3 ms·

It's troubling that most of the free world stands by and watches as a genocidal-level massacre takes place in Iran. Persians don't expect China/Russia to respon

It's troubling that most of the free world stands by and watches as a genocidal-level massacre takes place in Iran. Persians don't expect China/Russia to respond, but come on, no action from the West? Imagine negotiating with Hitler to give up his V2 missiles and nuclear plans while the Holocaust was taking place. History will judge us for negotiating (and therefore, legitimizing) with the islamic regime that's occupied Iran for 47 years.

stuckinhell 8mo ago
[flagged]
- 1over137 8mo ago
  You make it sound as bad as Iran. Yet I see no uprising in the USA as I see in Iran.
- hollerith 8mo ago
  Basically zero Americans are starving.
2OEH8eoCRo0 8mo ago
Talks with Iran were just called off and the US continues to flow military hardware to the area. I hope they take action against the regime soon.
viccis 8mo ago
>genocidal-level massacre "Genocidal" is not an order of magnitude; it's a description of purpose. What's going on in Iran is an atrocity, but it's not "genocidal." >History will judge us for negotiating We're not the world police.
- fragmede 8mo ago
  Yes we are. You may not like it, you may not want to pay for it. You may even have voted to not be. But we have been in the past so the US will be judged for not picking up the mantle this time.
- BrandoElFollito 8mo ago
  And yet we are everywhere.
- ghusto 8mo ago
  > "Genocidal" is not an order of magnitude; it's a description of purpose. What's going on in Iran is an atrocity, but it's not "genocidal." Oh, well that's alright then. Hey fellers, we got off on a grammatical technicality. > We're not the world police. It's your mess, now clean it up.
  - viccis 8mo ago
    It's not a "grammatical technicality" to misuse a word. Iran is not carrying out a genocide. >It's your mess, now clean it up. The US is under no obligation to the people of Iran whatsoever. If we take action in Iran, it will be solely to our benefit, and it may or may not improve those peoples' lives. In all likelihood, it will be another Libya or Afghanistan situation in which we take what we want and leave a power vacuum in our wake.
    - ghusto 8mo ago
      > It's not a "grammatical technicality" to misuse a word. Iran is not carrying out a genocide. 10,000 dead in 2 days. > The US is under no obligation to the people of Iran whatsoever Nobody can make you do anything, but the moral obligation is there. People say things like "we're not the world police", as if overthrowing the elected government of a country is nothing. It cuts both ways.
      - viccis 8mo ago
        >10,000 dead in 2 days. Again, "genocide" doesn't have to do with the scale of the killing. It's a specific word with its own meaning. >Nobody can make you do anything, but the moral obligation is there. People say things like "we're not the world police", as if overthrowing the elected government of a country is nothing. It cuts both ways. Governments don't have "morals". They do whatever is most expedient. We have never done something because it's the moral thing to do, and we never will. That's just not how hegemonic powers like the US work.
        YouRaFool 8mo ago
- E-Reverance 8mo ago
  I get the US has done much wrong before, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with world policing, we share a planet
- notaustinpowers 8mo ago
  If we want to have the almost 800 military bases stationed in about 80 countries around the world, then there are some responsibilities that come with that.
- pesfandiar 8mo ago
  > We're not the world police. That has been the bargain since WWII though. Pax Americana meant the US owned and enforced a global order, in return international trade and finance ran on its platform. Most Americans can't fathom how bad the alternative is to not being the world police.
  - viccis 8mo ago
    The US doesn't make foreign policy decisions altruistically. If we are involved somewhere, it's solely because it's to our benefit. The idea that we enforce order is childish; we do nothing that doesn't enforce our own international supremacy.
  - willturman 8mo ago
    The bargain? A bargain implies agreement. A one sided forced hegemony is not a bargain.
  - throw310822 8mo ago
    The US have a good share of responsibility for what's going on in Iran, first by overthrowing the democratic government of Mossadegh, then by imposing crippling sanctions (reneging on a previous agreement) that brought the population to this level of desperation.
- everdrive 8mo ago
  >We're not the world police. Well, not anymore after that speech from the Canadian Prime Minister!
- Hikikomori 8mo ago
  >We're not the world police. Then why did you overthrow their elected government in 1953? Which also set the country firmly on the path to the current regime.
  - bigstrat2003 8mo ago
    Most US citizens today weren't even alive then. They aren't responsible for that and it's unreasonable to act as though they were.
    - Hikikomori 8mo ago
      Venezuela.
- GeoAtreides 8mo ago
  >We're not the world police I imagine you saying this in 1940, to a german jew refugee. Would you do it? Would you say this to a jewish person in WWII, to justify non-action?
ekjhgkejhgk 8mo ago
> It's troubling that most of the free world stands by and watches as a genocidal-level massacre takes place in Iran. Persians don't expect China/Russia to respond, but come on, no action from the West? I find it surprising that you're troubled. The West helped Israel with its genocide in Gaza; why did you expect that the West would intervene in what's happening the Iran, which by death count is significantly smaller?
- behnamoh 8mo ago
  > which by death count is significantly smaller In 48 hours, the islamic regime in Iran massacred more than 40,000 protestors (and left tens of thousands of people blinded/wounded, often "finishing them off" by raiding hospitals...). Some figures even show more than 40,000, but even assuming the low-park, that's 833 people per hour, or 13 people per minute who got killed. Whatever Israel did (to defend itself) was by no means even near those numbers.
  - throw-the-towel 8mo ago
    > Whatever Israel did (to defend itself) was by no means even near Now that's a record fast jump between "it never happened" and "they deserved it".
    - ekjhgkejhgk 8mo ago
      The best thing about zionism zealots propagandists is they can't hide it. I guess it's the effect of decades of having the West self-flagellate over "antisemitism", they got used to getting away with everything. Also funny the wording "whatever they did", as if it's a mystery.
  - ekjhgkejhgk 8mo ago
    > In 48 hours, the islamic regime in Iran massacred more than 40,000 protestors (and left tens of thousands of people blinded/wounded, often "finishing them off" by raiding hospitals...). Some figures even show more than 40,000, but even assuming the low-park, that's 833 people per hour, or 13 people per minute who got killed. > Whatever Israel did (to defend itself) was by no means even near those numbers. Israel killed about 300,000 people in the first month. Sure, it's a lower count per day, what a low bar. From now on, every time anyone says anything about Iran, I'll be pushing the narrative that "whatever Iran did, it was to defend itself".
abainbridge 8mo ago
The British government continued to negotiate with Hitler after Kristallnacht (November 1938). They only stopped once he invaded Prague in March 1939.
- fernandopj 8mo ago
  Thank you, your comment made me aware of this event I didn't know. [1] I have found at least one concrete evidence you assertion is correct [2]: The Dusseldorf Agreement of March 16, 1939. > The British historian Martin Gilbert believes that "many non-Jews resented the round-up", his opinion being supported by German witness Dr. Arthur Flehinger who recalls seeing "people crying while watching from behind their curtains". Rolf Dessauer recalls how a neighbor came forward and restored a portrait of Paul Ehrlich that had been "slashed to ribbons" by the Sturmabteilung. "He wanted it to be known that not all Germans supported Kristallnacht." This passage is particulary eerie IMHO, since I've been reading "I don't condone this" of current world events over and over. > In 1938, just after Kristallnacht, the psychologist Michael Müller-Claudius interviewed 41 randomly selected Nazi Party members on their attitudes towards racial persecution. Of the interviewed party members, 63% expressed extreme indignation against it, 5% expressed approval, and the remaining 32% were noncommittal. Also particurlarly eerie to me. Yet the regime went on. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BCsseldorfer_Abkommen_(1939) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BCsseldorfer_Abkommen_(19...
MengerSponge 8mo ago
"Pol Pot killed one point seven million Cambodians, died under house arrest, well done there. Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, aged seventy-two, well done indeed. And the reason we let them get away with it is they killed their own people. And we're sort of fine with that. Hitler killed people next door. Oh, stupid man. After a couple of years we won't stand for that, will we?" -Eddie Izzard
ndiddy 8mo ago
The West already has Iran under crippling economic sanctions, has intelligence operatives undermining the Iranian government, and funds military attacks by proxies. What more do you expect them to do apart from direct military action (which would be deeply unpopular)?
- 1over137 8mo ago
  Deeply unpopular? I suspect many Iranians would welcome the regime being toppled. Or do you mean unpopular in Western countries?
  - aprilthird2021 8mo ago
    It would be unpopular in Iran to have a war. If you think otherwise you read too many Enlgish-language diaspora / filtered sources.
    - 1over137 8mo ago
      I imagine war is always deeply unpopular! But it was asked what else the West could do beyond what it’s already doing. It might be possible to do a targetted kidnapping/assassination without provoking a war. Or it might not be. Such actions become unpredictable fast.
    - behnamoh 8mo ago
      As an Iranian, nothing hurts me more than someone outside my country lecturing Iranians about Iran. Vast majority of Persians are waiting for the US and Israel to attack the regime and finish off this mafia that's kept us hostages for half a century.
      - aprilthird2021 8mo ago
        You live outside the country. You know that you are only speaking about diaspora Iranians. There are many many especially rural, especially conservative Iranians and veterans who would not welcome a war
aprilthird2021 8mo ago
> come on, no action from the West? Most action from the West is likely to make things worse. Can you give a scenario where that's not the case? WWII did not happen because of the Holocaust and nations around the world being outraged at that. In truth, the US and many other countries rejected Jewish refugees from Germany
hearsathought 8mo ago
[flagged]
- tptacek 8mo ago
  You can't talk to people this way on HN.
  - hearsathought 8mo ago
    [flagged]
abbassix 8mo ago
I think if you support Netanyahu, you are not in a position to condemn these atrocities. The problem is that Iranian pro-democracy opposition is demolished by far-right sometimes neo-Nazi monarchists!
tim333 8mo ago
>no action from the West? Trump told them to stop and has sent quite a lot of military stuff to the area. It remains to be seen how that works out.

stuckinhell 8mo ago

[flagged]

1over137 8mo ago
You make it sound as bad as Iran. Yet I see no uprising in the USA as I see in Iran.
hollerith 8mo ago
Basically zero Americans are starving.

2OEH8eoCRo0 8mo ago

Talks with Iran were just called off and the US continues to flow military hardware to the area. I hope they take action against the regime soon.

viccis 8mo ago

>genocidal-level massacre "Genocidal" is not an order of magnitude; it's a description of purpose. What's going on in Iran is an atrocity, but it's not "genocidal." >History will judge us for negotiating We're not the world police.

fragmede 8mo ago
Yes we are. You may not like it, you may not want to pay for it. You may even have voted to not be. But we have been in the past so the US will be judged for not picking up the mantle this time.
BrandoElFollito 8mo ago
And yet we are everywhere.
ghusto 8mo ago
> "Genocidal" is not an order of magnitude; it's a description of purpose. What's going on in Iran is an atrocity, but it's not "genocidal." Oh, well that's alright then. Hey fellers, we got off on a grammatical technicality. > We're not the world police. It's your mess, now clean it up.
- viccis 8mo ago
  It's not a "grammatical technicality" to misuse a word. Iran is not carrying out a genocide. >It's your mess, now clean it up. The US is under no obligation to the people of Iran whatsoever. If we take action in Iran, it will be solely to our benefit, and it may or may not improve those peoples' lives. In all likelihood, it will be another Libya or Afghanistan situation in which we take what we want and leave a power vacuum in our wake.
  - ghusto 8mo ago
    > It's not a "grammatical technicality" to misuse a word. Iran is not carrying out a genocide. 10,000 dead in 2 days. > The US is under no obligation to the people of Iran whatsoever Nobody can make you do anything, but the moral obligation is there. People say things like "we're not the world police", as if overthrowing the elected government of a country is nothing. It cuts both ways.
    - viccis 8mo ago
      >10,000 dead in 2 days. Again, "genocide" doesn't have to do with the scale of the killing. It's a specific word with its own meaning. >Nobody can make you do anything, but the moral obligation is there. People say things like "we're not the world police", as if overthrowing the elected government of a country is nothing. It cuts both ways. Governments don't have "morals". They do whatever is most expedient. We have never done something because it's the moral thing to do, and we never will. That's just not how hegemonic powers like the US work.
      - YouRaFool 8mo ago
E-Reverance 8mo ago
I get the US has done much wrong before, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with world policing, we share a planet
notaustinpowers 8mo ago
If we want to have the almost 800 military bases stationed in about 80 countries around the world, then there are some responsibilities that come with that.
pesfandiar 8mo ago
> We're not the world police. That has been the bargain since WWII though. Pax Americana meant the US owned and enforced a global order, in return international trade and finance ran on its platform. Most Americans can't fathom how bad the alternative is to not being the world police.
- viccis 8mo ago
  The US doesn't make foreign policy decisions altruistically. If we are involved somewhere, it's solely because it's to our benefit. The idea that we enforce order is childish; we do nothing that doesn't enforce our own international supremacy.
- willturman 8mo ago
  The bargain? A bargain implies agreement. A one sided forced hegemony is not a bargain.
- throw310822 8mo ago
  The US have a good share of responsibility for what's going on in Iran, first by overthrowing the democratic government of Mossadegh, then by imposing crippling sanctions (reneging on a previous agreement) that brought the population to this level of desperation.
everdrive 8mo ago
>We're not the world police. Well, not anymore after that speech from the Canadian Prime Minister!
Hikikomori 8mo ago
>We're not the world police. Then why did you overthrow their elected government in 1953? Which also set the country firmly on the path to the current regime.
- bigstrat2003 8mo ago
  Most US citizens today weren't even alive then. They aren't responsible for that and it's unreasonable to act as though they were.
  - Hikikomori 8mo ago
    Venezuela.
GeoAtreides 8mo ago
>We're not the world police I imagine you saying this in 1940, to a german jew refugee. Would you do it? Would you say this to a jewish person in WWII, to justify non-action?

ekjhgkejhgk 8mo ago

> It's troubling that most of the free world stands by and watches as a genocidal-level massacre takes place in Iran. Persians don't expect China/Russia to respond, but come on, no action from the West? I find it surprising that you're troubled. The West helped Israel with its genocide in Gaza; why did you expect that the West would intervene in what's happening the Iran, which by death count is significantly smaller?

behnamoh 8mo ago
> which by death count is significantly smaller In 48 hours, the islamic regime in Iran massacred more than 40,000 protestors (and left tens of thousands of people blinded/wounded, often "finishing them off" by raiding hospitals...). Some figures even show more than 40,000, but even assuming the low-park, that's 833 people per hour, or 13 people per minute who got killed. Whatever Israel did (to defend itself) was by no means even near those numbers.
- throw-the-towel 8mo ago
  > Whatever Israel did (to defend itself) was by no means even near Now that's a record fast jump between "it never happened" and "they deserved it".
  - ekjhgkejhgk 8mo ago
    The best thing about zionism zealots propagandists is they can't hide it. I guess it's the effect of decades of having the West self-flagellate over "antisemitism", they got used to getting away with everything. Also funny the wording "whatever they did", as if it's a mystery.
- ekjhgkejhgk 8mo ago
  > In 48 hours, the islamic regime in Iran massacred more than 40,000 protestors (and left tens of thousands of people blinded/wounded, often "finishing them off" by raiding hospitals...). Some figures even show more than 40,000, but even assuming the low-park, that's 833 people per hour, or 13 people per minute who got killed. > Whatever Israel did (to defend itself) was by no means even near those numbers. Israel killed about 300,000 people in the first month. Sure, it's a lower count per day, what a low bar. From now on, every time anyone says anything about Iran, I'll be pushing the narrative that "whatever Iran did, it was to defend itself".

abainbridge 8mo ago

The British government continued to negotiate with Hitler after Kristallnacht (November 1938). They only stopped once he invaded Prague in March 1939.

fernandopj 8mo ago
Thank you, your comment made me aware of this event I didn't know. [1] I have found at least one concrete evidence you assertion is correct [2]: The Dusseldorf Agreement of March 16, 1939. > The British historian Martin Gilbert believes that "many non-Jews resented the round-up", his opinion being supported by German witness Dr. Arthur Flehinger who recalls seeing "people crying while watching from behind their curtains". Rolf Dessauer recalls how a neighbor came forward and restored a portrait of Paul Ehrlich that had been "slashed to ribbons" by the Sturmabteilung. "He wanted it to be known that not all Germans supported Kristallnacht." This passage is particulary eerie IMHO, since I've been reading "I don't condone this" of current world events over and over. > In 1938, just after Kristallnacht, the psychologist Michael Müller-Claudius interviewed 41 randomly selected Nazi Party members on their attitudes towards racial persecution. Of the interviewed party members, 63% expressed extreme indignation against it, 5% expressed approval, and the remaining 32% were noncommittal. Also particurlarly eerie to me. Yet the regime went on. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BCsseldorfer_Abkommen_(1939) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BCsseldorfer_Abkommen_(19...

MengerSponge 8mo ago

"Pol Pot killed one point seven million Cambodians, died under house arrest, well done there. Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, aged seventy-two, well done indeed. And the reason we let them get away with it is they killed their own people. And we're sort of fine with that. Hitler killed people next door. Oh, stupid man. After a couple of years we won't stand for that, will we?" -Eddie Izzard

ndiddy 8mo ago

The West already has Iran under crippling economic sanctions, has intelligence operatives undermining the Iranian government, and funds military attacks by proxies. What more do you expect them to do apart from direct military action (which would be deeply unpopular)?

1over137 8mo ago
Deeply unpopular? I suspect many Iranians would welcome the regime being toppled. Or do you mean unpopular in Western countries?
- aprilthird2021 8mo ago
  It would be unpopular in Iran to have a war. If you think otherwise you read too many Enlgish-language diaspora / filtered sources.
  - 1over137 8mo ago
    I imagine war is always deeply unpopular! But it was asked what else the West could do beyond what it’s already doing. It might be possible to do a targetted kidnapping/assassination without provoking a war. Or it might not be. Such actions become unpredictable fast.
  - behnamoh 8mo ago
    As an Iranian, nothing hurts me more than someone outside my country lecturing Iranians about Iran. Vast majority of Persians are waiting for the US and Israel to attack the regime and finish off this mafia that's kept us hostages for half a century.
    - aprilthird2021 8mo ago
      You live outside the country. You know that you are only speaking about diaspora Iranians. There are many many especially rural, especially conservative Iranians and veterans who would not welcome a war

aprilthird2021 8mo ago

> come on, no action from the West? Most action from the West is likely to make things worse. Can you give a scenario where that's not the case? WWII did not happen because of the Holocaust and nations around the world being outraged at that. In truth, the US and many other countries rejected Jewish refugees from Germany

hearsathought 8mo ago

[flagged]

tptacek 8mo ago
You can't talk to people this way on HN.
- hearsathought 8mo ago
  [flagged]

abbassix 8mo ago

I think if you support Netanyahu, you are not in a position to condemn these atrocities. The problem is that Iranian pro-democracy opposition is demolished by far-right sometimes neo-Nazi monarchists!

tim333 8mo ago

>no action from the West? Trump told them to stop and has sent quite a lot of military stuff to the area. It remains to be seen how that works out.