Hacker News Reader

You're right and wrong.

The White House probably has not called up the WSJ and said to print articles against Iran. But there is an consensus forming among the USA's elites, that Iran is the next enemy that needs to be dealt with.

In this environment, Iran becomes more interesting to the editors of the WSJ and other agenda-setting newspapers, like the New York Times. And, they will find that government agencies are far more likely to help with stories about Iranian oppression.

That said: the Iranian government is really making it easy to write such stories. SOPA is horrible, in that it upsets the balance between free speech and copyright holders. Installing cameras in every internet café, with the open objective of enabling the secret police to control everyone's thoughts and actions, all the time? I think that's in a different class of behavior. (Although, the USA is sadly inching in the direction of authoritarianism and unlimited government surveillance, there's still a big, big difference.)

So let's be skeptical of a rush to a conclusion that we must bomb the evildoers, but neither should we be complacent about Iranian internal oppression.

From the article:

>> A conservative cleric blogger based in the holy Shiite city of Qum, Ahmad Najimi, said in his blog last week that the government was paying hackers hired in the network known as the "Cyber Army" the equivalent of $7 per hour to swarm the Web with positive comments about the Islamic Republic and post negative comments against dissidents.

So we ask ourselves, are comments here that are mitigating Iran's actions here - or ones that divert the conversation to say SOPA - getting paid by the hour?

but wait - if we assume _all_ positive comments are paid for, then we're denying those that are unpaid to voice valid counter arguments.

Oh my head, my poor head....

That happens in China, too. When there's a new policy or law, they pay thousands of people to write positive comments about it.

I love China. I think they have the best human rights record in the world!

They pay for positive comments, not sarcastic ones. Don't expect a check in the mail... ;-)

Generally those commenters stick to Iran-themed websites and blogs but I wouldn't be shocked to find them posting here. You should also consider how often SOPA is being brought up needlessly in conversations across the entire web. I doubt the rate is much different in discussions involving Iran. The causal link is more likely to be "a story discussing Internet censorship of any kind."

Iranians ARE youthful, energetic, entrepreneurial and liberal. That's why they're constantly trying to revolt against the ass-backwards represive government they're stuck with. It's a country of huge constrasts.

There is definitely some kind of propaganda war going on to, but that doesn't mean Iran's government isn't horrible.

Change must come from within though. You can bet your bottom dollar that those youthful, liberal Iranians will be the first to join the resistance movement in the event of an invasion just like I'm sure many HN users and other young Americans would swell to defend their homeland if they were attacked by an equally imperialistic and foreign entity, say China or

Yeah, I'm absolutely not advocating an invasion. Best thing that can happen is a successful revolution. It seems to have been close last time so there's still hope.

I think a revolution is unlikely. I've spoken to many Iranians and had an Iranian girlfriend for a few years.

One thing I realized is that they are completely brainwashed to believe that a revolution is the worst thing ever. They all take the attitude that it's better to stagnate forever with rape victims being regularly stoned than to risk a few deaths trying to change things. I think it's because they perceive the revolution and Iraq war during their childhood as horrible in a not normal way, whereas the stuff that happens currently is horrible in a normal way.

Combine this with a huge amount of nationalism, and you also realize they won't work with those who should be natural allies. For example, Iran's long oppressed Kurds/Balochs might join in a revolution if they get independence, but the Persian nationalists (read: those freedom-seeking youths you see in the media) would never consider this.

So no, I don't see a revolution happening.

That's the saddest part about the dictatorships, and it's actually the reason they work in the first place. They make people believe that the benefits of that system is a lot better than the alternatives, and any dissent would be terrible for the society. Hitler did this, too. Rise of Evil is a good movie about it, showing how people actually started believing in his "ideals" and they were very passionate about it.

Ultimately, all types of dictatorships are done by promoting the idea of "collectivism". That "group rights" are more important than individual rights, which can also be read that you can discount individual rights, as long as it's "for the greater good". It's also when some group rights become more important than other group rights, and lead to racism, anti-semitism, and so on, "because our group is better!".

It's no coincidence that USA, which is probably the most individualistic country ever, has also been the freest country, and with the most liberties. But I fear collectivism influences are starting to creep in there, too. Even most of the Republican party wants it now. It's only that their idea of collectivism is a little different than that of Democrats. For example, they want to "unite" people behind another war. But they both want Big Government and more Government intervention and control over people, even if some still pay lip service to the idea of "limited government", but only for minor issues, so they can keep appearances and pretend they offer real choice and alternative. And this is why a third of the country is Independent now, because they don't buy it anymore.

The hypocrisy of republicans (and some democrats) amazes, they boast about freedom but they hate liberalism. They want everyone to believe in the same religion and are happy to use authoritarian tactics to achieve it.

Republicans don't hate liberalism, they hate democrats and "liberals" is just another word for democrats in American politics. It's just a case of factionalism and the democrats can be just as bad.

I agree that democrats can be just as bad but regarding hate for "liberalism", sometimes you have to take people at their word when they say they hate something. Saying the words "I don't necessarily hate all liberalism" would sink any of the Republican presidential candidates. It's gotten so bad with the Republican party that all you have to do is call an idea they support "liberal" and they'll do a 180 and hate it.

I dunno if I'd call that brainwashed so much as a completely rational "well here's what happened last time".

I agree though, although I'd note that the same held true for Egypt right up until the second that it didn't.

If it were a completely rational "here's what happened last time", they would extrapolate "last time", compare it to the current situation extended for 50 years, and see which is worse.

I've never spoken with a single Iranian who actually did that. It's all just talk of vague negative childhood memories.

Well, I'm just spitballing here, you probably know more Iranians than I do, but there might be something to the immediacy factor. Another revolution probably holds more immediate danger for their family than the current situation extended for 50 years, which is just another 50 years of relatively low risk. It's hard to take the long-term average outcome viewpoint when you're talking about family members' lives, and there's no guarantee a replacement government would be substantially better (the mullahs were talking about freedom from the shah when they started off).

>a 'propaganda war' much akin to the one we saw before Iraq and Afghanistan is slowly coming to life.

Yep, it's been going on for a month or two now. Preparing the public for another brilliant war that we can definitely afford. I'm fairly sure we (the US and UK, probably the french) are already at war with iran already, in the form of the various cyber attacks, assassinations and embassy closures that've been in the news in recent months.

Here's a couple of articles on the subject, from the point of view of the war-weary and somewhat disbelieving british left. Trust me, we can't fucking believe they're doing it again either.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/06/iran-war...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/07/iran-war...

    Preparing the public for another brilliant war
    that we can definitely afford.

I'm going to assume that by "afford" you mean monetarily. In that case how do you know it can't be afforded?

At least the Iraq war was arguably mainly about resource acquisition , have there been any studies about how cost-effective that resource acquisition is in the long term?

The wars cost billions of dollars, but the invading forces now have control over billions of dollars of oil resources as well. Has anyone done a realistic cost analysis on how those two stack up against each other?

Um, the US does not "have control over billions of dollars of [Iraqi] oil resources" now. Why would you think it did?

Give me one reason no to think that way?

Evidence of absence is always a tough one but one could point to the absence of significant troop presence there as of 2012.

Any "control" that the US has over the oil in Iraq is in the form of contracts that US firms have to develop the oilfields, which are currently being bid against by chinese, russian and dutch firms:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/258812/20111130/exxonmobil-i...

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-11/12/c_131...

I'd note that politically, from this point forwards it's a big win for Iraqi politicians to support non-US interests as far as the oil, so the only special treatment we'll be able to get is the same as in Nigeria, etc: Bribe the right people and hope you did a better job than the Chinese.

Well, I might be wrong at this, I am not really good in politics, but when I hear in news that Libya is being bombed by US, UK, and FR and then I make a quick google search about Libya's major oil buyers and see that those are exactly the same countries that came to bomb them. Well the whole spirit of "bringing democracy to totalitarian states" disappears... From the first link you provided, I wonder why is it ExxonMobile to get the Iraqi oil contract before LukOil and others. Here in Turkmenistan, the major contracted oil/gas companies are Petronas(Malaysia), Petforac(Russia) and Dragon Oil(UAE). I wonder where is ExxonMobile and British Petrolium, ohh, maybe they are still busy at bringing democracy to other more oil and gas wealthy states such as Iran, Syria and Co.

The major oil buyers thing in Libya happened around 2005 or so when Qaddafi decided to reconcile with the west in exchange for profitable oil contracts and an implicit promise that we wouldn't bomb the crap out of him the first chance we got (joke's on him). So we were actually bombing a country where we'd already gotten the oil access, not the other way around.

As far as the oil trade in general, it's been dominated by cloak and dagger stuff for decades, in the US we have a partnership between the oil firms and the gov't where the gov't goes to bat for them in foreign countries, and in return they don't pay their taxes. In China, there's less of a formal division between the two so it's simpler. But both cases are the same.

And I'm not saying that's right, but it's a lot more complex than "the US controls Iraq's oil". We don't, really, we have to bribe people and do underhanded stuff on equal footing with everyone else at this point.

I couldn't reply on your last comment so I am doing it here. >So we were actually bombing a country where we'd already gotten the oil access, not the other way around.

Well yea, I can imagine Qaddafi saying "You fools, don't bomb us, you are the ones who buy our oil!" and then US and Co says "Well, you fool, we came here to take it for free!"

Edit: Where free means "We still buy it according to market rates, but heck, prove the opposite, we own the media anyway"

The onus is on the person making that claim, not the other way around. You can't make a claim without any evidence, and then defend it by demanding evidence of the contrary.

Because the US pays market rates for oil, including Iraqi oil. Generally, when you control something, you pay less for it. I mean, I pay myself much less to eat the vegetables I grow in the garden that I control than I do for vegetables from supermarket.

This sounds like a "prove that God exists!" / "prove that he doesn't!" argument...

I'm going to assume that by "afford" you mean monetarily. In that case how do you know it can't be afforded?

Based on the proposed budget: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/in-new-strategy-panetta...

A smaller Army would be a clear sign that the Pentagon does not anticipate conducting another expensive, troop-intensive counterinsurgency campaign, like those waged in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nor would the military be able to carry out two sustained ground wars at one time, as was required under past national military strategies.

>I'm going to assume that by "afford" you mean monetarily. In that case how do you know it can't be afforded?

Because the US is broke its debt keeps going up and its economy needs dirt cheap oil right now, not having it hit 200+ when Iran shuts down the Strait of Hormutz.

I've been reading that we're about to go to war with Iran, any time now, since 2004, and it keeps not happening. I would be very surprised if we attacked Iran during the Obama administration.

I wouldn't be so sure -- I mean back when he was elected I would have agreed with you, but since it turned out that he was worse than Bush he might actually do it.

Reporting the facts is not propaganda.

P.S. and, as an Iranian, I can assure you the last thing I want is to be bombed.

Selectively reporting for facts is. That is not to say that I believe this one is. Another down reported story in American media is the Russian protests.

complaining with bias is not exactly reporting fact either

After having a long conversation with a close friend in Iran, and also reading this post guess post on Juan Cole's blog [ http://www.juancole.com/2012/01/jahanpour-as-us-and-iran-con... ] I'm starting to realize more and more that the way we have treated Iran since Carter (read: 1979 revolution) is completely wrong. Instead of finding ways to pressure the Iranian government we are hurting the Iranian people. The sanctions we place on Iran hurts the Iranian people and their small businesses much more than the Iranian government and it's abundant(for now) oil resource.

Obama really tried at first to bring in a different approach. First off he understood the structure of power in Iran and so wrote a letter to Khamenei directly. Then he tried to talk to the Iranian people in parallel by sending the message for Norooz (Iranian New Year). Next he offered to sit and talk with the Iranians without any preconditions, but what messed everything up for him was the Iranian elections. That was (read: is) a big pile of mess that no one really knew (read: knows) how to deal with.

It's of concern to us because we like the parts of Iranian society you mention, and we'd like them to succeed. This action will most likely harm them.

Nothing new here... more of the same since many decades. Check http://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Chan... and now Libya and Syria while ignoring the most likely more oppressive US ally Saudi Arabia.

People should see more videos and images like these, before they are quick to ask for bombing them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98j0I7e5OHE&feature=youtu...

Awwww.... Pretty pictures of an uptake of western culture, consumerism and aesthetics... Must be such a nice place for them.

People should see more videos and images like these, before they are quick to ask for bombing them:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2a0_1185106657 WARNING : NSFL!!! Serious, It cannot be unseen!! Its your choice to view the link.

Motivational isn't it.... You think the Iran regime is not interested in spreading and expanding its joyful way of life thoughout the world given the chance? The "incredibly youthful, energetic, entreprenuriel and when it comes to the younger generation, liberal" people of Iran deserve/need your help in overthrowing the regime (with as little blood spilt as possible) that thinks this is how society should live. You can't argue the above away with.... look they have LV scarfs and pretty girls.

So if I find a video of someone being executed in the US, that gives the world enough basis for justifying the "liberation" of the USA?

Why don't you btw demand the liberation of the US? Or perhaps you think the US is "spreading and expanding its joyful way of life throughout the world"?

Millions of dead civilians would disagree.

My point is invading a country of 70 million people should not be taken lightly, which a lot of political leaders seem to do right now. And it should certainly not be declared only by the president. The president is not a king.

The problem with Iran is not its government, people, religion or culture. It's the fact that Iran is independent from the US and the West in general (but also from the East; "neither West or East").

For those who are curios about Iran, events occurring there, and its relationship with the US (from a "non-mainstream"/"non-demonising" perspective), I can recommend:

- http://www.raceforiran.com/

- http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/

- http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/

- http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/

- http://www.bibijon.org/iranimage/

Those who have questions regarding the 2009 elections:

- http://brillwebsite.com/writings/iran2009election.html (he is also a frequent visitor to the "race for Iran" blog)