Iranian Officials Asking Venezuela for Asylum in Case of Regime Change
iranintl.com
iranintl.com
There's almost no incentive to be a good leader since if it all falls apart you'll just end up living luxuriously in another country.
Why is there such a high value placed on human life that ignores the impact that person had upon the world?
Feel free to down vote but also reply with something because I think we need to reconsider the inherent value placed on human life.
What scares me is I've met people like that at home in the USA.
There is a quote by a KGB defector which I lost the cite for.
"There is nowhere to defect to."
They can live in luxury, but you cannot buy respect.
Folks are allowed to show you, in small ways that you are forever unwelcome in civil society. They should do exactly that to folks who think they can try to get on a helicopter with a laptop bag full of egold like cyberpunk Ceaușescus that at best we will count the days until we can cheer their deaths if we cannot do the needful ourselves due to laws or norms.
Ah, what wouldn't I give to feel forever unwelcome in small ways but have another country's passport/bank account/etc. Heartwarming to know it's easier for those who are running my (on paper) country into mud. Guess I'll keep running around the sanctions I'm under because of them while they live in luxury and know they will be about to keep doing it no matter what goes down.
I don't think they and their helicopters should be allowed in and their funny money should not convert as it degrades democracy.
Even Navalny came back to face the music, and he wasnt even president (yet?)
I do not believe they are self serving at the expense of their country and will live in a bunker while their countrymen are bombed. They all thought and think they were doing the right thing for their country. Even Yeltsin, when he did in 1993 what essentially the Peruvian guy is doing now — trying to dissolve parliament in a constitutional crisis, in order to perpetuate the “shock therapy” of privatizing everything to oligarchs while people started to starve.
I an sure even Stalin thought he was modernizing the country, just as Mao later did, while people were starving.
The problem isn’t that they are self serving kleptocrats. Stalin owned one suit I think, and personally was poor.
Just because they love their country and think they’re helping it, doesn’t make it true that they’re helping people though. I am sure George W Bush loved USA and wanted the best for it when he invaded Iraq. As libertarians we question the basic “patriotic common wisdom” of how things are set up in the first place.
I am talking about subsequent leaders who actually ruled Russia. Yeltsin helped usher in the Chicago Boys reforms in Russia and he literally fired on Congress. The Peruvian guy does less than that but he is denounced - yet Yeltsin was supported by USA. There is a cover of Time Magazine w him holding an American flag saying “Yanks to the Rescue” where we claimed to have interfered in the Russian elections to have him re-elected despite a 6% (!!) approval rating. We did it so the communist party candidate wouldn’t get into power (Zyuganov).
They even made a movie about it https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X1Z7pAcGQSQ
So when it comes to Russia, interfering in their elections is something we are proud of doing and even probably overstate it for propaganda purposes. That is another reason why even on a logic/hypocrisy level, very little said by large states (especially empires) means anything to intelligent people. It’s all sound bites designed to get public support for the latest policy of the latest administration, who themselves make it up as they go. Instead of working hard to hear legitimate concerns of others and prevent wars, they escalate wars. This is true across the board in Russia, China, USA etc. They supposedly “work for us” but they do such a terrible job and then we have to pay with our taxes and our boys (and kill other people by the tens of thousands) for THEIR mistakes while they never even come close to paying the price an average young male member of the public has to pay.
In the Russian revolution, 20 million people died, many killing their own relatives. But not Stalin, Lenin, or any of the Bolshevik leaders. Must be nice to be the political class. And people buy this bullshit. Read “war is a racket” by Smeey Butler
Russian leaders were as quick to leave as any when shit hit the fan is my point.
The dude has a a net positivity of -30% rating ... and is a designated terrorist.
> According to polls conducted by the Levada Center in September 2020, 20% of Russians approve Navalny's activities, 50% disapprove, and 18% had never heard of him. Out of those who were able to recognize Navalny, 10% said that they have "respect" for him, 8% have sympathy and 15% "could not say anything bad" about him. 31% are "neutral" towards him, 14% "could not say anything good" about him and 10% dislike him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Navalny
You could argue Russia is corrupt, but it equally seems likely the west is propping this guy up because he's an "asset". Navalny isn't anywhere close to electable. He's convicted of multiple crimes, in solitary for trying to start / organize a prisoners union (something the west also pushes back against) and isn't generally liked in Russia. Especially, when comparing to someone like Putin who has a +50% approval rating
https://www.statista.com/statistics/896181/putin-approval-ra...
Happy to say that Mandela and Navalny seemed less likely to create violent revolutions and big terrors, than those other two guys.
Putin has openly said he despises what the west did to Gaddafi and believes thats what they want for him. He not only fears it, but but said he fears for his civilization (Russia).
The west makes it pretty easy to be feareful - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-on-qaddafi-we-came-we-s...
Putin asked what right the west had to assassinate Gaddafi without a trial and destroy all the countries infrastructure
https://www.the-sun.com/news/2268833/vladimir-putin-killed-g...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-putin-libya-idUSTR...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/26/libya-us-briti...
Less than a week ago russians published those photos https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/zcak...
The purposeful destruction of infrastructure is an inexcusable war crime.
But "the west" did not stick a sword up Gaddafi's butt -- that was his own people, enraged by the actions of a totalitarian.
"The West" did not wander into Libya and and lynch a so called world leader who only wants norms followed when said lynch mob has formed.
To kill in this manner is a crime, but it happens when so many laws and norms have been broken it's more akin to manslaughter, more akin to a concentration camp victim losing their temper, seizing a firearm, and executing their former captors.
(As they say in America: "Fuck around, find out.")
Sure, a nato air strike hit Gaddafi's vehicles and opposition was given the location to attack...
People on the ground definitely "finished the job", but it was the massive air campaign and provided intelligence, leadership and weaponry to opposition that ended up getting Gaddafi killed.
For the record, I'm not supporting anyone here. I'm pointing out the idea the Putin isn't scared of his people as much as NATO. Per his own words.
Putin is massively popular in Russia https://www.statista.com/statistics/896181/putin-approval-ra...
Doesn't mean the 15-20% who massively dislike him wouldn't hang him. It would just only happen if Nato or the west provided support to the opposition.
(You should have guarded the embassy better. RIP vilerat.)
I think the fuller explanation is that Putin got drunk on his own Kool-aid of successful propaganda ops against the West, and thought that would translate into battlefield success. Nobody thinks of themselves as a bad person, so the perspective of rulers is that people love them and want to be ruled by them. Hence why Russia started off by sending shock paratroopers to be "greeted as liberators" rather than an actual invasion force.
What I do know is the Russia-Ukraine war is a referendum on the post-WWII international order - whether those lines on a map mean something. And even despite the moral hazards from the outsized winners in that international order (eg the Iraq War), it's seeming that we're much better off with it than without it. And this applies a thousand times over if you're American or European.
https://nypost.com/2021/12/23/putin-demands-nato-not-expand-...
Ukraine was hostile to the Russian people, banning their language in schools and refusing to uphold neutrality. France tried to broker a deal before the war broke out (upholding the Minsk agreements).
https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-to-meet-macron-as-france-...
> Sure, but this fear of "ending up like Gaddafi" still doesn't doesn't make for a justification, or even an explanation, of why Putin thought it was a good idea to invade a neighboring country. Egging "The West" on made that worry much closer to becoming real. If Putin wanted to be left alone, he's done the exact wrong thing.
The west supported a coup in Ukraine, overthrowing the elected leadership of Ukraine.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/22/russias-putin-accus...
Russia then attempted to negotiate with the new Ukrainian government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements
Ukraine openly ignored the agreement and has been seeking EU / US involvement. Immediately before Russia invaded there was a massive increase in shelling (noted by international observers as well). Which could easily lead one to believe Ukraine was about to start another push into Donbass
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-sharp-incre...
Just prior to Russia invading, Ukraine was openly discussing the attempt to obtain nuclear weapons
https://www.dailywire.com/news/president-zelensky-suggests-u...
Everything points to expansion of the west, which triggered Putin's fears.
I'm not saying he should have invaded, he effectively lost in the political influence game, so he switched to the kinetic realm. But in his mind he thinks NATO is out to destroy him and his civilization (his own words). It makes sense if you watch what the west has done to people like Gaddaffi, Serbia, or Iraq. I'm not supporting anything here, but am pointing out the mindset.
If you pull it into some other paradigm than the post-WWII international order, where Russia presumably has some inherent right of conquest, then sure, you can come up with justifications of why Russia "had" to act. But as I alluded to in my last comment, if you are an American or European taking that post-WWII order for granted, you are gravely mistaken.
None of that has been debunked, it's quite literally factual events and treaties not honored that all parties admit weren't honored. None of those facts are in dispute by anyone.
Regardless, if you want to dive into the post-WWII international order, the right of self-determination also wasn't honored. The west aided in a coup in 2014, removing the elected leadership of Ukraine. After that, the western half of Ukraine voted to leave Ukraine. Only after 6-8 years of fighting between the Ukrainian parties did Russia become involved directly and a new vote (where they again voted to join Russia) did they in fact join Russia.
As with everything in life, it depends on perspective. I'm personally an avid pacifist. Taking a life is never justified, even in self-defense. I personally see both "sides" as acting poorly here.
That said, I can look at both arguments and obviously see Russia is acting in self-interest. Ukraine is acting in their interest. But only one side here has been having their homes shelled for 8 years (the Donbass).
I think Putin was actually extremely clear before February that Russia is not going to invade Ukraine. Oh wait, he lied.
If they were ok with being hated by the world and some large percentage of their population why would they care about being respected?
I think this is huge divide between sociopaths and normal people. You think everyone cares about honor, respect, and the like but many people just want money and or power.
I know. I worked in DC :-)
I wonder if there's a deepfake of that video with Putin's face instead of Gaddafi's - that would certainly freak him out :)
> What scares me is I've met people like that at home in the USA.
I'm trying to give this a charitable reading, but I'm puzzled by it.
First, I'm pretty sure that Mussolini was shot, not hanged, but obviously that doesn't change the main sentiment.
Second, I don't think I'm particularly likely to be hanged, and not much more likely than the average USian to be shot, but both those outcomes do frighten me if I think about them. So, when you say "What scares me is I've met people like that at home in the USA", do you mean people who are scared of being shot or hanged, or people who think that their likely end is being shot or hanged? Or something else?
Since you're getting a lot of reasoned replies I assume your meaning is clear to others, but I'm really having trouble figuring it out.
If they have the option if fleeing to another country, then at some point they could decide its in their best interest to just give up.
If bad leaders got executed, then the incentive for bad leaders would be to stay in power no matter the cost.
The reason dictatorships turn murderous when they lose popularity is that the dictator knows they will be killed if the opposition wins, so they have no choice but to go all out and do unto the opposition before they do it to him.
That sounds plausible, but does it actually happen? I mean, tyrants have certainly fled the country to live somewhere else and retire their ambitions, but have they ever done so peacefully?
He could have fought back much harder and plunged the country into a civil war like the one that got him into power in the first place. He chose to retire in wealth, comfort and peace instead.
Stroessner did that, but he was not single-minded enough about it. He could have plundered much more, he could have named a successor that his generals liked, he could have raised taxes to unsustainable levels to pay off his generals and buy more time. If his life literally depended on that, he probably would have.
Also if there is some sort revolution how would they stay in power? Either the military supports them in which their potential fate doesn't matter or they have no way to protect themselves.
Iran, for example, is less bad I guess than North Korea.
Its was so weird when Gaddafi was killed. He was a murderous villain and the west had directly made sure that his regime would fall or even outright tried to kill him with bombings. But when some of his so-called subjects got their hands on him and finished the job it was much maligned in the press. For some reason the more power you have the less people feel like you should experience consequences.
Edit: I believe the first Gulf War was justified. The second however is a war crime. IMO
All the pain and suffering caused by Gaddafi happened off screen to unidentified people so we were silent. His killing happened very much on screen to a recognizable "bad guy" so suddenly we found moral outrage.
By my understanding he sponsored IRA terrorists and unnecessarily attacked Egypt and Algeria in some minor conflicts and a few public executions (Lockerbie was pretty clearly a Syrian action).... That's it? I do think he claimed to be a murderous villain since that was working for assad
I could be wrong but on raw terms it's not too far off from say any given us president in the last 100 years
This is a sentence that I would hope never to have associated with me. We need to re-consider the value of people's lives … on what basis? Because of the harm they have done to others, I guess. And why is that harm so bad? Because people's lives have value, surely. But should we interrogate whether all the people hurt by an official's actions were good or bad people before deciding how much to weight that official's harm to them?
If the principle of life having value doesn't extend to everyone, then it doesn't really cover anyone. To put it differently, if there is a principle according to which a life can be said to have no value, then that principle, howsoever aimed at the powerful it might initially be, will be used against the powerless.
I'm not sure if this is support or disagreement. If it is disagreement, then I should clarify that, as far as I can tell, I meant to say the same thing, though I certainly said it less pithily.
No democracy could have maintained Xi's zero-covid policy for nearly 3 years.
This is the wrong question. There isn't a high value on human life, the leaders are permitted to execute and kill people.
There is an incentive for people in power to not want to create a precedent for the killing of people in power, for obvious reasons of self interest.
There's also a precedent for people to live vicariously through leaders, be they a political leader or someone like Elon Musk, which can presumably lead to violence if you make them a martyr.
I think the biggest thing that caused it is the implicit assumption that increased fear for leaders would lead to better government outcomes. I'm not very confident that this is the case.
I think the other part that triggered me is that an implies some singular authority that is determining the value of human life and doling out justice, but choosing not to, when in fact there are practical considerations. Who would hold these leaders accountable, and how? If leaders flee to venezuela, should Iran declare war on venezuela? Should the US step in and attack venezuela?
Overall, I think civilization benefits more from a population that cares about the impact leaders have on them when in office and are satisfied when they are out of power. I don't think an increased amount of bloodlust and revenge in society is ultimately prosocial.
Bloodlust and focus on revenge is a genie that's hard to put back in the bottle once it's out. Endorsing it at a state level can trickle down to how individuals behave. I wouldn't want disenfranchised voters or employees murdering anyone that they felt wronged by in the present or past
Like I said above, what are you going to do if a dictator flees to another country? Invade it and go to War with it?
Is Justice against one individual worth sacrificing tens or hundreds of thousands of lives? Would that be Justice?
You don't think we should place any value on the dictator's life? Fine. Place some value on the lives of the people who would die to kick him out.
[0]: Joint project with EU, UNDP to clear 80,000 mines in eastern Turkey https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/eu-affairs/joint-project...
These are obviously unrelated.
What is a good reason to keep them? Doesn't Turkey still want to join the EU. I'd think that landmines are yet another hindrance.
They cleared the minefield to be able to operate safely not because they were concerned for the safety of refugees.
Turkey’s border with Iran is mainly with the West Azerbaijan province (not to be confused with Azerbaijan the country) the demographics of that region are usually an Azeri majority or minority majority with a large Kurdish population as West Azerbaijan borders Iranian Kurdistan.
If Turkey is indeed clearing up minefields it’s probably again in perpetration to be able to stage military forces in the area rather than for humanitarian reasons.
I couldn’t find any reliable sources that anything of note is actually happening tho but this is also not something I would expect to even hit the major wire services.
> In early-November, an unnamed source at Tehran's Imam Khomeini Airport told Kayhan-London
> Citing an unnamed Iranian source,
> There are also unconfirmed reports that officials are transferring their assets to friendly countries
Basically, "source? trust me bro!"
Sure. Apparently I should also believe Iran has WMD and NATO should attack it. It's coming from a unnamed sources.
This particular influence operation is headquartered in London and is owned by Volant Media, and receives donations from Saudi Arabia[1]. Volant has offices in Washington DC, and owns this and a sister publication called "Afghanistan International", which was launched immediately after the Taliban capture of Kabul, and is now focused on waging information warfare against Afghanistan.
"Iran International TV emerged abruptly on the London media scene last year; many of the 100-strong staff network were offered generous salaries, often double what rivals paid, but was elusive about its source of funding."
"The source claimed Saud al-Qahtani, the crown prince’s information tsar, who was among two senior officials removed in connection with the Khashoggi affair, was involved in the funding behind Iran International TV."
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/31/concern-over-u...
(I'm a big fan of personal diplomacy, in the sense I used to loudly joke I might one day become a test case for the Logan Act :-))
Have we met in real life? I have witnesses.
Don't question my integrity.
I'm not asking you for a letter of recommendation, your opinions are irrelevant.
Libya? Egypt? Be specific. Let's plan where they will go and prepare for their arrival.
Libya's governments have strong military relationships with Turkey and/or the US+France so a no-go
If they try to take asylum somewhere outside Iran it would probably be Malaysia (lots of the Iranian elite send their children to the British+Australian university campuses there plus it's basically First World) or Qatar (similar reason as Malaysia but also American universities)
Indonesia's elite tend to be much more West dependent than Malaysia (and anecdotally, USC is the main school Indonesian elites send their children to, compared to British and Singaporean unis for Bumiputra Malaysians)
[0] - https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Ira...
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-malaysia/mu...
[2] - https://rusi.org/publication/tension-asia-pacific-iranian-ma...
The one "advantage" Maduro has is he's a strongman's strongman and a socialist caudillow.
I wouldn't be surprised if a number of the pro-regime Imams end up moving to India though - that was Khomeini's backup to Paris, is the 2nd largest Shia country in the world, and historically was the goto country of refuge for religious Iranian.
Just because Kosovo is Muslim-majority does not mean they're friendly to the Iranian regime.
Sorry -- I didn't mean to insult folks from Kosovo or Albania.
(I'm not a nationalist, I just utilize the existing neoliberal laws and norms to move us to something more respectful of personal autonomy while respecting basic human rights, but I've noticed how lack of shared language can cause issues when everything else is put aside)
That said, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE are especially problematic for Iranian leaders because Iran's official sect of Islam is opposed to that of those countries.
Ah yes, I keep forgetting about the whole Sunni/Shia (sp?) thing. (One of the many fun things I've mostly discussed verbally)
All of these are bitter enemies of the Iranian government.
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/russian-mercenary-group-wagn...
(I'm childfree in the "listens to a lot of crystal method" sense, but you run into all sorts.)