather difficult for me to decipher the truth.
As for bringing democracy...I do not know any way to bring democracy to a theocracy without violence. I do not believe it has ever happened peacefully in world history. I would like to make it clear that I am not advocating for war in Iran, but replying to the OP (hence why I said "in that regards") who said:
>I agree. It's really sad. Iran had/has so much potential.
In my view, destabilizing the regime provides some path to democracy, while keeping it in place provides no path to democracy.
>Don't you think you should be more responsible than that? What if you are wrong? What if another Iraq came out of this?
As I said before, I don't believe there is any "responsible" way to perform regime change. I am an optimist, and I am simply hoping that this ends up going in a positive direction for the sake of my country and the sake of the Iranian people.
>By withdrawing from Iran's nuclear deal, U.S. practically destroyed any chance of a peaceful path for Iran to democracy.
As an Iranian yourself, do you really think it was ever possible that the hardliners would voluntarily step down themselves? I agree that JCPOA should have been upheld, but I frankly don't know enough to say if it would have set Iran on a path to democracy.
>But U.S. is a democracy and people who do have the power, get their power from your thoughts and your vote.
I was not old enough to vote for Trump in 2016 and I will not be voting for him. As stated before, I do not support a war in Iran.
>So I do hold you responsible for the actions of your government.
I have not yet made enough money to pay federal taxes, so my hands are clean for at least the next few months. I do understand your point though.
I think it is important to point out that this strike was approved by one man and one man only. I was not given a choice to vote on it. My Representatives and Senators were not given a choice to vote on it. They were not even informed. The closest the common American got to voting on this was in the popular vote in 2016, which...Trump lost.
That is perhaps a bigger problem than all of this.
>My apologies for personal attack.
No need for apology. I understand you just want the best for your country. I have met several Iranian friends in college and I would like to see a democratic revolution that would make them proud. I personally do not believe Iran is at its best right now, and I doubt you do too. I can only optimistically hope that this conflict leads to a democratic Iran and a more righteous United States, for I do not have any way to alter what happens for now until November.
It doesn't fully excuse your ignorance but at least you have time to gain some perspective. As it is now what you're saying here is embarrassing to me as a fellow American.
> From what the media sources I follow has told me about the Iranian people, they are all fairly educated and the country has an established scholarly system that enables most citizens to achieve greater education. As I saw further down in the thread that you are actually an Iranian yourself, please correct me if I am wrong.
Iran is a big country with very big divisions. Younger people and middle class are educated and relatively secular but the older generations and specially rural areas can be very backwards.
> In my view, destabilizing the regime provides some path to democracy, while keeping it in place provides no path to democracy.
It could potentially lead to democracy. But it could lead to far far worse outcomes as well. In Iran's case, the worse outcomes are more likely because:
1. Geographically, it's literally in-between Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and therefore ISIS, Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
2. Thanks to Islamic Republic, it has big enemies, including but not limited to USA, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
3. It has vast natural resources (Oil, Gas) and attracts foreign interests.
4. Revolutions are _rarely_ constructive. Read George Orwell's Animal Farm. When I first I read, I though, how could this man write the book of Islamic Republic so many decades earlier? But it turns out almost all revolutions have a similar trajectory: They go to shit.
> As I said before, I don't believe there is any "responsible" way to perform regime change.
> As an Iranian yourself, do you really think it was ever possible that the hardliners would voluntarily step down themselves? I agree that JCPOA should have been upheld, but I frankly don't know enough to say if it would have set Iran on a path to democracy.
Of course no hardliner is ever going to step down. However, by allowing reformers and moderate forces to make progress, we give them more power.
It won't be quick at all. Takes decades and generations. But to me it seems the only real and viable path.
> I have not yet made enough money to pay federal taxes, so my hands are clean for at least the next few months. I do understand your point though.
Don't beat yourself to it. Even if you were a taxpayer I wouldn't ever think your hands are not clean. I'm an American taxpayer myself. I live in the states. I don't think anyone who paid tax to the U.S. has blood on their hands or whatever.
All I'm saying is, when talking about war, or supporting it, let's make sure we have a really good understanding of the subject matter. Otherwise we could be supporting an unjust war.
Sorry again about the personal attack. Harsh times.
> I have not yet made enough money to pay federal taxes, so my hands are clean for at least the next few months.
Unless you have existed outside of the US the entire time, you have paid federal taxes. Income tax is just one small portion of the way the federal government collects money. Gas taxes, FAA fees in your airline tickets, FICA taxes on your paycheck, FUSF tax on your cell phone, etc.
Disabuse yourself and anyone you know of the notion that being in a low tax bracket means you’re not financially contributing to the federal government. Also disabuse yourself of the notion that paying involuntary taxes somehow makes you responsible for how those dollars were used.
> What I do know is that the Iraq war absolutely ended the suffering of people under Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, and the Afghanistan war somewhat ended the suffering of people under Taliban rule (the Taliban unfortunately still exists but is definitely not as strong as it used to be). What I don't know, and I don't think anyone can really know, is if the loss of those governments and introduction of our armed forces led to a general improvement on quality of life of Iraqi and Afghani citizens.
The war isn't even over yet. Normal countries don't have missiles falling out of the sky onto the highway murdering a visiting foreign general, or routine car bombings with hundreds of casualties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_car_bombings
> published on 11 October 2006, estimated 654,965 excess deaths related to the war, or 2.5% of the population, through the end of June 2006
So, if we round that to the five years since 9/11, or about 1800 days, that's 360 casualties a day, or one 9/11 roughly every week.
You can't argue quality of life improvements for the dead.
Iraq is a slightly larger country. Quite likely you'd see a million dead in the first decade of the occupation, on which the US would spend enough for another moon programme or universal healthcare for all its citizens.
It never cease to amaze me how blind are people in so-called democracies.
People of Iraq were suffering exactly how under Saddam?
Now many of them are dead because of the war. Infrastructure destroyed. Many people are suffering from ecological disaster (depleted uranium and toxic waste where us bases were located).
And still there's no peace and no democracy. To everyone in the world outside the US is obvious that war was for the oil, not some mythical "democracy". And the life of people of Iraq had become much worse as the result.
BTW, without even discussing a credibility of this page, why it's never a problem when human rights violations happen in a countries that are allies of USA. The country can be a very strict dictatorship (Singapore) or violate human rights even more aggressively than Saddam Hussein ever did (UAE) - but it's never an issue. As long as the country economics decisions are dictated by USA (e.g. investing almost all country income in US treasuries and/or buying US weapons) - they can do whatever they want - up to dismembering people in their embassies - no problem, no shouts about human rights violations and lack of democracy that has to be immediately corrected by dropping bombs on their heads - because it's probably the most effective way to install "democracy".
> The total number of deaths related to torture and murder during this period are unknown, but generally estimated to be around 250,000.
Was there something comparable in Singapore or UAE? If so, I haven't heard about it.
But we hear about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia and Israel/Palestine all the time, so I don't think your claim that "it's never a problem when human rights violations happen in a countries that are allies of USA" is valid.
“BTW, without even discussing the evidence you gave to the question on topic, I would like to respond with whataboutism because I don’t like the answer.”
Regarding original question: it (and parent comments) assume that most of the population somehow "suffer" from the lack of "human rights" or "freedom of speech".
I assure you it's not true. Democracy, human rights, freedom of speech are things that are very vaguely defined. It means that you can blame anyone arbitrarily for being insufficiently "democratic". This is what USA actually uses as a pretext to declare a war for resources. You can call any country "undemocratic" for some definition of "democracy".
"Democracy", "freedom of speech", and other abstract concepts, doesn't affect the daily lives of 99.9% of population. Most people do not care: they wake up, have a breakfast, go to work, come home, have a dinner, go to bed. They do not really care what is exact way the president is elected (or not elected). They do not care about so-called "freedom of speech" because they aren't journalists or writers.
On the other hand, when somebody drops bombs and rockets on you and your family, when infrastructure (schools, power lines, roads and other things) in your country are destroyed for tens of years, when there's anarchy and chaos around that causes huge rise of crimes, it makes a great difference to the everyday lives of the people. And that is what US/NATO really brought to people of Iraq, Libya and other countries.
How many innocent people must die for the USA to end 'tyranny' in the Middle East? In Iraq alone it's over a million, then we can look at Yemen, Syria, Libya, Palestine, Lebanon before we even begin with Iran. And what then? Iran isn't like any of those countries the US has already pillaged, it has a 500k member armed forces, all highly trained. State of the art military systems, they have direct backing from Russia and China, they are perfectly placed to attack the Israel, Saudi, Qatar and the UAE where the US is vulnerable, the US has enraged the member's of the Iranian special forces by taking out their leader, so now you have a lot of very angry spec ops guys who will avenge this action.
So how many Iranians must die for your version of 'tyranny' to be met? What figure would you be satisfied with, and what kind of tyranny are you ok with? Because it seems you've got major double standards when it comes to Saudi, Israel, UAE and Qatar, let alone all the extra-judicial and illegal acts carried out by the USA themselves in the name of rooting out 'tyranny'.
Unfortunately, to a large group of people, a tyranny (or a non-tyranny for that matter) that doesn’t kowtow to the U.S. is a “tyranny”, whereas one that does is a friend, ally and “democracy”.
The last war USA "won" was WWII. For all that we spend on it, and for as many innocents as it destroys, our military cannot accomplish objectives that benefit the national interest. Which isn't surprising, because it has been optimized to waste resources, not to win.
Can I assume you're talking about the first one, stumbled into by Bush the Elder? Did we win that? When did we win it? Why didn't the troops come home then?
USA troops stationed in Arabia, as they have been since the beginning of that war, was the reason that ObL did the 9/11 attacks. Those attacks were good for lots of armaments manufacturers, but the were not in the American national interest.
Not true. 9/11 was the direct result of us interfering in Indonesia east Timor conflict 15 years earlier by stopping jihadis from wiping out christians.
Actually it's many many islands that host the largest population of Muslims in the world by nation. You're mistaken that this is a regional thing. Jihad is and always has been global.
Bin Laden published his list of reasons for masterminding 9/11, East Timor was not the reason. And Muslims do not have this insane worldwide unity you're implying.
It's also arguable that most of the winning in WWII had a lot to do with the Russians, but aren't credited with it in the american narrative. Particularly interesting was Japan's delayed response and surrender after the nukes, which goes to show these were not why they actually surrendered but helped to paint a post war narrative that allowed them to prosper more after losing.
Taliban is strong as ever and totally outplayed Americans, who are leaving and pretty much officially giving them over the power. Kabul is An American city state.
> The million dollar question is: will toppling Iran's government and ending the suffering of its citizenry under it be a net benefit for its people, or is the status quo shielding them from an even worse fate? How can you really know?
Let's see what happened the last time US toppled a government in the Middle East - You got the ISIS. Before that the US toppled a government. It created The Mujahedin, who are directly responsible for about every Islamic Terror attack anywhere in the world since the 80's. Before that the US toppled the democratic government in Iran. That is directly causing this.
As an Iranian living in the US, what's your perspective on the recent claims by US officials: things like Iran attacking civilians in Saudi Arabia and US forces in SA and Iraq, seizing tankers, and supporting militias who were attempting to take over Iraq and killing protestors there?
They didn't happen in a vacuum. The U.S. is suffocating Iran. The sanctions doesn't allow anybody in the world to have any commerce with Iran.
I was fully onboard with Obama's sanctions. They had a clear ask: Stop the nuclear development. Everybody understood it and is was clear.
Iran agreed to JCPOA and stopped any nuclear development.
Why is Iran under sanctions now? They have given a list of demands and it's basically a big fuck you to the Islamic Republic that is never going to happen.
If someone tries to suffocate you, you are going to kick back.
I'm not a fan of Islamic Republic. Fuck them. But at least during the Obama administration, the immediate threat (Nuclear development) was stopped and there was a dialogue. The two countries had direct lines of communication and even helped each other out fighting ISIS.
Reformists in Iran gained credibility and power, and slowly Iran could've gotten back to a democratic path.
Now, reformists are cast out and have 0 credibility with people. Hardliners in Iran have power. And they are being suffocated, so they kick back by attacking ships, drones or tankers or arresting innocent people.
If could understand if Iraq struck back at the US. But kicking back at the US by seizing a British oil tanker or attacking Saudi civilians and Iraqi protestors?
I completely agree with you. I do think China is becoming more and more the example people are looking at how to make progress. Politics aside the growth in wealth and it's distribution over the last 30 years have been magic.
Most people living outside the USA are very negative about the United States because this president is a very "bad guy". I'm not under such a opinion but I find it increasingly hard to have a normal conversation about the USA and it's form of the human experiment without hitting a wall of generalised criticism that ends up in stalemate.
Considering what we know what the CIA has done in the past. What kind of shadow government is functioning without consent of the people. The media institutions that suppose to keep that power in check never really informed the public on these developments. And on top the revelation of the catholic church being the biggest pedofile network that hitted the American society probably a lot harder than Europe because of stronger religious sentiments. All things combined for me it is not strange an anti establishment campaign won the presidency.
Friends, family, people that have watched movies like the Irishman, Spotlight, the Good Shepherd are not really open to adjust their point of view on the States. Iran, China and Russia are however topics where nuanced opinion still is expressed.
"Most people living outside the USA are very negative about the United States because this president is a very "bad guy""
That's a very simplistic view of people outside the USA. Unlike US news that do no mention US proxy wars, veto votes and the like, other countries are well aware of US foreign policy and the terror it brings with it, be it in south America, Africa, the middle east or elsewhere.
Off course my opinion is based on a very selective draw during traveling to many countries. However the conversation has been trending more and more negative on the United States topic and it's form of "democracy".
Noam Chomsky has written elaborate on corporatism and i think this POTUS function as an amplifier.
I argue people are not bad informed but do generalize bad malpractice elements of the USA to all Americans. The election of this president and everything that followed is seen as evidence by many people the USA is crazy.
And my understanding of the people living in the USA is they are still viewing bad malpractice as unintended consequence of the capitalism experiment initiated by the other politic parties behavior on either side of the coin.
In contrast Putin is not Russia and Xi is not China.
The current president was not president in 1953. He didn't create our horrible policies, and they certainly won't be changed when he leaves office. Many Americans are just as confused about this as some non-Americans may be.
I'm not sure what kind mental leap would take one from "USA has terrible foreign policy" to "authoritarianism is the way to go for my country". It just doesn't seem to be plausible. The fun thing about authoritarianism though is that you don't really have to want it to end up under it.
I'm not sure that's the argument people are making. For Iran, it was US overthrew our fledgling democracy and replaced him with a tyrant, whose oppression led to a(n Islamic) revolution, which just gave us a different kind of tyrant.
Part of the issue we see in the Middle East, IMO, is that Islamists got the upper hand because they were the only organizations that were tolerated under the oppressive regimes that existed in so many places (Iran, Iraq, Syria, the Gulf states, Egypt,...).
Regarding Iran, the Shah was a stooge and Western influence was seen as too strong. We often see pictures of women in miniskirts in Tehran during the 70s like if that was a sign of a great time... except that the Iranian population was more conservative and did not see that as a positive.
The Islamists were both nationalists and traditionalists and got the upper hand because of that.
Iran is a great and old culture and civilisation and, like perhaps China, they won't let foreigners take over and dictate the rules.
Unfortunately, it looks like the USA still don't get that.
Arguments that start on false premises can lead anywhere and appear valid. It’s logically not constructive. I’m thinking of the logic table for the implication.
Can you please point out where you think it is flawed. Constructive criticism can lead to truth, so, if you disagree you should state so, but, also state why you disagree so that there can be a discussion.
Iran, China and Russia are bad guys. Iran, China and Russia are worse that USA or any other country by whatever metric you would pick. Land area annexed in square kilometers or thousands of humans killed - pick any. Over any single point in time or any time period.
Most western people are against the authoritarian regimes governing the aforementioned countries, for the obvious reason that they are an abomination to people who believe in human flourishing. The countries themselves are not capable of being good or bad, as they exist only in the human imagination.
The People of America may not want war. But the people of USA™, Inc. do. Which one are you?
>Leaders are to blame but most of the people in this world are just living their life.
The people get the leaders they deserve. This is because people are the ultimate power - convince enough people to go along with you overtly: you're a dictator. Covertly: you're a 1% of 1%'er, who knows the right strings to pull in the world.
In the end, neither of these conditions can occur unless the people, in their enthusiasm or in their apathy, allow it.
The world is not black and white but I would say that democracy, with all its faults, offers more instruments for a good change and sadly people are not educated to play a role.
No, western people do not care about Iran and China, providing they are not actively making their lives worse. And vice versa.
I think the attitude you are expecting people to have is insulting both ways. You are denying the Iranians and Chinese have any agency...Do you really think they or their Goverments spend all their time just reacting?
Ps. If you say to someone in the west "What do you think of those re-education camps?" they will reply "Sounds like a university". Sadly, they are not completely wrong.
> Most western people are very negative about countries like Iran, China and Russia because they are the 'bad guys'.
As a resident of Europe, I don't think that's accurate. I think there are negative views of these countries in the west but I think the negativity is _much_ stronger in the US than the rest of the west.
Personally I find the US itself to be a much bigger problem than any of these countries and it seems I'm definitely not alone [0].
Oh, right, thank you for opening our collective eyes. I didn't know that it is USA who invaded my country, annexed territories as big as whole Belgium and killed tens of thousands soldiers and civilians only in recent years. I was too negative to the poor innocent Russia while all the time I should have known that it was USA all along. The BIGGER problem indeed.
You might be directly impacted, but in terms of most countries invaded or people killed over the last say 100 years I think the US is rather ahead. Making them a bigger problem for the world even if Russia is a bigger problem for you.
Personally as an American I kind of like being part of the ‘evil’ empire. But, I can definitely understand why others might take issue with our actions.
USA killed more people that Russia/USSR over last 100 years? USA annexed more territories than Russia/USSR over last 100 years? Please tell me you are kidding. China is indisputable leader in killing civilians EVER in human history and also quite happy to annex nearby territories. Iran - about the same. If you want to glorify objectively worse entities just for the sake of hating on USA (justified or not) - feel free to do so, I have never seem USA haters to change their opinions.
>USA killed more people that Russia/USSR over last 100 years?
If we are counting only people outside of the US\Russia\USSR - than yes, USA killed more. The only major war USSR\Russia faught after the WW2 is Afganistan. All other conflicts USSR\Russia was in resulted in less dead people than the latest Iraq war alone.
I said invaded not annexed, the US is not trying to directly expand it’s borders.
But roll back 100 years and the US was occupying, Nicaragua 1912–1933, Haiti 1915–1934, and the Dominican Republic 1916–1924. Which is outside WWI when we invaided Germany, Austria-Hungary, and pre USSR Russia.
Note, that’s a conservative list excluding the Vietnam and Korean War etc, assignations and or drone strikes for example the recent killing of Qasem Soleimani in Iran etc. As well as policing actions where we invade for humanitarian reasons etc.
PS! Also, the USSR ‘annexed’ several countries which where all part of Germany at the time and thus no longer existed. Though that’s somewhat arguable from a political if not practical standpoint.
Whatever Russia has done, I don't see it as a threat to the security of the world as a whole. Russia lacks the ability to project force around the world (e.g. it lacks aircraft carriers and a modern air force) and the EU's military spending alone is ~4x Russia's _before_ the Ruble collapsed.
The US however has an obscene amount of military power and has shown that it's happy to use it for a full-scale invasion of another country based on fabricated nonsense. I'm not aware of Russia doing anything remotely similar since its birth (where "birth" refers to the collapse of the USSR).
That's not exactly a fair comparison, since Russia hasn't had the funding to make any large-scale invasions since then. However they were more than happy to cut off oil to Europe just a few years ago, invade Ukraine, and generally act in a belligerent way toward several different countries in an effort to destabilize their neighbors.
Indeed, Gazprom lost over $1 billion as a result of the shutdown.
I’m not really sure why I was downvoted before: the actions here targeted Ukraine, but impacted several countries in Europe. Perhaps someone disagrees with me, but that’s not sufficient for a downvote, as I understand it.
> That's not exactly a fair comparison, since Russia hasn't had the funding to make any large-scale invasions since then
I don't understand how this makes the comparison unfair. Whatever the reason (e.g. lack of funding), Russia can't have quite the same impact in conventional warfare as the US.
> However they were more than happy to cut off oil to Europe just a few years ago, invade Ukraine, and generally act in a belligerent way toward several different countries in an effort to destabilize their neighbors.
The original article shows that the US is also happy to use various methods available to it to screw around with other countries. Unlike Russia, it's able to get away with it (perhaps due to its conventional military might).
The portion of your comment I disagreed with was here:
> I'm not aware of Russia doing anything remotely similar since its birth (where "birth" refers to the collapse of the USSR).
While I agree that Russia _cannot_ have the same impact, it’s not for lack of trying. The “unfair” part was comparing 243 years of history with 28. However even within the past few decades you seem to be ignorant of or ignore Russia’s actions in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria; the violence Putin used to gain and hold power; killing Russian citizens who are political adversaries; and the active belligerence and aggression that Russian Intelligence has shown toward other countries, especially in the last few years.
None of this excuses aggressive behavior by any other country, but to say that Russia has been exemplary or that they’ve not engaged in horrific behavior as well is simply untrue.
All of Russia’s actions have been within its neighborhood, the parent is talking about force projection in places far away from your motherland. Not to say that it justifies Russian action.
Their involvement in Syria alone has stretched budgets. Whereas the US can and has fought multiple wars simultaneously in places far way from the homeland without being constrained by finances.
Russia's conventional forces are not on par with the United States and they can't project that power globally.
But Putin's Russia has shown willingness and ability to achieve their geopolitical goals using espionage, propaganda, and direct military aid to bad actors, particularly in the Middle East. Putin has assassinated people in multiple countries in Europe, and had a hand in disinformation/propaganda campaigns aimed at weakening NATO and weakening international rule of law. Putin is actively attempting to sow discord in Western governments for the benefit of his government.
The United States' military action has caused far more death and destruction to be sure. And with American politics getting more and more volatile, partisan, and irrational, it seems likely we'll see more unnecessary conflicts and foreign policy crises in the future. Not to mention all of the damage to the international order done by Trump.
But just because Russia is no longer a traditional military superpower, make no mistake, they are working actively to undermine Western hegemony using asymmetrical means.
We can and should discuss reasons which led to current state of the world but there is nothing ambiguous about Iran, China and Russia being bad guys today. No need to put it in quotes. They are indiscriminately killing people in tens of thousands, annexing neighbor territories and in general maintain inhuman totalitarian regimes. And this happens today.
and you can say the same about the US. You don't have to repeat it all over the thread. we should stop looking at everything as black and white.
Lets discuss reason why it ia in the current state. Would Iran be in this position today if we hadn't tried to install our democracy to them back in the 50s?
First - I never said that USA is good or did nothing bad. Second - what I was saying is exactly what you have said - world is not black and white, there is lots of grades in between. And in such fine grained world USA is higher (whiter) than Russia, China and Iran, and by a lot.
Now to your direct question - USA did a lot of bad stuff and nobody denies it, they did bad stuff in 20th century and in 21st. But again - in comparison China, Russia and Iran are much worse. We can't deny punishment for a killer because of bad childhood, at best we can find killer's offender and punish him too accordingly. Same with USA - they should be held accountable, but only for their own actions, same as other countries.
There is this tedX talk. I forgot the name. Someone made an app that connects people with polar opposite views. They meet in person and talk. Many times, they Gain respect for other person’s view point, and many people changed their opinion too.
We all live in our bubbles, me included. If we took 5 mins to look from opposite side, we’d have less conflicts.
The internet was supposed to bring people together. Instead we are all in some echo chamber or the other. Companies like Facebook profit handsomely from it too
This isn’t a perfect observation but 25% of Beverly Hills is Persian. Of course, these were a lot of wealthy families who left Iran in the 70s and then helped build one of the best cities in the United States. With a fairly high percentage of Orthodox people.
Is it the systems involved, the religions, the wealth applied to a free society or just luck that created these two outcomes?
> Whould you think the USA is the greatest country in the world and democracy is the way to go?
Why would anyone think that?
It's an absurd question frankly. You don't need to feel that way to be an ally of the US. Is there a single US ally that thinks that at this point? The US is deeply flawed country, even more than most.
The difference is that Iranians have every reason to hate the US.
And even nowadays that resentment against Great Britain from Iran is very much still alive, while we hear mostly about the US getting involved in these regions
For those interested, Jack Straw (former UK Foreign Secretary) wrote a book, "The English Job", about the history of the UK and Iran (but of course touching on a lot more) is very readable. Having been published in 2019, it's also pretty up-to-date.
There is apparently a joke amongst diplomats that 'Iran is the only country in the world which still regards the United Kingdom as a superpower'. There is a phrase in Iran, which translates as something like "It's always an English job", applied to something that has been botched and mishandled. I'd definitely say that for the layman, if you want to understand the relationship twixt the West and Iran (which is so much more than just the US and Iran) this book has a place on your reading list.
And as soon as the cold war ended, in 1989, the USA invaded Panama to put their own man as president. In the process, the USA killed more than 3000 civilians. The man who ordered the invasion was George H W Bush, a former director of the CIA.
And if you're looking for more recent cases, the USA supported the military coup in Egypt in 2013. The government even refused to call it a coup because of legal implications. This was an important blow to democracy in the region. The authoritarian evolution in Turkey is partly due to this.
I'm not saying other democracies are better than the USA. I'm French, and my country still cannot face its past in Algeria. And France still supports dictators, like a 2018 bombing in Chad recently proved. But over the last couple of decades, I don't think any country killed more foreign civilians than the USA did, by a large margin. Even Saudi Arabia and UAE, with their wars in Yemen and Lybia, can't compare.
As recently as last year a USA backed coup removed the president elected by more than 50% in Bolivia because they nationalized gas and were exploiting lithium themselves.
No. Evo Morales is a would-be dictator who ignored term limits and rigged an election to stay in power. He was forced out of power because the Bolivian army refused to kill Bolivian people to suppress protests against him.
No. Constitutional Tribunal allowed Evo to participate in the elections because of an international treaty that allows anyone to participate in elections. Also, right wing local magnate Camacho confessed to conspiring with police and military to oust Evo. The OAS is a know USA puppet organization and presented no proof of any wrongdoing in the election.
Evo Morales is the legitimate president? Where are the thousand dissapeared persons? Where are them? We want them alive! What about the 50 persons who died in the protest against the regime installed by USA?
The USA issued statements supporting the ousting of Morales. That was the extent of USA's involvement. That does not really make it a "USA backed coup". Unless you believe it just because that's what Morales claimed.
For starters the OEA central role in sustaining the hypothesis of electoral fraud without any proof, setting this discourse and mantaining it with the help of mainstream media. You can see Pompeo and others telling Evo not to participate, then calling fraud, then supporting the coup. This was already setup and known by many in advance. There are audio proofs of that since before the election.
Then through the Escuela de las Americas "educating" and controlling the military and police. For example Williams Kaliman who asked Evo to resign left immediately after the coup to USA and lives now there. There's also many politicians from the previous era who live in the USA, some of whom have capture orders for the killings that happened before the Morales era.
Finally by financing local groups to cause caos and "effect campaigns", like attacking local politicians, humiliating them and later publishing videos or making them march nude in the streets or covered in paint. You can see how the modus operandi is the same as the "guarimbas" in Venezuela, young groups, travelling by 2 in motorcycles, hitting and running.
Of course this supports on local groups and politicians without whom it would be harder or more evident to do.
Panama was ruled by a dictator who was in fact leaning towards the Soviet block. He also ignored election results against him. And in the world of realpolitik the US was not going to ignore the strategic value of the Panama Canal. The Soviet Union was very aggressive at winning over other nations with military aid, similar to China today with financial aid. And Panama was a lot cleaner than the mess in the Middle East today.
Please if you are interested in this read more. This article is just garbage.
Start with wiki it is actually surprisingly good.
“The official pretext for the start of the coup was Mosaddegh's decree to dissolve Parliament, giving himself and his cabinet complete power to rule, while effectively stripping the Shah of his powers.[13][14][15]”
Say Boris Johnson dissolves parliament takes all of the power into his own hands and his ministers. Queen tries to relieve him(coup!!!!) has to run away to France :o He then starts imprisoning anyone who has a problem with that.
I also like the legend about CIA managing to bribe a bunch of communists party members to burn down part of Tehran trying to start revolution, at the same time they were bribing: media, army, other counter protestors, security, religious leaders. Just how many agents did they have running this masterclass operation? Nobody in in Tehran clearly had any will of their own.
Interestingly enough your surprisingly good starting point (I can't tell since Wikipedia political articles are often heavily biased, so if I trust this one as impartial I'd be suffering from Gell-Man amnesia again) has this to say:
> The Shah himself initially opposed the coup plans, and supported the oil nationalization, but he joined after being informed by the CIA that he too would be "deposed" if he didn't play along.
It also has this to say:
> During the coup, Roosevelt and Wilber, representatives of the Eisenhower administration, bribed Iranian government officials, reporters, and businessmen. They also bribed street thugs to support the Shah and oppose Mosaddegh. ...
> Another tactic Roosevelt admitted to using was bribing demonstrators into attacking symbols of the Shah, while chanting pro-Mosaddegh slogans. ...
Is this surprisingly good or is it laughable legend again?
185 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 228 ms ] thread[0] https://thegrayzone.com/2019/11/13/bolivian-coup-plotters-sc...
There are no circumstances in sight that would make oil/gas extraction uneconomical, especially in light of the rise of demand from developing countries.
So we'll have to arrange for the oil extraction reductions using international agreements.
As long as oil is valuable, we'll fight over it. If lithium becomes valuable, we'll fight over it. Times change, but sadly people remain the same. Especially the greedy elite.
Like Afghanistan, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Afghanistan#Lithium
Our oil dependency isn't just about the cars we drive.
Never become complacent.
Well this article again shows that there are few countries that will not gain power over dead people. It's sad but true.
Now imagine you were living in Iran and came to know about the work of the CIA. Whould you think the USA is the greatest country in the world and democracy is the way to go?
I think it would be best if we look at people in other countries without judgement and try to understand their point of view. Leaders are to blame but most of the people in this world are just living their life.
So I don’t know. One thing a lot of these regimes have in common is oil wealth. Oil wealth tends to drive any other industries out of a country, insulate power around the ruling class, and lead to dictatorships and similar. Definitely getting humanity to use non oil energy sources ASAP would help lower the pressures, I hope.
The above might sound unfair but think about it. I believe there is propaganda in almost every country.
And when oil is gone there will be something else. Probably Artificial Intelligence. Also check out a current trending item in HN about the US limiting the export of AI.
My personal definition of freedom is 'free of debt'
The opportunities to do this are strictly limited and anyone starting cold is against very tough odds. And the activities that are rewarded are strongly biased towards rent-seeking and monopolistic market exploitation over less aggressively self-serving provision of goods and services.
Obviously it's not impossible. But if you want true economic freedom, your personal and professional choices are - ironically - very tightly constrained.
The above is old propaganda. It was true. It is becoming less and less true.
The things you listed are all connected.
Russia is invading neighbours, actively escalating military tensions and sabre rattling.
They don't really fit the same profile as Iran currently does.
Feel free to walk me through the 'good guy' point of view of the people who invaded my home country, shot down a passenger plane, and got away with complete impunity.
There are no good or bad guys. All the superpwers are dicks, that's how they got to being superpwers.
Count how many times US has invaded other countries since 1949 and then come to your senses. I personally know a couple who came to my country from Ukraine because the Ukrainian fascists supported by the US were bombing their neighbourhood and killed their relatives. It was an orchestrated effort to spite Russia using Ukraine as an instrument. Who is loading the Eastern Europeran borders with Russia with arms and NATO personnel? Syria was saved by Russia as the jihadists were supported by yours trully US puppet. Please stop this nonsense. Use your brain.
Please don't engage with this individual in a flame war.
The main point was that the United States has invaded a lot of countries since 1949, and currently occupies a lot of those territories.
Please stop contributing to it.
The whole conflict started when Russian GRU officer brought a team of Russian military, captured some local buildings and started a revolt. It’s all public info for gods sake, there’s no longer need to spread propaganda about Ukrainian nazis anymore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
Therefore it's no longer bad for someone else to do it.
?
I'm not seeing the 'good guy' POV here.
Its a very untidy and uncomfortable discussion to have. All you have to do, is gain an understanding of the people who have been victimised by the Wests' illegal wars.
All other political biases fall to the side when confronted with an armless orphan who has been carried across Europe by her younger brother.
Geographically, Americans do not have the wherewithal to deal with this reality. American tourists don't go to the refugee camp facilities - they'd rather see the concentration camp museum.
If they did, indeed, have an idea of what life is like as a war refugee, say .. as a Yemeni or Syrian or Libyan or Iraqi child .. I believe the American people would finally arrest their war criminals. That is really the only way for the people of America to redeem themselves, and yet it gets harder and harder every day ..
Also, how does Iran not fit the same profile? It's currently #1 world news that their top official got bombed by the US while busy meddling in Iraqi affairs.
It's millions now? Seems like every day, the propaganda keeps increasing the number.
> It's currently #1 world news that their top official got bombed by the US while busy meddling in Iraqi affairs.
So the country on the other side of the world that is bombing Iraqis is not meddling? Was it the general of a neighboring country the one that was "meddling" or was the US the one that is "meddling".
You rarely see a twofer. An anti-china and anti-iran propaganda straight from the pentagon talking point.
"In war, truth is the first casualty." -- Aeschylus
That's been "the number" for a while now. E.g. Shohrat Zakir, chairman of Xinjiang, said during a press conference, when asked about the number of affected persons 一些媒体称新疆教培中心学员“有上百万甚至两百万”，纯属捏造、毫无根据 "Some media claim that Xinjiang's education centers hold 'a million or even two" students, this is completely made up and baseless." However, he failed to provide an alternative number, so "millions" is the best estimate available.
http://www.scio.gov.cn/xwfbh/xwbfbh/wqfbh/39595/42206/index....
Go ahead and point me to where I said it or assumed it.
But I just wanted to let you know, I have only one upvote to give, but I'll take the downvotes along with you.
We must not stand for the Western aggression to go unacknowledged, nor must we civilised people with the luxury of functioning society (i.e. bridges not yet bombed) allow the war criminals to escape justice.
Every single time the people of the USA assassinate another sovereign entities citizens around the world, it makes itself another few million enemies who would gladly shun Americans, individually, for the deeds of their state.
It is a terrible state of affairs - but rest assured, not everyone sees war as inevitable. We must resist.
We compare it with the million innocent people America slaughtered in its illegal wars, and which it continues to slaughter with impunity, under the cover of its heinous "Coalition" quasi-sovereign joint task forces, which exist solely to let Americans get away with murder, while none of us are looking/able to witness the horror.
Now, on top of that, like - really seriously here - America has actual concentrations camps of its own: it's prisons.
Which nation on Earth has the highest portion of its population working as indentured slaves for less than $1 a day in a for-profit complex run by a cabal?
It is not China, or at least .. it could be.
But hey, lets solve one problem at a time. Want to bomb China into letting its slaves free, or maybe pay more attention to the local, at home policies which produce the same conditions, different brand ..
I am a Belarusian replying to an Ukrainian in a comment thread about Russia, China and Iran. Nice rant though.
In the specific case of Crimea, it's much more complicated than that. It is an invasion, but there's much more about it than just "Russia invading neighbors", you're oversimplifying things.
Russia invaded the Crimean Oblast within Ukraine, rather than all of Ukraine.
In the Soviet Union, Crimea was an Oblast of the Russian SFSR. First secretary Nikita Khrushchev, who was of Ukranian origin, transferred the governance of the Crimean oblast from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954 as a "symbolic gesture".
But after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many Russians (an ethnic majority inside Crimea) were not satisfied with the resulting situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea
https://www.britannica.com/place/Crimea/History
Russia also occupying parts of Donetsk and Luhansk.
> many Russians were not satisfied with the resulting situation, including Russians living in Crimea
Pre-war sociology shows 38% of Crimean residents wanted to join Russia, that number declining over time: https://www.km.ru/world/2012/09/14/polozhenie-russkoyazychno... (Russian). 38% is indeed many people, but that’s still a minority.
> Ethnic Russians constituted a majority of the population in Crimea
https://www.britannica.com/place/Crimea/History
About other oblasts like Donetsk and Luhansk, I don't think Russia has a way to make those territorial claims look legitimate.
The protests in Kiev and other cities were violent and out of control. Ukraine was 6 months away from an election which they could have normally voted out their president, but, the people overthrew the government instead. Since then, the country has been so much worse off economically and socially. People have barely any money to pay their gas bills or buy luxury food items such as almonds. The GDP is currently one of the lowest of any countries in the world.
Other regions in the country such as the Donbass also never wanted to overthrow their president, which is why they began their separatist movement which led to its current civil war.
Crimea got a lucky break that it had the history that it does, and that all the Russian speaking population was there, and that there was Russian military presence there to enforce peace.
Maybe pre-sociology shows 38% pre Ukrainian protests in 2012, but, a lot changed in 2 years during that complete anarchy in most Ukrainian cities such as Kiev, Odessa, and the atempted Anarchy in Donetsk. The people of Crimea very simply just want stability and peace, like most people do.
> 97 percent vote for integration of the region into the Russian Federation with an 89 percent voter turnout.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum
Technically that’s true, but it’s important to remember the protest was peaceful for couple months. Then police started the violence. People have a right of self-defense.
> the country has been so much worse off economically and socially
Despite Ukraine have been fighting Russian army for almost 5 years now, what you’re saying is not true: https://tradingeconomics.com/ukraine/gdp-per-capita-ppp
> one of the lowest of any countries in the world
Not true. Ukraine is near the median, doing better than India or Philippines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PP...
> which is why they began their separatist movement which led to its current civil war
Neither of that is true. The “separatists” for the “separatists movement” were Russian military personnel or special forces. The war ain’t civil, there’re tons of factual evidence of direct Russian army involvement.
>Technically that’s true, but it’s important to remember the protest was peaceful for couple months. Then police started the violence. People have a right of self-defense.
Violent protest is not the answer, not when they had an election coming up very soon.
> Despite Ukraine have been fighting Russian army for almost 5 years now, what you’re saying is not true:
Millions of people have fled the country to work abroad in countries like Poland and Russia, among other countries in Western Europe. The common people do not have enough money to pay their gas bills, to pay for their heating in brutal winters. Your graph displaying some growth "per capita growth", have a look at this graph showing the value of their currency
https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=UAH&to=USD&view=10Y
In terms of socially, absolutely it is worse. No one can afford to buy any import goods. There are dozens of reports of mass emigration, and the people that stay now almost all own guns in fear. You can't tell me that this is socially better than how Ukraine was before the revolution.
>Not true. Ukraine is near the median, doing better than India or Philippines:
Ukraine was a developed nation. It had all the potential to be a manufacturing and tech powerhouse. It was a country filled with brilliant minds, engineers and hardworking people. Many of which have now fled the country. If you seriously want to compare Ukraine to India (where they don't have access to clean water or sanitation) and make that the bar for Ukraine then this discussion with you truly is fruitless.
>Neither of that is true. The “separatists” for the “separatists movement” were Russian military personnel or special forces. The war ain’t civil, there’re tons of factual evidence of direct Russian army involvement.
I think it's pretty clear that the Donbass separatists are backed with Russian aid. No one is disputing that. But it is not Russian Military doing the fighting, which is a difference.
It's the people of the Donbass fighting for their own rights. The people on the front lines are people of the Donbass. USA sends military personnel to train the Ukrainian Army, and Russia probably trains people of the Donbass as well. At the end of the day it's the people of the Donbass on the front lines fighting for their rights.
This tit for tat argument needs to end. Seriously, people in Ukraine are so much worse off today than they were before the revolution.
Too bad the old Ukrainian government didn’t know it, and started to use violence against it’s own people.
> Millions of people have fled the country to work abroad
The economy is global, air travel is cheap, Internet simplified things a lot. Ukraine is no exception. Globally, 258 million people, myself included, are living outside their country of birth.
> Your graph displaying some growth "per capita growth", have a look at this graph showing the value of their currency
That graph is in USD after adjustments for purchasing power. Currency exchange rates are irrelevant.
> No one can afford to buy any import goods
In 2018, Ukraine has imported goods worth 56 billion USD, smartphones alone were just under $1B: http://www.worldstopexports.com/ukraines-top-10-imports/
> There are dozens of reports of mass emigration
There’s no mass emigration, net migration is around zero: https://blogs.elenasmodels.com/en/ukrstat-migration-statisti...
> But it is not Russian Military doing the fighting
Russians started the war, and they did the fighting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Strelkov_(officer) Their armed forces are still there. It doesn’t matter they deny that, way too much documentary evidence of their direct involvement, for instance read links from that article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_...
Violent protest is always greeted with crowd control. In Every Country. You seem to be forgetting that the Ukrainian population caused a revolution, instead of waiting for the election for a few more months.
Have a look at the violence from protestors just before it all fell apart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stK3YPz6WTc
The people are worse off today than they were before. Not everyone supported their revolution, and you can deny that all you want, but, the people in the Donbass don't want to be a part of the circus that is Ukraine in its current state.
> Currency exchange rates are irrelevant.
Clearly I'm beating a dead horse. I don't know where to begin explaining to you that currency is not irrelevant.
About the mass emigration, these are people who have not filed for citizenship with other countries because in a lot of circumstances they cannot. No one is coming to Ukraine looking at it as a desirable place to live at the moment. There are less jobs in Ukraine, there is less trade in Ukraine, people have no choice but to work abroad.
Yes, I am also aware of the cases of some defected ex-Russian military helping the Donbass fighters, but, again you keep ignoring the fact that 99% of the population enlisted in fighting are citizens of the Donbass...
How can you honestly argue that the status quo is better than it was before the revolution? What are you even arguing?
Wow, that sounds familiar. Like Hawaii, California Bear revolt, Texas revolution.
That's 89% turnout, with international observers being denied entry. Compared to presidential election 2010 where Crimea had only 63.1% voters that bothered to act.
If there was another referendum today, and the people were given an option today, what do you think they would vote for?
You never hear from Crimeans complaining about the referendum result in any way.
Those people dodged a huge bullet and they know that. Ukraine is a mess, and perhaps one day when the fighting in Ukraine ends, when the corruption ends, someone should ask those people what they want to do.
Depends on how you define “the people”. Are you going to ask Russians who moved to Crimea after the annexation? Are you going to ask Ukrainians who were unhappy with the shenanigans, and fled their homeland?
> You never hear from Crimeans complaining about the referendum result in any way.
Lack of complains can’t be interpreted as a sign as support, because many people were imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed for such complains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru...
Sure, I will clarify what I meant to you. Ask the same people that lived in Crimea at the time the original referendum took place.
>Lack of complains can’t be interpreted as a sign as support, because many people were imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed for such complains:
Lots of footage in Crimea during that time. There were no protests against the referendum. Vice News was filming the whole thing, along with other members of the press. No one was tortured to join Russia as you say. There was a vote, with some minorities that were upset by the outcome.
Economically speaking the people of Crimea caught a huge break. Ukraine has to realize that it needs to work with all neighbours. Look to countries that are successful by example. Do you see France boycotting Germany? Do you see China boycotting Japan? Fighting is the problem. Not listening to your people is the problem. Using scapegoats and boogymen instead of fighting internal corruption is the problem. Ignoring economic development is the problem.
I'm sure if one tries hard enough, they can find some kind of justifications for a lot of Russia's actions, but the bigger picture remains unchanged: Russia is a giant dick and most of its neighbours are afraid of it. Hence NATO.
The only reason Iran doesn't entirely fit your profile is because it's not a real superpower but merely a wannabe empire, not able to entirely get away with the evil stuff it does.
It seems like there should be a better system globally but right now it's like a struggle of ant hills and maybe this is how the human race got to the level it is at. Through struggle and selection.
Iran has been treated badly by the west no doubt. But their hands are not clean either. Was not this commander killed in Iraq organizing pro Iranian militias? From the point of view of the US can they allow Iran to become the dominant power in this oil rich world crossroads region? They can't and they won't. It's really that simple. "Right" only marginally enters into this equation. I guess I'd feel much more badly had the commander been killed in Iran organizing soup kitchens for the poor. But he was poking a bees nest and the results were as expected.
That was the closest we ever were to a democracy. However, democracy is very fragile, specially at the beginning.
And it was shattered and to this day, we never got as close. Tyrant regimes come and go and we still think what might've been. We could've easily been another France in middle east.
Source: Iranian living in the U.S.
If blood must be shed to end tyranny, perhaps it is a worthwhile gamble. The Iranian people gain nothing from allowing the current regime to grow. A US-Iran war would almost certainly result in a democratic Iran, with a connected and educated populace capable of maintaining it. I think one of the main flaws in Iraq and Afghanistan was simply assuming that you could establish democracy anywhere and then the citizens of the country would come together to form a functional democratic government. Iran's populace is much better equipped for democracy. They have already started begging for it [1].
I don't really believe the air strike was conducted with good intentions. But it may end up having a positive side effect for the Iranian people if the current government is ousted.
I'll end this by posting something I wrote earlier on reddit:
"I mean, it's really an interesting conundrum, when is war with anyone ever a good idea?
And yet over the course of history there are several wars we have fought that are more or less universally accepted as being good ideas: the Revolutionary War, World War I, and World War II.
So obviously, at some point, the calculation must be worth it. But I don't know if it is possible for any human being to perform that calculation with the mental capacity we are all given. What I do know is that the Iraq war absolutely ended the suffering of people under Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, and the Afghanistan war somewhat ended the suffering of people under Taliban rule (the Taliban unfortunately still exists but is definitely not as strong as it used to be). What I don't know, and I don't think anyone can really know, is if the loss of those governments and introduction of our armed forces led to a general improvement on quality of life of Iraqi and Afghani citizens. I know the gut reaction is "obviously not" but neither of us are likely living in those countries at the moment, and so we really don't know how life has changed for them.
The million dollar question is: will toppling Iran's government and ending the suffering of its citizenry under it be a net benefit for its people, or is the status quo shielding them from an even worse fate? How can you really know?"
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019-20_Iranian_protests
Iran is a country next to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. It's an enemy to _both_ Saudi Arabia and Israel.
And you think destabilizing it will be followed by a democratic government and not a rush of ISIS-Taliban-Al-whatever?
Iran is made of dozens of different ethnicities. What if it became a Libyia and different regions started a civil war?
This is sickening. You _saw_ what the U.S. did to Iraq and Afghanistan and you're "still" thinking the way to bring democracy to the country next to them is bombs? Don't you think you should be more responsible than that? What if you are wrong? What if another Iraq came out of this?
By withdrawing from Iran's nuclear deal, U.S. practically destroyed any chance of a peaceful path for Iran to democracy.
JCPOA was the last chance for reformers in Iran to have a say. After the U.S. withdrawal, they have 0 credibility left with the people. Now hardliners have all the power and noone talks about reform anymore. Diplomacy is dead.
Iran's populace is much better equipped for democracy. They have already started begging for it.
U.S. is basically suffocating Iran with it's sanctions and people are hungry. These are not people who want democracy or freedom of press or separation of powers. They are people who are burning banks and want blood. No democracy is coming out of this.
This [0] is an organization of Iranians in diaspora, trying to form a council to help Iran have a proper transition in case the Islamic Republic fails and even their current CEO believes at the moment, the chance of a peaceful transition are not high and Iran becoming Syria is far more likely.
In that regard, the current offensive action may as well be viewed as a breath of fresh air.
I know that you are not responsible for these actions and you are probably a normal software engineer or something and probably a nice person. But U.S. is a democracy and people who do have the power, get their power from your thoughts and your vote.
So I do hold you responsible for the actions of your government. Therefore, if you find another war "fresh", please, fuck off. Your ignorance is harmful.
My apologies for personal attack.
[0] http://www.transitioncouncilofiran.org/index.html
ISIS is Sunni, while nearly all Iranian citizens are Shia. Taliban is a Pakistani proxy organization which also hates Shia. They have zero chance of succeeding in Iran under any and all circumstances. It's funny that you criticize the OP for ignorance, while making at least as ignorant arguments.
Anyway, both of you are coming in with a mistaken assumption: That the US actually wants to take down the Mullah's regime. That was never the case - all US administrations since 1980 have always tried to change the regime's behaviour and not to overthrow it. There never was even a plan to overthrow the regime.
The US has tried both containment and negotiations to change the mullah's behaviour. What we found out after JCPOA was that there was no meaningful difference between 'hardliners' and 'reformists'.
Both support the theocracy and oppose democracy. Both support executing people for overstepping religious laws - or merely for not being 'straight'. Both are perfectly fine with expanding this system outward, and sending out troops and terrorists outside Iran's borders. Both support killing protesters to maintain their rule, and both support killing hundreds of thousands of Syrians to maintain their influence.
So if the not-really-'reformist' political future is shot, there's no reason to care. If negotiations and JCPOA brings nothing (its nuclear provisions were laughable, and everything else Iran did was allowed), then it will be containment all the way.
Trump has just shown he's willing to out-escalate the regime in response to any provocation, and there's no economic way out for them.
Even if (hopefully) Trump is not reelected, he's shown that the regime is much weaker than it appears to be. The only way out for the regime is to make concessions, like stopping attacks on other countries, agreeing to inspections unlimited by time and so on.
I'm an Iranian (Actually a Jewish Iranian, hence, much more information about religion dynamics in Iran).
I agree that Shia/Sunni dynamic is unlikely to cause instability in Iran, there are many more dynamics that can be exploited:
1. Iran is very diverse regarding ethnicity. A dozen different ethnicities live in Iran which makes a Libya situation possible (Although unlikely)
2. A civil war, where government fight armed people, like Syria. I'm pretty much sure many countries would love to do what they did to Syria by arming worst possible forces.
> Even if (hopefully) Trump is not reelected, he's shown that the regime is much weaker than it appears to be.
Iran is under heaviest of sanctions. Economy is crushed. Yet, they control Iraq, they destroyed a U.S. drone, seized a British tanker, attacked Saudi oil causing major damage to Aramco's IPO (Biggest in history) and caused the bigger disruption in flow of Oil in the past decades and they got almost 0 reactions back and you are saying me they are considered weaker because a general was killed?
Anyway, as I said, the US never did intend to overthrow the regime, so that scenario isn't relevant - unless the Iranian people make a go for it, but that's not up to us.
As for the regime being weak, the key point is that the regime's military counter-pressure plan has failed.
All the wild attacks you cite are tactical victories but strategical failures - they have failed to affect the sanctions or even world oil prices (barring small insignificant blips), yet have led much of the world to see Iran as a threat.
By shooting and failing to win, the regime lost the deterrent value of these threats. When the US showed it is not afraid to escalate, Iran lost that threat too.
What's left? Continuing a strategically failed campaign? Massive escalation, which will lead to the regime getting crushed?
Another important point to remember is that Suleimani wasn't just a general, but the de facto vice-Supreme Leader, the one leader with significant popularity the regime had. It's a huge domestic loss.
You seem to assume ISIS penetrated Iraq because Iraq was Sunni and people accepted ISIS.
ISIS would penetrate _anywhere_ that is unstable enough to be penetrated.
Also, you are forgetting the potential this area has for development of new similar groups.
Iran even had similar groups formed within it's own territory which are still active:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundallah_(Iran)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaish_ul-Adl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harakat_Ansar_Iran
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_Al-Furqan
ISIS and al-Qaeda never managed to make much headway in the Kurdish areas. What's left? Ahvaz? Which borders Basra and is controlled with an iron fist?
From what the media sources I follow has told me about the Iranian people, they are all fairly educated and the country has an established scholarly system that enables most citizens to achieve greater education. As I saw further down in the thread that you are actually an Iranian yourself, please correct me if I am wrong.
>This is sickening. You _saw_ what the U.S. did to Iraq and Afghanistan and you're "still" thinking the way to bring democracy to the country next to them is bombs?
I was 4 years old when the Iraq war began. I did not "see" anything about the war and all the information I have has been provided to me by news organizations and various social media that I try to follow to educate myself on the topic. I have not been in Iraq myself nor spoken to Iraqi people so I have no way of knowing what the war has done to them other than what the media says. And since the media does not provide a unified narrative, it is rather difficult for me to decipher the truth.
As for bringing democracy...I do not know any way to bring democracy to a theocracy without violence. I do not believe it has ever happened peacefully in world history. I would like to make it clear that I am not advocating for war in Iran, but replying to the OP (hence why I said "in that regards") who said:
>I agree. It's really sad. Iran had/has so much potential.
In my view, destabilizing the regime provides some path to democracy, while keeping it in place provides no path to democracy.
>Don't you think you should be more responsible than that? What if you are wrong? What if another Iraq came out of this?
As I said before, I don't believe there is any "responsible" way to perform regime change. I am an optimist, and I am simply hoping that this ends up going in a positive direction for the sake of my country and the sake of the Iranian people.
>By withdrawing from Iran's nuclear deal, U.S. practically destroyed any chance of a peaceful path for Iran to democracy.
As an Iranian yourself, do you really think it was ever possible that the hardliners would voluntarily step down themselves? I agree that JCPOA should have been upheld, but I frankly don't know enough to say if it would have set Iran on a path to democracy.
>But U.S. is a democracy and people who do have the power, get their power from your thoughts and your vote.
I was not old enough to vote for Trump in 2016 and I will not be voting for him. As stated before, I do not support a war in Iran.
>So I do hold you responsible for the actions of your government.
I have not yet made enough money to pay federal taxes, so my hands are clean for at least the next few months. I do understand your point though.
I think it is important to point out that this strike was approved by one man and one man only. I was not given a choice to vote on it. My Representatives and Senators were not given a choice to vote on it. They were not even informed. The closest the common American got to voting on this was in the popular vote in 2016, which...Trump lost.
That is perhaps a bigger problem than all of this.
>My apologies for personal attack.
No need for apology. I understand you just want the best for your country. I have met several Iranian friends in college and I would like to see a democratic revolution that would make them proud. I personally do not believe Iran is at its best right now, and I doubt you do too. I can only optimistically hope that this conflict leads to a democratic Iran and a more righteous United States, for I do not have any way to alter what happens for now until November.
It doesn't fully excuse your ignorance but at least you have time to gain some perspective. As it is now what you're saying here is embarrassing to me as a fellow American.
Iran is a big country with very big divisions. Younger people and middle class are educated and relatively secular but the older generations and specially rural areas can be very backwards.
> In my view, destabilizing the regime provides some path to democracy, while keeping it in place provides no path to democracy.
It could potentially lead to democracy. But it could lead to far far worse outcomes as well. In Iran's case, the worse outcomes are more likely because:
1. Geographically, it's literally in-between Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and therefore ISIS, Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
2. Thanks to Islamic Republic, it has big enemies, including but not limited to USA, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
3. It has vast natural resources (Oil, Gas) and attracts foreign interests.
4. Revolutions are _rarely_ constructive. Read George Orwell's Animal Farm. When I first I read, I though, how could this man write the book of Islamic Republic so many decades earlier? But it turns out almost all revolutions have a similar trajectory: They go to shit.
> As I said before, I don't believe there is any "responsible" way to perform regime change.
> As an Iranian yourself, do you really think it was ever possible that the hardliners would voluntarily step down themselves? I agree that JCPOA should have been upheld, but I frankly don't know enough to say if it would have set Iran on a path to democracy.
Of course no hardliner is ever going to step down. However, by allowing reformers and moderate forces to make progress, we give them more power.
It won't be quick at all. Takes decades and generations. But to me it seems the only real and viable path.
> I have not yet made enough money to pay federal taxes, so my hands are clean for at least the next few months. I do understand your point though.
Don't beat yourself to it. Even if you were a taxpayer I wouldn't ever think your hands are not clean. I'm an American taxpayer myself. I live in the states. I don't think anyone who paid tax to the U.S. has blood on their hands or whatever.
All I'm saying is, when talking about war, or supporting it, let's make sure we have a really good understanding of the subject matter. Otherwise we could be supporting an unjust war.
Sorry again about the personal attack. Harsh times.
Unless you have existed outside of the US the entire time, you have paid federal taxes. Income tax is just one small portion of the way the federal government collects money. Gas taxes, FAA fees in your airline tickets, FICA taxes on your paycheck, FUSF tax on your cell phone, etc.
Disabuse yourself and anyone you know of the notion that being in a low tax bracket means you’re not financially contributing to the federal government. Also disabuse yourself of the notion that paying involuntary taxes somehow makes you responsible for how those dollars were used.
The war isn't even over yet. Normal countries don't have missiles falling out of the sky onto the highway murdering a visiting foreign general, or routine car bombings with hundreds of casualties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_car_bombings
The most systematic attempt at assessing the impact of the war was the famous Lancet study, which estimated the "excess death" from all causes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_cas...
> published on 11 October 2006, estimated 654,965 excess deaths related to the war, or 2.5% of the population, through the end of June 2006
So, if we round that to the five years since 9/11, or about 1800 days, that's 360 casualties a day, or one 9/11 roughly every week.
You can't argue quality of life improvements for the dead.
Iraq is a slightly larger country. Quite likely you'd see a million dead in the first decade of the occupation, on which the US would spend enough for another moon programme or universal healthcare for all its citizens.
People of Iraq were suffering exactly how under Saddam?
Now many of them are dead because of the war. Infrastructure destroyed. Many people are suffering from ecological disaster (depleted uranium and toxic waste where us bases were located).
And still there's no peace and no democracy. To everyone in the world outside the US is obvious that war was for the oil, not some mythical "democracy". And the life of people of Iraq had become much worse as the result.
The answer to that question has its own Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein...
> The answer to that question has its own Wikipedia page:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein....
You think that now it is better ?
Was there something comparable in Singapore or UAE? If so, I haven't heard about it.
But we hear about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia and Israel/Palestine all the time, so I don't think your claim that "it's never a problem when human rights violations happen in a countries that are allies of USA" is valid.
I assure you it's not true. Democracy, human rights, freedom of speech are things that are very vaguely defined. It means that you can blame anyone arbitrarily for being insufficiently "democratic". This is what USA actually uses as a pretext to declare a war for resources. You can call any country "undemocratic" for some definition of "democracy".
"Democracy", "freedom of speech", and other abstract concepts, doesn't affect the daily lives of 99.9% of population. Most people do not care: they wake up, have a breakfast, go to work, come home, have a dinner, go to bed. They do not really care what is exact way the president is elected (or not elected). They do not care about so-called "freedom of speech" because they aren't journalists or writers.
On the other hand, when somebody drops bombs and rockets on you and your family, when infrastructure (schools, power lines, roads and other things) in your country are destroyed for tens of years, when there's anarchy and chaos around that causes huge rise of crimes, it makes a great difference to the everyday lives of the people. And that is what US/NATO really brought to people of Iraq, Libya and other countries.
So how many Iranians must die for your version of 'tyranny' to be met? What figure would you be satisfied with, and what kind of tyranny are you ok with? Because it seems you've got major double standards when it comes to Saudi, Israel, UAE and Qatar, let alone all the extra-judicial and illegal acts carried out by the USA themselves in the name of rooting out 'tyranny'.
Where does that certainty come from? It's not like the US is known for finishing wars recently.
Well, in Europa is was a German-Russian war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwKPFT-RioU
USA troops stationed in Arabia, as they have been since the beginning of that war, was the reason that ObL did the 9/11 attacks. Those attacks were good for lots of armaments manufacturers, but the were not in the American national interest.
http://www.actmemphis.org/usama-bin-laden-1996-declaration-o...
Let's see what happened the last time US toppled a government in the Middle East - You got the ISIS. Before that the US toppled a government. It created The Mujahedin, who are directly responsible for about every Islamic Terror attack anywhere in the world since the 80's. Before that the US toppled the democratic government in Iran. That is directly causing this.
Could you kindly remind us when was the last time USA successfully exported democracy with a war?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-says-iran-may-have-ki...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/u-s-officials-iran-off...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/19/middleeast/british-tanker-sei...
I was fully onboard with Obama's sanctions. They had a clear ask: Stop the nuclear development. Everybody understood it and is was clear.
Iran agreed to JCPOA and stopped any nuclear development.
Why is Iran under sanctions now? They have given a list of demands and it's basically a big fuck you to the Islamic Republic that is never going to happen.
If someone tries to suffocate you, you are going to kick back.
I'm not a fan of Islamic Republic. Fuck them. But at least during the Obama administration, the immediate threat (Nuclear development) was stopped and there was a dialogue. The two countries had direct lines of communication and even helped each other out fighting ISIS.
Reformists in Iran gained credibility and power, and slowly Iran could've gotten back to a democratic path.
Now, reformists are cast out and have 0 credibility with people. Hardliners in Iran have power. And they are being suffocated, so they kick back by attacking ships, drones or tankers or arresting innocent people.
2. This is the only leverage they have. Do you want them to do drone strikes on the U.S. soil?
Most people living outside the USA are very negative about the United States because this president is a very "bad guy". I'm not under such a opinion but I find it increasingly hard to have a normal conversation about the USA and it's form of the human experiment without hitting a wall of generalised criticism that ends up in stalemate.
Considering what we know what the CIA has done in the past. What kind of shadow government is functioning without consent of the people. The media institutions that suppose to keep that power in check never really informed the public on these developments. And on top the revelation of the catholic church being the biggest pedofile network that hitted the American society probably a lot harder than Europe because of stronger religious sentiments. All things combined for me it is not strange an anti establishment campaign won the presidency.
Friends, family, people that have watched movies like the Irishman, Spotlight, the Good Shepherd are not really open to adjust their point of view on the States. Iran, China and Russia are however topics where nuanced opinion still is expressed.
That's a very simplistic view of people outside the USA. Unlike US news that do no mention US proxy wars, veto votes and the like, other countries are well aware of US foreign policy and the terror it brings with it, be it in south America, Africa, the middle east or elsewhere.
Noam Chomsky has written elaborate on corporatism and i think this POTUS function as an amplifier.
I argue people are not bad informed but do generalize bad malpractice elements of the USA to all Americans. The election of this president and everything that followed is seen as evidence by many people the USA is crazy.
And my understanding of the people living in the USA is they are still viewing bad malpractice as unintended consequence of the capitalism experiment initiated by the other politic parties behavior on either side of the coin.
In contrast Putin is not Russia and Xi is not China.
Part of the issue we see in the Middle East, IMO, is that Islamists got the upper hand because they were the only organizations that were tolerated under the oppressive regimes that existed in so many places (Iran, Iraq, Syria, the Gulf states, Egypt,...).
The Islamists were both nationalists and traditionalists and got the upper hand because of that.
Iran is a great and old culture and civilisation and, like perhaps China, they won't let foreigners take over and dictate the rules.
Unfortunately, it looks like the USA still don't get that.
Do you think the base of my argument is false? If so it would be helpful to point out why you think it is.
>Leaders are to blame but most of the people in this world are just living their life.
The people get the leaders they deserve. This is because people are the ultimate power - convince enough people to go along with you overtly: you're a dictator. Covertly: you're a 1% of 1%'er, who knows the right strings to pull in the world.
In the end, neither of these conditions can occur unless the people, in their enthusiasm or in their apathy, allow it.
No, they don't. There's no voting system that allows everyone to be represented.
I think the attitude you are expecting people to have is insulting both ways. You are denying the Iranians and Chinese have any agency...Do you really think they or their Goverments spend all their time just reacting?
Ps. If you say to someone in the west "What do you think of those re-education camps?" they will reply "Sounds like a university". Sadly, they are not completely wrong.
> and democracy is the way to go
Democracy = USA? Hmmm, didn't know that.
As a resident of Europe, I don't think that's accurate. I think there are negative views of these countries in the west but I think the negativity is _much_ stronger in the US than the rest of the west.
Personally I find the US itself to be a much bigger problem than any of these countries and it seems I'm definitely not alone [0].
[0]: https://fullfact.org/news/america-world-peace/
Personally as an American I kind of like being part of the ‘evil’ empire. But, I can definitely understand why others might take issue with our actions.
If we are counting only people outside of the US\Russia\USSR - than yes, USA killed more. The only major war USSR\Russia faught after the WW2 is Afganistan. All other conflicts USSR\Russia was in resulted in less dead people than the latest Iraq war alone.
But roll back 100 years and the US was occupying, Nicaragua 1912–1933, Haiti 1915–1934, and the Dominican Republic 1916–1924. Which is outside WWI when we invaided Germany, Austria-Hungary, and pre USSR Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
Note, that’s a conservative list excluding the Vietnam and Korean War etc, assignations and or drone strikes for example the recent killing of Qasem Soleimani in Iran etc. As well as policing actions where we invade for humanitarian reasons etc.
PS! Also, the USSR ‘annexed’ several countries which where all part of Germany at the time and thus no longer existed. Though that’s somewhat arguable from a political if not practical standpoint.
The US however has an obscene amount of military power and has shown that it's happy to use it for a full-scale invasion of another country based on fabricated nonsense. I'm not aware of Russia doing anything remotely similar since its birth (where "birth" refers to the collapse of the USSR).
Russia doesn't profit from war, but by selling gas. They can't sell it with profit to Russians, so selling it to Europe is very important to them.
Ps. I've never noticed the cut off though ( Belgium) and wasn't aware. So I think it's not that big of a threat.
I’m not really sure why I was downvoted before: the actions here targeted Ukraine, but impacted several countries in Europe. Perhaps someone disagrees with me, but that’s not sufficient for a downvote, as I understand it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_d...
http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/3307.cfm
If they don't give a reaction, I don't care ;)
I don't understand how this makes the comparison unfair. Whatever the reason (e.g. lack of funding), Russia can't have quite the same impact in conventional warfare as the US.
> However they were more than happy to cut off oil to Europe just a few years ago, invade Ukraine, and generally act in a belligerent way toward several different countries in an effort to destabilize their neighbors.
The original article shows that the US is also happy to use various methods available to it to screw around with other countries. Unlike Russia, it's able to get away with it (perhaps due to its conventional military might).
> I'm not aware of Russia doing anything remotely similar since its birth (where "birth" refers to the collapse of the USSR).
While I agree that Russia _cannot_ have the same impact, it’s not for lack of trying. The “unfair” part was comparing 243 years of history with 28. However even within the past few decades you seem to be ignorant of or ignore Russia’s actions in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria; the violence Putin used to gain and hold power; killing Russian citizens who are political adversaries; and the active belligerence and aggression that Russian Intelligence has shown toward other countries, especially in the last few years.
None of this excuses aggressive behavior by any other country, but to say that Russia has been exemplary or that they’ve not engaged in horrific behavior as well is simply untrue.
Their involvement in Syria alone has stretched budgets. Whereas the US can and has fought multiple wars simultaneously in places far way from the homeland without being constrained by finances.
But Putin's Russia has shown willingness and ability to achieve their geopolitical goals using espionage, propaganda, and direct military aid to bad actors, particularly in the Middle East. Putin has assassinated people in multiple countries in Europe, and had a hand in disinformation/propaganda campaigns aimed at weakening NATO and weakening international rule of law. Putin is actively attempting to sow discord in Western governments for the benefit of his government.
The United States' military action has caused far more death and destruction to be sure. And with American politics getting more and more volatile, partisan, and irrational, it seems likely we'll see more unnecessary conflicts and foreign policy crises in the future. Not to mention all of the damage to the international order done by Trump.
But just because Russia is no longer a traditional military superpower, make no mistake, they are working actively to undermine Western hegemony using asymmetrical means.
Now to your direct question - USA did a lot of bad stuff and nobody denies it, they did bad stuff in 20th century and in 21st. But again - in comparison China, Russia and Iran are much worse. We can't deny punishment for a killer because of bad childhood, at best we can find killer's offender and punish him too accordingly. Same with USA - they should be held accountable, but only for their own actions, same as other countries.
We all live in our bubbles, me included. If we took 5 mins to look from opposite side, we’d have less conflicts.
The internet was supposed to bring people together. Instead we are all in some echo chamber or the other. Companies like Facebook profit handsomely from it too
Everything would be better in this world if we did.
Is it the systems involved, the religions, the wealth applied to a free society or just luck that created these two outcomes?
All these countries are not really a problem. Yet, the US has the most corrupt, the most rotten country in the world, Saudi Arabia, as an ally.
Why would anyone think that?
It's an absurd question frankly. You don't need to feel that way to be an ally of the US. Is there a single US ally that thinks that at this point? The US is deeply flawed country, even more than most.
The difference is that Iranians have every reason to hate the US.
There is apparently a joke amongst diplomats that 'Iran is the only country in the world which still regards the United Kingdom as a superpower'. There is a phrase in Iran, which translates as something like "It's always an English job", applied to something that has been botched and mishandled. I'd definitely say that for the layman, if you want to understand the relationship twixt the West and Iran (which is so much more than just the US and Iran) this book has a place on your reading list.
And if you're looking for more recent cases, the USA supported the military coup in Egypt in 2013. The government even refused to call it a coup because of legal implications. This was an important blow to democracy in the region. The authoritarian evolution in Turkey is partly due to this.
I'm not saying other democracies are better than the USA. I'm French, and my country still cannot face its past in Algeria. And France still supports dictators, like a 2018 bombing in Chad recently proved. But over the last couple of decades, I don't think any country killed more foreign civilians than the USA did, by a large margin. Even Saudi Arabia and UAE, with their wars in Yemen and Lybia, can't compare.
The facts to counter the propaganda:
- https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/11/16/was-there-a-cou...
- https://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodig...
Confesión Camacho https://www.pagina12.com.ar/238942-luis-fernando-camacho-con...
Convencion Americana sobre Derechos Humanos 23, b) de votar y ser elegidos en elecciones periódicas auténticas http://www.oas.org/dil/esp/tratados_B-32_Convencion_American...
Then through the Escuela de las Americas "educating" and controlling the military and police. For example Williams Kaliman who asked Evo to resign left immediately after the coup to USA and lives now there. There's also many politicians from the previous era who live in the USA, some of whom have capture orders for the killings that happened before the Morales era.
Finally by financing local groups to cause caos and "effect campaigns", like attacking local politicians, humiliating them and later publishing videos or making them march nude in the streets or covered in paint. You can see how the modus operandi is the same as the "guarimbas" in Venezuela, young groups, travelling by 2 in motorcycles, hitting and running.
Of course this supports on local groups and politicians without whom it would be harder or more evident to do.
https://www.hispantv.com/noticias/opinion/442254/rol-embajad...
Start with wiki it is actually surprisingly good.
“The official pretext for the start of the coup was Mosaddegh's decree to dissolve Parliament, giving himself and his cabinet complete power to rule, while effectively stripping the Shah of his powers.[13][14][15]”
Say Boris Johnson dissolves parliament takes all of the power into his own hands and his ministers. Queen tries to relieve him(coup!!!!) has to run away to France :o He then starts imprisoning anyone who has a problem with that.
I also like the legend about CIA managing to bribe a bunch of communists party members to burn down part of Tehran trying to start revolution, at the same time they were bribing: media, army, other counter protestors, security, religious leaders. Just how many agents did they have running this masterclass operation? Nobody in in Tehran clearly had any will of their own.
> The Shah himself initially opposed the coup plans, and supported the oil nationalization, but he joined after being informed by the CIA that he too would be "deposed" if he didn't play along.
It also has this to say:
> During the coup, Roosevelt and Wilber, representatives of the Eisenhower administration, bribed Iranian government officials, reporters, and businessmen. They also bribed street thugs to support the Shah and oppose Mosaddegh. ...
> Another tactic Roosevelt admitted to using was bribing demonstrators into attacking symbols of the Shah, while chanting pro-Mosaddegh slogans. ...
Is this surprisingly good or is it laughable legend again?
Wiki might be incomplete but compared to npr agitprop it is much better