HN is among the worst places to discuss geopolitics; this is a current events story, far outside the guidelines of the site. Flagged.
"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."
I don't know if I qualify as a good hacker, but I sure find this interesting. And the fact that this is on the front page suggests that others do too.
[0] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html EDIT: I have flagged the article too, after reading ajoc's link. You should still read the guidelines, because I (personally) am in doubt that your reason for flagging was 'legitimate'.
"A crap link is one that's only superficially interesting. Stories on HN don't have to be about hacking, because good hackers aren't only interested in hacking, but they do have to be deeply interesting.
What does "deeply interesting" mean? It means stuff that teaches you about the world. A story about a robbery, for example, would probably not be deeply interesting. But if this robbery was a sign of some bigger, underlying trend, then perhaps it could be."
I think we are well within the bounds here
A moment's thought will reveal that the words in the guideline can be used to justify virtually any story, up to and including "intellectual" cat photos. The site guidelines, which I do not love, are mostly a framework for subtext, which you can really only get by following 'pg and 'dang comments.
Some indicators that a story is unlikely to succeed here:
* It involves current events outside of technology
* It evokes partisan politics or, worse, partisan nationalism
* It's based on valence issues, like "countries should not register their Jewish people" or "the NSA should not read your mother's email", about which nobody could reasonably disagree
* It's likely to produce terribly unproductive threads
Advocates for political stories on HN are fond of pointing out how a great community like HN should be fertile ground for interesting political debates. Old-timers on the site have seen enough HN political debates to know that the opposite is true. HN political discussion results in:
* Commenters arguing nastily with each other about how much more authentically they agree with a position they both hold
* Commenters that have had fascinating and productive discussions about technology or entrepreneurship or science reduced to slander and personal insults
* Threads dominated almost entirely by tired cliches that a sophisticated markov commenter could generate just as effectively; these are HN's equivalent of "First Post!1!111!".
I think you'll find that as you spend more time here, stories and threads like this are a sad aberration, and (fortunately) rarely survive on the front page for long.
In addition, the submission title is exactly the kind of editorializing the guidelines ask not to do.
The post was killed by user flags, and rightly so. That is what flagging is for.