4 ms·
That was 81 years ago. Iraq was 20. You’re either being willfully obtuse or don’t believe recency is more indicative.
by 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 agoI 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 agoWell 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 agoIraq now is a lot richer and freer than it was under Saddam Hussein.
- don_esteban 8mo agoIs 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 agoThat'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.