Mastodawn

Not unlike the little girls killed in the opening salvo of the Iranian war

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.

Dead Iraqi Would Have Loved Democracy

BAGHDAD, IRAQ—Baghdad resident Taha Sabri, killed Monday in a U.S. air strike on his city, would have loved the eventual liberation of Iraq and establishment of democracy, had he lived to see it, his grieving widow said.

The Onion

humanamerican Mar 1

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 boogereaters bourgeoisie.

zikzak025 Mar 1

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.

Mantzy81 Mar 1

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.

humanamerican Mar 1

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.

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.

humanamerican Mar 1

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.

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.

humanamerican Mar 2

Literally, it is not.

I was unaware of the technical definition. Point conceded.

Apparently it didn’t emphasis them enough, considering you still failed to understand.

I didn’t fail to understand. I simply didn’t know the definition. You putting a word in bold doesn’t magically make me know that there’s a specific, non-intuitive meaning in international relations for it.

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.

BestBouclettes Mar 1

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…

FuglyDuck Mar 1

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.

definitely_AI Mar 1

I would genuinely love for Trump to meet the same fate, they’re at the same level of evil and both deserve it.

FuglyDuck Mar 1

the problem is all the collateral damage on their way out.

AtHeartEngineer Mar 1

trump should just choke on mcdonalds, I think that would be ideal. No one to blame.

Myk Mar 1

@AtHeartEngineer @FuglyDuck nah, they would blame the woke libs that cooked it

FuglyDuck Mar 2

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.

Nalivai Mar 2

I don’t actually think it necessary will create a martyr, or that that asshole being a martyr will change a lot. It’s quite often that a dictator in dictatorship is actually behind the whole bullshit, and him dying takes a lot of it away.
Of course, the opposite could be true.

definitely_AI Mar 1

I hate that it is so easy to weaponize what has happened and manipulate the public into having to decide between these crude binary narratives as if there are only two opinions you can have on the matter- you’re either in favor of Cartoon Villain Khamenei or Trump.

No nuance, no discussing the wider geopolitical consequences, the fact that Trump did this unilaterally without approval of congress, how this will likely end up in sectarian civil war and displace millions of people, how the USA just lent its muscle to further an Israeli imperial agenda in the Middle East.

Reducing this to a meme-friendly choice between two evil men is how accountability disappears and this type of unilateral imperial escalation becomes normalized and cheered.

YappyMonotheist Mar 1

Because they’re amoral imperialists (either in denial or silly enough not to see it), they dislike Trump because of how brutish and obvious his ways are (amongst other things that aren’t nearly as important as the similarities he had geopolitically to previous presidents). It’s a dislike mostly based in aesthetics, not ethics (else they’d also condemn Mr. “Drone kill records” Obama, for example).

Meh, who cares, death of this cunt is a net positive thing, makes other ones a bit more cautious.

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.

And those school girls are dead, there was no implication that usa is a good guy here, also epstein is the distraction.

I disagree, Epstein files being hidden is what’s protecting the billionaires running the nation, if they are released all their regime will fall

There are literally thousands of files that implicate or state that they were involved with epstein, nobody cares. Public is satisfied. panem et circenses

only a fraction was released, and they redacted the perpetators.

Do you sincerely believe that unredacted names would change anything?

they are the ones afraid of interacting them

Sharkticon Mar 1

Well they certainly believe it otherwise why hide them?

theunknownmuncher Mar 1

Including “net” in net positive means that it is more positive than the negatives, so… you’re saying that starting an illegal war of choice with no real longterm plan and bombing children and civilians was worth killing the Iranian supreme leader. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is probably not really what you meant, but it is what the words you typed meant.

For me, currently, it is more positive, yes. Killing iranian tyrant just might allow people to overthrow their current government. As for legality of your war, well as far as world is concerned might makes right. Like at best world leaders will be deeply concerned over american war.

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.

thecaptaintrout Mar 1

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.

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.

AlligatorBlizzard Mar 2

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.

Mossheart Mar 2

If only he’d be unpresidented…

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.

Nalivai Mar 2

All of that is true. Still, it’s good that the tyrant is dead now.

thethrilloftime69 Mar 1

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.

Jack Mar 1

Why would that be an either/or kind of situation?

grue Mar 1

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?

InvalidName2 Mar 1

Super disappointing take considering it was posted by someone who seemed to be at least a little bit reasonable and rational based on prior comments. Glad to see others in here calling that, out, though!

Fokeu Mar 1

I mean, I would celebrate Trump’s death too.

Curiousfur Mar 1

Khamenei can rest in piss, but I really wish he’d dragged the entirety of this administration to whatever afterlife he went to, and without all of the bombing of civilians and children…

Lushed_Lungfish Mar 1

I was sort of hoping that all three would end up dead.

ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace Mar 1

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.

lemmy_outta_here Mar 1

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 their both wormfood.

Lioffproxy Mar 1

They’ve got two hands

corsicanguppy Mar 1

At no time is assassination cool.

even for bad people
even for bad regimes
even if the redneck idol does it

We’ve chosen other organizations for this, lacking only our support to investigate and then remove tyrants. But this shit both breaks international law and abandons its backing. It’s a one-two punch for civilization.

Why would trump not respect and empower objective investigation and punishment for cruelty? Is he worried about something?

Sharkticon Mar 1

Liberals absolutely leaning towards the first choice from what I’ve seen.

belastend Mar 1

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.