Hacker News Reader

> Libya was Europe's idea.

Hardly 'Europe's', it was the idea of some 'humanitarian interventionists' in the Obama admin and the then current president of France who wanted to cover up his corrupt dealings.

For what it's worth, I am not a fan of NATO either, so we can agree on that. All US troops should imo immediately leave Europe and loose all access to military facilities on the continent.

As for the whole warmongers thing, answer me two simple questions:

1. Was the 2003 Iraq war started based on false claims about WMDs? Yes/No?

2. Did you just attack Iran for no good reason? (Yes/No?)

>Hardly 'Europe's', it was the idea of some 'humanitarian interventionists' in the Obama admin and the then current president of France who wanted to cover up his corrupt dealings.

You can see French and UK leadership were making moves before the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_...

Obama's approach was referred to as "leading from behind".

>For what it's worth, I am not a fan of NATO either, so we can agree on that. All US troops should imo immediately leave Europe and loose all access to military facilities on the continent.

I'm glad we can agree on something. I find that a lot of Europeans are not willing to accept the logical implication of their stated beliefs.

>As for the whole warmongers thing, answer me two simple questions: [...]

I'm not sure why you're pushing this "warmongers" point. As I said, I'm an isolationist. I've left many comments here on HN about how I want the US to be more like Switzerland. The Swiss never do anything and thus they never get blamed for anything.

The families of the thousands of Iranians slaughtered by the regime doubtless think that we are attacking Iran for a good reason. Same way the thousands of Ukrainians slaughtered by Russia probably thought our weapons deliveries were being given for a good reason.

In any case we may be called "complicit" if we do not act -- the same arguments were used in the case of Libya. But we can't keep playing world police. We aren't very good at it, and it is not clear whether it is helpful. Not to mention the dubious ethics of getting involved in the affairs of other countries.

You're either "complicit" in "propping up" bad regimes, or a "warmongering" "imperialist" who "destabilizes" them. There's no way to win. Given the choice, I prefer to be complicit.

> The families of the thousands of Iranians slaughtered by the regime doubtless think that we are attacking Iran for a good reason

Regardless of the 'thousands of Iranians slaughtered by the regime' which is supposed to just be accepted as fact despite everyone citing some random number everytime, no they don't.

Because the logic of 'we'll liberate you from oppression by bombing you' does nothing but unites Iranians more than they ever were united before.

Or do you think the killing of schoolgirls by the US is welcomed by Iranians somehow?

Honestly, I am speechless.

Why do you believe that the current Iranian regime prevents its people from accessing the internet?

It's because a lot of the people hate the regime and want it gone. You can see that in activist spaces like the /r/NewIran subreddit or on X from accounts like https://x.com/__Injaneb96 that yes, they do very much welcome US intervention.

Here's a video from a townhall in my parent's congressional district where some Iranian-Americans speak up on the war: https://old.reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/1rbdxzb/democrat_c...

It's quite similar to Ukrainians complaining about Putin. "My country sucks, come save me" is always a trap, because if you attempt to come "save" them you just get called a warmonger.

Oh no the great war crime of _getting called a warmonger_ for bombing children in schools and invading other countries...

Your grievances with how you perceive other people opinion of the US are irrelevant when confronted with the warmorgering reality of american foreign policy, no matter how offended you feel on behalf of your favorite military industrial complex.

Sure, and the Ukrainians (sponsored by Europeans) are killing Russian civilians in Belgorod:

https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/06/24/death-and-destru...

This is the warmongering reality of the EU. First Libya, now this. Don't get offended, I'm just speaking facts.

You seem to think that there's some great agreement amongst Europeans about the foreign policies being pursued by European countries when there's not.

Yes, I think European foreign policy has in many cases resulted in the deaths of innocent people and our leaders are "warmongers" for following them.

See, it's not that hard. I am not upset, because I can objectively look at the facts and say, yeah, you have a point. I even upvoted you.

The fact remains that the US has done this on a much larger scale.

It's wrong in both cases.

So why doesn't Europe pull support for Ukraine then?

I'm advocating that the US pull support.

Why can't you advocate that EU pull support?

> Why do you believe that the current Iranian regime prevents its people from accessing the internet?

In the middle of an unprovoked aggression, is it really that surprising that you might try to restrict channels your enemy might use? I don't think so.

Wouldn't enabling internet access allow Iranian citizens to speak against US strikes, if they are all against the strikes, as you believe?

>In the middle of an unprovoked aggression, is it really that surprising that you might try to restrict channels your enemy might use? I don't think so.

So wouldn't Ukraine also logically want to restrict internet access to its citizens in that case?

> Just don't expect us to help you fight wars if you do.

Back at you. I'm glad Europe, Asia, and Australia all said no to helping liberate oil from Iran.

Also, it's so weird seeing Americans wanting to leave NATO because NATO didn't help invade Iran, whilst forgetting that NATO is a defensive pact. Han shot first :headdesk:

>I'm glad Europe, Asia, and Australia all said no to helping liberate oil from Iran.

I didn't expect any help from them.

>Also, it's so weird seeing Americans wanting to leave NATO because NATO didn't help invade Iran

That's not why I want to leave NATO.

>whilst forgetting that NATO is a defensive pact.

It didn't look very defensive when the Europeans dragged NATO into Libya.

Nobody got "dragged" in. Being that NATO is a defensive pact, no country was under any obligation to participate. There is exactly one time in history when a NATO country has actually invoked the treaty that requires help from other members, and I'm sure you know which country that was.

There's a big difference between helping an ally that's been attacked or intervening in a civil war, and attacking countries for no good reason at all. Afghanistan and Libya don't merit the "warmonger" label, but Iraq and Iran do. I don't think there's any equivalent on the European side in recent times.