Your perspective on who is being liberated and who is doing the liberating relies on a simplistic narrative. Ironically, the central figure of that narrative, Donald Trump, has openly stated that he does not mind seizing oil or returning the nation to the Dark Ages. Furthermore, they have backed armed protests and expressed a willingness to arm Kurdish factions.

I am uncertain about the logic or framework you are utilizing. If you believe such actions constitute "freeing" a country, then we clearly do not share the same moral and ethical standards.

▲

AuthAuth 6 days ago | parent [-]

I think you're assuming way to much from my comment. I was pushing back on the idea that arming rebel group isnt how countries are freed not supporting what Trump is doing.

A violent takeover may not immediately lead to a "free" country but it does open the doors to change and from that change can come freedom. Or in a different perspective its not freedom its just to be free from that certain regime.

▲

hackable_sand 5 days ago | parent [-]

We should punctuate the difference between self-actualization and liberal colonization.

I'm not Iranian, Iran has no effect on my life, and I'm a pacifist.

Why would I compel someone to liberate themselves with a mistaken paternalism? It's irresponsible.

▲

AuthAuth 5 days ago | parent [-]

because the person funding isnt doing it out of the good of their heart. They have interests in removing the current government. The rebels also have interests in removing the current government. That is all its just two people working together on a common goal its not that deep.

	▲	aogaili 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Since Iran is clearly seeking to remove the U.S. government, is arming democratic factions a morally justifiable response?