this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2026
62 points (84.4% liked)
AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
3001 readers
1 users here now
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
❶ Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
❷ Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
❸ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
❹ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
❺ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
❻ Don't be a dick.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Of course not, but our options are not limited to: support the regime or intervene. We can denounce a brutal regime while also not involving ourselves in the affairs of another, independent, sovereign nation.
That Ayatollah is dead, but he's already been replaced by another.
I'm hearing a lot of apathy for everyone except the brutal regime in this comment.
Another, independent, sovereign nation is run by despots who regularly publicly declare they want us all to die in nuclear fire, disrupts the politics of every nation within their reach, deserves a little more response than a strongly worded letter, imo. I bet you're the type of person who would have advocated against the USA fighting Nazi Germany in the late 1930s.
Had Germany not invaded half of Europe and eventually declared war on the United States, after their ally Japan attacked a US naval base, it's likely the US would never have gotten directly involved, even if the Nazis had still carried out their genocide. I say this because other genocides have happened and the US didn't go to war to stop them.
In the Rwandan genocide of 1994, at least half a million Tutsi were murdered by Hutu extremists. The US did not intervene.
In the mid 1970s, Augusto Pinochet of Chile executed thousands of his political critics, and tortured and/or interred tens of thousands more in camps. Not only did the US not intervene, we supported Pinochet.
But then there were instances where we did intervene. Like when between 1970 and 1973, we carried out a massive bombing campaign against the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. We killed an estimated minimum of 30,000 Cambodians. It did not stop the Khmer Rouge, however. In fact, it probably helped them. And between 1975 and 1979, the Khmer Rouge murdered at least 1.2 million Cambodian people.
I don't doubt that you're coming from a well intentioned place, but if you truly want to help the Iranian people, you're going to need more than good intentions.
So, if I'm interpreting this correctly, you're defending the stance of the USA choosing not to fight the Nazis?
Ultimately I'm saying I don't think it's right or wise for the US to try and be the world's police. Or, more accurately, the world's judge, jury and executioner. We should not try to be the Judge Dredd of the world.
I think there should be the rule of law, and I think for that to happen we would need some kind of enforcement. But, we should not unilaterally appoint ourselves enforcer. We should not unilaterally establish and impose laws on the rest of the world without their consent, without representation, and without accountability. That's not the rule of law, that's the tyranny of a vigilante.
What kind of enforcement would that be in your opinion? And moreso, who would enforce it?
That's a good question, and I don't necessarily have a complete answer for you. What I'm talking about is something radically new. It's never really been done before, at least not to the extent that I'm talking about. We have the UN, but the UN isn't really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about some kind of government.
Perhaps something sort of like the US Federal government. Not exactly like the US Federal government, obviously, more like what the US Federal government was originally conceived by some to be. Today it's more like a centralized national government, but it was originally intended to be much more limited in scope, just to enforce very basic laws and to arbitrate on interstate matters. But states themselves were meant to be mostly autonomous.
In that regard I suppose enforcement would be carried out by a military-police force, made up of volunteers from the various member nations. Their authority would be limited to enforcing what few laws the hypothetical Federal government might pass, which could be limited to a relatively small number of constitutional laws.
For instance, perhaps one of the constitutional laws of this hypothetical, international Federation would be to outlaw genocide. If this hypothetical Federal government, made up of elected representatives from the constituent member nations, determined that the government of one of the nations was carrying out a genocide, the Federal military-police force could intervene to stop it. Perhaps take the leader of the government into custody to stand trial.
Iran's unjust judges, juries, and executioners are the IRGC. I won't bother continued discussion with a pro-nazi like yourself, I hope you eventually get better and realize how much better life could be.
And by god, we'll keep bombing schools until life becomes better!
Please refer to the above comment