Hacker News Reader

Please do not take HN threads further into nationalistic flamewar. That is just what we don't want here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Because you are not sanctioning only the military and the government, you are sanctioning everyone in the country. You are sanctioning young people, who just want to live their lives, just like we do. They already suffer from the oppressive regime, and you just want to make their live even harder.

All the Iranians I've met seem like completely normal people. I've never been to Iran, but from what I hear the young people in Iran aren't much different from the people here: They like to go to parties, listen to music, etc. The only difference is that they have to do it in hiding, and that they will get arrested when they do something like hold hands in public when they are not married.

Why would anyone approve of sanctions that make these people suffer even more?

And then, when these people start fleeing the country, asking for asylum, why do we turn them away?

At what point should we start to hold ordinary civilians responsible to the actions of their governments?

None? If they are under a regime and the government do not represent their will. At what point you start jailing children for their parent's actions?

For any such action you should consider reason and effect. Do you have a good reason here and do you expect good results, or are yoy hust trying stuff out?

For autocratic countries this is not even a viable question to start considering.

For democracies there might be some consideration. But then you need to know how the individual people voted.

EDIT: Also you need to consider whether the politicians actually had the acts on their manifestos.

Always. The people always get the politics they deserve.

Do the current citizens of North Korea deserve the government they have?

The only thing propping up the regime is the society which feeds it.

Do you believe that the main reason that the North Korean regime can survive is due to the support of the people?

Indeed, its the only reason any regime survives.

What practical means of resistance does the average North Korean citizen have?

Every possible means. Plus, the decision - and responsibility - to act on it.

we suggest them to overturn their government, start a revolution.

Well that's the most dumb comment I've seen here for some time. you realize that most revolution end up in millions dead, having a new generation of dictators at the helm and little changed for the better, compared to a lot changed for the worse? But yeah its a sure way to give proper fundamentalists a good chance to rule.

See also: the Arab Spring.

thats-the-joke.gif

so according to you the revolutions in eastern europe shouldn't have happened. yes, in the Romanian revolution a few thousand heros died. but isn't that worth it to have freedom?

Why, so the CIA can ruin it again for them?

I hope you will find some time to at least google what caused Iran to be the way it is rigth now in the first place.

Sanctions are a blunt tool for sure, and the suffering they cause ordinary people is clearly a bad thing. This is compounded in the case of Iran / US by the idiotic decision of the Trump administration to rip up the deal they had, which seemed to be working.

However, and in general, if you have a nation state that does things like supporting terrorists (which Iran does seem to do), how do you try and compel them to stop those kinds of activities? Targeted sanctions are better - like targeting the overseas bank accounts of Russian oligarchs - but my understanding is that Iranian government officials don't have that kind of cash. It's a genuine question that I haven't heard a better answer for.

The particular idiocy that complicates things in this specific situation is that the sanctions helped the deal to happen, and that's been derailed by Trump's fragile ego wanting complete capitulation that he's never going to get.

The government and military control all the economic activity in the country. The IRGC is particularly embedded in economic activity. There's no way to 'sanction separately'. So the question is whether to feed the regime (and hope it throws some bones to the people while it uses the bulk of it on foreign adventures) or not. Unsurprisingly, some countries prefer the option that creates less risk for them.

Because sanctions (on the Internet) will radicalize younger people. Iran happens to have an abundance of them: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Ir...

If you want to help them, you don't do so by cutting them access to the information. Iran is not a dictatorship, it's a theocracy. Like literally everywhere else, the more people are educated, the less likely they are to let religion govern their lives.

Young women are already protesting compulsory hijabs since December 2017: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%9319_Iranian_protes...

Now I understand that you're from Israel which makes you too affected to look at the problem objectively, but the best way to help young people under an oppressive regime is to stay the fuck away and let them do what they must. The worst thing you could possibly do is to give them additional boundaries that they have to go through to access the information from the outside.

>If you want to help them, you don't do so by cutting them access to the information

Worked wonders with Russia, right? At least those young people could use foss to better target artillery strikes in Eastern Ukraine to pay off their mortage.

Criticizing soldiers for fighting effectively?

Also, how much of that FOSS was written by Russians anyway? It's not a nation with a math or programming talent shortage.

Do you think Iran is worse than the US when it comes to foreign involvement, world domination, destabilising regions, arming militias, assassinations on foreign soil, ballistic missile programmes, proxy wars, human rights violations such as torture, etc.?

US promotes values I am interested in, while Iran promotes what to me seems like a nightmare. Those who are interested in the Iranian end goal should be supporting Iran, but then I have to wonder why Western people would be promoting the Iranian stance. It does not seem self serving.

> "US promotes values I am interested in,"

What, like overthrowing democratically elected governments, as they did in Iran? I really hope neoconservativism dies with the boomers, but I fear you're young.

US does not promote values, it promotes its influence. USA went against many progressive leaders in latin America because they were about to damage the US influence and economic interest. USA is completely fine with Saudi Arabia and its values, while not fine at all with Allende (or even De Gaulle in France).

Quick question: Is there any action taken by the Israeli government or military in the past 20 years that you feel is worthy of criticism?

Obviously, although I suspect some of my criticism of them and what you mean by “criticism” will be radically different.

I expect this (VERY relevant to the current discussion) proves you wrong. Democratically elected, modern minded minister being "replaced" (he died in the process) by the secret services of the US and UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

It's not about some "end goal" its about both gov'ts using dirty tricks to further their own goals and the goals of the oligarchs that are associated with them.

My take: both are not worth my promo. US has, as other have pointed out, caused a lot more harm to a lot more people since WW2 then Iran has in the last 250 years.

Compared to what the US has done and is doing, Iran looks like a rookie. I despise Iran's rules and the way it police its people. But, the way US gets away with whatever it does, is baffling. Snowden leaks, WikiLeak's diplomatic cables, still its not the hot topic. We can discuss all day about NK & Iran's nuclear programs or China's censorship, but US & its allies should be discussed more as well. Whatever they do impacts us all, directly or indirectly.

One could say a lot of the same things about the USA or UK or Israel (especially Israel with their ongoing illegal occupation of Palestine).

One could say many things, it does not mean any of them is correct.

> Iran is on an unprecedented aggressive and violent push towards dominating the Middle East.

So are the US's allies in the region, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

> They are deployed in Syria

So are the US, after bringing chaos to it by funding and training rebels for billions of dollars.

> They are sponsoring and arming Shiite militias in Iraq

Profiting from the chaos and destruction brought by USA's invasion of Iraq.

> They are supporting and funding the Houthis in Yemen who are responsible for the civil war

And how are the US not responsible for the civil war in Syria then?

> They are supporting, funding and arming Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, both of which are recognized terrorist groups intent on murdering Jews.

I call them resistance armies against illegal Israeli occupation. The "murdering Jews" thing is pure propaganda (although it is true that decades of prepotence and occupation have fueled religious hatred- but this is the product of inflicted violence, not the prime driver of Hamas).

> They are responsible for historical attacks on US forces in Lebanon during the 80s which killed hundreds of Americans

The US has armed and funded Saddam in a war that killed at least half a million Iranians.

> Iran is developing a ballistic missile program which is intended to threaten Western Europe

Iran is certainly not going to start a war with western Europe- these programs are defensive, are meant to create a deterrent (a mutually assured destruction) in case of attacks- which are very likely, as we're seeing these days. As a sidenote, I find it interesting how the US get hysterical at the idea of countries acquiring defensive weapons, for example the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft system.

> Iran hangs gays from cranes

This is true and obviously heinous, but it seems to be much rarer than it is generally thought. And sanctions and frontal aggression are not the way to improve the situation, it only further radicalizes the country.

> Now, why would anyone in their right mind oppose sanctioning this country?

Just to answer your question, I don’t really have a position myself on the topic:

Embargos target the general population, making things way more difficult for normal people who are just trying to live their lives. That can potentially create pressure for the people responsible for the evil actions and decisions you want to sanction, but as a side effect a lot more people are negatively impacted. That seems quite immoral to me.

The sanctions have real, tangible practical effects. It's not just about making them suffer. For example, Hezbollah who are almost exclusively funded by Iran, had their budget cut by half [0]. The military operations Iran undertakes in Syria which are intended to strategically threaten Israel have taken a cut. It's hard to justify supporting proxy wars when the population at home is hungry.

[0] https://www.thedailybeast.com/as-iran-us-tensions-rise-with-...

Hezbollah was created to expel the Israeli invasion in south Lebanon. [1] One thing is for sure: Middle East politics and history has no single (or correct) perspective.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Lebanese_confl...

Now that Hezbollah covertly built five tunnels extending far into Israeli territory to attack Israeli civilians, you need to ask “who’s invading who?”

What you are saying may be entirely true, but Iran is entirely balanced in the middle east by an equally savage and hostile neighbors. Otherwise Iran would have already overrun the region.

Israel and Saudi Arabia are perpetually lobbying for USA to destroy Iran. Fortunately at this time Trump is not interested in adding another $5 trillion to national debt to fight other peoples wars.

Lopsided politics? What is really interesting are Iranian the people on the ground, probably the most interesting population in the entire middle-east. They are actually far more liberally minded than most people imagine, they are very intelligent and capable and productive vs the region. I suspect that free from the Islamic-fascist dictatorship they would becoming extremely dominant in the economically and politically in very quick succession.

One side of the story. But the thing is, intelligent people will want to know why?

Intelligent people already know why: Iran is interested to see Shiite Muslim groups proliferating, for religious as well as practical reasons. Iran is the leader of the Shiite world, in the same vein Saudi Arabia represents the Sunni world.

This is why Iran supports Hezbollah (Shiite) over other groups in Lebanon, Houthis (who are not Shiite but oppose the Sunni majority) in Yemen, Shiite in Iraq, Bashar Al Assad (who is Alawite himself but closely aligned with the Shiite and opposing the Sunnis in Syria). The only place where Iran supports Sunnis is Gaza, and that's done to primarily weaken Israel which Iran perceives as its primary threat to regional hegemony.

As Shakespeare wrote, “A plague o' both your houses!” — Iran’s sins should not result in the USA being surprised by their reactions. Sanctions will affect the entire nation (isn’t that the point, to reduce war fighting capacity while giving the target a get rich quick scheme called “stop attacking our interests”?) and that necessarily makes the nation imposing the sanction unpopular with many of the population that has been sanctioned against (it’s an easy propaganda win to say “The Great Satan is responsible”).

A failure to foresee this would be an error even if the USA was populated entirely by literal saints and angels; as it stands, human history is littered with so many genocides that it’s more like two drunks telling each other to stop looking at their pint. (And yes, my country is just as bad, and yes it doesn’t know that either).

Because sanctions directly affect their families. The choice between letting your family to suffer and doing the right thing in the global scale of things is not really a choice. People always chose family. And that's why sanctions radicalize population of sanctioned countries and increase support of the ruling regime.

> They are supporting and funding the Houthis in Yemen who are responsible for the civil war and attacks on Saudi Arabia and Gulf states. They are supporting, funding and arming Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, both of which are recognized terrorist groups intent on murdering Jews.

Saudi does the same, by arming the opposite side.

> Finally, Iran hangs gays from cranes.

There are right wing fanatics in the "West" who openly are against LGBTQ, trolling them IRL and on social media. Some, calling for violence as well. Pushing those people to depression or cornering them in society, is as worse as hanging them.

> They are responsible for historical attacks on US forces in Lebanon during the 80s which killed hundreds of Americans

Like the US warship that blew up a civilian airliner and the officers who got medals for that?

Whatever you said about Iran, is applicable to the other side as well. There are no "good guys" or "bad guys" here. So, everyone has blood on their hands one way or the other.

The west should practice what it preaches to the word, not pick and choose.

You don't want yet another Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria situation. Let the people of the nation decide their fate.

I for one, don't believe in any religion and it should have no place in this world. Many problems might go away.

"There are right wing fanatics in the "West" who openly are against LGBTQ, trolling them IRL and on social media. Some, calling for violence as well. Pushing those people to depression or cornering them in society, is as worse as hanging them."

Go find yourself some Iranian expat friends and ask them what it's really like to live under the rule of Mullahs, then come back and check if your moral relativism has taken a turn.

I know that Iran is worse, but the West is no saint either, with the atrocities it does around the world. Your country/government is always good when you're not on its bad side. Same goes for mine as well.

> [...] is as worse as hanging them

> I know that Iran is worse

Which one is it?

Do you ask which is worse of the two?

I was asking if you think it's equally bad for gay people in Iran and the west, or worse in Iran. Your first statement sounded like you think it's no better in the west, and the second one like you think Iran is worse.

I said worse overall like its laws, how religion restricts people, censorship & the proxy wars.

Parent made the wrong argument.

First, the Iranian state does not have a policy of finding and murdering gay people. You'll note that basically all press reports of the execution of homosexuals ultimately refer to acts of rape, possibly statutory. The argument, roughly, would be that this is a pretense, and certainly, Iran's legal system is very flawed, its laws regressive and offenses such as "enmity against god" ill-defined. Nevertheless, they are not ISIS, and merely being homosexual is not a crime.

Second, if you want to morally justify sanctions based on the idea of improving LGBT rights in Iran, find at minimum some evidence that there is significant percentage of those people in Iran who would welcome them.

Third, Saudi Arabia (see [0]). The west simply has no, absolutely no leg to stand on when it comes to the human rights argument. It is blatantly obvious that Iran could continue as it does with regard to its treatments of minorities, so long as it stops opposing our geopolitical interests, and starts to provide some benefits instead.

To summarize, this is not an issue of moral relativism. This is an issue of dishonesty and jingoism.

[0] https://www.out.com/news/2019/4/29/saudi-arabia-kills-5-afte...

> Now, why would anyone in their right mind oppose sanctioning this country?

There is no point to bring selective events/actinos. That's just memory bias and it's called selective omission. It's like if someone just brings the atomic bombing of Japan without context.

The irony is that, that is actually the regime we put in power in their country by our intervention. So whose fault is that?

Sanctioning is the best way to support right wings in those countries. It's the best propaganda tool we can give them.

What you want is to open dialogue, support democrat parties, make deal with them to let them show their people what benefits they get out of a deal. Which is exactly what P5+1 was trying to do before U.S. withdrawal by the new administration.

And please don't say that deal wasn't enough, because it is a suprise to see intelligent, educated person expecting to have a 100% reform in a country in one day and one step.

You forgot "Trying to develop nuclear weapons" from your list.