8 ms·

Why are we toppling all these foreign governments and creating instability that breads terrorism in places that otherwise have nothing to do with us? This seem

Why are we toppling all these foreign governments and creating instability that breads terrorism in places that otherwise have nothing to do with us? This seems so exceptionally counter productive.

fortzi 1y ago
IRGC is known for funding and training militant and terrier groups globally. They also call for the annihilation of the Big Satan (USA) and the Small Satan (Israel). All the while running for The Bomb. I wouldn’t call the present sutuation stable.
- msgodel 1y ago
  Oh no! Mean words! Anyway we have plenty of people here that hate the US and are far more likely to actually create a problem. Furthermore I'd argue the deficit spending (a very large portion of which is defense) is a much more serious existential threat.
- greiskul 1y ago
  > known for funding and training militant and terrier groups globally So does the US. > They also call for the annihilation of the Big Satan (USA) and the Small Satan (Israel) You are literally calling for the annihilation of their state here. > All the while running for The Bomb. Only one country has ever used nuclear weapons in war. There is definitely a cold war going on between Israel and Iran. I'm not sure if it escalating to a hot war would be better. The 20th century Cold War had all the same things you mentioned, with both sides fighting proxy wars, calling for the annihilation of the other side, and had atomic weapons. And I think everyone agrees that the end of the cold war that we had was definitely better than nuclear Armageddon. And I don't know if the 20th would have been better if only the US had atomic weapons. MAD might have saved millions of lives in both sides.
  - trustinmenowpls 1y ago
    > So does the US. nope. > You are literally calling for the annihilation of their state here. Nope, people are only calling for the unpopular regime to be replaced by a popular one. > There is definitely a cold war going on between Israel and Iran. Hezbollah is an actual arm of the IRGC so it's a hot war and has been for 25+ years.
    - ty6853 1y ago
      Nobody is buying this bullshit anymore, we're not going down for your campaign to dupe us into "replacing a popular one" like happened in Iraq when the USA created a power vacuum and then much of it got taken over by ISIS, much of which was left to Kurdish and other local resistance groups to flush out after your deranged "nope. Nope," propaganda of lies military campaign ended.
noworriesnate 1y ago
Because 1) America won’t allow nations near Israel to be successful, it’s too much of a threat to our greatest ally and 2) war is incredibly profitable.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- eddythompson80 1y ago
  > nations near Israel to be successful, I'm guessing that doesn't include Turkey or the rich oil arab states.
  - themgt 1y ago
    Actually they're already "joking" on Israeli TV that Turkey is next, and AEI is on the case making it clear we may need to go to war to take out Turkey next. https://x.com/clashreport/status/1935078004230865094 https://x.com/clashreport/status/1935078004230865094 https://www.aei.org/op-eds/israel-iran-war-dry-run-for-a-future-war-with-turkey/ https://www.aei.org/op-eds/israel-iran-war-dry-run-for-a-fut...
    - tguvot 1y ago
      you going to omit that erdogan been threatening israel first ?
      - tguvot 1y ago
        narrator yes, he will omit that president threatens another country but will make a big deal out of host on tv show Turkey's president has vowed to "liberate Al-Aqsa mosque" from Israel https://www.newarab.com/news/hagia-sophia-resurrection-paves-way-al-aqsa-liberation-erdogan https://www.newarab.com/news/hagia-sophia-resurrection-paves... Turkish President Erdogan did not hesitate to issue a rare threat to Israel in a party rally, speaking on the ongoing war in Gaza: 'Perhaps we will invade just like we entered Karabakh and Libya' https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/levant-turkey/artc-erdogan-threatens-to-invade-israel-just-like-we-entered-karabakh-and-libya https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/levant-turkey/art...
gspencley 1y ago
> Why are we toppling all these foreign governments I don't want to speak to the other foreign governments, and I think there is a LOT of room for healthy criticism of how the USA handles its foreign policy, past & present. But to answer the question directly with respects to Iran, specifically: the leadership has been repeatedly chanting "Death To America" for its 45 year history and have been actively trying to develop a nuclear weapon program. It calls Israel the "Little Satan" and America the "Big Satan." A mantra often repeated: "First we come for the Saturday people, then we go for the Sunday people." Say what you want about the USA. I'll be the first to join you in criticism of many of it's foreign policy actions, including the 1953 CIA-backed Iranian coup that arguably led to the Islamic revolution in 1979 and got us the Iran we have today. And if people want to express concern for what evils could fill the vacuum if the current regime falls... fair. But I'm certainly not going to blame any free country for responding to an enemy state vowing to destroy it while actively trying to develop the means to do so. If there is ever any moral justification for going to war - that's it. It's defensive. That's arguably the only justification for going to war. Feel free to disagree with me about the threat that Iran poses to the western world. Maybe it's all propaganda and overstated. You're welcome to that theory. But this is the answer to the question: "Why should the USA get involved?"
- ty6853 1y ago
  I don't pretend this is an argument at all in towards the situation in Iran, so don't quote me as justifying action or inaction there in regards to this, but it is interesting to take note North Korea actually has dozens of real nuclear weapons and the death to America rhetoric and all we seem to do is laugh at them. Of course NK has no real ability to blow up the US, but they could likely nuke or at least obliterate a sizeable piece of ally South Korea no problem.
  - gspencley 1y ago
    That's a very fair point. I think the difference is that Iran has been actively trying to follow through with its threats and this has been demonstrated through its actions towards an American ally over the past year. This gives reason to believe that Iran's threats are both credible and, while a full-scale war between Iran and the USA might not fare well for Iran ... you don't need to demonstrate that you are capable of wiping out a population or winning a war in order to represent a credible threat. If only one of Iran's missiles manage to land in a densely populated area... people die. And that's enough to warrant a response IMO.
dash2 1y ago
Can you give an example since 2003?
toast0 1y ago
A stable Iran seems to be doing a pretty good job of breeding terrorism, too though. If we're being extremely generous, the goal of regime change would be to bring a new stability with economic prosperity and inclusion as well as more meaningful political inclusion, so as to reduce the amount of marginalized population with nothing to loose that are easy to recruit for terrorism. Of course, when the nation building fails or is never even tried, it's pretty easy for recruiters to say "look around, they destroyed our country (with bombs or embargoes or tariffs or resource exploitation or offensive media), we have nothing to live for, and it's their fault; let's make them pay" I don't think you can stop all terrorism, but if you want to put a dent in it, you need to give the broad population hope for prosperity, and you need to fulfill that hope on the regular.
- reillyse 1y ago
  What if we instead we were just responsible for killing all of their kids, would that work? I could see that working in the US just randomly kill a bunch of peoples kids and that would calm everything down.
- platevoltage 1y ago
  You've got to be kidding me. The US actively supports and runs interference for the biggest terror state in the Middle East right now. We are also buddy buddy with another country in the Middle East that dismembered one of our journalists and provided most of the 9/11 high jackers.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
platevoltage 1y ago
I'm willing to bet that the majority of Americans can't connect the dots between the Iraq War and the creation of ISIS.
- ngruhn 1y ago
  I bet. The middle east is more complicated than quantum mechanics. There are like gazillions of factions, local and foreign. You would think you can roughly group them into Israel+US, Russia, Shia, Sunni. They surely all hate each other. But there are still constantly shifting alliances. At some point Iran (Shia?) was funding ISIS (Sunni?) only to later team up with the US and Israel to fight them. Sometimes all these islamist groups have a dude who looks like the leader but it's actually the guy two levels down who is the real puppet master. And everybody is known under at least three different names all of which are Al-something. I tried to read a book on this but you become this manic investigation board meme guy.
  - chimineycricket 1y ago
    Iran did not fund ISIS.
    - dralley 1y ago
      Right, they do fund Sunni Palestinian groups, especially Hamas, but mostly they stick to Shia paramilitaries.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - c0redump 1y ago
    > Iran funding ISIS I’ll never understand the mentality of people who confidently yap about things that they don’t even have a basic understanding of. Iran didn’t fund ISIS, they are the ones who defeated it. ISIS was trying to destroy Assads government (Iranian ally), why would Iran fund them. Seriously impressive level of ignorance and hubris on display here.
reillyse 1y ago
The only explanation that makes sense to me, is that there are some psychopaths in charge of American foreign policy and their thinking goes like this. 1) we want to control oil and oil prices because it’s crucial to our bank accounts. 2) if the Middle East unites we will lose control over oil 3) we must make sure they never unite 4) we need to support varying regimes to increase instability in the region. If we keep the Middle East fighting we can continue to extract oil. Lots has changed since 50s so one would think this strategy would get updated, but it seems it has not. (Also for the record I think this is abhorrent, but I think some people do think like this)
c0redump 1y ago
Because they are threats to Israel.

Why are we toppling all these foreign governments and creating instability that breads terrorism in places that otherwise have nothing to do with us? This seems so exceptionally counter productive.

fortzi 1y ago

IRGC is known for funding and training militant and terrier groups globally. They also call for the annihilation of the Big Satan (USA) and the Small Satan (Israel). All the while running for The Bomb. I wouldn’t call the present sutuation stable.

msgodel 1y ago
Oh no! Mean words! Anyway we have plenty of people here that hate the US and are far more likely to actually create a problem. Furthermore I'd argue the deficit spending (a very large portion of which is defense) is a much more serious existential threat.
greiskul 1y ago
> known for funding and training militant and terrier groups globally So does the US. > They also call for the annihilation of the Big Satan (USA) and the Small Satan (Israel) You are literally calling for the annihilation of their state here. > All the while running for The Bomb. Only one country has ever used nuclear weapons in war. There is definitely a cold war going on between Israel and Iran. I'm not sure if it escalating to a hot war would be better. The 20th century Cold War had all the same things you mentioned, with both sides fighting proxy wars, calling for the annihilation of the other side, and had atomic weapons. And I think everyone agrees that the end of the cold war that we had was definitely better than nuclear Armageddon. And I don't know if the 20th would have been better if only the US had atomic weapons. MAD might have saved millions of lives in both sides.
- trustinmenowpls 1y ago
  > So does the US. nope. > You are literally calling for the annihilation of their state here. Nope, people are only calling for the unpopular regime to be replaced by a popular one. > There is definitely a cold war going on between Israel and Iran. Hezbollah is an actual arm of the IRGC so it's a hot war and has been for 25+ years.
  - ty6853 1y ago
    Nobody is buying this bullshit anymore, we're not going down for your campaign to dupe us into "replacing a popular one" like happened in Iraq when the USA created a power vacuum and then much of it got taken over by ISIS, much of which was left to Kurdish and other local resistance groups to flush out after your deranged "nope. Nope," propaganda of lies military campaign ended.

noworriesnate 1y ago

Because 1) America won’t allow nations near Israel to be successful, it’s too much of a threat to our greatest ally and 2) war is incredibly profitable.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
eddythompson80 1y ago
> nations near Israel to be successful, I'm guessing that doesn't include Turkey or the rich oil arab states.
- themgt 1y ago
  Actually they're already "joking" on Israeli TV that Turkey is next, and AEI is on the case making it clear we may need to go to war to take out Turkey next. https://x.com/clashreport/status/1935078004230865094 https://x.com/clashreport/status/1935078004230865094 https://www.aei.org/op-eds/israel-iran-war-dry-run-for-a-future-war-with-turkey/ https://www.aei.org/op-eds/israel-iran-war-dry-run-for-a-fut...
  - tguvot 1y ago
    you going to omit that erdogan been threatening israel first ?
    - tguvot 1y ago
      narrator yes, he will omit that president threatens another country but will make a big deal out of host on tv show Turkey's president has vowed to "liberate Al-Aqsa mosque" from Israel https://www.newarab.com/news/hagia-sophia-resurrection-paves-way-al-aqsa-liberation-erdogan https://www.newarab.com/news/hagia-sophia-resurrection-paves... Turkish President Erdogan did not hesitate to issue a rare threat to Israel in a party rally, speaking on the ongoing war in Gaza: 'Perhaps we will invade just like we entered Karabakh and Libya' https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/levant-turkey/artc-erdogan-threatens-to-invade-israel-just-like-we-entered-karabakh-and-libya https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/levant-turkey/art...

gspencley 1y ago

> Why are we toppling all these foreign governments I don't want to speak to the other foreign governments, and I think there is a LOT of room for healthy criticism of how the USA handles its foreign policy, past & present. But to answer the question directly with respects to Iran, specifically: the leadership has been repeatedly chanting "Death To America" for its 45 year history and have been actively trying to develop a nuclear weapon program. It calls Israel the "Little Satan" and America the "Big Satan." A mantra often repeated: "First we come for the Saturday people, then we go for the Sunday people." Say what you want about the USA. I'll be the first to join you in criticism of many of it's foreign policy actions, including the 1953 CIA-backed Iranian coup that arguably led to the Islamic revolution in 1979 and got us the Iran we have today. And if people want to express concern for what evils could fill the vacuum if the current regime falls... fair. But I'm certainly not going to blame any free country for responding to an enemy state vowing to destroy it while actively trying to develop the means to do so. If there is ever any moral justification for going to war - that's it. It's defensive. That's arguably the only justification for going to war. Feel free to disagree with me about the threat that Iran poses to the western world. Maybe it's all propaganda and overstated. You're welcome to that theory. But this is the answer to the question: "Why should the USA get involved?"

ty6853 1y ago
I don't pretend this is an argument at all in towards the situation in Iran, so don't quote me as justifying action or inaction there in regards to this, but it is interesting to take note North Korea actually has dozens of real nuclear weapons and the death to America rhetoric and all we seem to do is laugh at them. Of course NK has no real ability to blow up the US, but they could likely nuke or at least obliterate a sizeable piece of ally South Korea no problem.
- gspencley 1y ago
  That's a very fair point. I think the difference is that Iran has been actively trying to follow through with its threats and this has been demonstrated through its actions towards an American ally over the past year. This gives reason to believe that Iran's threats are both credible and, while a full-scale war between Iran and the USA might not fare well for Iran ... you don't need to demonstrate that you are capable of wiping out a population or winning a war in order to represent a credible threat. If only one of Iran's missiles manage to land in a densely populated area... people die. And that's enough to warrant a response IMO.

dash2 1y ago

Can you give an example since 2003?

toast0 1y ago

A stable Iran seems to be doing a pretty good job of breeding terrorism, too though. If we're being extremely generous, the goal of regime change would be to bring a new stability with economic prosperity and inclusion as well as more meaningful political inclusion, so as to reduce the amount of marginalized population with nothing to loose that are easy to recruit for terrorism. Of course, when the nation building fails or is never even tried, it's pretty easy for recruiters to say "look around, they destroyed our country (with bombs or embargoes or tariffs or resource exploitation or offensive media), we have nothing to live for, and it's their fault; let's make them pay" I don't think you can stop all terrorism, but if you want to put a dent in it, you need to give the broad population hope for prosperity, and you need to fulfill that hope on the regular.

reillyse 1y ago
What if we instead we were just responsible for killing all of their kids, would that work? I could see that working in the US just randomly kill a bunch of peoples kids and that would calm everything down.
platevoltage 1y ago
You've got to be kidding me. The US actively supports and runs interference for the biggest terror state in the Middle East right now. We are also buddy buddy with another country in the Middle East that dismembered one of our journalists and provided most of the 9/11 high jackers.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

platevoltage 1y ago

I'm willing to bet that the majority of Americans can't connect the dots between the Iraq War and the creation of ISIS.

ngruhn 1y ago
I bet. The middle east is more complicated than quantum mechanics. There are like gazillions of factions, local and foreign. You would think you can roughly group them into Israel+US, Russia, Shia, Sunni. They surely all hate each other. But there are still constantly shifting alliances. At some point Iran (Shia?) was funding ISIS (Sunni?) only to later team up with the US and Israel to fight them. Sometimes all these islamist groups have a dude who looks like the leader but it's actually the guy two levels down who is the real puppet master. And everybody is known under at least three different names all of which are Al-something. I tried to read a book on this but you become this manic investigation board meme guy.
- chimineycricket 1y ago
  Iran did not fund ISIS.
  - dralley 1y ago
    Right, they do fund Sunni Palestinian groups, especially Hamas, but mostly they stick to Shia paramilitaries.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- c0redump 1y ago
  > Iran funding ISIS I’ll never understand the mentality of people who confidently yap about things that they don’t even have a basic understanding of. Iran didn’t fund ISIS, they are the ones who defeated it. ISIS was trying to destroy Assads government (Iranian ally), why would Iran fund them. Seriously impressive level of ignorance and hubris on display here.

reillyse 1y ago

The only explanation that makes sense to me, is that there are some psychopaths in charge of American foreign policy and their thinking goes like this. 1) we want to control oil and oil prices because it’s crucial to our bank accounts. 2) if the Middle East unites we will lose control over oil 3) we must make sure they never unite 4) we need to support varying regimes to increase instability in the region. If we keep the Middle East fighting we can continue to extract oil. Lots has changed since 50s so one would think this strategy would get updated, but it seems it has not. (Also for the record I think this is abhorrent, but I think some people do think like this)

c0redump 1y ago

Because they are threats to Israel.