Iran is moving to head off a possible repeat of unrest ahead of the first anniversary of the death of Mahsa Amini, arresting women’s rights activists and family members of people killed during last year’s nationwide protests, local and international human rights groups said Wednesday.
It actually was quite nice. It was socially progressive and had respected universities, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, women’s rights and was even quite respected for its art. It was a vacation destination for many westerners.
Unfortunately, it also had oil and you know how American conservatives are about oil. They absolutely wrecked Iran’s government in an attempt to aquire their oil, manipulating the locals into installing a conservatave government.
What you see there today is a conservative win-condition; a hellscape of oppression, sickness and death. This is a glimpse at our future in the U.S. if conservatives have their way.
The US having involvement in Iran’s oil in the past has nothing to do with future positive results from whatever intervention you are suggesting.
I’m not sure what you are so upset about. You made a false statement minimizing US involvement in the creation of Iran’s current conservative hellscape and I replied with factual data showing US involvement. Conservatism is a plague of oppression. You should not defend conservatives. They do not need or deserve your defense.
If by “intervention” you mean invading Iran to liberate the citizens, I really don’t know if that would be successful or not. Maybe it would be.
The citizens certainly need saving. But, I suspect US conservatives would be very opposed to an invasion to liberate people who are suffering (conservatives prefer that people suffer). I also suspect non-conservatives (normal people) in the US will be resistant to invading a country for any reason at all, based on past sentiments. So, even if an invasion would be successful, I doubt it could happen. That’s why I think their best hope is revolution without intervention.
It’s not about “belief”. It’s reality. Here are some photos to show you what Iran looked like in the 1960’s. Any basic web search will explain Iran’s history to you. No need to take my word for it.
Stories like these tend to leave out the parts about the extreme disparity in progressiveness between urban and rural populations. While these photographs were taken the majoirty of the population still lived culturally at least as they had during the middle ages.
It actually was quite nice. It was socially progressive and had respected universities, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, women’s rights and was even quite respected for its art. It was a vacation destination for many westerners.
Unfortunately, it also had oil and you know how American conservatives are about oil. They absolutely wrecked Iran’s government in an attempt to aquire their oil, manipulating the locals into installing a conservatave government.
What you see there today is a conservative win-condition; a hellscape of oppression, sickness and death. This is a glimpse at our future in the U.S. if conservatives have their way.
Pretty sure US never had access to Iranian oil reserves.
You are wrong. Here’s a Wikipedia article detailing US involvement in Iranian oil after leading the coup, but just before the islamic revolution.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consortium_Agreement_of_1954
Okay? That means it’s impossible to intervene with positive results, right?
It’s a literal rule of the universe, lol.
The US having involvement in Iran’s oil in the past has nothing to do with future positive results from whatever intervention you are suggesting.
I’m not sure what you are so upset about. You made a false statement minimizing US involvement in the creation of Iran’s current conservative hellscape and I replied with factual data showing US involvement. Conservatism is a plague of oppression. You should not defend conservatives. They do not need or deserve your defense.
If by “intervention” you mean invading Iran to liberate the citizens, I really don’t know if that would be successful or not. Maybe it would be.
The citizens certainly need saving. But, I suspect US conservatives would be very opposed to an invasion to liberate people who are suffering (conservatives prefer that people suffer). I also suspect non-conservatives (normal people) in the US will be resistant to invading a country for any reason at all, based on past sentiments. So, even if an invasion would be successful, I doubt it could happen. That’s why I think their best hope is revolution without intervention.
Hey man, wake me up when these problems get solved doing something I don’t suggest.
I can wait.
You’ll be waiting a long time because you’ve suggested nothing.
Read my other posts.
I’ve read both of your low effort shitposts, Sparky.
No one believes that. Maybe Russians.
It’s not about “belief”. It’s reality. Here are some photos to show you what Iran looked like in the 1960’s. Any basic web search will explain Iran’s history to you. No need to take my word for it.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/gallery/2014/sep/10/iran-swinging-sixties-in-pictures
Stories like these tend to leave out the parts about the extreme disparity in progressiveness between urban and rural populations. While these photographs were taken the majoirty of the population still lived culturally at least as they had during the middle ages.
But the US went to Iran a long time after that
Are you still here?