6 ms·

Idk, I’ve never seen any left wing folks actively support the Iranian regime. I think the difference is what you noted, the US support for Israel vs. interventi

Idk, I’ve never seen any left wing folks actively support the Iranian regime. I think the difference is what you noted, the US support for Israel vs. intervention in Iran. I, and many I know, would love to see the Iranian regime fall, just not via US regime change which tends to make things worse.

gambutin 8mo ago
You mean like the US regime changes in Germany and Japan 1945? Those ones were really bad for the local population!
- weakfish 8mo ago
  That was 81 years ago. Iraq was 20. You’re either being willfully obtuse or don’t believe recency is more indicative.
  - gambutin 8mo ago
    I am saying external regime change = bad is not true. Only if you want it to be true - for your narrative. Then you will say things like: but it was 80 years ago!!
    - weakfish 8mo ago
      Well of course it’s not black or white, it’s nuanced as everything in life is. But my larger point is that I don’t trust the current US administration to engage in regime change in a beneficial way as perhaps the US admin in 1945 did. You’re right that those examples and some others are good ones. But I believe the odds are that this situation would be one of the worse ones. Do I support the Iranian regime? Hell no! I just also don’t think the US invading is a solution that would bring long term peace and prosperity.
  - logicchains 8mo ago
    Iraq now is a lot richer and freer than it was under Saddam Hussein.
    - don_esteban 8mo ago
      Is it richer than before western sanctions? It is always the same story: Look how poorly the regime manages the country! Never said: The country is under such sanctions/blockade that any western country would have already folded long ago.
      - Wytwwww 8mo ago
        That's very hard to answer considering Iraq spent most of the 80s in a very costly and extremely brutal (and even more pointless) war with Iraq.
      - inglor_cz 8mo ago
        "any western country would have already folded long ago" How do you know that? Is it just your general assumption "Westerners weak, must fold, third-worlders stronk, they endure"? Under what conditions would you say that sanctions are OK? Or are they never? In that case, there still might be white minority rule in Rhodesia or South Africa.
- Yasuraka 8mo ago
  Notice how those are the only two good examples out of a long, long list, before those but especially after.
  - Rover222 8mo ago
    Panama
    - neoromantique 8mo ago
      Korea
      - deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
- dataflow 8mo ago
  "Regime change" here refers to coup d'états. Meanwhile those were declared(!) wars. In response to existing wars dragging the US into them. Involving countries that were in very different places both politically and geographically. A coup is... not even remotely the same thing. How many coups do you know of that helped the local population?
Rover222 8mo ago
Yeah I see anyone actively supporting the Iranian regime, just that they're apparently not interested in the cause of the people protesting and being massacred. I think it's just an instinct to oppose anything the current administration supports. Same with Cuba and Venezuela. But it consistently aligns them with some of the most suppressive regimes. Venezuelans are glad Maduro is gone. Iranians want the US to do something. Lots of Cubans as well.
- Rover222 8mo ago
  * don't see anyone actively supporting
Galaxeblaffer 8mo ago
One big thing your missing is that there simply is no way imaginable that a regime change can happen without the US, it's simply impossible at this stage. I can certainly understand why many if not most Iranians want the US to intervene, it's simply the only way regime change is ever going to happen.w
- Rover222 8mo ago
  Same with Venezuela. Latin America could have acted for decades. But nothing ever happened.
- weakfish 8mo ago
  I don’t necessarily contest that, but I also wouldn’t trust the current administration to be the ones to succeed in that undertaking in a way that promotes lasting peace in the country/region. And no, I wouldn’t trust Biden/Obama/Bush either.
  - Galaxeblaffer 8mo ago
    Fair enough, and yes it might fail, but what i gather from all Iranians I've talked to (family), the consensus is that it can't get much worse than it is now, so they'd rather live with the consequences for even a small chance that things will be better.
- don_esteban 8mo ago
  I have lived through regime change in Eastern Europe in 1989. A year before the change, one cannot imagine the regime change. And yet, it did happen. Bloodlessly (except Romania). Any external meddling would have probably made it much bloodier. You can be assured most Iranians do NOT want US to intervene. How many Americans want China/Russia to intervene to 'help' you get rid of Trump? Get off your high horse and use a bit of empathy and common sense.
  - Rover222 8mo ago
    Equating Trump to the systems in China/Russia is absurd. You have no concept of what losing free speech really means if you think that's an accurate comparison. Not saying that what's happening with ICE is okay. But it's a very sheltered view to think that is at all equivalent to what happens in those countries if you actively protest against the govt.
Archio 8mo ago
That's because most left wing Americans don't support the Iranian regime. People that ask "where are all the students on campus that were protesting Gaza" do so because taking action on injustice, in a way that demands accountability from their leaders, is an uncomfortable idea. For them, the purpose of taking action is largely to signal moral outrage, and making an aggrieved post on social media is the beginning and end of praxis on an issue. And if that is your mindset, why wouldn't you make an equal amount of posts about Iran as you would for Gaza? Since they are both Things That Are Morally Bad. What they don't understand is that for people that e.g. protest in person, protesting isn't a quaint, feckless action merely meant to signal one's care about an issue to the right people. Rather, it is an action with a goal to effect specific change of behavior on a particular issue from a specific group of people (usually leaders in power that are beholden to the protesters). If you are American and protesting US military support for Israel based on the conflict in Gaza, there are practical, material, direct cause-and-effect reasons to make that argument towards your elected representatives; the same is simply not true for the Iran situation (which the majority of the US government is already aligned with bombing yet again). It's just such a strange point of view to interpret lack of action on a particular issue as tacit support.
- Rover222 8mo ago
  Good comment.

gambutin 8mo ago

You mean like the US regime changes in Germany and Japan 1945? Those ones were really bad for the local population!

weakfish 8mo ago
That was 81 years ago. Iraq was 20. You’re either being willfully obtuse or don’t believe recency is more indicative.
- gambutin 8mo ago
  I am saying external regime change = bad is not true. Only if you want it to be true - for your narrative. Then you will say things like: but it was 80 years ago!!
  - weakfish 8mo ago
    Well of course it’s not black or white, it’s nuanced as everything in life is. But my larger point is that I don’t trust the current US administration to engage in regime change in a beneficial way as perhaps the US admin in 1945 did. You’re right that those examples and some others are good ones. But I believe the odds are that this situation would be one of the worse ones. Do I support the Iranian regime? Hell no! I just also don’t think the US invading is a solution that would bring long term peace and prosperity.
- logicchains 8mo ago
  Iraq now is a lot richer and freer than it was under Saddam Hussein.
  - don_esteban 8mo ago
    Is it richer than before western sanctions? It is always the same story: Look how poorly the regime manages the country! Never said: The country is under such sanctions/blockade that any western country would have already folded long ago.
    - Wytwwww 8mo ago
      That's very hard to answer considering Iraq spent most of the 80s in a very costly and extremely brutal (and even more pointless) war with Iraq.
    - inglor_cz 8mo ago
      "any western country would have already folded long ago" How do you know that? Is it just your general assumption "Westerners weak, must fold, third-worlders stronk, they endure"? Under what conditions would you say that sanctions are OK? Or are they never? In that case, there still might be white minority rule in Rhodesia or South Africa.
Yasuraka 8mo ago
Notice how those are the only two good examples out of a long, long list, before those but especially after.
- Rover222 8mo ago
  Panama
  - neoromantique 8mo ago
    Korea
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
dataflow 8mo ago
"Regime change" here refers to coup d'états. Meanwhile those were declared(!) wars. In response to existing wars dragging the US into them. Involving countries that were in very different places both politically and geographically. A coup is... not even remotely the same thing. How many coups do you know of that helped the local population?

Rover222 8mo ago

Yeah I see anyone actively supporting the Iranian regime, just that they're apparently not interested in the cause of the people protesting and being massacred. I think it's just an instinct to oppose anything the current administration supports. Same with Cuba and Venezuela. But it consistently aligns them with some of the most suppressive regimes. Venezuelans are glad Maduro is gone. Iranians want the US to do something. Lots of Cubans as well.

Rover222 8mo ago
* don't see anyone actively supporting

Galaxeblaffer 8mo ago

One big thing your missing is that there simply is no way imaginable that a regime change can happen without the US, it's simply impossible at this stage. I can certainly understand why many if not most Iranians want the US to intervene, it's simply the only way regime change is ever going to happen.w

Rover222 8mo ago
Same with Venezuela. Latin America could have acted for decades. But nothing ever happened.
weakfish 8mo ago
I don’t necessarily contest that, but I also wouldn’t trust the current administration to be the ones to succeed in that undertaking in a way that promotes lasting peace in the country/region. And no, I wouldn’t trust Biden/Obama/Bush either.
- Galaxeblaffer 8mo ago
  Fair enough, and yes it might fail, but what i gather from all Iranians I've talked to (family), the consensus is that it can't get much worse than it is now, so they'd rather live with the consequences for even a small chance that things will be better.
don_esteban 8mo ago
I have lived through regime change in Eastern Europe in 1989. A year before the change, one cannot imagine the regime change. And yet, it did happen. Bloodlessly (except Romania). Any external meddling would have probably made it much bloodier. You can be assured most Iranians do NOT want US to intervene. How many Americans want China/Russia to intervene to 'help' you get rid of Trump? Get off your high horse and use a bit of empathy and common sense.
- Rover222 8mo ago
  Equating Trump to the systems in China/Russia is absurd. You have no concept of what losing free speech really means if you think that's an accurate comparison. Not saying that what's happening with ICE is okay. But it's a very sheltered view to think that is at all equivalent to what happens in those countries if you actively protest against the govt.

Archio 8mo ago

That's because most left wing Americans don't support the Iranian regime. People that ask "where are all the students on campus that were protesting Gaza" do so because taking action on injustice, in a way that demands accountability from their leaders, is an uncomfortable idea. For them, the purpose of taking action is largely to signal moral outrage, and making an aggrieved post on social media is the beginning and end of praxis on an issue. And if that is your mindset, why wouldn't you make an equal amount of posts about Iran as you would for Gaza? Since they are both Things That Are Morally Bad. What they don't understand is that for people that e.g. protest in person, protesting isn't a quaint, feckless action merely meant to signal one's care about an issue to the right people. Rather, it is an action with a goal to effect specific change of behavior on a particular issue from a specific group of people (usually leaders in power that are beholden to the protesters). If you are American and protesting US military support for Israel based on the conflict in Gaza, there are practical, material, direct cause-and-effect reasons to make that argument towards your elected representatives; the same is simply not true for the Iran situation (which the majority of the US government is already aligned with bombing yet again). It's just such a strange point of view to interpret lack of action on a particular issue as tacit support.

Rover222 8mo ago
Good comment.