4 ms·

> - Threatened to exterminate Persians civilization, blown up bridges, killed children and destroyed civilian infrastructure Iran threatens that all the time "

by ericmay 23d ago

> - Threatened to exterminate Persians civilization, blown up bridges, killed children and destroyed civilian infrastructure Iran threatens that all the time "Death to America" so if they don't like someone saying it back to them maybe they should stop? If you want to make these kinds of body count claims, well for starters Iran killed over 30,000 of its own people recently (who knows maybe they've killed tens of thousands more over the years). Iran also made the Iraq war worse by funding insurgents, which opposed the US and the government of Iraq (which is doing much better now as a country than it was under Saddam anyway) so they are partially responsible for some of those deaths. But let's continue with this logic. While we're at it why don't we sanction China? Common estimates suggest 10s of millions dead from the Great Leap Forward (no it's not any different when you kill your own people, arguably much worse). Dramatic repression in places like Hong Kong, and continuing to threaten democratic Taiwan. Why aren't you clamoring to sanction China if you're going to bring up Japan and Vietnam? Well that's because your logic is unsound, never mind the continued hyper-focus on being critical of the United States only. Maybe all of these deaths are actually on the hands of Europeans who partitioned these gulf states in the first place. Why was France in Vietnam? Why was the UN in Korea?

fzn7 23d ago
Your reply is pure, distilled whataboutism.
- ericmay 23d ago
  The premise of the OP is whataboutism. But you can take a step back and ask, well, what's the guiding framework here? Is it arbitrarily picking certain time periods to make a point? Why do we go back to "Japan" and World War II when Japan started the war and was massacring and colonizing people throughout east Asia? Why wasn't Germany mentioned in the body count? Dresden is a popular one that comes to mind. Why do we only focus on lives lost? Maybe America saved 10,000,000 Chinese from Japanese occupation so on balance we're saving lives?
  - Hikikomori 23d ago
    Yeah lets take a step back to 1953 when the British overthrew their government for wanting more profits from their oil. This lead directly to the revolution in 79, in the meantime the western "aligned" leader had suppressed all opposition except religions leaders so they were able to take over. Now you know why they shout death to America. Would you also like to know that al qaeda didn't just hate american "freedom"?
    - ericmay 23d ago
      Why stop there? Why not go back to when the Greeks made Darius mad and started the Greco-Persian wars? If you want the Iranian people to engage in a forever war against the West, this is the kind of attitude you must hold. “Some arbitrary injustice done by dead people forever justifies us to do whatever we want” isn’t a viable political or culturally progressive route to go down. Vietnam got over it. Why can’t Iran? Do they need a nuclear bomb to get over it? Will they stop hanging gay people, helping Russia, and providing militia support to destabilize Arab countries once they get what they want (whatever that is)? What date or specific thing do they need? Can anyone say? Of course not. Because totalitarian regimes always have to obsess over past injustices, perceived or real, to drum up support for the regime so that it can continue to hold power against the best interests of their people. It masks their own failures, like Tehran running out of water because their government spent all their money bombing innocent people.
      - AlecSchueler 22d ago
        > Why stop there? Why not go back to when the Greeks made Darius mad and started the Greco-Persian wars? People often ask these questions as if they're unanswerable or as if any answer would essentially be arbitrary. What you need to do is look at contemporary global systems of inequality and consider their roots. For this it would seem British imperialism is often a sensible place to go to, in this case almost certainly.
        ericmay 22d ago
bigfatkitten 22d ago
> Iran threatens that all the time "Death to America" so if they don't like someone saying it back to them maybe they should stop? Have you ever thought to pause and wonder why they say that? Suppose you discovered that a UK oil company on your soil had been robbing you blind, and so you decided to nationalise your oil industry. In response to this, the UK and the US overthrew your government and installed a puppet regime. In this situation, I’m sure you would form a highly unfavourable view of the United States.
- ericmay 22d ago
  > Have you ever thought to pause and wonder why they say that? Yes I have, it's because authoritarian regimes need eternal, external enemies to mask their own failures as they pilfer the country. You talk about Iran being robbed blind, nobody forced them to spend all of their oil revenue funding militants in other countries that kill people while Tehran runs out of water and their people suffer. You seem to have this Euro-centric view that countries like Iran aren't responsible for their behavior or that they must be innocent because of some activities going on 70+ years ago (never mind, well, general history +- 30 or more years) but given that there are only a select few countries who are experiencing such circumstances (Iran, North Korea, Cuba) while most countries are just getting along peacefully, it makes more sense to understand that these countries are simply by virtue of their repressive governments the ones who are the actual problem. Iran can stop trying to build nuclear weapons and funding militants and then their problems will be solved. The world doesn't have to tolerate bad behavior now just because of alleged American or British bad behavior in the past. If you want to argue that Iran gets to be forever mad about 1953, then maybe the US gets to be mad at Canada for 1812?
  - ioulaum 20d ago
    Why does this sound as much about Team Trump's behavior as about Iran? Also, Iran isn't as bad as you make it sound. Broadly, it's an okay-ish country. It would likely have become a liberal country by now if not for the sanctions... Their leadership's lifestyles certainly don't suggest that they want to be living in a country dominated by religion – even if they maintain that for the masses still. Being under attack makes people more conservative on average.

by ericmay 23d ago

fzn7 23d ago

Your reply is pure, distilled whataboutism.

ericmay 23d ago
The premise of the OP is whataboutism. But you can take a step back and ask, well, what's the guiding framework here? Is it arbitrarily picking certain time periods to make a point? Why do we go back to "Japan" and World War II when Japan started the war and was massacring and colonizing people throughout east Asia? Why wasn't Germany mentioned in the body count? Dresden is a popular one that comes to mind. Why do we only focus on lives lost? Maybe America saved 10,000,000 Chinese from Japanese occupation so on balance we're saving lives?
- Hikikomori 23d ago
  Yeah lets take a step back to 1953 when the British overthrew their government for wanting more profits from their oil. This lead directly to the revolution in 79, in the meantime the western "aligned" leader had suppressed all opposition except religions leaders so they were able to take over. Now you know why they shout death to America. Would you also like to know that al qaeda didn't just hate american "freedom"?
  - ericmay 23d ago
    Why stop there? Why not go back to when the Greeks made Darius mad and started the Greco-Persian wars? If you want the Iranian people to engage in a forever war against the West, this is the kind of attitude you must hold. “Some arbitrary injustice done by dead people forever justifies us to do whatever we want” isn’t a viable political or culturally progressive route to go down. Vietnam got over it. Why can’t Iran? Do they need a nuclear bomb to get over it? Will they stop hanging gay people, helping Russia, and providing militia support to destabilize Arab countries once they get what they want (whatever that is)? What date or specific thing do they need? Can anyone say? Of course not. Because totalitarian regimes always have to obsess over past injustices, perceived or real, to drum up support for the regime so that it can continue to hold power against the best interests of their people. It masks their own failures, like Tehran running out of water because their government spent all their money bombing innocent people.
    - AlecSchueler 22d ago
      > Why stop there? Why not go back to when the Greeks made Darius mad and started the Greco-Persian wars? People often ask these questions as if they're unanswerable or as if any answer would essentially be arbitrary. What you need to do is look at contemporary global systems of inequality and consider their roots. For this it would seem British imperialism is often a sensible place to go to, in this case almost certainly.
      - ericmay 22d ago

bigfatkitten 22d ago

> Iran threatens that all the time "Death to America" so if they don't like someone saying it back to them maybe they should stop? Have you ever thought to pause and wonder why they say that? Suppose you discovered that a UK oil company on your soil had been robbing you blind, and so you decided to nationalise your oil industry. In response to this, the UK and the US overthrew your government and installed a puppet regime. In this situation, I’m sure you would form a highly unfavourable view of the United States.

ericmay 22d ago
> Have you ever thought to pause and wonder why they say that? Yes I have, it's because authoritarian regimes need eternal, external enemies to mask their own failures as they pilfer the country. You talk about Iran being robbed blind, nobody forced them to spend all of their oil revenue funding militants in other countries that kill people while Tehran runs out of water and their people suffer. You seem to have this Euro-centric view that countries like Iran aren't responsible for their behavior or that they must be innocent because of some activities going on 70+ years ago (never mind, well, general history +- 30 or more years) but given that there are only a select few countries who are experiencing such circumstances (Iran, North Korea, Cuba) while most countries are just getting along peacefully, it makes more sense to understand that these countries are simply by virtue of their repressive governments the ones who are the actual problem. Iran can stop trying to build nuclear weapons and funding militants and then their problems will be solved. The world doesn't have to tolerate bad behavior now just because of alleged American or British bad behavior in the past. If you want to argue that Iran gets to be forever mad about 1953, then maybe the US gets to be mad at Canada for 1812?
- ioulaum 20d ago
  Why does this sound as much about Team Trump's behavior as about Iran? Also, Iran isn't as bad as you make it sound. Broadly, it's an okay-ish country. It would likely have become a liberal country by now if not for the sanctions... Their leadership's lifestyles certainly don't suggest that they want to be living in a country dominated by religion – even if they maintain that for the masses still. Being under attack makes people more conservative on average.