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

Delete FROM users WHERE location = 'Iran';

gist.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 891 posts

Re: Delete FROM users WHERE location = 'Iran';

#811

Post by breppp »

johnisgood wrote: post #810
breppp wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me summarize: 5,000 chemical warheads were found in Iraq after the war according to the New York Times, backed by video testimonials and documents. Also, ISIS stole part of the Iraqi chemical stockpile and used it against the Kurds. Sounds to me like there was a huge misconception that no WMDs had been found in Iraq https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middlee...

I read the article (that you cited and misrepresented to fit your predetermined narrative). The article discusses chemical weapons, not nuclear warheads. These are fundamentally different. And the reporting actually contradicts the original WMD justification. It explicitly states these were abandoned 1980s-era weapons, not an active program as claimed pre-invasion. So your summary is WRONG. The reporting actually und…

You'd might want to recheck the definition of WMD, which includes chemical weapons and was mainly the focus of the UN disarmament program in Iraq, which was the pretext of the invasion.

Furthermore, the conventional wisdom that you echoed, is that no WMD were found in Iraq, this was found a decade later to be completely false. Iraq did not disarm and had huge stockpiles during and after the 2003 war.

Iraq did not only undertake to disarm the program (which was also partially active), but also to destroy all chemical weapons, it breached the UN disarmament program by not disarming, which makes the pretext valid.

We can discuss whether it was smart for the US to invade Iraq, due to the subsequent changes in the Middle East that was also a plausibly correct move, but that's more complex than I can discuss in a single paragraph

Re: Delete FROM users WHERE location = 'Iran';

#812

Post by johnisgood »

breppp wrote: post #811
johnisgood wrote: post #810

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the article (that you cited and misrepresented to fit your predetermined narrative). The article discusses chemical weapons, not nuclear warheads. These are fundamentally different. And the reporting actually contradicts the original WMD justification. It explicitly states these were abandoned 1980s-era weapons, not an active program as claimed pre-invasion. So your summary is WRONG. The reporting actually und…

You'd might want to recheck the definition of WMD, which includes chemical weapons and was mainly the focus of the UN disarmament program in Iraq, which was the pretext of the invasion. Furthermore, the conventional wisdom that you echoed, is that no WMD were found in Iraq, this was found a decade later to be completely false. Iraq did not disarm and had huge stockpiles during and after the 2003 war. Iraq did not onl…

You are moving the goalposts.

1. While chemical weapons are technically classified as WMDs, the pre-invasion claims were specifically about active production programs and imminent threats. Finding scattered 1980s remnants doesn't validate those specific claims.

2. Describing these as "huge stockpiles" misrepresents what was found. The NYT article YOU cited describes degraded, corroded weapons that were often non-functional, hardly the operational arsenal implied by "stockpiles".

3. You conflate the 1980s chemical weapons program with post-1991 disarmament obligations. The remnants weren't evidence of ongoing non-compliance but rather weapons that had been lost/missed during the chaotic dismantlement process.

4. The NYT investigation explicitly states these finds "did not support the government's invasion rationale" and shows officials kept them secret because they contradicted WMD claims.

5. There's a significant difference between "no WMDs found" and "degraded chemical remnants from the 1980s found." The latter doesn't constitute the "reconstituted WMD program" claimed pre-invasion.

My previous comment already addressed all of this, that these discoveries actually undermined rather than supported the invasion narrative / rationale.

Your response does not counter the fundamental point, it just reframes the debate around technical definitions while ignoring the substance of what the intelligence claims actually were vs. what was found.

I am not interested in continuing this conversation. Thanks.

Re: Delete FROM users WHERE location = 'Iran';

#813

Post by simianparrot »

somenameforme wrote: post #706
simianparrot wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I wrote that the US is at war with an enemy _state_. The state represents its people, but it is not _all of_ the people. I always see people derailing these discussions in this manner when it's always patently obvious that we aren't conflating the two.

But you are specifically conflating the two. Not only in your implication that Iranians, normal Iranians - children even, want Americans dead, but in your defense of sanctions. Sanctions have no meaningful affect on countries - as in the political leadership and military, but can have a substantially negative impact on the people within that country. In many ways they are even more barbaric than war, because at least…

Any warfare hurts civilians. And there's no kinetic warfare that is guaranteed to not hit civilians. In fact we can observe how impossible that is all throughout the world, today.

I'm fairly sure given the choice, civilians would rather their country be sanctioned than bombed. Obviously the best option is no conflict at all, but that's utopian.

Re: Delete FROM users WHERE location = 'Iran';

#814

Post by lukan »

tgma wrote: post #687
lukan wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I am suggesting democracy is not a panacea that automatically guarantees prosperity. Far from it." No, but I would say it is a precondition for broad prosperity. When the wealth and power lies concentrated with small minority, they tend to use their power to keep it that way. If power is distributed, so will be the wealth usually. And yes, I do see some problems with western democracies as well.

I don't think that is necessarily true. First, I don't agree with the implicit premise of your statement, i.e. that democracy does not lead to concentration of power. Second, I don’t think it has been a requirement throughout history. Rule of law is much more important to success and prosperity than fetishizing a mechanism to vote in the head of state. There has been many successful instances of prosperous monarchy i…

Monarchies can be rich, but no one can be richer than the emperors family.

If you are into that, good luck with that and hope that there will never be a retarted king. Because it all depends on whether the king is nice and capable, or not.

Is that the stability and rule of law I should look forward? And they are all not so long lived either btw.

Plots, intrigues and coup d'etat of people who think they would make a better king is still a thing.

And .. I do make the claim that a real direct democracy does not tend to centralisation of power, as there are check and balances, but politicians left alone surely will aim for that as it make governing easier.

Re: Delete FROM users WHERE location = 'Iran';

#815

Post by breppp »

johnisgood wrote: post #812
breppp wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd might want to recheck the definition of WMD, which includes chemical weapons and was mainly the focus of the UN disarmament program in Iraq, which was the pretext of the invasion. Furthermore, the conventional wisdom that you echoed, is that no WMD were found in Iraq, this was found a decade later to be completely false. Iraq did not disarm and had huge stockpiles during and after the 2003 war. Iraq did not onl…

You are moving the goalposts. 1. While chemical weapons are technically classified as WMDs, the pre-invasion claims were specifically about active production programs and imminent threats. Finding scattered 1980s remnants doesn't validate those specific claims. 2. Describing these as "huge stockpiles" misrepresents what was found. The NYT article YOU cited describes degraded, corroded weapons that were often non-func…

You might read that the Army has failed to notify the Senate, creating false reports on the amount of chemical weapons found in Iraq, thus reaching the conclusion the war had no valid pretext. While 5000 (an underestimate) warheads is enough to kill ten of thousands of people, by a country who had used these previously.

The fact that the shells are corroded does not mean the material cannot be removed and reused, and it still means Iraq failed to destroy these properly, therefore breaching the UN mandate.

I think this is a great example of how due to political unpopularity of actions, an entire false narrative can be disseminated for a decade, and two decades later it still has many dogmatic followers that will defend it.

Maybe it's good food for thought about which false truisms we keep right now for political reasons that will be found out as lies in a decade.

Re: Delete FROM users WHERE location = 'Iran';

#816

Post by somenameforme »

simianparrot wrote: post #813
somenameforme wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you are specifically conflating the two. Not only in your implication that Iranians, normal Iranians - children even, want Americans dead, but in your defense of sanctions. Sanctions have no meaningful affect on countries - as in the political leadership and military, but can have a substantially negative impact on the people within that country. In many ways they are even more barbaric than war, because at least…

Any warfare hurts civilians. And there's no kinetic warfare that is guaranteed to not hit civilians. In fact we can observe how impossible that is all throughout the world, today. I'm fairly sure given the choice, civilians would rather their country be sanctioned than bombed. Obviously the best option is no conflict at all, but that's utopian.

The Lancet just released a study on this exact question. [1] From 1971 to 2021, "unilateral, economic, and US sanctions" were associated with some 564,258 deaths per year, disproportionately affecting children under 5, who are most sensitive to disruptions in healthcare or food. That's 1,544 deaths per day - for 30 years.

By contrast as of August 31st 2025, the UN has assessed a total of 14,116 civilian deaths in Ukraine [2], about 10 per day, in one of the largest land wars in quite some time, and one where military casualties are certainly in the millions. War will always be with us - it's simply the final stage of irreconcilable differences. But I think sanctions will go down as one of those things people look back at wondering how we could ever do that to each other. Again I think the parallel with random forms of torture before execution are apt. One can support the death penalty and be completely disgusted by drawing and quartering. It's just unnecessary sadism and cruelty that serves no purpose.

For some related comic relief I recommend this skit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h242eDB84zY

[1] - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-1...

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrain...

Re: Delete FROM users WHERE location = 'Iran';

#817

Post by honzabe »

int_19h wrote: post #803
honzabe wrote: post #193

This discussion leans against sanctions, and I feel a bit uneasy about this. There are some good arguments, but still... can I try to offer a different point of view? I grew up in a country occupied by Russians. I really feel for the Ukrainians. Currently, there seems to be a social contract between Putin and middle-class Russians from Moscow and St. Petersburg - they will let him bomb Ukrainian civilians, as long as…

Let's say some random Russian in Moscow decides that they are not okay with it. What would you have them do, exactly? It's not even that the government is oppressive and will crack down, but an even bigger problem is that this oppressive government genuinely does have majority support of the population (as you note yourself!) - so what can they do even? And if the answer really is nothing, then how can they be respon…

> so what can they do even? And if the answer really is nothing, then how can they be responsible?

I think I need to clarify what I mean by "responsibility". Many people confuse "you are responsible" with "you did this" or "it is your fault", but this is not exactly true. Let's say I am an alcoholic. I believe alcoholism is an affliction (some people might not agree with that, but that's another discussion - let's ignore that for now and assume it is an affliction). Therefore, I believe it is not my fault that I am an alcoholic - It was just bad luck that I was born that way. Yet, it is my responsibility to control my alcoholism. If I hurt someone while under the influence, I have to bear the consequences. Some might argue it is not entirely fair, and I would agree. But in my view, it is the closest we can get to fair. I have a better chance of controlling my alcoholism than some random person whose kids I might have killed while driving under the influence.

Alcoholism is an extreme example, but if you think about it for a while, being responsible for something that is not your fault is common. I see Russians responsible in the same way. Citizens of a state share collective responsibility for what their state is doing. And the fact that an individual might not be able to do anything about it does not change that.

> Your second argument - that this is acceptable collateral damage - makes more sense, but it requires demonstrating that there is some connection between the specific measures and "making it harder".

Why? This is not a court of law, where you have to prove guilt to inflict punishment. Sanctions are not a punishment (which is also why I do not like arguments about collective punishment used in this discussion and elsewhere). They are an attempt to pressure a state to stop causing harm. And if that attempt is based on somewhat reasonable assumptions (which, in the case of Russia and Iran, I think it is), I am fine with it.

And let's not forget it is a relatively peaceful attempt. Nazi Germany was "persuaded" by literally destroying them to the point of unconditional capitulation. And many people who had nothing to do with Hitler died. In an ideal world, they would not have, because it was not their fault and they could not do anything, but the problem is that we only have very crude ways of dissuading states from causing harm.

Re: Delete FROM users WHERE location = 'Iran';

#818

Post by varjag »

michtzik wrote: post #713
varjag wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the oil from Kazakhstan is transported via the Caspian pipeline. Druzhba had been defunct for couple of months too. I think some figures of Kazakh oil imports from Russia would be in order.

Here's a news story about how Druzhba supplies to Germany weren't particularly interrupted by recent attacks you may be alluding to: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germanys-kazakh-oil-... And here's KazTransoil themselves reporting how much they supplied through Druzhba recently: https://www.interfax.kz/?int_id=21&lang=eng&news_id=75303 > ASTANA. Sept 4 (Interfax-Kazakhstan) - The volume of Kazakh oil transp…

That would amount to some 2+ million tonnes per year. And I mean sure but Kazakhstan extracted 87 million tonnes of oil last year. Germany had imported some 78 million tonnes crude same year, and much of it was from other sources too.

Re: Delete FROM users WHERE location = 'Iran';

#819

Post by coldtea »

simianparrot wrote: post #670
somenameforme wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you visit Iran (or pretty much anywhere) as an American you'll have zero issues with the people. Here [1] is a thread of various people visiting Iran, and it's 100% typical. The average Iranian has no problems with an American than anybody else - they have a problem with the American government. And the two are obviously two extremely different things. The one piece of advice that shouldn't need to be said, but do…

And I wrote that the US is at war with an enemy _state_. The state represents its people, but it is not _all of_ the people. I always see people derailing these discussions in this manner when it's always patently obvious that we aren't conflating the two.

>And I wrote that the US is at war with an enemy _state_

The US toppled it's democratically elected leader in the 50s, installed a brutal "king" dictator, and when they finally overthrew him it armed their neighborhood Iraq to wage war on them killing millions, then enforced global sanctions to it (causing tremendous damage to its economy and operation), and still meddles in the region.

Them saying some slogans like that is not even a blip on the radar, compared to the murderous shit the US has done to them for profit and spite.

The nerve for the US to play the victim here...

Re: Delete FROM users WHERE location = 'Iran';

#820

Post by johnisgood »

breppp wrote: post #815
johnisgood wrote: post #812

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are moving the goalposts. 1. While chemical weapons are technically classified as WMDs, the pre-invasion claims were specifically about active production programs and imminent threats. Finding scattered 1980s remnants doesn't validate those specific claims. 2. Describing these as "huge stockpiles" misrepresents what was found. The NYT article YOU cited describes degraded, corroded weapons that were often non-func…

You might read that the Army has failed to notify the Senate, creating false reports on the amount of chemical weapons found in Iraq, thus reaching the conclusion the war had no valid pretext. While 5000 (an underestimate) warheads is enough to kill ten of thousands of people, by a country who had used these previously. The fact that the shells are corroded does not mean the material cannot be removed and reused, and…

This is going to be my last response to this thread as it is quite unproductive because you work backward from conclusions, reshaping evidence to fit your predetermined beliefs rather than following where evidence actually leads, AND you are not engaging with my substantive points but instead you cycle through different justifications while mischaracterizing evidence. In fact, your "false truism" is ironic given your consistent misrepresentation of the very article you cited. Additionally, you wrongly accused me of following "false narratives" while actively misrepresenting your own cited source. The NYT investigation contradicts your interpretation at every turn, as noted.

1. You shifted the goalpost again. You moved from "WMDs proved invasion was justified" -> "chemical weapons are technically WMDs" -> "UN mandate violations justified invasion" and each argument abandons the previous when challenged. Boring.

2. You claim the Army's secrecy proves WMDs existed, when the NYT article explicitly states the secrecy was because these finds contradicted WMD claims. The Army hid them due to embarrassment, not validation.

3. Whether degraded chemical weapons could theoretically harm people doesn't address the core issue: there was no active WMD program as claimed pre-invasion.

4. Scattered remnants from chaotic 1990s dismantlement != active non-compliance with UN mandates. Many weapons were simply lost during the destruction process, not deliberately hidden.

Have fun.

Post reply on HN