So how many Iranians must die for your version of 'tyranny' to be met? What figure would you be satisfied with, and what kind of tyranny are you ok with? Because it seems you've got major double standards when it comes to Saudi, Israel, UAE and Qatar, let alone all the extra-judicial and illegal acts carried out by the USA themselves in the name of rooting out 'tyranny'.
The war isn't even over yet. Normal countries don't have missiles falling out of the sky onto the highway murdering a visiting foreign general, or routine car bombings with hundreds of casualties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_car_bombings
The most systematic attempt at assessing the impact of the war was the famous Lancet study, which estimated the "excess death" from all causes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_cas...
> published on 11 October 2006, estimated 654,965 excess deaths related to the war, or 2.5% of the population, through the end of June 2006
So, if we round that to the five years since 9/11, or about 1800 days, that's 360 casualties a day, or one 9/11 roughly every week.
You can't argue quality of life improvements for the dead.
Iraq is a slightly larger country. Quite likely you'd see a million dead in the first decade of the occupation, on which the US would spend enough for another moon programme or universal healthcare for all its citizens.
People of Iraq were suffering exactly how under Saddam?
Now many of them are dead because of the war. Infrastructure destroyed. Many people are suffering from ecological disaster (depleted uranium and toxic waste where us bases were located).
And still there's no peace and no democracy. To everyone in the world outside the US is obvious that war was for the oil, not some mythical "democracy". And the life of people of Iraq had become much worse as the result.
The answer to that question has its own Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein...
Was there something comparable in Singapore or UAE? If so, I haven't heard about it.
But we hear about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia and Israel/Palestine all the time, so I don't think your claim that "it's never a problem when human rights violations happen in a countries that are allies of USA" is valid.
I assure you it's not true. Democracy, human rights, freedom of speech are things that are very vaguely defined. It means that you can blame anyone arbitrarily for being insufficiently "democratic". This is what USA actually uses as a pretext to declare a war for resources. You can call any country "undemocratic" for some definition of "democracy".
"Democracy", "freedom of speech", and other abstract concepts, doesn't affect the daily lives of 99.9% of population. Most people do not care: they wake up, have a breakfast, go to work, come home, have a dinner, go to bed. They do not really care what is exact way the president is elected (or not elected). They do not care about so-called "freedom of speech" because they aren't journalists or writers.
On the other hand, when somebody drops bombs and rockets on you and your family, when infrastructure (schools, power lines, roads and other things) in your country are destroyed for tens of years, when there's anarchy and chaos around that causes huge rise of crimes, it makes a great difference to the everyday lives of the people. And that is what US/NATO really brought to people of Iraq, Libya and other countries.
> The answer to that question has its own Wikipedia page:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein....
You think that now it is better ?
Iran is a country next to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. It's an enemy to _both_ Saudi Arabia and Israel.
And you think destabilizing it will be followed by a democratic government and not a rush of ISIS-Taliban-Al-whatever?
Iran is made of dozens of different ethnicities. What if it became a Libyia and different regions started a civil war?
This is sickening. You _saw_ what the U.S. did to Iraq and Afghanistan and you're "still" thinking the way to bring democracy to the country next to them is bombs? Don't you think you should be more responsible than that? What if you are wrong? What if another Iraq came out of this?
By withdrawing from Iran's nuclear deal, U.S. practically destroyed any chance of a peaceful path for Iran to democracy.
JCPOA was the last chance for reformers in Iran to have a say. After the U.S. withdrawal, they have 0 credibility left with the people. Now hardliners have all the power and noone talks about reform anymore. Diplomacy is dead.
Iran's populace is much better equipped for democracy. They have already started begging for it.
U.S. is basically suffocating Iran with it's sanctions and people are hungry. These are not people who want democracy or freedom of press or separation of powers. They are people who are burning banks and want blood. No democracy is coming out of this.
This [0] is an organization of Iranians in diaspora, trying to form a council to help Iran have a proper transition in case the Islamic Republic fails and even their current CEO believes at the moment, the chance of a peaceful transition are not high and Iran becoming Syria is far more likely.
In that regard, the current offensive action may as well be viewed as a breath of fresh air.
I know that you are not responsible for these actions and you are probably a normal software engineer or something and probably a nice person. But U.S. is a democracy and people who do have the power, get their power from your thoughts and your vote.
So I do hold you responsible for the actions of your government. Therefore, if you find another war "fresh", please, fuck off. Your ignorance is harmful.
My apologies for personal attack.
From what the media sources I follow has told me about the Iranian people, they are all fairly educated and the country has an established scholarly system that enables most citizens to achieve greater education. As I saw further down in the thread that you are actually an Iranian yourself, please correct me if I am wrong.
>This is sickening. You _saw_ what the U.S. did to Iraq and Afghanistan and you're "still" thinking the way to bring democracy to the country next to them is bombs?
I was 4 years old when the Iraq war began. I did not "see" anything about the war and all the information I have has been provided to me by news organizations and various social media that I try to follow to educate myself on the topic. I have not been in Iraq myself nor spoken to Iraqi people so I have no way of knowing what the war has done to them other than what the media says. And since the media does not provide a unified narrative, it is rather difficult for me to decipher the truth.
As for bringing democracy...I do not know any way to bring democracy to a theocracy without violence. I do not believe it has ever happened peacefully in world history. I would like to make it clear that I am not advocating for war in Iran, but replying to the OP (hence why I said "in that regards") who said:
>I agree. It's really sad. Iran had/has so much potential.
In my view, destabilizing the regime provides some path to democracy, while keeping it in place provides no path to democracy.
>Don't you think you should be more responsible than that? What if you are wrong? What if another Iraq came out of this?
As I said before, I don't believe there is any "responsible" way to perform regime change. I am an optimist, and I am simply hoping that this ends up going in a positive direction for the sake of my country and the sake of the Iranian people.
>By withdrawing from Iran's nuclear deal, U.S. practically destroyed any chance of a peaceful path for Iran to democracy.
As an Iranian yourself, do you really think it was ever possible that the hardliners would voluntarily step down themselves? I agree that JCPOA should have been upheld, but I frankly don't know enough to say if it would have set Iran on a path to democracy.
>But U.S. is a democracy and people who do have the power, get their power from your thoughts and your vote.
I was not old enough to vote for Trump in 2016 and I will not be voting for him. As stated before, I do not support a war in Iran.
>So I do hold you responsible for the actions of your government.
I have not yet made enough money to pay federal taxes, so my hands are clean for at least the next few months. I do understand your point though.
I think it is important to point out that this strike was approved by one man and one man only. I was not given a choice to vote on it. My Representatives and Senators were not given a choice to vote on it. They were not even informed. The closest the common American got to voting on this was in the popular vote in 2016, which...Trump lost.
That is perhaps a bigger problem than all of this.
>My apologies for personal attack.
No need for apology. I understand you just want the best for your country. I have met several Iranian friends in college and I would like to see a democratic revolution that would make them proud. I personally do not believe Iran is at its best right now, and I doubt you do too. I can only optimistically hope that this conflict leads to a democratic Iran and a more righteous United States, for I do not have any way to alter what happens for now until November.
Unless you have existed outside of the US the entire time, you have paid federal taxes. Income tax is just one small portion of the way the federal government collects money. Gas taxes, FAA fees in your airline tickets, FICA taxes on your paycheck, FUSF tax on your cell phone, etc.
Disabuse yourself and anyone you know of the notion that being in a low tax bracket means you’re not financially contributing to the federal government. Also disabuse yourself of the notion that paying involuntary taxes somehow makes you responsible for how those dollars were used.
It doesn't fully excuse your ignorance but at least you have time to gain some perspective. As it is now what you're saying here is embarrassing to me as a fellow American.
Iran is a big country with very big divisions. Younger people and middle class are educated and relatively secular but the older generations and specially rural areas can be very backwards.
> In my view, destabilizing the regime provides some path to democracy, while keeping it in place provides no path to democracy.
It could potentially lead to democracy. But it could lead to far far worse outcomes as well. In Iran's case, the worse outcomes are more likely because:
1. Geographically, it's literally in-between Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and therefore ISIS, Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
2. Thanks to Islamic Republic, it has big enemies, including but not limited to USA, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
3. It has vast natural resources (Oil, Gas) and attracts foreign interests.
4. Revolutions are _rarely_ constructive. Read George Orwell's Animal Farm. When I first I read, I though, how could this man write the book of Islamic Republic so many decades earlier? But it turns out almost all revolutions have a similar trajectory: They go to shit.
> As I said before, I don't believe there is any "responsible" way to perform regime change.
> As an Iranian yourself, do you really think it was ever possible that the hardliners would voluntarily step down themselves? I agree that JCPOA should have been upheld, but I frankly don't know enough to say if it would have set Iran on a path to democracy.
Of course no hardliner is ever going to step down. However, by allowing reformers and moderate forces to make progress, we give them more power.
It won't be quick at all. Takes decades and generations. But to me it seems the only real and viable path.
> I have not yet made enough money to pay federal taxes, so my hands are clean for at least the next few months. I do understand your point though.
Don't beat yourself to it. Even if you were a taxpayer I wouldn't ever think your hands are not clean. I'm an American taxpayer myself. I live in the states. I don't think anyone who paid tax to the U.S. has blood on their hands or whatever.
All I'm saying is, when talking about war, or supporting it, let's make sure we have a really good understanding of the subject matter. Otherwise we could be supporting an unjust war.
Sorry again about the personal attack. Harsh times.
ISIS is Sunni, while nearly all Iranian citizens are Shia. Taliban is a Pakistani proxy organization which also hates Shia. They have zero chance of succeeding in Iran under any and all circumstances. It's funny that you criticize the OP for ignorance, while making at least as ignorant arguments.
Anyway, both of you are coming in with a mistaken assumption: That the US actually wants to take down the Mullah's regime. That was never the case - all US administrations since 1980 have always tried to change the regime's behaviour and not to overthrow it. There never was even a plan to overthrow the regime.
The US has tried both containment and negotiations to change the mullah's behaviour. What we found out after JCPOA was that there was no meaningful difference between 'hardliners' and 'reformists'.
Both support the theocracy and oppose democracy. Both support executing people for overstepping religious laws - or merely for not being 'straight'. Both are perfectly fine with expanding this system outward, and sending out troops and terrorists outside Iran's borders. Both support killing protesters to maintain their rule, and both support killing hundreds of thousands of Syrians to maintain their influence.
So if the not-really-'reformist' political future is shot, there's no reason to care. If negotiations and JCPOA brings nothing (its nuclear provisions were laughable, and everything else Iran did was allowed), then it will be containment all the way.
Trump has just shown he's willing to out-escalate the regime in response to any provocation, and there's no economic way out for them.
Even if (hopefully) Trump is not reelected, he's shown that the regime is much weaker than it appears to be. The only way out for the regime is to make concessions, like stopping attacks on other countries, agreeing to inspections unlimited by time and so on.
I'm an Iranian (Actually a Jewish Iranian, hence, much more information about religion dynamics in Iran).
I agree that Shia/Sunni dynamic is unlikely to cause instability in Iran, there are many more dynamics that can be exploited:
1. Iran is very diverse regarding ethnicity. A dozen different ethnicities live in Iran which makes a Libya situation possible (Although unlikely)
2. A civil war, where government fight armed people, like Syria. I'm pretty much sure many countries would love to do what they did to Syria by arming worst possible forces.
> Even if (hopefully) Trump is not reelected, he's shown that the regime is much weaker than it appears to be.
Iran is under heaviest of sanctions. Economy is crushed. Yet, they control Iraq, they destroyed a U.S. drone, seized a British tanker, attacked Saudi oil causing major damage to Aramco's IPO (Biggest in history) and caused the bigger disruption in flow of Oil in the past decades and they got almost 0 reactions back and you are saying me they are considered weaker because a general was killed?
Anyway, as I said, the US never did intend to overthrow the regime, so that scenario isn't relevant - unless the Iranian people make a go for it, but that's not up to us.
As for the regime being weak, the key point is that the regime's military counter-pressure plan has failed.
All the wild attacks you cite are tactical victories but strategical failures - they have failed to affect the sanctions or even world oil prices (barring small insignificant blips), yet have led much of the world to see Iran as a threat.
By shooting and failing to win, the regime lost the deterrent value of these threats. When the US showed it is not afraid to escalate, Iran lost that threat too.
What's left? Continuing a strategically failed campaign? Massive escalation, which will lead to the regime getting crushed?
Another important point to remember is that Suleimani wasn't just a general, but the de facto vice-Supreme Leader, the one leader with significant popularity the regime had. It's a huge domestic loss.
You seem to assume ISIS penetrated Iraq because Iraq was Sunni and people accepted ISIS.
ISIS would penetrate _anywhere_ that is unstable enough to be penetrated.
Also, you are forgetting the potential this area has for development of new similar groups.
Iran even had similar groups formed within it's own territory which are still active:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundallah_(Iran)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaish_ul-Adl
ISIS and al-Qaeda never managed to make much headway in the Kurdish areas. What's left? Ahvaz? Which borders Basra and is controlled with an iron fist?
Where does that certainty come from? It's not like the US is known for finishing wars recently.
USA troops stationed in Arabia, as they have been since the beginning of that war, was the reason that ObL did the 9/11 attacks. Those attacks were good for lots of armaments manufacturers, but the were not in the American national interest.
http://www.actmemphis.org/usama-bin-laden-1996-declaration-o...
Let's see what happened the last time US toppled a government in the Middle East - You got the ISIS. Before that the US toppled a government. It created The Mujahedin, who are directly responsible for about every Islamic Terror attack anywhere in the world since the 80's. Before that the US toppled the democratic government in Iran. That is directly causing this.