The strongest empathy comes through experience. What Iranians are experiencing now might be what we experience in 10 years if not sooner. The fight against fascism is a global one, and there's no such thing as a good fascist regime.
- Posts
- 9
- Comments
- 986
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 9
- Comments
- 986
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
But that's precisely the issue, your morality is neither well defined or consistent. If anything, I would argue that your worldview is irrational because everything is digested from an inherently hateful point of view. For example, in this hypothetical, if the US gets attacked, it would be rational for the country to fight back against whichever country attacked it. However, you would see it as war against humanity. The war against Japan, for example, was more than justified considering the genocides they were committing, but you would defend it if it means getting at the US. This type of worldview is simply irrational. I feel like you would be the type of person who blames the Russia's invasion of Ukraine on the US.
Kamala lost on Palestine.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this. You grossly overestimate how much people care about Palestine. The vast, vast majority don't care, it's very much down on the list of priorities for most people, including the ones who vote Democrat. Kamala lost for 3 reasons:
- Biden lied about being a one term president, the Democrats refused to have primaries, and Biden refused to step down until the very last minute, which didn't give her campaign enough time to make waves
- She was explicitly saying that she was going to be Biden 2.0 on the economy, and that didn't go well with people. Even though it wasn't Biden's fault that Russia invaded Ukraine or Covid happened, people still blamed him for the economic problems that these events caused.
- She's a black woman. It's really I sad, but I personally know about a dozen people who unironically voted for Trump solely because Kamala was both black and a woman. It's safe to say these are not the brightest people, but they unfortunately make up a very large chunk of the voter population in this country
I think you're probably right that Trump might start a war because the midterms are around the corner, but at the same time, I genuinely think he's too dumb to think that strategically. I think it's much more likely that he wants something to distract the population from the Epstein files.
For the record, I don't support the US installing a new regime. I want the Iranian people take their country back for themselves, not be under new management. I just think that with how ruthless and evil this regime is willing to be, it's simply not possible for the people to overthrow it by themselves.
I was obviously being hyperbolic, this ship is not literally unsinkable, it's extremely hard to do. If a country like Pakistan is willing to use nukes to sink it, they probably could, but at that point there's bigger problems to worry about than the ship.
I don't disagree with most of what you said here. My point isn't necessarily about the number of bombs dropped, but rather about the attitude that drives the war. I think there's a very big difference between a war that's started under dishonest pretexts to grift and pillage, and a war that's fueled by revenge and anger caused by a legitimate reason of going to war, like the sinking of this carrier. The difference in attitude will determine the lengths the country is willing to go to achieve its aims, and that matters. If the general public supports the war and is motivated to see results, then that gives the government a lot of options and leeway to carry out things that are new, unprecedented, and extreme.
Think about it like this. The former would be a war like the one in Vietnam or Iraq, but the latter would be like the war against Japan in WWII or against Mexico in the Mexican American war. Japan got burnt down and then nuked, Mexico got half the country annexed. That's a pretty big difference in results when you compare them to wars where the public wasn't really into like Iraq or Vietnam.
The only statement that you said that I disagree with is this one:
Iran has a firm fervent base of support
I don't think this is true at all. The only people who support the regime are those in the regime or who directly benefit from its corruption and tyranny. Historically speaking, when regimes try to rule with violence and fear, it's a pretty strong indicator that they lost all legitimacy with the people and are clinging on to power for dear life. They know the moment they lose power the people will come after them, and I think that's what we're seeing in Iran now.
I'm willing to bet that it's the latter almost every time. MAGA's hatred for electric cars and sustainability is truly unhinged.
He can't postpone elections though even in that situation, at least not legally
another user pointed out OP seems to be a Tesla shill amongst other things
Users on this site are really are gullible to misinformation. That user was lying. You're free to browse my account history as you please, and make your own opinions instead of relying on a single dishonest user who's engaging in bad faith.
The Trump administration is evil, but it's still night and day compared to the Iranian regime. The Mullahs make MAGA look tame in comparison.
I have some family in Iran, and they tell me that the regime is so universally hated that it has no legitimacy left. They can only rule through fear and violence, and people desperately want something that can give them the extra push to overthrow the regime.
Edit: as short as 4 months ago
One of the most pathetic things about Reddit is that whenever an argumentative user is incapable of defending their views on their own merits, they spend a embarrassing amount of time digging through someone else's post history to try to find something attack their character with. It's just such a lazy and desperate thing to do because it demonstrates a shallow confidence in their own beliefs, and it also shows that they value "winning" an argument through fallacious means rather than having discussion where opinions are exchanged. I see you're doing your best keeping that chronically online spirit alive here on Lemmy as well.
to the Israeli genocide of Palestinians as “the Israel-Palestine conflict”. They have posts complaining about leftism on Lemmy, praising the Cybertrucks and Teslas, and edgelording AI.
So let me get this straight, you spent god knows how long going back months into my account history, and the best you could do was intentionally misrepresent my 3 of my positions and then complain about a single word that I used 4 months ago? Damn, that's pathetic.
Also, their posting and commenting hours suggest timezones in the continent of America, contrary to their claim of being Iraqi.
If you kept digging a little longer or maybe tried reading a little deeper, you would've find out that I'm an Iraqi who's family lived during Saddam Hussein, the US invasion, and then we migrated to Syria after an Iranian terrorist militia attacked our neighbor's at the dead of night. We stayed in Syria for a few years but things started going downhill there too, so we decided to immigrate to the West, and the US was the first country to accept our applications. This is not the gotcha you think it is.
The main problem in Iran and the reason why protests broke out last months is simply US + EU sanctions
I'm not going to waste too much time here because you're someone who engages in bad faith, but I just want to point out that this narrative is false. Iranians are not protesting just because of the sanctions, they're protesting government tyranny, corruption, and incompetence. If it really was just the sanction, then explain the 2022 Mahsa Amini protests where the country went into uproar for 2 years after the regime killed a teenage girl for not following their religious dress code or explain their water crises where they're threatening to evacuate their capital due to regime's mismanagement or the 2017 hijab law protests. The sanctions don't magically make the regime more authoritarian and incomptent, they just expose the problems that were already there faster.
However bad their regime, US+EU sanctions murder HALF A MILLION PEOPLE YEARLY in the world, the death burden of these sanctions is astronomically higher than anything you can ascribe to the Iranian government.
You're going to need to source this. I know for a fact that you either made this up or you're intentionally misinterpreting some paper that says something very different. If you can't link the exact source you're referring to and then show specifically which part said this, I'm going to safely assume that this claim has no substance.
Also, I find it really annoying, how you're going out of your way to bootlick a regime that is this evil with some low level fallacy like whataboutism. "However bad their regime" my ass, It's not a competition. Other countries doing other bad things does NOT justify, excuse, or negate the evil things that the Iranian regime has done or is doing. The only reason you would even do something like this is because YOU support the regime. At this point you're not just criticizing the West, you're actively defending the regime. You're directly opposing Iranians who are fighting for their freedom and rights, and you're doing everything in your power to stand with their oppressors.
The Iranian government is literally the fault of the Anglos.
Everybody acknowledges that the coups of the Democratic government were bad, but guess what? It's not the 1950s anymore. We live in a completely different reality now, and those events do not justify or excuse the islamic regime's atrocities against their neighbors or their own people. Like what is even the though process here? "There was a coup 70 years ago that's bad therefore we should support and let this evil regime slaughter and oppress millions of people", it's an asinine position.
what followed was orders of magnitude worse
The US invasion destabilized the country, but the thing that made it worse was this very same Iranian regime. Their terrorist proxy militias are directly responsible for corrupting the new government, keeping the country unstable through violence and fear, causing violence by stoking sectarian tensions, and turbo charging minority oppression that led to the rise of ISIS. Like what the hell are we even talking about here? How the hell is ignorant Westerner going to try and lecture me about my own country?
An example is Hakim on YouTube.
So you're example is a Marxist youtube grifter who carters to a Western audience? If that's your source of information on the country then no wonder why you're out of touch. You need to look things made by Iraqis for Iraqis. Go look up Ahemd Al Basheer. He's an Iraqi personality who's followed by millions of Iraqis and he's commonly called the voice of the Iraqi people. He does a very successful late night styled TV show on youtube and DW called Al Basheer Show. Most of his videos are in Arabic, but he did do a youtube series in English awhile back for an international audience awhile ago, you should go watch that. That should be way more informative than someone like Hakim lmao
He is 100%. The difference is that Trump rules the US, not Iran. For Iranians, anything that can realistically help them get rid of their oppressors is a glimmer of hope that cling on to even if the odds aren't that great.
Okay, but it's rarely hated for that. The hate fests always revolve around this weird assumption that this car is driven exclusively by incels and MAGA types, but that's simply not true. Like sure its ugly and a bad product, but it's not exactly unique in that aspect there's a lot of other cars like that.
Nobody thinks this. Lemmy users need to stop being racist like this. Iranians are not stupid, these people have agency. They know what a war with the US means, they had two of their neighbors go through it. They know it's hell, but the thing is that the regime right now is so cartoonishly evil that if a war loosens their grip on power and opens up a real possibility for a new government, then it might just be worth it.
I'm Iraqi. My family lived through the terror of Saddam Hussein. The US invasion was hell. It destabilized the country and a lot of people died. Nobody recalls that time as a good one. Yet, at the same time, you'll be hard pressed to any Iraqi that wishes the US didn't depose of that evil regime.
I never understood this weird hate boner that Reddit and Lemmy users have for cybertrucks specifically. It can't be a moral position because they're fine with regular Teslas, just not this one. It also can't be about the ugly design because they're fine with other ugly cars.
The thing is that I've seen a few of these out in the wild, and they're almost always driven either by Indian tech bros or white finance bros. I've never seen any right wing types drive these like so many people here seem to think. In fact, the right wing types have this weird vendetta against all electric cars and they intentionally go for the gas guzzling pickup trucks. Which this hate boner even more baffling. It's like people are mad for the sake of it.
We can't really infer much from Ukraine's successes in the Black Sea because Russia's navy is notoriously weak. Even before the invasion, Russia's Black Sea fleet was not the strongest in the region. That title goes to Turkey. Russia's fleet is so outdated and underpowered that it's simply pathetic.
It's not hard to see why. The ships are old, run down, and use outdated systems. That makes them fragile and vulnerable to attacks. The Black Sea fleet is also confined to a small area and depends on just a couple of military ports. This makes the ships easy to track and target. All Ukraine had to do was find the right weapons to finish the job, and they managed to sink a significant portion of Russia's Black Sea fleet, including the flagship Moskva.
The same does not apply to the Ford. The carrier is equipped with two missile systems, multiple gun systems including Phalanx CIWS, two radar suites, a signal jamming and electronic countermeasure system, an automatic threat detection system, and a decoy missile system designed to lure away incoming anti ship missiles. These are some of most advanced defense systems in the world. On top of that, the carrier’s air power alone can rank as a top 10 air force in the world. It's also can move at 30+ knots and it's nuclear powered so it never docks, which makes thing so agile that its actually freaky.
The point is yes, it is a big target, but it's also a damn fortress. This ship cost $13 billion to build, and that money was not wasted. You can't poke holes into this thing and watch it sink like a cartoon. Just getting near it is comically hard, sinking it is borderline impossible. And it never moves alone. It always travels with at least two destroyers, a cruiser, an attack submarine, and a resupply ship. All of which, with the exception of the resupply ship, are top tier warships in their own right.
That means that in order to reach the carrier, you would have to get through its air wing, then the fleet, then its layered defense systems before even landing a hit. And if by some miracle you do hit it, the ship is built with reinforced steel, watertight compartments, and systems designed to withstand explosions. Simple drone attacks won't damage the ship. Even a successful missile hit would be mitigated by the fire suppression and damage control systems on board that allow the ship to continue to operate. This ship is designed to survive and continue fighting even when damaged. In actual war scenario, Iran won't be able to do anything against this ship.
Israel doesn't need one. The Iranian regime has already turned the world against them by slaughtering their own people last month, and their people already hate them, and so if they just attacked outright, most people and countries aren't going to care. They'll just say something like "Oh no, anyways we urge all sides to show restraint".
No, that's stupid. Aircraft carriers are built to be portable military airports. They're made for blue water warfare against coastal countries with no US military bases nearby. It's useful against countries like China or India or Brazil where there are no US basis around, but that's not the case for Iran. The US already has military bases in Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Bahrain, Oman, Syria, and Iraq. The Ford carrier is just there as a symbolic show of force.
I feel like your scenario is flawed. Pakistan is not going to use their nukes under any circumstance. Their legal nuclear policy explicitly states that Pakistan will not use nukes unless they were nuked first. The chances of the US nuking Pakistan is zero, so it'll never happen.
If Pakistan decided to do away with their own long standing nuclear policy, then that means the nuclear threat is back on the table, and in that case India, who has a similar nuclear policy, will do away with theirs. Meaning that there will be a freakout between India and Pakistan having nuclear war almost immediately. Actually it'll go beyond India because Pakistan's other big neighbor, China, will also not be happy with this turn of events. That's a nightmare scenario that the already unstable Pakistan would want to avoid at any cost.
Even if a fallout with India was somehow miraculously avoided, Pakistan is not going to waste their precious and very limited nukes on a single ship, let alone an American ship, let alone the flagship of the US navy. If they did do that then that means they intentionally chose to declare total war on the US of their own volition, and that is a big no no. The US has way more people, a way bigger economy, a much powerful military, and more importantly, a lot more nukes. This would guarantee that Pakistan gets glassed.
Keep in mind Pakistan only has three core cities: Lahore, Islamabad, and Karachi. It wouldn't take a lot for the US to break the country. And the thing is? Most of the world isn't going to do anything. Why? Two reasons. The first, is that Pakistan started the war and they chose to use a nuke, so they're not going to find a lot of sympathy from the international community. The second, nobody wants to go to war with the US. Every country is going to try and cover their own ass, and so at most they'll make public condemnation statements or call for restraint and diplomacy.
And for what? For Iran? Iran and Pakistan literally bombed each other not too long ago because they accused each other for harboring terrorists. It's literally the spiderman meme. Regardless, if they were best chums in a hypothetical world, Pakistan still wouldn't risk it. Actually even Iran wouldn't risk it even if they did go to war with the US because they would very much rather not piss off the American public and have them employ a more scorched earth policy.
So while, on a pointlessly technical level, Pakistan could theoretically sink the Ford carrier with nuke on the behalf of Iran, the chances of that happening are pretty much zero. Even though you used Pakistan as an example, a similar case applies to any other country. This ship doesn't exist in vacuum, it's backed by the world's most powerful military.