It's not unilateral, the US have been deeply involved in Iran since the 50´s and the overthrow of the democratic government in order to allow the US companies to continue to steal Iran's oil.

Then of course they had to deal with Irak who invaded them using US weapons and intel. Including use of sarin gas, thanks to US intel.

The argument about democracy in Iran is hypocritical given that neither Trump or Israelis care about it at all. They just want weak client States.

The Iranians didn't wake up hating the USA one day and a little techouva would be healthy if we want this conflict to end.

▲

spwa4 3 hours ago | parent [-]

So you're saying, as soon as a party does something serious against you, say taking your embassy staff hostage (just to select a random thing one might do), then ANY future and continued hostilities, no matter how immoral the means used, are justified, even 50+ years later? I mean, you're singing the praises of long-term revenge. Oh and the 1979 revolution was a socialist revolution that even had support from the KGB.

So that's great. Then, of course, anything the US does against Iran's islamist regime is justified according to you! Excellent news, that. Strange, I got a different impression from your tone.

P.S. you are now supposed to say that it merely means "you understand why" they act like this, not if it's justified. Even though you absolutely won't understand the US killing a few hundred Iranians in revenge.

▲

Saline9515 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm saying that violence between the two countries wasn't unilateral and that the US have a long history of aggression against Iran, culminating now. My post is quite clear.

Ending a cycle of violence also requires to accept where you did wrong (i.e "techouva"). The US have been bombing the world since 1943, with for the most part, little effect aside on the suffering of the civilians under fire.

The only intelligent move to stop the cycle of violence with Iran was the nuclear deal framework made by Obama. It was of course was terminated by Trump, which worked very well as the current war shows.

Bombing Iran during negociations, killing their supreme leader and negociators, commiting war crimes, won't clearly solve anything.

When I read such post, I feel that many people supporting the war in the US just have a sadistic instinct that needs to be expressed, whatever the consequences. Hurting (or, as the Trump aides say "fucking") other people won't fix the emptiness of your lives.

	▲	unyttigfjelltol 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Trump’s bargaining position has been: stop raising foreign armies to attack Israel; stop trying to sneak into the nuclear club, because we know what you’re going to do. Translated to human terms: stop threatening the US and its allies. The US position is not sadism, it’s how every nation except Iran tolerates one another, live and let live. Russia and the US— they competed strongly with one another during the Cold War but generally respected red lines. Russia withdrew its kinetic threat from Cuba, the US knew circa 1998 that expanding NATO through the old Warsaw Pact would make no friends in Moscow. Strong, rules-based brinksmanship all the way around. Iran is just about ideological extremism. Sometimes there are rules, or used to be, but the IRGC signed up a bunch of unprofessional clowns to wage total war on its behalf and, at core, talks like “mutually assured destruction” would be a total “win”, provided Israel was on the other side. If either superpower exposed that kind of philosophy in the Cold War can you imagine the calamity? It’s inherently destabilizing.