Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Iranians describe scenes of catastrophe after Tehran's oil depots bombed

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 220 posts

Re: Iranians describe scenes of catastrophe after Tehran's oil depots bombed

#71

Post by kakacik »

tgma wrote: post #39
watwut wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am afraid that this will bring them closer together. That the people who would welcome outside world to do a magical thing that reforms Iran wont like the practical thing the world actually did. By afraid I am not saying it will happen, it is not a prediction. I think that it is a risk.

After they killed 40k+ in Jan? Perhaps.

Current campaigns will kill way more iranians. Plus regime didn't bomb 200 girls to pieces in their school, did it.

Thats extremely hard sell, with cherry on top when you have a literal video of tomahawks hitting that area during that time and trump claiming it was iranians who bombed it... just spits and insults in the face

Re: Iranians describe scenes of catastrophe after Tehran's oil depots bombed

#72

Post by keiferski »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #61
keiferski wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d be glad to see evidence that people voted for interventions in the Middle East, if you have any. My impression is that a key part of Trump’s campaign was ending excessive foreign wars. There are lots of clips going around with him saying this.

Trump's approval rating among his base is still overwhelmingly high. They know what they were voting for, and they still support him. They know that Trump lies like he breathes, and they are perfectly fine with that . Trump supporters themselves are largely liars. They do not openly state the positions they actually hold. That Trump says X and does Y is fine because his supporters say X and believe Y. Words are a gam…

This is too simplified of an answer.

It may be the case that his base is still just following him and supportive of whatever he does.

But the number of people who voted for him vastly exceeds his “base”, and the entire MAGA movement is basically predicated on a form of isolationism, or at least not pro-intervention. Part of the reason it became popular was as a reaction against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So I don’t think it’s as simple and one dimensional as you paint here. Which is exactly why I think it’s a systemic problem: many people probably voted for him because of the campaign promises of being against foreign wars.

Re: Iranians describe scenes of catastrophe after Tehran's oil depots bombed

#73

Post by tgma »

kakacik wrote: post #71
tgma wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After they killed 40k+ in Jan? Perhaps.

Current campaigns will kill way more iranians. Plus regime didn't bomb 200 girls to pieces in their school, did it. Thats extremely hard sell, with cherry on top when you have a literal video of tomahawks hitting that area during that time and trump claiming it was iranians who bombed it... just spits and insults in the face

> Current campaigns will kill way more iranians.

Your math is not mathing. 30-40k in 2 days unarmed civilians vs I dunno 6k almost all military in a week? If you look at the stats of executions etc you'll see civilian casualties in Iran go DOWN while being bombed.

> regime didn't bomb 200 girls to pieces in their school, did it.

Yes, actually they did. It was their own missile. Just like the Ukrainian plane they shot down a few years back.

Re: Iranians describe scenes of catastrophe after Tehran's oil depots bombed

#74

Post by pzo »

tgma wrote: post #56
pzo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what stops us to use the same naming and call it USA Regime, Israeli Regime at this point?

Nothing stops you, but I suppose murdering tens of thousands of your own people is a fairly clear delineation that you are not a singular entity?

if for you to be qualified as regime is to murder tens of thousands of your own people then I think you put too high bar on it. I guess killing only few thousands or even few hundreds in your definition would rule out to someone being called totalitarian/autocratic regimes? How about not murdering own people but thousands other people? How is it called? Nazi germany AFAIK mostly murdered millions of other people.

People use this name (Regime) wrong - worth to at least read definion on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime

Re: Iranians describe scenes of catastrophe after Tehran's oil depots bombed

#75

Post by lwansbrough »

whycombigator wrote: post #67
lwansbrough wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell me: is the US supposed to stand idly by while the Iranian regime develops nuclear weapons? They pursue nuclear weapons of their own volition, by the way. There are paranuclear states and nuclear threshold states which have not pursued nuclear weapons and have delivered on providing for their people in every manner in which a human society needs. So what does Iran hope to achieve that diplomacy cannot? At what po…

I'm not sure what Iran having nukes does other than change the power dynamics in the Middle East to one where Israel can't bomb civilians with such impunity... North Korea and Pakistan has nukes.

I think most people in the middle east will tell you that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is bad. As I'm sure you're aware, they are a major supporter of terrorist organizations.

Re: Iranians describe scenes of catastrophe after Tehran's oil depots bombed

#76

Post by whycombigator »

lwansbrough wrote: post #51
watwut wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, it seems much more like "must have" thing than it did just 2 years ago. And at that point it seemed more "must have" thing than it did 5 years ago. Trump does not mind nuclear proliferation anyway. If you pay Kushner enough, chances are they will even sell you a nuke. > Meanwhile, the so-called vassal states of the US I haven't seen that expression at all, ever. No one was called those state vasal states a year…

Well I won't deny that. Nevertheless, countries who "play ball" seem to have it pretty good. Awfully high cost to pay to stick it to the man in charge.

Do what I say and I won't punch you, maybe.

Re: Iranians describe scenes of catastrophe after Tehran's oil depots bombed

#77

Post by lukan »

kdheiwns wrote: post #68
lukan wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The source seems bad, for some reasons they added the 10% of "unsure" to "supports". "the new survey found 56% of Americans oppose U.S. military action in Iran, while 44% support it." But later: "A majority -- 54% -- of Americans disapprove of how Trump is handling Iran. Another 36% approve and 10% are unsure" 36% support it.

They're different questions. One is whether they support the way Trump is doing it. The other is whether they support a war overall. Their reason for supporting a war but not the way Trump is doing it could range from it being too extreme to not being extreme enough. Some people unironically want nuclear weapons to be dropped and will settle for nothing less.

I missed that, but then it is still not correct to say 44% support the invasion. In a very different framework (clear plan, cooperation with iranian opposition, working exile government, transition plan ..) I also can see myself supporting military action against the religious fanatics in power in Iran. But this invasion I do not support.

Re: Iranians describe scenes of catastrophe after Tehran's oil depots bombed

#78

Post by jjgreen »

spankalee wrote: post #42
keiferski wrote: post #27

This whole situation made me realize that the mechanism for holding presidents accountable for campaign promises really doesn’t exist. None of this is what people voted for, and is almost directly the opposite. That isn’t a new thing, of course, but this seems like a pretty huge turnaround from what the campaign was about. This seems like a fundamental problem with the system to me. If you can’t count on the candidat…

The US needs a parliamentary system. Trump would have been dumped already. Instead we have to wait 3 more years to end this insanity.

Are you sure? https://www.draftbarrontrump.com/

Re: Iranians describe scenes of catastrophe after Tehran's oil depots bombed

#79

Post by tgma »

pzo wrote: post #74
tgma wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing stops you, but I suppose murdering tens of thousands of your own people is a fairly clear delineation that you are not a singular entity?

if for you to be qualified as regime is to murder tens of thousands of your own people then I think you put too high bar on it. I guess killing only few thousands or even few hundreds in your definition would rule out to someone being called totalitarian/autocratic regimes? How about not murdering own people but thousands other people? How is it called? Nazi germany AFAIK mostly murdered millions of other people. Peo…

Look, I don't understand what you are debating here. I already agreed you can call USA regime just that should you choose to. I don't mind. You might get a scholarship to Columbia while at it.

My post was simply to clarify to the reader that PressTV is owned by the regime in Iran.

Re: Iranians describe scenes of catastrophe after Tehran's oil depots bombed

#80

Post by kakacik »

lwansbrough wrote: post #64
watwut wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a deal, Trump cancelled. There were negotiations where the Iranian regime actually made big concessions. But, Trump administration was not interested in concessions and started a war with no real reason. > At what point does it turn from a "disagreement" to a credible existential threat that an adversary cannot ignore? It was not nearly this point. This was a point where USA, Israel and Saudi perceived Iran…

Iran has zero leverage. Any leverage given is an olive branch. Obama era diplomacy was the right path, Trump is a moron. But the bigger issue here is Iran's free-will pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is a choice they're making. They choose to pursue nuclear weapons, forcing the US to either take a diplomatic path to stop them, or intervene. They don't have to build nuclear weapons! They're just doing that shit.

Well now they have to, given that a single nuke ownership (and its never a single one, is it) would prevent any such actions. I don't think anybody sane at this point thinks any sort of regime change is going to happen in this century.

The bigger problem is - current war won't prevent them from obtaining it. It may delay the date, but also will make them work smarter, hide things better and give them much more resolve. I can see ie putin helping them get through some technological or material hurdles, that would help him greatly in their war in ukraine.

Post reply on HN