6 ms·
Is there no de-escalation mechanism? Maybe through the UN?
by leptoniscool 4y ago
Is there no de-escalation mechanism? Maybe through the UN?
- guykdm 4y ago[flagged]
- Gordonjcp 4y ago[flagged]
- jjcon 4y ago> There's only one of those two countries that's currently invading another country and conducting genocide. Kanye has entered the chat…
- jacooper 4y agoThis has nothing to do with kanye. Israel is an apartheid occupation conducting genocide, that's a report by Amnesty. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apart...
- jjcon 4y agoRacism is Kanye’s new brand… so yes very Kanye related
- nl 4y agoThe Amnesty report does not accuse Israel of genocide. That's a very specific accusation under international law. The Amnesty report makes a credible case that it is an apartheid system and illegal under international law but they clearly do not find evidence of genocide.
- Larrikin 4y agoIf you don't agree with everything Israel does it means you hate all Jews?
- uoaei 4y agoThey're referring to the Saudis attacking Yemen. At present, on the global stage, Israel/Palestine is not considered two states but rather a single apartheid state.
- digitaloracle86 4y agoIsn't Iran invaded Syria And fought Syrian rebel forces together with Russia to save Assad?
- jacooper 4y agoAt least it didn't say it was its own land, and that all Syrians should be killed
- apple10 4y ago[dead]
- potatototoo99 4y agoIt's that kind of psychotic response that ensures them they need to have nuclear weapons for dissuasion.
- guykdm 4y agoYou obviously don't know much about them, they would completely agree with the religious war against Israel being a core tenant. If WW2 teaches one thing, is that we shouldn't believe what is soothing, but what we see.
- RC_ITR 4y agoThe criticism was about the need for a military strike. When the narrative is that violence against you is a joke, it's easy to want to do anti-social/unambiguously bad things to protect yourself. [1] But anyway, you're not supposed to post things like (nationalistic calls to violence) that on HN - I'd probably delete it while you still have the chance. [1]https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9688222 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=968822...
- guykdm 4y agoI would post the same during the appeasement of Hitler, particularly following the anschluss, which obviously was a grave mistake. The "pragmatic" west has a habit of believing others are as peaceful as it is, later waking up to a horrible reality. Same thing will happen with Iran if we don't wake up now.
- RC_ITR 4y agoWow, what a quick jump to Hitler. I'm curious which military strike to since 1945 has, in your opinion, worked as planned.
- guykdm 4y ago1967 saved us big time. Also we preemptively destroyed Saddam's and Assad's nuclear weapon reactors, someone thinks that was a mistake? a nuclear sadam? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Outside_the_Box https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Outside_the_Box https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
- hax0ron3 4y agoAs far as I know, nothing about Iran's foreign policy decisions in the last 43 years shows that Iran's government makes foreign policy decisions in a less pragmatic way than the average country. If Iran got nukes, they would almost certainly just use them for deterrence purposes like all other countries have since 1945. Even if they didn't, though, I have no desire to definitely go kill Iranians now just to prevent some hypothetical future deaths of Israelis. If it was up to me I would cut off all US support of Israel tomorrow and let them figure out their own issues. If you personally want to go fight against Iran, there is nothing stopping you. I would rather not get dragged in to it, though, and I would not want my tax money as a US tax payer to go to murdering Iranians for the sake of soothing your bloodlust and/or your fears.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bradleyjg 4y agoThe security council is the only part of the UN with bite and it can only act when there’s such wide consensus that they aren’t necessary.
- 0xDEF 4y ago>Is there no de-escalation mechanism? No. Iran does not recognize Israel's right to exist, even if Israel goes back to pre-1967 borders.
- weatherlite 4y agoInterestingly neither do the radical parts of the Democratic party. Iran just walks the walk as well. It is interesting to me to see an ideological alliance between a radical Muslim movement and a radical left wing movement, I think Israel's "disappearance" is the only thing they agree on.
- wefarrell 4y agoDe-escalation requires willingness. It's convenient for both Israel and Iran to escalate considering they both have hardline governments and growing opposition.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> no de-escalation mechanism? Maybe through the UN? Possibly. Israel and Iran have friends in Moscow, so the usual Sinorussian veto party could be sidestepped. But this would require Russia extending its nuclear umbrella over Iran. That, in turn, gives Putin a say in Iran's extensive extra-territorial meddling. Tehran may figure they can get their own nukes out of Russia for a cheaper price. Tellingly, America has only extended strategic ambiguity to Israel, the same as we give Taiwan, not a red-lined nuclear umbrella like we do to NATO or Japan. This doesn't seem like a problem great powers care to resolve.
- nirav72 4y agoThe UN is just a forum and has very little ability to actually force a de-escalation.