• bobman@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Okay? That means it’s impossible to intervene with positive results, right?

      It’s a literal rule of the universe, lol.

      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The US having involvement in Iran’s oil in the past has nothing to do with future positive results from whatever intervention you are suggesting.

        I’m not sure what you are so upset about. You made a false statement minimizing US involvement in the creation of Iran’s current conservative hellscape and I replied with factual data showing US involvement. Conservatism is a plague of oppression. You should not defend conservatives. They do not need or deserve your defense.

        If by “intervention” you mean invading Iran to liberate the citizens, I really don’t know if that would be successful or not. Maybe it would be.

        The citizens certainly need saving. But, I suspect US conservatives would be very opposed to an invasion to liberate people who are suffering (conservatives prefer that people suffer). I also suspect non-conservatives (normal people) in the US will be resistant to invading a country for any reason at all, based on past sentiments. So, even if an invasion would be successful, I doubt it could happen. That’s why I think their best hope is revolution without intervention.

        • bobman@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hey man, wake me up when these problems get solved doing something I don’t suggest.

          I can wait.