8 ms·

The collapse of the Islamic Republic will likely bring much misery, upheaval and deaths. Why wish for this from the comfort of our countries? If the collapse c

by the_af 4y ago

The collapse of the Islamic Republic will likely bring much misery, upheaval and deaths. Why wish for this from the comfort of our countries? If the collapse comes with a power vacuum and the resurgence of competing fundamentalist groups, this wouldn't be helping any Iranians. Last time Western powers meddled, it resulted in the Islamic Revolution, after all.

ep103 4y ago
You're right, if the future holds the possibility of danger, we should never try to improve anything at all. Better to always stay with the misery we already know, and never try to improve our lives. Good point. /s
- the_af 4y ago
  This is not at all what I said, I suggest you look at HN guidelines. When "we" "improve" other countries, it often doesn't come well. "We" tend to create power vacuums and help the rise of fundamentalist groups. "We" messed up Iraq and neighboring countries. "We" helped create the opportunity for the Islamic Revolution to occur. All of what I'm saying is documented fact, not conspiracy theories. Recent history. All I'm saying is self evident to any thinking person: do not wish for the "collapse" of a nation state. Not unless you are willing to live there during its collapse. Not from the comfort of your home. Having the decency to exercise some restraint before wishing for the collapse of anyone's nation state is a lesson we should have learned by now.
  - fromseashore 4y ago
    Have you ever asked yourself, whether you have any right whatsoever to "improve" other countries? It looks like this simple question is very rarely being asked in US..
    - the_af 4y ago
      I'm not from the US and I share the sentiment in the question you're asking. More importantly, I don't think any country has the right to hasten another country's collapse.
  - nradov 4y ago
    I am a thinking person and I wish for the collapse of the Iranian, Russian, and Chinese nation states (among others). Some people always have a rough time in a societal collapse, but that would at least offer the possibility of a brighter future instead of perpetual authoritarian oppression. And, selfishly, it would eliminate threats to the US and our allies. I don't think we should intervene military to cause such a collapse. But we should exert peaceful pressure to hasten it, just like we did with the USSR.
    - kunagi7 4y ago
      And the "crazy nineties" happened shortly after USSR's collapse. Hyperinflation, high levels of poverty, poor law enforcement, gang wars and high unemployment where things the average exsoviet citizen had to face in his daily life for years. In some countries this was solved with external intervention (like adhesion to the EU) but others ended up being post-soviet dictatorships. In my humble opinion, we wouldn't have seen this many wars unfold in Eastern Europe if both Yugoslavia's and USSR's collapse had been better organized and supervised. Citizens of countries under oppressive regimes must fight against them... But avoid at all costs a power vacuum to appear.
      - scns 4y ago
        No snark inteded, but how can a collapse be organized better?
        kunagi7 4y ago
        Sadly it's not something that has an easy answer. Trying to switch systems peacefully without losing total control of a country is not an easy feat. Even countries that managed to do that like Germany's unification, Portugal (Carnation Revolution), Greece (military junta fall) or Spain ended up with regrets and damage that takes generations to cure.
        scns 4y ago
        Germany's unification? A huge mess and the damage is ongoing. Kohl bought votes by setting Ostmark exchange rates to 1:1. This took on all debt of the GDR at full price but got him favour with veryone with money in the bank. He enriched his cronies by selling companies and banks with credits in billions (taxpayer backed) for peanuts. He promised them "Blooming Landscapes" but they got sold out big time. What is blooming there? Fascism.
  - javajosh 4y ago
    The effect you describe is called a "moral hazard".
  - gertlex 4y ago
    > All I'm saying is self evident to any thinking person: do not wish for the "collapse" of a nation state. Not unless you are willing to live there during its collapse. Not from the comfort of your home. I guess what's leaving you open here to hostile takes is that you're not mentioning other things to hope for instead, so some number are defaulting to interpreting your comments as "the status quo in Iran is fine".
    - the_af 4y ago
      Ah, but I can be asked about what I think and I will happily reply: I do not think the status quo of Iran is fine. I dislike Islamic theocracies and I don't think Iran does well in public freedom. I think it is a tragedy that Iran used to be closer to a democracy (yes, with a king and all, but still) and Western interference created the conditions for both a dictatorship and the horrible Islamic theocracy that came later and is still in power today. I hope the Iranians get a better deal (hopefully without being part of some power game by external nations), because they deserve it. I do not wish any families living in Iran to go through a "collapse", especially not a violent one. See? If people reply to my comments with reasonable questions, I reply in a similar tone. When people go in full attack mode, they get worse responses. Which is the tone that HN should favor?
    - somenameforme 4y ago
      There's one common logical error we all often make, and it's becoming more relevant by the day. We naturally see things as being either a good choice or a bad choice. But in reality, you're often not choosing between a good choice and a bad choice, but between a bad choice and a horrible choice. So focusing on the bad choice being bad doesn't really therefore suggest that the other choice is any better!
      - the_af 4y ago
        Thanks. It's surprising to me that this needs stating, but it apparently does, here on HN.
      - kaba0 4y ago
        Exactly. This is the exact logic people fail at when it comes to medication side effects. Sure, the vaccine has a tiny chance for this and that negative side effect, but you are not choosing between getting the vaccine and gambling on the side effect, vs not taking any risk, but gambling on not taking a vaccine and having a higher chance of catching the virus which has orders of magnitude higher chance for way worse side effects. It is a tradeoff with a quite clear better shot (pun semi-intended)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- mighty_donkey 4y ago
  Well said...the comment seemed a little shockingly too close to the Islamic Republic's propaganda...
  - the_af 4y ago
    Yes, I'm an Iranian secret agent, if you look at my comments history everything I've ever wrote since I joined points to this. (Pro tip: Islamic Republic propaganda wouldn't point to the rise of their own movement as a bad thing, like I did, so your suspicion is illogical). From HN guidelines: assume good faith. Are you doing this?
    - mighty_donkey 4y ago
      I'm sure you're a great person and not a secret agent (I mean this lol). But anyone who is even slightly following this situation (or has lived through it), will know that the argument you present is the exact kind of propaganda that is used by authoritarian regimes to make people fearful of change. And so yes, I believe I have every right to state that your comment has a close resemblance to State TV
      - Pigalowda 4y ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - cuteboy19 4y ago
      If you read Lenin, he would describe this situation as a "useful idiot"
      - the_af 4y ago
- kerpotgh 4y ago
  [dead]
pinkbeanz 4y ago
Iranians are willing to die (and are dying) to fight the current government. Inflation and the economy has destroyed their hope of a future for decades. Talk to any Iranian now and they’re all hoping for the end of the regime. It can’t get much worse. Iran is not Syria, there’s a flourishing academic population, the fundamentalists are the ones in power, plenty of people still remember what life was like pre-1979.
- the_af 4y ago
  > Iran is not Syria, there’s a flourishing academic population, the fundamentalists are the ones in power What do you think will happen if the Iranian state collapses? What happened the last time the Iranian state collapsed? Something to ponder before wishing for another collapse.
  - pinkbeanz 4y ago
    I’m an Iranian, I’m allowed to wish for the collapse of that awful regime. You can save your sanctimony for someone else.
    - mighty_donkey 4y ago
      Regime rapes and murders women and children, imprisons thousands, mismanages the economy to the point where millions live in poverty and everyone's life savings are slashed in half , environmental degradation to the point where lakes are drying up, state-sponsored terrorism etc....but hey guys have you "pondered" how bad state collapse would be?
      - the_af 4y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Please assume good faith and don't incite flamewars. When I'm arguing against wishing for collapse "from the comfort of our countries", where do you read that I'm talking to Iranians? I'm talking to HN commenters who are not from Iran. I'm obviously not arguing with pinkbeanz since he/she is from Iran. Try arguing in good faith, unless you want this to devolve into a flamewar. You already tried something like this in another comment: please stop.
luckylion 4y ago
> Last time Western powers meddled, it resulted in the Islamic Revolution, after all. There were 25 years between those two events though, so it's hard to draw a direct line. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the Islamic Revolution would've happened even without the 1953 coup d'état and the economic growth that followed it.
- the_af 4y ago
  I don't think it'd be reasonable to assume that, no. The Islamic Revolution didn't happen in a vacuum.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    So without the 1953 coup d'état you're certain there wouldn't have been an Islamic revolution because Islamic groups would never again have held any public sway and power? That's hard to imagine. Just because it didn't happen in a vacuum doesn't meant "it would never have happened unless exactly these circumstances had existed", which is what I'm saying. One could similarly claim that the German reunification resulted in Russia invading Ukraine, but it's obviously not a direct consequence, and over 30 years lots of things are happening, and things are dynamic, so the "if this then that" line gets weaker with each year that passes. Otherwise we end up with "Cain slaying Abel resulted in cell phones".
    - derefr 4y ago
      I believe what they're saying is that without continuous trade sanctions imposed after the coup, there may not have been an Islamic revolution.
    - the_af 4y ago
      > So without the 1953 coup d'état you're certain there wouldn't have been an Islamic revolution because Islamic groups would never again have held any public sway and power? No, saying something isn't "reasonable to assume" doesn't mean it cannot ever happen. It's hard to prove an hypothetical wouldn't have happened. I meant that it's unreasonable to suppose the Islamic Revolution would have happened without first the coup (by the West) and then the continued Western support of a tyrannical dictatorship, which gave support to the Islamic revolutionaries that the West was "the devil". Had Iran had a stable, less tyrannical government for decades, support for a Islamic revolution would have been much, much lower. Would it have been impossible? No. Would it have been much less likely? Sure.
rocketbop 4y ago
That’s unfortunately likely true, other regimes which have fallen in recent years have resulted in terrible misery as the power vacuum opens up. The reality though is there is already misery in Iran; economic stagnation, government sanctioned murders and beatings, and people are deeply unhappy. Source - my partner is Persian and she still has family living in Tehran.
Alir3z4 4y ago
This is an English language and of course majority westerners. You say something against the mainstream media or US hegemony, you'll b labeled as Basiji or "iranian regime supporter" or "on Putin payroll". Not a place for thinking even epsilon out of tunneled vision made by westerners propaganda machine. After all, majority are the ones that gonna rewrite their project in different language or stack because "the landing page said so"
sgjohnson 4y ago
The Islamic Republic brings much misery, upheaval and deaths. I don’t really see your point.
- jacooper 4y ago
  Syria now vs Syria pre-civil war. Which is better?
  - sgjohnson 4y ago
    Living on your knees, or dying standing up. Which is better?
    - the_af 4y ago
      That's for the Iranians to decide. Some people would rather live under an oppressive regime rather than die during its death throes. I won't judge them. It's not for me to decide, not if it's not my country. Did we ever find out whether Iraqis preferred living under Saddam's dictatorship if the alternative was the turmoil that ensued afterwards, insurgency, terror attacks, ISIS, etc?
      - sgjohnson 4y ago
        Considering Iran is actively trying to build a nuclear bomb, I’d say it’s a problem for the world, and I’m fairly certain that very few westerners would care about the well-being of the general population of Iran should they get too close to building one. An internal coup would likely be far better than an external one. The ayatollahs simply cannot remain in power. You don’t need to be an Iranian for this to matter to you.
        jacooper 4y ago
        > Considering Iran is actively trying to build a nuclear bomb, I’d say it’s a problem for the world, and I’m fairly certain that very few westerners would care about the well-being of the general population of Iran should they get too close to building one. The apartheid occupation has a nuclear bomb that threatens the entire area, yet it seems fine for you?
illiac786 4y ago
Easy to say this from the comfort of your home. You don't live under the current regime.
- the_af 4y ago
  Can you restate in a form that is not a snark? What is "easy for me to say" because I don't live there? That before we (not Iranians) wish for the collapse of the current Islamic state, we should understand what it will mean for the people living there -- sure, no longer under the yoke of the Islamic Revolution, but very likely either dead from the destruction that will ensue, or under the yoke of whatever fundamentalist group moves in after, which is very likely to happen based on similar events in the region? In what sense it's "easy" for me to say, "think hard before wishing for violence on others 'for their own good'"? I'm sorry, but you cannot throw back my statement at me because I'm arguing for thoughtfulness.
  - illiac786 4y ago
    I am saying it's easy to say " don't do anything", "be patient" or even "it could be worse" when you don't live there, just like it's easy to wish for the regime to fall. My point was, you seem to only perceive one side of the argument as being "easy from the comfort of our homes", your view is somehow not, because you think your view is neutral. But not taking action is a decision as well. It's a decision very easy to push for when you don't leave under the Iranian regime. I hope it's clearer.
    - the_af 4y ago
      Wishing for war/collapse is the "active" path, while urging caution is like the null-hypothesis (stretching the analogy a bit). You can reach the conclusion that violence is needed, after all -- I'm just urging more thoughtfulness, especially when the collapse is desired by people who don't have to live with the consequences. Consider that the Islamic Revolution was also the consequence of a collapse. Finally, let me reiterate I think the current regime is bad, and if there was a way to make it go away, as directed by Iranian people, without interference from other countries with vested interests not necessarily aligned with Iranians, I'd be all for it. Alas, magic solutions don't exist. The default option should always be non-violence/non-societal-collapse.

by the_af 4y ago

ep103 4y ago

You're right, if the future holds the possibility of danger, we should never try to improve anything at all. Better to always stay with the misery we already know, and never try to improve our lives. Good point. /s

the_af 4y ago
This is not at all what I said, I suggest you look at HN guidelines. When "we" "improve" other countries, it often doesn't come well. "We" tend to create power vacuums and help the rise of fundamentalist groups. "We" messed up Iraq and neighboring countries. "We" helped create the opportunity for the Islamic Revolution to occur. All of what I'm saying is documented fact, not conspiracy theories. Recent history. All I'm saying is self evident to any thinking person: do not wish for the "collapse" of a nation state. Not unless you are willing to live there during its collapse. Not from the comfort of your home. Having the decency to exercise some restraint before wishing for the collapse of anyone's nation state is a lesson we should have learned by now.
- fromseashore 4y ago
  Have you ever asked yourself, whether you have any right whatsoever to "improve" other countries? It looks like this simple question is very rarely being asked in US..
  - the_af 4y ago
    I'm not from the US and I share the sentiment in the question you're asking. More importantly, I don't think any country has the right to hasten another country's collapse.
- nradov 4y ago
  I am a thinking person and I wish for the collapse of the Iranian, Russian, and Chinese nation states (among others). Some people always have a rough time in a societal collapse, but that would at least offer the possibility of a brighter future instead of perpetual authoritarian oppression. And, selfishly, it would eliminate threats to the US and our allies. I don't think we should intervene military to cause such a collapse. But we should exert peaceful pressure to hasten it, just like we did with the USSR.
  - kunagi7 4y ago
    And the "crazy nineties" happened shortly after USSR's collapse. Hyperinflation, high levels of poverty, poor law enforcement, gang wars and high unemployment where things the average exsoviet citizen had to face in his daily life for years. In some countries this was solved with external intervention (like adhesion to the EU) but others ended up being post-soviet dictatorships. In my humble opinion, we wouldn't have seen this many wars unfold in Eastern Europe if both Yugoslavia's and USSR's collapse had been better organized and supervised. Citizens of countries under oppressive regimes must fight against them... But avoid at all costs a power vacuum to appear.
    - scns 4y ago
      No snark inteded, but how can a collapse be organized better?
      - kunagi7 4y ago
        Sadly it's not something that has an easy answer. Trying to switch systems peacefully without losing total control of a country is not an easy feat. Even countries that managed to do that like Germany's unification, Portugal (Carnation Revolution), Greece (military junta fall) or Spain ended up with regrets and damage that takes generations to cure.
        scns 4y ago
        Germany's unification? A huge mess and the damage is ongoing. Kohl bought votes by setting Ostmark exchange rates to 1:1. This took on all debt of the GDR at full price but got him favour with veryone with money in the bank. He enriched his cronies by selling companies and banks with credits in billions (taxpayer backed) for peanuts. He promised them "Blooming Landscapes" but they got sold out big time. What is blooming there? Fascism.
- javajosh 4y ago
  The effect you describe is called a "moral hazard".
- gertlex 4y ago
  > All I'm saying is self evident to any thinking person: do not wish for the "collapse" of a nation state. Not unless you are willing to live there during its collapse. Not from the comfort of your home. I guess what's leaving you open here to hostile takes is that you're not mentioning other things to hope for instead, so some number are defaulting to interpreting your comments as "the status quo in Iran is fine".
  - the_af 4y ago
    Ah, but I can be asked about what I think and I will happily reply: I do not think the status quo of Iran is fine. I dislike Islamic theocracies and I don't think Iran does well in public freedom. I think it is a tragedy that Iran used to be closer to a democracy (yes, with a king and all, but still) and Western interference created the conditions for both a dictatorship and the horrible Islamic theocracy that came later and is still in power today. I hope the Iranians get a better deal (hopefully without being part of some power game by external nations), because they deserve it. I do not wish any families living in Iran to go through a "collapse", especially not a violent one. See? If people reply to my comments with reasonable questions, I reply in a similar tone. When people go in full attack mode, they get worse responses. Which is the tone that HN should favor?
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    There's one common logical error we all often make, and it's becoming more relevant by the day. We naturally see things as being either a good choice or a bad choice. But in reality, you're often not choosing between a good choice and a bad choice, but between a bad choice and a horrible choice. So focusing on the bad choice being bad doesn't really therefore suggest that the other choice is any better!
    - the_af 4y ago
      Thanks. It's surprising to me that this needs stating, but it apparently does, here on HN.
    - kaba0 4y ago
      Exactly. This is the exact logic people fail at when it comes to medication side effects. Sure, the vaccine has a tiny chance for this and that negative side effect, but you are not choosing between getting the vaccine and gambling on the side effect, vs not taking any risk, but gambling on not taking a vaccine and having a higher chance of catching the virus which has orders of magnitude higher chance for way worse side effects. It is a tradeoff with a quite clear better shot (pun semi-intended)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
mighty_donkey 4y ago
Well said...the comment seemed a little shockingly too close to the Islamic Republic's propaganda...
- the_af 4y ago
  Yes, I'm an Iranian secret agent, if you look at my comments history everything I've ever wrote since I joined points to this. (Pro tip: Islamic Republic propaganda wouldn't point to the rise of their own movement as a bad thing, like I did, so your suspicion is illogical). From HN guidelines: assume good faith. Are you doing this?
  - mighty_donkey 4y ago
    I'm sure you're a great person and not a secret agent (I mean this lol). But anyone who is even slightly following this situation (or has lived through it), will know that the argument you present is the exact kind of propaganda that is used by authoritarian regimes to make people fearful of change. And so yes, I believe I have every right to state that your comment has a close resemblance to State TV
    - Pigalowda 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - cuteboy19 4y ago
    If you read Lenin, he would describe this situation as a "useful idiot"
    - the_af 4y ago
kerpotgh 4y ago
[dead]

pinkbeanz 4y ago

Iranians are willing to die (and are dying) to fight the current government. Inflation and the economy has destroyed their hope of a future for decades. Talk to any Iranian now and they’re all hoping for the end of the regime. It can’t get much worse. Iran is not Syria, there’s a flourishing academic population, the fundamentalists are the ones in power, plenty of people still remember what life was like pre-1979.

the_af 4y ago
> Iran is not Syria, there’s a flourishing academic population, the fundamentalists are the ones in power What do you think will happen if the Iranian state collapses? What happened the last time the Iranian state collapsed? Something to ponder before wishing for another collapse.
- pinkbeanz 4y ago
  I’m an Iranian, I’m allowed to wish for the collapse of that awful regime. You can save your sanctimony for someone else.
  - mighty_donkey 4y ago
    Regime rapes and murders women and children, imprisons thousands, mismanages the economy to the point where millions live in poverty and everyone's life savings are slashed in half , environmental degradation to the point where lakes are drying up, state-sponsored terrorism etc....but hey guys have you "pondered" how bad state collapse would be?
    - the_af 4y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Please assume good faith and don't incite flamewars. When I'm arguing against wishing for collapse "from the comfort of our countries", where do you read that I'm talking to Iranians? I'm talking to HN commenters who are not from Iran. I'm obviously not arguing with pinkbeanz since he/she is from Iran. Try arguing in good faith, unless you want this to devolve into a flamewar. You already tried something like this in another comment: please stop.

luckylion 4y ago

> Last time Western powers meddled, it resulted in the Islamic Revolution, after all. There were 25 years between those two events though, so it's hard to draw a direct line. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the Islamic Revolution would've happened even without the 1953 coup d'état and the economic growth that followed it.

the_af 4y ago
I don't think it'd be reasonable to assume that, no. The Islamic Revolution didn't happen in a vacuum.
- luckylion 4y ago
  So without the 1953 coup d'état you're certain there wouldn't have been an Islamic revolution because Islamic groups would never again have held any public sway and power? That's hard to imagine. Just because it didn't happen in a vacuum doesn't meant "it would never have happened unless exactly these circumstances had existed", which is what I'm saying. One could similarly claim that the German reunification resulted in Russia invading Ukraine, but it's obviously not a direct consequence, and over 30 years lots of things are happening, and things are dynamic, so the "if this then that" line gets weaker with each year that passes. Otherwise we end up with "Cain slaying Abel resulted in cell phones".
  - derefr 4y ago
    I believe what they're saying is that without continuous trade sanctions imposed after the coup, there may not have been an Islamic revolution.
  - the_af 4y ago
    > So without the 1953 coup d'état you're certain there wouldn't have been an Islamic revolution because Islamic groups would never again have held any public sway and power? No, saying something isn't "reasonable to assume" doesn't mean it cannot ever happen. It's hard to prove an hypothetical wouldn't have happened. I meant that it's unreasonable to suppose the Islamic Revolution would have happened without first the coup (by the West) and then the continued Western support of a tyrannical dictatorship, which gave support to the Islamic revolutionaries that the West was "the devil". Had Iran had a stable, less tyrannical government for decades, support for a Islamic revolution would have been much, much lower. Would it have been impossible? No. Would it have been much less likely? Sure.

rocketbop 4y ago

That’s unfortunately likely true, other regimes which have fallen in recent years have resulted in terrible misery as the power vacuum opens up. The reality though is there is already misery in Iran; economic stagnation, government sanctioned murders and beatings, and people are deeply unhappy. Source - my partner is Persian and she still has family living in Tehran.

Alir3z4 4y ago

This is an English language and of course majority westerners. You say something against the mainstream media or US hegemony, you'll b labeled as Basiji or "iranian regime supporter" or "on Putin payroll". Not a place for thinking even epsilon out of tunneled vision made by westerners propaganda machine. After all, majority are the ones that gonna rewrite their project in different language or stack because "the landing page said so"

sgjohnson 4y ago

The Islamic Republic brings much misery, upheaval and deaths. I don’t really see your point.

jacooper 4y ago
Syria now vs Syria pre-civil war. Which is better?
- sgjohnson 4y ago
  Living on your knees, or dying standing up. Which is better?
  - the_af 4y ago
    That's for the Iranians to decide. Some people would rather live under an oppressive regime rather than die during its death throes. I won't judge them. It's not for me to decide, not if it's not my country. Did we ever find out whether Iraqis preferred living under Saddam's dictatorship if the alternative was the turmoil that ensued afterwards, insurgency, terror attacks, ISIS, etc?
    - sgjohnson 4y ago
      Considering Iran is actively trying to build a nuclear bomb, I’d say it’s a problem for the world, and I’m fairly certain that very few westerners would care about the well-being of the general population of Iran should they get too close to building one. An internal coup would likely be far better than an external one. The ayatollahs simply cannot remain in power. You don’t need to be an Iranian for this to matter to you.
      - jacooper 4y ago
        > Considering Iran is actively trying to build a nuclear bomb, I’d say it’s a problem for the world, and I’m fairly certain that very few westerners would care about the well-being of the general population of Iran should they get too close to building one. The apartheid occupation has a nuclear bomb that threatens the entire area, yet it seems fine for you?

illiac786 4y ago

Easy to say this from the comfort of your home. You don't live under the current regime.

the_af 4y ago
Can you restate in a form that is not a snark? What is "easy for me to say" because I don't live there? That before we (not Iranians) wish for the collapse of the current Islamic state, we should understand what it will mean for the people living there -- sure, no longer under the yoke of the Islamic Revolution, but very likely either dead from the destruction that will ensue, or under the yoke of whatever fundamentalist group moves in after, which is very likely to happen based on similar events in the region? In what sense it's "easy" for me to say, "think hard before wishing for violence on others 'for their own good'"? I'm sorry, but you cannot throw back my statement at me because I'm arguing for thoughtfulness.
- illiac786 4y ago
  I am saying it's easy to say " don't do anything", "be patient" or even "it could be worse" when you don't live there, just like it's easy to wish for the regime to fall. My point was, you seem to only perceive one side of the argument as being "easy from the comfort of our homes", your view is somehow not, because you think your view is neutral. But not taking action is a decision as well. It's a decision very easy to push for when you don't leave under the Iranian regime. I hope it's clearer.
  - the_af 4y ago
    Wishing for war/collapse is the "active" path, while urging caution is like the null-hypothesis (stretching the analogy a bit). You can reach the conclusion that violence is needed, after all -- I'm just urging more thoughtfulness, especially when the collapse is desired by people who don't have to live with the consequences. Consider that the Islamic Revolution was also the consequence of a collapse. Finally, let me reiterate I think the current regime is bad, and if there was a way to make it go away, as directed by Iranian people, without interference from other countries with vested interests not necessarily aligned with Iranians, I'd be all for it. Alas, magic solutions don't exist. The default option should always be non-violence/non-societal-collapse.