| ▲ | nomilk 5 hours ago |
| Are there any accurate sources on how many Iranian citizens the Iran regime has killed in the past couple of months? (some sources suggest tens of thousands, but I wonder if it could be a 'WMDs' situation [lie to get support for a war]). Trump said in the State of the Union [0]: > in just over the past couple of months with the protests they've killed at least 32000 protestors And just moments ago Trump says 'tens of thousands' [1] Is this confirmed or conjecture? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l-iErpskb8&t=1h21m20s [1] https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/2027651077865157033 |
|
| ▲ | usrnm 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I don't get that argument at all. Americans felt that they were missing out on all the fun, so they decided to kill even more Iranians? Does anyone really believe that bombing cities saves lives? |
| |
| ▲ | bawolff 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Whether it will in this case i don't know. But yes, i do think sometimes war can be a net positive for civilians over the alternative in the long term. Not often, but sometimes. | | |
| ▲ | dygd 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > i do think sometimes war can be a net positive for civilians Spoken from the comfort of your cozy apartment, with the AC on, light music in the background and a drink in your hand. |
| |
| ▲ | RiverStone 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They’re not nuking Tehran, they’re dropping targeted bombs on government/military sites. Get in touch with your local Iranian community. You’d be surprised how much they’re cheering the bombing on. You might be surprised that people inside Tehran are shouting “get the mullahs out” and cheering us on. | | |
| ▲ | tsimionescu 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is exactly what was claimed in Iraq, and while I'm sure you can find some few idiots or optimists, it is completely false at the relevant level. There is no such thing, and has never been such a thing, as a country welcoming an invasion by another country, at least not in the last few hundred years since nation states developed, and since explosives became the major means of war. This is especially false in Iran in relation to USA intervention, since both the democrats and the fundamentalists still remember how the USA & UK deposed their last democratic leaders and (re) installed the brutal dictatorship of the Shah, who both parts of Iranian society hate and remeber being oppressed by today. | |
| ▲ | orwin 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The diaspora and the clans are cheering for sure, as well as a lot of people who lost their operations when the Taliban took Afghanistan back. But the clans are way, way weaker than they were when they did their coup against Mosaddegh, so it will be extremely expensive for the US to keep control this time. | |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Us and Britain is largely the reason they're in power in the first place. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | epsters 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why are we even talking about this? As if this is being done for the 'protestors'? Netanyahu didn't visit the White House 6 times in the last year to advocate for the welfare of the Iranian people. The "negotiations" over the last several weeks weren't over protestors - it was over the Nuclear program, ballistic program and proxy forces. It wasn't even about US interests. Iran offered mining, oil and other valuable rights. Trump wasn't buying. This is about Israel's national security interests and hegemonic ambitions. Protestors are just pawns in service of that. If this turns into a full-scale war or a civil war breaks out, we are looking at 1 million Iranian deaths conservatively speaking. Just look at happened at every single foreign intervention in the region - Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia. How does a million dead Iranians help them? How does it help the Americans, and the world if oil infrastructures or shipping lanes are targeted ? How does it help the region or Europe when millions of refugees flood out, and armouries are broken open and weapons and insurgents flood the region (like it did with Iraq and Libya)? It helps Israel greatly though, since they take out their arch nemesis, their conventional military and the nuclear program. And they think can shield themselves from the chaos they create around them. |
| |
| ▲ | swingboy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > This is about Israel's national security interests and hegemonic ambitions. This sums it all up succinctly. Emphasis on the “hegemonic ambitions” part. | |
| ▲ | tdeck 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Apparently you don't even have to give Americans the neocon foreign policy spin anymore, we generate it ourselves. To wit, after Maduro was kidnapped and the exact same regime kept in place (minus selling oil to Cuba), and Trump openly said it was to control the oil, most of the reactions were pretending we live in a universe where the US does these things to spread democracy. |
|
|
| ▲ | bawolff 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think its incredibly difficult to get confirmed numbers in a situation like that. I do think its on the higher end though as i dont think they would have bothered with a costly extended internet blackout if the number was small. |
|
| ▲ | colordrops 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Why does it matter? Is it justification to attack them? |
| |
| ▲ | bawolff 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Its probably not the reason they are attacking (except in as much that it makes the iranian regime vulnerable). However i would say that yes, humanitarian intervention is one of the only non self-defense justifications for war that anyone has ever accepted in the post-ww2 era. (Edit: to clarify, im saying its the type of thing people build justifications for war around. Whether its a valid justification on this specific case is probably highly debatable. I think a reasonable argument could be made) | | |
| ▲ | sekai 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > However i would say that yes, humanitarian intervention is one of the only non self-defense justifications for war that anyone has ever accepted in the post-ww2 era So when is the US intervening in Ukraine then? Russia is literally doing human safari with drones hunting down civilians in Kherson. | | |
| ▲ | bawolff 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > So when is the US intervening in Ukraine then? Did you miss the absolute massive amounts of aid US has given ukraine? Regardless, there is a difference between how war is justified and why wars actually take place. |
| |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But this will undoubtedly increase the general level of adversarial feelings and justifications of violence worldwide for many decades to come. The seeds of the next ISIS were planted today | |
| ▲ | close04 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Can the US or Israel morally claim “humanitarian” intervention given what’s happening in parallel in Gaza? If Iran bombed Tel Aviv would you call it a humanitarian intervention? Is this a creative use of the term? When you make a “humanitarian” intervention to save some humans, while decimating others it sounds like you think the “others” are not/sub-humans. | | | |
| ▲ | rando1234 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | So I suppose you'll be attacking Saudi Arabia after this if you're so worried about humanitarian conditions? | | |
| ▲ | RiverStone 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You have to pick your battles and be pragmatic. Changing the Iranian regime would have a much broader impact than changing the Saudi Arabian one. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | nomilk 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The 'tens of thousands' figure is one primary justification. Iran (eventually) getting a nuke is another. |
|
