Iran is a Republican Problem

[Eddie Haskell 60]

In 1950s, GOP removed an elected leader and installed a dictator in Iran. In 1980s, GOP gave money, intelligence, tech, special ops training, and chemical weapons to Iraq after they attacked Iran who lost hundreds of thousands people in their war. Now GOP starts another war.

[gulliver]

1. It's a world problem now

Whoever caused it, it has to be solved.

I still remember 1979. I remember Jimmy Carter as a good president, and his second term was lost. I remember the hostages being held by the lowlife. "Death to America" became their chorus.

The Islamic Republic is a rattlesnake. I hope we can get rid of it. The people of Iran hope they can get rid of it. I don't care about the blame game. There's a snake. That's now. Figure out the blame later, if ever.

[Eddie Haskell 60]

3. I agree the world needs to solve now

But completely disagree that Iran is the problem. It is Republicans that are the problem. Iran had every sovereign right to react the way they have the past 73 years as I laid out in OP.

And yeah, Carter lost because GOP made a deal with Iran to hold the hostages until after Reagan won. Sure enough, they were released the moment Reagan was being sworn in. Then GOP turned on them again by helping Iraq during their war with Iran.

They've had WMDs like chemical weapons in the past and have the know-how to make them again. They've never used them on us or allies because they are aware of MAD concept. They are not backwards. They are advanced and educated. They are 4x bigger population and territory.

And they don't have to win, just survive which we've been conditioning them to do via sanctions for decades. We either eat crow now and provide reparations, etc OR we eat crow later and provide MORE in reparations and lives of our soldiers.

[gulliver]

4. I disagree when it comes to nukes

If they had them now and had the ability to deliver them, they would. They would blackmail the whole world, at best. They have shown their true colors by attacking civilians and countries that weren't attacking them. They are terrorists.

Will they survive? I don't know. I hope not. I don't think anyone knows how this will end up. If Iraq were to end up as a failed state or in civil war, that at least would be a better outcome for America than them being a healthy theocratic, tyrannical enemy. But who knows?

[Eddie Haskell 60]

5. I think fearing Iran would use nukes is based on fear or bigotry

N. Korea has nukes and never used them.

Iran has the ability to mass produce chemical/bio weapons and never have or used them on us or Israel. They know if one molecule of mustard gas were to hit Israel that they would be turned to glass. Mutual Assured Destruction is in their vocabulary.

They've also been very restrained in this war from taking out all desalination plants, energy plants, and oil/gas fields which they could easily do at any time. It would completely take down all of us with them. And if boots start landing on their soil, you bet that's what you're going to start seeing. They want to survive just like any human. It's just fearmongers and warmongers that have other motives.

[gulliver]

9. I am somewhat comforted by what you're saying

North Korea is not a theocracy. The Islamic Republic is. It is and has been led by religious leaders who sponsor terrorist groups, notably only among their co-religious.

We don't see, for example, the Islamic Republic ayatollahs supporting secular arch-conservative bigots, although those ayatollas are, in fact, arch-conservative bigots. That innately indicates theocracy, which all of us, especially those of us who consider ourselves authentic progressives and liberals, are deeply in opposition against.

Yes, there are some signs that Iran is simply being held hostage by a kind of mafia. Ironically, that's comforting compared to theocracy.

[Eddie Haskell 60]

10. We've been killing off their moderate leaders too

At least Israel has claimed to, which makes since. They want to see Iran balkanized or a failed state.

[gulliver]

11. I'm not sure.

I think a balkanized Iran is better for the world and Israel. Most of the people of Iran appear to be rejecting the whole concept of Islamic-flavored, arch-conservative theocracy. I don't think we need theocracy of any kind, but especially not arch-conservative and proudly, cruelly bigoted theocracy like the Islamic Republic.

No one who cares about human beings can fail to despise the Islamic Republic. If most of Iran is freed, and the other part continues to be under (drastically weakened) theocratic, arch-conservative control, I think that's an improvement. It's good for Israel and for the rest of the world. Billions of people.

(There might be some people who are inclined to think that if something is good for Israel it's automatically not good for the rest of the world. Hopefully very few people think that. It's just dumb.)

[Eddie Haskell 60]

12. I think a balkanized US and Israel would be better

We'd certainly have a lot less death and destruction.

[David__77]

2. Glad to see Democrats opposing this immoral war against Iran.

People will remember that the Democrats stood against it.

[Eddie Haskell 60]

6. 100%

It's immoral, unjust, unwise, and unconstitutional.

I wish the Dems would have forced a war powers vote before leaving town but not sure if they had ability to. It'll be a point of no return if boots start hitting the ground.

[EnergizedLib]

7. If Russia came and overthrew a democratically elected leader we liked

And installed their own puppet as a dictator to rule America for decades, would you want to sing Kumbaya with them?

I don’t like Iran, I take them seriously, but we’re not blameless in why Iran hates us.

[Eddie Haskell 60]

8. And that dictator we installed in Iran was just as brutal as regime they have today