If the rumors are true, the Iranian gov systematically cut off all escape and communication for the 30k people it just ruthlessly murdered. While I agree meddling in other countries’ happenings should be little to none, that’s a lot of people slaughtered and no one even tried to stop it. Whataboutism won’t bring those people back either.

▲

9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

goku12 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is a very valid criticism that can't simply be dismissed by an inappropriate application of the whataboutism argument. I agree that the current Iranian regime is ruthless and has to go. But history has shown that almost all US intervention results in a much worse outcome for the people they 'liberate' (a good example was the polpot regime of Cambodia). And this is due to the fact that any humanitarian crisis is just a pretext for the US to invade, and it hides their true motivations of colonial commercial exploitation of the war torn land. Even the current Iranian regime is a direct result of the US sabotaging a democratic system that existed there for exploiting their oil reserves. What makes you think another intervention is going to end any better?

The US government doesn't care at all about the thousands who were murdered in Iran. Gaza is the best example of that. I was worried that the Trumpian rhetoric about the protestors would put them in more jeopardy by painting them as US backed saboteurs to the regime. And that's exactly what happened. If he cared about them, he would have kept quiet for their safety. But what he actually wants is an excuse to invade, and any rhetoric helps that cause. The US intervention is already causing serious issues. However way I look at it, I see this only making a bad situation much worse.

There is this belief that the US is a benevolent superpower who is forced by the brutality of foreign regimes to intervene on humanitarian grounds. But history says otherwise. I always get a strong push back whenever I suggest this, from those who refuse to judge the situation impartially. See what happened in Venezuela, for example. The only difference now is that the current US regime doesn't care about hiding their true intentions.

And finally, the current US regime complaining about the brutality of a foreign regime is supremely ironic. The Khomeini regime may be much more brutal, but it's only because they got so much time to evolve into one. The Trump regime is however, on a speed run to a full dictatorship. Does anybody have any idea what's happening with the nearly 70K people that ICE rounded up so far? Everyone seem to think that they're in some detention facility for their 'crimes'. And that scares me a lot, because that's what the German civilians thought about the Jews too, until the allied forces overran the concentration camps. Attacking a foreign autocracy to deflect attention from the one at home is just pure moral bankruptcy.

	▲	spwa4 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> The US government doesn't care at all about the thousands who were murdered in Iran. Gaza is the best example of that. Wait, what? The only people linking Iran and Gaza are the ayatollahs ... and let's be clear: hamas murders more Palestinians than Israel does, which I'm sure Iran actually knows and sees as a good thing. > There is this belief that the US is a benevolent superpower who is forced by the brutality of foreign regimes to intervene on humanitarian grounds. But history says otherwise. There's obvious responses (and I'll ignore if that belief is real or not. It's not): 1) the US was indeed forced. In the sense that it's blatantly obvious that current and past administrations would have massively preferred to not interfere. Oh AND when the US says it was forced into action, that's far more true than when Putin says it. Or when the ayatollahs say it for that matter. 2) As for motivations, are they pure? No. The US and the rest of the world, when push comes to shove, is dependent on most countries participating in international trade, and has gone into wars for that. And yes, pushing oil extraction is part of that. Iran is a brutal regime that is not only extremely aggressive against it's own population but is also in a great position and trying to block trade through the Persian gulf. They wouldn't even use that to get some tax out of it. Given the chance, they would use their position to block trade with half the middle east, to conquer it. That's the mullahs wet dream, the goal. 3) And let's be real here: when it comes to US wars, they massively improved the fate of the people in the countries that were targeted. It was indeed brutal regimes that were targeted. So the humanitarian aspect is real, even if the counterargument is true: does the US attack because of humanitarian problems? No. But compared to the other side, there's the question do US enemies create humanitarian problems as a military tactic? Generally, yes. Especially hamas, of course, and in their case, on a large scale. 4) What are the alternatives? Russia? China? They are worse than the US was at it's worst, centuries back. And the EU countries? When they did care, they had racist, colonial brutality against locals and have now moved to total indifference. Let's politely say "no help there". 5) That the motivations of the US are in question at all, and that we are genuinely discussing them inside the US, by itself, is moral. The motivations of the opposing sides ... nobody even questions how evil they are. Anybody who questions that Iran wants to conquer ... Iran has done that, brutally. Google "plastic keys to heaven", and learn how you can use minority primary school children as cheap demining equipment. Clearly, allah-approved, according to ayatollahs, who I'm told have to study islamic theology for 20 years minimum to get that job. 6) ICE might be bad, but it's not comparable to the ayatollahs. Not even remotely. 7) letting mullahs, who have shown they will use children as demining equipment in a war of aggression, acquire a nuclear bomb does not just seem like morally abhorrent but also a strategic disaster. And in case that argument is not convincing enough, they have made it clear on many occasions they want nuclear weapons in order to use them aggressively.