Applies to Lemmy too.
You must log in or # to comment.
Thus always to tyrants
Taking out Khamenei like this is the best gift America could have given Khamenei’s extremists. He is now an eternal martyr. A “victim” of America. It’s gonna be so easy for extremists to indoctrinate children.
I mean at some point it stops being indoctrination right? They will just start hating the US on their own, for actual legitimate reasons
Shaka, brah!
Khamenei and Ahmadinejad dying are the only good things that came from this war. If the IRGC manages to bomb Trump or Netanyahu tomorrow, I’d be happy too.
Not that I condone blatantly illegal wars or strikes, not that I think that killing 160 schoolchildren is okay, but seeing tyrants die sparks joy in my heart.
That’d be an interesting news day
🤙
And those 100 school girls?
Dont let the narrative turn into “It was about killing a tyrant”. It is about a tyrant distracting us from Epstein and starting a war to cancel the next elections.
We’ve never canceled elections, even in wartime. You’re engaging in voter suppression by spreading this.
Yet ™️
We’ve never had a twice impeached president, until now. We’ve never had a pedo-rapist president before (at least with serious evidence behind), until now We’ve never had fascists in power here, until now.
Jefferson might count as a pedo-rapist, Sally Hemings was like 14 or 15 at the start of their ‘relationship’. The Behind the Bastards episodes are worth a listen. Your point stands though that Trump is unpresidented.
There is no mechanism to cancel elections. They’re run by the states, and the states need to have them, even the red states. There are 9000 seats up for election at varying levels, midterms have already started, and for a party that’s allegedly canceling midterms the GOP is sure doing a lot of campaigning for them.
nothing about this is precedented, he wants a third term, he wants to control the midterms, he wants an artificial crisis to do it
There is no crisis short of the dissolution of the United States of America that would cause states to cancel their elections. I will be working the polls in March and November, hope to see you all there. Better yet, sign up to work the polls as well.
Nobody who claims “elections will be canceled” has ever worked an election, you can bet on that.
I’m not saying he’ll cancel them, but there will definitely be some interference, besides all the voter suppression that’s happening already.
I agree. Voter suppression has always happened in the USA. We fight it.
It’s important to be specific about threat assessment so we know how to defend against it. A vague “we won’t have midterms” isn’t helpful.
They have been and will continue to be trying to gain access to states’ voter rolls. They will try to unregister people. They will attempt to gerrymander in their favor. There will probably be ICE and other federal agents at some polling locations.
Furthermore these are all things that are already happening. There won’t be some villainous master stroke at the final hour. The real threats are here now and there are actionable responses to them, but resorting yourself to doom is allowing yourself to give up entirely.
they aren’t trying though, they are doing it in the open? they just barred trans people in Tennessee from voting. by having voter ID and revoking all trans people driving licences they practically disenfranchised a whole demographic. this election will be nasty.
We’re supposed to be happy that some Iranian dictator died? … I think for most people that is bullshit. Most of us have almost zero connection to that country, we don’t know the history, and that’s OK, but it also means we don’t need to have strong views about the moral character of its former leader. We can speculate that he was a piece of work, and maybe that’s true, but there’s also tons of CIA propaganda, so we’d have to do real research to find out what the truth is before making any serious judgement.
Honestly, the death of Khomenei is a silver lining in all of this crazy bullshit. We all know this attack is unconstitutional, illegal, unethical and driven by bad motives involving Israel and their goal of colonizing the whole area.
It’s like the death of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Will the outcome be the same as in Iraq after Saddam’s death? Only time will tell. But I hope for the sake of everybody that Iran will keep standing up against the U.S. and Israel. Though, I’m fairly pessimistic.
There’s a reason we (read sane countries, which the us is not, at the moment ) haven’t offed this guy sooner.
It’s going to cause a lot more harm than good. It won’t create regime change, it’s just gonna make the douche a martyr.
Same reason I’m not advocating Trump getting offed.
And like Trump? … well I’ll mourn the guy’s life and celebrate his death.
trump should just choke on mcdonalds, I think that would be ideal. No one to blame.
I’ve joked about if we set up a go-fundme for a lifetme-all-he-can-eat macdonalds fund, they can’t blame us from the heart attack.
@AtHeartEngineer @FuglyDuck nah, they would blame the woke libs that cooked it
I would genuinely love for Trump to meet the same fate, they’re at the same level of evil and both deserve it.
the problem is all the collateral damage on their way out.
Shouldn’t every single person celebrating Khamenei’s death get permabanned according to Reddit’s policies, just like the ones who did the same for the healthcare CEO or Charlie Kirk?
When one piece of shit evil tyrant kills another piece of shit evil tyrant, it’s hard to know how to feel. On the one hand, I’m glad one of them is dead. On the other hand, the one who survived is working to destroy the world and now faces one fewer obstacle. Maybe I will defer celebration until they’re both wormfood.
I feel the same way I do about the invasion of Iraq.
A tyrant’s death (and, in Iran, the possibility of) the overthrow of his regime cause me no tears. But I also recognize how immensely fucked things are going to get, how this wasn’t the only course of action available for the USA, what effects this will have on OTHER matters of international relations, and what immense cost the ordinary people of the country are going to end up paying.
Not unlike the little girls killed in the opening salvo of the Iranian war
this wasn’t the only course of action available for the USA
This presumes the USA needed to take any action at all.
The average American citizen does not benefit from US hegemony. Neither do the citizens of the countries we “liberate”.
The US government clearly doesn’t care about freedom or human rights. Look at how it currently treats its own citizens. Look at how its treated marginalized people on its territory, including minority citizens, for its entire existence. Look at all its authoritarian allies. Heck, its favorite West Asian partner is an Apartheid state.
We Americans need to stop buying the propaganda we’ve been fed that we are somehow duty bound to be the world’s police force. That only serves the
boogereatersbourgeoisie.This presumes the USA needed to take any action at all.
THIS. 1000x this.
Recent events and events over the past few years indicated that the Iranian people were likely on the path of regime change anyways. Certainly not bloodlessly, but at least it would have followed the self-determination of the Iranian people. Now we just get to have another puppet government propped up by the US for oil.
Inaction itself is a course of action, but I would argue that continuing negotiations with Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation would have been a positive action to take under a sane administration.
You mean the deal that was in place, was working fine but torn up by Trump 1.0 simply because “it was an Obama deal” and a certain orange racist can’t cope with anything a black man may have been involved in.
Yeah. Like I said, under a sane administration.
The US had an agreement with Iran that was working. Trump 1.0 unilaterally pulled out of it. Biden then put ridiculous conditions on Iran to reinstate it. I’d argue that the US has lost all legitimacy in negotiations with Iran.
If the US really cared about nuclear proliferation, it would start by reducing its own nuclear arsenal. It would pressure Israel to denuclearize. It would deescalate with China so they’d have less incentive to increase their nuclear stockpile.
Anyway, saying inaction is a course of action is rhetorical nonsense. There are an infinite number of things that any person or entity could choose to do. Not doing them isn’t an “action”. For example, I didn’t take an “action” last week by not getting cosmetic surgery, or by not going to Aruba, or by not becoming a real estate agent.
If the US really cared about nuclear proliferation, it would start by reducing its own nuclear arsenal. It would pressure Israel to denuclearize. It would deescalate with China so they’d have less incentive to increase their nuclear stockpile.
The point of preventing nuclear proliferation is, by definition, to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states precisely because of how difficult it is to convince a country to denuclearize.
So a country going from 50 nukes to 100 isn’t proliferation?
Putting key words in bold in your comment doesn’t prove your point.
Anyway, recent history tells anyone who’s paying attention that if the US has you on their shit list, te last thing you should do is give up your weapons programs. Contrast Iraq and Libya with North Korea, for instance.
The US is not a force for peace or progress, regardless of who is in charge here. Dems are better than Reps at masking our Imperial ambitions, but either way we make things worse. We should stop meddling in foreign affairs and fix our problems at home.
So a country going from 50 nukes to 100 isn’t proliferation?
Literally, it is not.
Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries, particularly those not recognized as nuclear-weapon states by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT. Nuclear proliferation occurs through the spread of fissile material, and the technology and capabilities needed to produce it and to design and manufacture nuclear weapons. In a modern context, it also includes the spread of nuclear weapons to non-state actors. Proliferation has been opposed by many nations with and without nuclear weapons, as governments fear that more countries with nuclear weapons will increase the possibility of nuclear warfare (including the so-called countervalue targeting of civilians), de-stabilize international relations, or infringe upon the principle of state sovereignty.
Putting key words in bold in your comment doesn’t prove your point.
Apparently it didn’t emphasis them enough, considering you still failed to understand.
Anyway, recent history tells anyone who’s paying attention that if the US has you on their shit list, te last thing you should do is give up your weapons programs. Contrast Iraq and Libya with North Korea, for instance.
Yes, I’m sure that if Iraq had only kept producing chemical weapons the 2003 invasion would never have happened, and if only Gadaffi had kept his 40-year-failure going another ten years, then his people definitely wouldn’t have rose up against him, and there would be no way that any country could use air power against im!
That you think North Korea is a positive example in this situation is fucking telling.
Literally, it is not.
I was unaware of the technical definition. Point conceded.
That you think North Korea is a positive example in this situation is fucking telling.
What does it tell you, exactly? I didn’t praise North Korea. I used them as an example of a country the US would love to wipe out but can’t easily because they have leverage, including nuclear weapons.
And as for Iraq and Libya, both countries had been pursing nuclear weapons. Libya gave up their program. Iraq attacked Kuwait before finishing theirs. It didn’t turn out well for either of them.
Regardless, my point this whole time has been that the US doesn’t need to be involved in every place in the world. To the extent that some of these places are threats to its people, that’s because we have been antagonizing them for decades.
And to the extent that some of these places lack freedom and democracy, we should try getting those concepts right in our own country before exporting them.
But you and I both know that’s not why the US does what it does. Its all about hegemony and ensuring Western capital’s unhindered access to markets.
EDIT: Removed some unnecessary snark
Just imagine, your head of state being targeted by a missile just because they crossed the wrong dude. That’s where we’re heading, and it’s terrifying… Good thing Khamenei died, but the flagrant violation of international law and propaganda surrounding it is maddening…
This has always been the case for the third world.
Fair, international law only exists to protect the Global West
I was sort of hoping that all three would end up dead.
These humans are just cogs in a machine. Khomeni did alot of bad in the world but the CIA coup in 1953 is what created the conditions that lead to the 1979 revolution and the Ayatollah assuming power.
Killing Saddam Hussain didn’t fix Iraq. Killing Bin Laden didn’t fix Afghanistan. This will not fix Iran.
The US blowing shit up without careful consideration creates a cycle of violence that has been the history of the middle east for the past century. Doing this one good thing will had to a thousand bad things. The US has created all the terrorists that want to destroy it, and this situation is no different.
The problem will always be capitalism. The 1953 coup was motivated in response to the nationalizing the oil fields. As long as we are beholden to the profit concerns of rich men, these cycles of violence will persist.
Those things you mentioned SHOULD have fixed Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.
The problem is the people not doing enough for themselves to prevent more violence from happening. They allow too much, especially religion, to get between violence and peace.
Like, jesus, fight for your country. Stop letting other countries try and do it for you. If you don’t like the United States meddling in your affairs, then you guys need to do something yourselves.
Because ask yourself this, what were the people doing under all of those regimes? Suffering, that’s what.
You seem not to know history. Mossadegh wanted to nationalize the oil fields so that the people living in Iran could benefit financially from them. The CIA murdered him and then installed the Shah, for the express purpose of letting Western corporations exploit the oil fields.
This exact story line has played out in countless countries for decades. The CIA or some other group has been doing this to the third world for a loooong time. Any time any of these people try to assert themselves to fix their homelands, the CIA has them killed.
If you are somehow under the impression that the US did all these things to help the people living there you are delusional at best
I’ll bite.
In what way was the assassination of Mossadegh helping the Iranian people?
I what way the propping up and arming of the Taliban helpful to the people of Afghanistan?
There is no “people of Afghanistan” to rise up to fight for their country. Reading the actual history is quite informative. There’s a region that’s been demarcated by outside powers as Afghanistan in order to fit into the Westphalian nation-state system, but which has only ever been unified for a few decades here and there in its history, and only by force. The people who live there are a collection of ethnic groups, Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, and others. From their point of view, the British Empire came along and drew lines around where they lived and called it a nation. That doesn’t create a national identity in them, though, and another empire coming along and murdering them with drones doesn’t do it, either. It takes a special kind of imperialist stupidity (Bush-like, one might say) to think that it would.
Similar story in Iraq. The British Empire drew some arbitrary lines on the map to divide up the area of the fallen Ottoman Empire, and mashed together disparate, rivalrous groups. It’s stunning that Iraq is as functional a nation today as it is. (Although in a quick perusal of the news, I see articles about Iraqi nationalism fading.)
In short, from their point of view, the United States now is the problem, and the instigator of much of the violence, so why would they fight for a nation-building project that the US tried to impose at gunpoint?
The British Empire drew some arbitrary lines on the map to divide up the area of the fallen Ottoman Empire, and mashed together disparate, rivalrous groups.
I agree with you, but to be fair Iraq as a concept is really old, so it’s not like demarcating the area we call Iraq as one administrative unit is a new idea. BTW the Iraqi state is only as functional as it is because opposition to it coalesced around ISIS and politically and military burned out/was crushed, allowing it to maintain a measure of monopoly on violence. It’s still very dysfunctional in a day to day level, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Iraq.
so why would they fight for a nation-building project that the US tried to impose at gunpoint?
That too, but also intentional and unintentional Western sabotage of these nation-building projects to make the results more pliable to Western interests results in shitshows like the US-backed Afghan government that folded within months of US withdrawal. It’s not like the US couldn’t undertake a successful nation-building project if it really wanted to; it just doesn’t.
I love some good imperialist apologia on a Sunday morning
If you don’t like the United States meddling in your affairs, then you guys need to do something yourselves.
Why? How the fuck is what they do or don’t do your problem? Stay the fuck out of other people’s business.
It becomes our problem when their people don’t stop whining and crying for people to save them and we have to deal with their sob stories when they come here as refugees. You can’t whine and complain about needing someone to help you, then reject the help when it comes. It makes you look like a drama queen. If they’re going to be drama queens, then we should ship the refugees back to their countries, where they can happily die to the violence as they’ll die very indecisive as to what they want.
Back in the early 90s, Bush senior’s administration knew what the consequences of killing saddam would be, so they didn’t do it. What they warned about back then was exactly what happened when bush junior’s administration killed him, so I don’t think you’re right that this should have fixed Iraq.
They’ve got two hands
