Iranian War Is Not The Same As Iraq

[HappyFace2025]

Some people seem to think the current war equates to the one in Iraq in the 2000s. It manifestly is not the same.
While Saddam treated Iraqis appallingly as the Islamic Republic has done to Iranians, Iran has been exporting terror throughout the Middle East via its proxies Hamas, Hezbollah and Houtis, as well as elsewhere including the UK, where 20 terrorist attacks were foiled last year (announced yesterday.)

Take a look at ci@-backed coups that overthrew democratically-elected governments. Look at Greece, Chile, Iran. All at the name of preserving liberty...
The results are appalling!
Dictatorships installed. Us-friendly dictatorships, nonetheless.
I cannot understand how anyone could support think tanks, regime change, peace-bringing bombs, and a bloodshed of civilians, when there is overwhelming evidence the outcomes are significant and negative.

I wasn't referring to the Vietnam war you're referring to. I was saying the Vietnamese defeated the Khmer because they were a thorn in their side. Likewise, many countries came together to defeat the Nazis for various reasons. The Germans did not defeat the Nazis. The Cambodians did not take down Pol Pot. My point is that sometimes other nations do indeed get involved in regime change for nations not their own. And sometimes history makes clear it was the right thing to do.
Its not clear yet if Iran will be one of those times or not.

The author of the report GAMAAN is apparently an activist who wants regime change, a quick google tells me. As I say, a quick google tells me that, I am not saying it is definitely true or not true!
I had a very quick look in the report and I see that around 70K people had opinions sought - not sure if they were all in Iran though I didn't check - and the population is some 90M.

I would have thought the more "educated" would be very much against regime change just as we in the west don't tend to support the idea of revolution as such upheavel is often catastrophic, and regime changes rarely bring about positive things, we know that from history.

Sometimes change from outside is necessary, I agree, but there are zero similarities in the examples you give. I have already explained about Hitler. Polpot's Cambodia and Iran could not be more different. Polpot taking over Cambodia is in fact another example of regime change which was absolutely horrific for the people of Cambodia, an argument against regime change.

The similarities are with regime changes such as Iraq, Libya which were also horrific for the people.

I haven't checked the thread to see if anyone watched this, but if you or anyone else is nervous of clicking on links, youtube links are usually pretty secure, and the picture will give you an indication of content. This is a short film showing the change to a girl's life in London when war came, it is made up (as war has not yet reached London) but ends with "just because it isn't happening here doesn't mean it isn't happening" and so it illustrates how devastating war is for anyone, anywhere, whatever creed or culture. I think it is a sober reminder that we should all be against war and we should support diplomacy and change through negotiation. The bombing of Iran was not discussed at the UN beforehand and has not been discussed.

I guess you don't know how polling works. 70k is a huge sample.

I didn't mention similarities. I was responding to a previous comment saying that regime change from outside is not acceptable. Sometimes it clearly is- I gave a few examples- ones where it was very obvious that regime change from outside was for the best.

This might or might not turn out to be for the best. It's too soon to judge.

Trump is now saying the job is pretty much done, far quicker than the 4 to 5 weeks he predicted...

Translated as "I ve seen the market falls, the oil price rises and i need to stop very soon"

So the regime continues, they'll rearm and rebuild via oil sales and all these people who have been killed, died for nothing.

“Job pretty much done” what bloody job has he done?? 🤔 you’re absolutely right he’s caused chaos all over the Middle East, killed God knows how many, and nothing will actually change 🤦‍♀️

When I said "no similarities" I meant "they were not regime changes"

Regime changes are generally done by the US (though perhaps forced by big business), are geopolitically motivated, usually to do with oil, sometimes land, sometimes power games.

Edit: thinking about Cambodia, though, a Cambodian journalist has told me that most of Cambodia especially the tourist areas around siem reap and oil is owned by foreign entities, mostly Vietnam or via Vietnam (and Vietnam is generally understood to be very much influenced by the US despite its politics), that the vast majority of people still live in wooden huts without running water or electricity, much of the country is unsafe, with tourist type compounds under special protection, that most "charities" there are corrupt and benefits do not reach normal people, that it is not safe to criticise any of this and it is not safe to be a journalist, and child sex abuse is off the scale. And that it seems to be being primed to be the next war zone so that all the oil can end up in big business hands. So better than Polpot, but not a happy ever after story either.

This might or might not turn out to be for the best. It's too soon to judge

Just to reply to this bit too - here is a video of nightlife in Iran in Dec 2025 - I really cannot imagine that being bombed by the US/Israel followed by regime change could possibly bring positive changes here. I think we all know whether or not it will turn out for the best.

And to take events to their logical conclusion, I don't think that the consequences for the rest of us will be "for the best" either.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KzKNNV_XWY8