Sidechat logo
Download TikTok Instagram X
Sidechat icon
Join communities on Sidechat Download
US Politics icon
user profile icon
US Politics 4w

cia.gov

 “If you’re Iranian you can’t comment on the American intervention in the country” Okay and? Bitch im American it’s my tax dollars going to this circus of bullshit.
comment

26
upvote 21 downvote
user profile icon
Anonymous 4w

Mean to say if you aren’t Iranian mb folks

upvote 4 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 4w

Identity politics sucks dude. People use their nationality or heritage to justify reactionary views. Just because we’re not Iranian, Cuban, Venezuelan, Syrian, etc. doesn’t mean we don’t have the right to speak about an issue.

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 4w

Nah you’re missing their point. It’s not that you can’t comment on it—it’s that you can’t say it’s unjustified or that the Iranian people are against it. And yes, there’s a difference

upvote -1 downvote
user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #1 4w

EXACTLY

upvote 5 downvote
user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 4w

It’s unjustified for the US to be using our taxes to commit military intervention in Iran in a way, that historically, has shown it leads to the opposite of the intended outcome.

upvote 3 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> cia.gov 4w

But like, they do all deserve to die. And historically, that has worked surprisingly well has it not?

upvote -1 downvote
user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 4w

Has it though? Did it work in Iraq?

upvote 4 downvote
user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 4w

Or what about Libya?

upvote 6 downvote
user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 4w

Ohhh maybe Yemen, oh shoot no we just caused a famine instead.

upvote 3 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> cia.gov 4w

This is more akin to a terrorist group than a bona fide country though

upvote -1 downvote
user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 4w

Except not really

upvote 4 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> cia.gov 4w

You don’t think so? Weren’t Gaddafi and Saddam keeping a lid on things? That’s not exactly what’s happening here is it?

upvote 0 downvote
user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 4w

Keeping a lid on things? We also accused them of being sponsors of terrorise

upvote 3 downvote
user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> cia.gov 4w

*terrorism

upvote 3 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> cia.gov 4w

Did we? I thought we got the former on brutalizing civilians and the latter on WMDs?

upvote -1 downvote
user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 4w

Nope, Saddam was initially accused of harboring ties with Al-Qaeda although the WMD accusations were also equally important. And yes Gaddafi was also accused of being a sponsor of terrorism

upvote 4 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> cia.gov 4w

But it was largely superfluous. We had other motives in both cases

upvote 1 downvote
user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 4w

You can’t discount it, they were also major factors in our decision making calculus

upvote 3 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 4w

Libya, Ba’athist Iraq, Ba’athist Syria, Cuba, DPR Korea, South Yemen or communist Yemen, and Iran have all been accuse of sponsoring terrorism

upvote 5 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #1 4w

But we’ve only attacked a subset of those folks…

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 4w

4/7. North Korea doesn’t count since the Korean War occurred before the list existed

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #1 4w

Hence my point: was “terrorism” really the deciding factor?

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 4w

“Terrorism” was always just an excuse for the US to promote regime change, using whatever means possible, whether it’s sanctions, covert operations, or in 4 of those cases, war

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #1 4w

I personally think it was brilliant for the DPRK to develop nuclear weapons because it’s probably the best deterrent to prevent an invasion, which is probably why they are so averse to denuclearization

upvote 1 downvote
user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #1 4w

Used to think the DPRK was insane but lowkey all makes sense now

upvote 6 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> cia.gov 4w

Right, it all makes sense when it’s we see the big picture. Even Syria had a nuclear program for the same purpose until Israel or the US (I forgot which one) destroyed it

upvote 1 downvote