Why the Iranians Hate the US Government

The reality is --- you figure out the nature of the regime.
With the Islamic revolution Iran became a rather vicious place with values that offend America.
(ie gunning down1500 people who were protesting fuel prices a few weeks ago.)
And Iran pursued interests in violent opposition to Western interests (control over Shia countries,
attacks on Iran, terrorist mass killings, breaking up the non-proliferation treaty etc..)

Sharing interests with the West over things like ISIS is incidental - Iran just found an enemy more
vicious than itself, and one which attacked it as well.

 

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

1. The US has not gone to war with countries because "they are not democracies". The USG allied itself with every kind of tyrant.
2. Looking back it is hard to support most of the USG's actions since 1945.
3. There are no "Democracies".
4. There are no "Democracies".
5. "Corporate giants" have no political power that they do not buy from Big Bad Government.

"Business views the political system as a source of business advantage. Anything can be a business advantage-- a subsidy, a tax break, an entry barrier, a spurt in the rate of economic growth, a government purchase, a regulatory move that hurts a competitor, etc." The Suicidal Corporation, How Big Business Fails America, Paul H. Weaver, Simon and Schuster Inc. 1988., p. 166.

6. The only people who want "Democracy" want tyranny.

"The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own interests at the expense of those in the minority. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot, argued John Stuart Mill in his 1859 book On Liberty.[1]" Wiki

7. In fact, Big Business never had any political power in Fascist Italy or National Socialist Germany.

"Hitler was not as yet a major beneficiary of German industry. 'After weighing all the facts' writes H.A. Turner, 'we must recognize that the financial subsidies from industry were overwhelmingly directed *against* the Nazis.'" And Toland adds, "The bulk of the funds in the party treasury came from membership dues." Toland, “Adolf Hitler,” Anchor Books Doubleday NY 1992.p. 277. (emph. Turner's)

8. Corporations may be able to buy protection from Big Bad Governments that allow them to exist.

“One survey of corporate executives conducted by the Committee for Economic Development found that half gave to political candidates because they fear adverse consequences for themselves or their industry if they turn down requests.” EXTORTION, "How Politicians Extract Your money, Buy Votes, And Line Their Own Pockets, Peter Schweizer, HMO, NY, NY, 2013, p. 4.

 

It is a false dichotomy you are putting forward - based on a hypothetical situation that does not reflect reality.

 

It is not a false dichotomy. War is a real option that governments tend to choose instead of alternatives like assassinating leaders. Of course, other options might be even better, but given the choice ... what would be your choice?

IMO, "Assassinating leaders will always be a better more humane approach than going to war."

I am surprised you disagree.

 

I didn't disagree - there may be some hypothetical circumstances where the above dichotomy is true .. It just does not apply to this situation.

I am talking about "Reality" a specific situation. The choice was not "Either we kill this guy or declare war" - so you pretending otherwise - is fallacious.