The commenters in this thread seem to be missing the point. Democrats seem to actually support the idea of regime change, just not the way Trump is going about it currently.
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2026
62 points (84.4% liked)
AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
3001 readers
2 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
It kinda sounds like they do oppose the war, for the reasons you listed.
They do??? Wtf do you want them to do? They are a minority in both house and senate. The Supreme Court is stacked Republican, the president is Trump.
They should say: “The war in Iran is an illegal war of aggression, Trump should be immediately impeached and removed from office and tried in The Hague for war crimes.”
They should do everything in their power to force a floor vote on the war in Iran if it gets less than 60 votes they should filibuster immediately.
Then run on ending the war and impeaching Trump in the midterms.
This is literally basic politics. The war is extremely unpopular and will only get more unpopular as everything becomes more unaffordable.
They don’t do this because they support the war. That’s why they only criticize the process not the war itself. It leaves them room to support the war in the future.
- They do say that except maybe The Hague.
- The vote does nothing except cost Democrats political capital. Also funny you think they could force a vote on anything.
- They already run on that.
- Idk what kind of twitter tankie hugbox you've been in, but the Democrats oppose this war in every way they can. They have been the only ones telling the public what's actually going on.
they do say that except maybe The Hague.
A few of the more radical ones may say it, but the leadership certainly doesn’t.
The vote does nothing except cost Democrats political capital. Also funny you think they could force a vote on anything
The democrats were gaining political capital when they shut down the government over cuts to healthcare. The polls were showing people were (rightly) blaming the republicans for the shutdown. The democrats randomly decided to stop fighting when they were winning.
They could definitely make a bigger stink about the war being illegal. Which would put pressure on republicans to put it to a vote.
Idk what kind of twitter tankie hugbox you've been in, but the Democrats oppose this war in every way they can. They have been the only ones telling the public what's actually going on.
I’ve already given specific examples of how I think they could be better. Why are you so angry when I’m pointing out a way democrats could be more effective?
The strategy the democrats are taking has caused them to lose to an orange fascist in 2 of the last 3 elections. Why should we continue running a strategy that already failed multiple times?
They could shutdown the government because republicans needed their votes to pass a new budget. There is no new budget to pass. They can't shut it down. They are the minority in a congress that doesn't try to pass laws, since trump runs everything via executive order. THEY CAN NOT DO THAT. Why not just impeach Trump, if we're already asking for impossible things?
There are a couple, but what is there to oppose? Under competent leadership, we would have an opportunity to support a revolution for Iranians to throw off their despots and enter democracy for the first time in 80 years. There are both economic and security incentives, as Iran has threatened nuclear war and supported insurrection and violent extremists in Egypt, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, etc for many decades, now. They're the proxy war agent propped up by Russia and China. Since they've been collapsing under the stress of famine and drought, and begun slaughtering thousands of insurgents and protestors in Tehran before the war started, now was the time to strike.
Do you really expect the DNC to stand up and say "WE NEED TO PROTECT MIDDLE EASTERN MAGA" ? Nah, fuck the Ayatollah, glad that piece of shit is dead.
The problem with this situation is that Trump is helping Israel with a border expansion campaign, has no inclination to aid the rebellion, has completely ignored congressional authority, and has led to a great many unnecessary casualties.
Do you really expect the DNC to stand up and say "WE NEED TO PROTECT MIDDLE EASTERN MAGA" ?
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.
Nah, fuck the Ayatollah, glad that piece of shit is dead.
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.
I think there should be the rule of law, and I think for that to happen we would need some kind of enforcement.
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
The problem with this situation is that Trump is helping Israel with a border expansion campaign, has no inclination to aid the rebellion, has completely ignored congressional authority, and has led to a great many unnecessary casualties.
Fuck me it's a little late for Team America World Police.
Amazing that across the political spectrum it's hard to come across anti interventionalists.
The first week of the war alone cost America $11.3 billion dollars. Can you imagine what the money could do to revive America's infrastructure and social services?
Many americans need to be taught this history - a regime change operation by the US is never in the interest of locals. It's so that a puppet/stooge can be installed and the neocolonial cycle continues. This should be especially apparent in this case since Iran spent 26 years with an autocratic American stooge less than a century ago.
At some point you have to realize your interventions are ineffectual and unless you plan on staying and governing the people in an oppressive authoritarian fashion (ie. colonialism) they will eventually win the battle for self determination.
Iran democratically voted for the nationalization of its oil reserves in the early 1950s. The American and British powers that be did not like that (British Petroleum in particular). Even though it was a democratic choice. Could the hypocrisy of the West be any more apparent?
They empowered a pro Western monarch which eventually led to the Iranian revolution and theocrats seizing power. The legacy of Western intervention, in a nutshell.