[Rotdhizon]

An interesting perspective I see all over X and reddit is calling these people heroes, but only once the rescue happened. The more tame responses simply state that they are happy everyone was rescued and no military was harmed. Why? Those pilots were flying over Iran illegally, presumably to inflict fatal harm on whichever targets.

[xyzzy123]

Conversely I find it strange how many people seem to want US servicemen to come to harm because it would validate their political views.

[CamperBob2]

My political views are pretty simplistic: whoever initiates violence is the bad guy.

That's problematic here, because neither the US nor Iran are strangers to initiating violence. So a further refinement is necessary, based on a principle that I haven't had to fall back on very often: whoever initiates violence during negotiations is the bad guy.

[defrost]

Four out of Five Eyes agree.

[verdverm]

not just negotiations, but also a ceasefire after the 12 day war

[anovikov]

It's simple "us vs them". I see nothing wrong about it.

[spaghetdefects]

Is joining a military that has constantly been engaged in terror a "political view"? I'm not the one killing innocent people, it's just basic humanity to feel justice when murderers are stopped. I'm neither a Democrat nor Republican, this is not a partisan issue. I would vote for any politician that said they were closing down our bases all over the world and sanctioning Israel.

[remarkEon]

Perhaps the most interesting phenomenon I see, on X and elsewhere, is that there are many people who are actively rooting for Americans to die. It has been very revealing in a "see who your real friends are" kind of way. It's quite different from the GWOT, where a sort of cold indifference was common. This time there's europeans and even some Americans who are anxious to see Americans shot down and killed. This is probably the logical end state of believing that the other team is "literally hitler" for so long, amplified by the newsfeed algorithm.

[Arodex]

>"see who your real friends are"

The current US government (and the millions who voted them in power despite their clear fascistic tendencies) made perfectly clear to the rest of the world that the USA is friends with nobody: we are all supposed to be either enemies or vassals.

You can't have Vance come to Europe and insult all of them and expect us to be friends with you.

[remarkEon]

I totally get it. Via revealed preference, Europe decided a long time ago that they wanted to outsource continental security to the Americans. For a while, this worked out okay, but after 9/11 and the, shall we say, tepid enthusiasm that the rest of NATO (absent maybe Great Britain) had with supporting the US, the relationship deteriorated to a pretty basic free rider problem. Fast forward to the Ukraine War and it became starkly clear that Europe was not prepared to handle security without relying on the "friends" across the Atlantic. So I guess I'm sorry that it took Vance (and Rubio) coming to Europe to insult your leaders, but if that's what it takes for European nations to take their own security seriously again then so be it, I guess? I acknowledge the relationship strain, but everyone in Europe taking taking charge of their own security is objectively better for all involved, perhaps especially the Americans. Again, I'm sorry that Vance said mean things about your politicians.

[Arodex]

Vance said mean things about our soldiers who died in Afghanistan and Iraq, connard.

I am more than forty y.o. and I know the story, I've been there. The story isn't that Europe are freeriders, but that the USA kneecapped any attempt at European strength, for example by using their special relationship with the UK to veto every European defense agreement outside of NATO, because they wanted the EU to always be dependent on the USA.

The current push is also a pure extorsion racket, as provent by the violent threats the US is making against the EU for the crime of rebuilding their continental security with European weapons: https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2026/02/pentagon-...

proving once and for all the the US isn't really pushing for "Europe taking taking charge of their own security" and that you are a liar and a gaslighter.

>after 9/11 and the, shall we say, tepid enthusiasm that the rest of NATO (absent maybe Great Britain) had with supporting the US

See? What can I answer except "Fuck you, fucking asshole".

Sorry to have not sent even more of our soldiers to die into a war that... you now think were very bad mistake, perpetual wars that shouldn't have happened... We tried to tell you and got "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" as an answer. And then you still sent soldiers, and now you say they never mattered.

Why are you surprised we don't want to follow your lead at all now? We should help you in the war with Iran that you won, you need our boats but you don't need them - which is it?

[remarkEon]

Best I could find on what you're referring to for the Vance insult is this[1]:

>UK opposition politicians accused JD Vance of disrespecting British forces after he said a US stake in Ukraine's economy was a "better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn't fought a war in 30 or 40 years".

This is just objectively true, sorry.

I was in the GWOT and am familiar with how our NATO "partners" intentionally kneecapped themselves at the expense of supporting the mission and the safety of their own soldiers. This country can't fight at night, this country can go outside the wire, this country can't do convoy ops beyond such and such distance, this country can't.... Can't was the operative word. Sure, point taken that the war was prosecuted over 20 years in a very, very stupid way. That doesn't change the fact that what Vance is saying is true.

That article is pay-walled, but the point of the response from the Americans is that if European Defense vendors wish to maintain access to the (much more lucrative) US market, then US vendors should be able to retain the same access to Europe. How is this not simply fair play amongst "alliance" members? NATO should not be selling NATO technology outside of NATO, so to the extent that the US vetoed (via the UK) foreign military sales to non-NATO members ... yes I support this 100%. This is how a defensive alliance works.

>Why are you surprised we don't want to follow your lead at all now?

I am quite literally asking you to do the opposite for European security. I am tired of my country being the guarantor for security and sovereignty of places that maybe 1 or 2 people at the New York Times could find on a map without googling it, but who then turn around and pretend that the existence of democracy itself is a function of the 82nd being able to seize airfields in that country to stop the Russians. I am tired of Europeans telling me that my country sucks and how GWOT vets are war criminals, on and on, when you guys can't do a proper casevac or figure out CAS without calling daddy. Figure that shit out yourselves, thanks. Happy to help teach, though.

>We should help you in the war with Iran that you won, you need our boats but you don't need them - which is it?

We do not need anything from you. Everyone, with some notable exceptions, in this "alliance" threw a hissy fit about overflights originating from bases across Europe that my country built to keep your country safe from the Soviets. Perhaps we should simply close these bases, and let you all figure out how to deal with IRBMs and the host of other 21st century war tech on your own. To the extent that this WH or anyone in my government is asking for "help", it's probably meant as a troll, given that outside of France there's very little force projection on blue water coming out of the rest of NATO. That was a choice, that those countries made. No one in the American government told, for example, the UK to essentially mothball their Navy. No one in the American government told the Germans to shutdown their reactors like a bunch of fools, making them dependent on Russian gas. You people voted for this, knowing that the Americans are always the backstop if shit hits the fan.

Ironically, the last time I had an argument with a Euro about American military involvement and defense policy I was in London in 2023, and to my surprise the only person coming to my side of the debate was the lone Frenchman. Pity.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czx7w7q7qzro

[Arodex]

>when you guys can't do a proper casevac or figure out CAS without calling daddy

Completely false. Just a counterexample, there are tons of videos of French and European action in the Sahel region where we do exactly that - without war criming all the time like you did with your carpet bombing of "sand n-ggers". You are so far up your own ass for a country that failed miserably in Afghanistan and Iraq.

>Everyone, with some notable exceptions, in this "alliance" threw a hissy fit about overflights originating from bases across Europe that my country built to keep your country safe from the Soviets.

Yeah, and you don't see the problem with using these bases to launch an attack against another country without asking us if we were on board? The Iranians are not the Soviets. NATO is supposed to be a defensive alliance, not your private army. And your idiot leader wants to invade Greenland by force! When you already have bases there for decades!

>let you all figure out how to deal with IRBMs

You love nuclear proliferation now? You think we don't have nukes or we can't build more nukes? You think it is in the USA's best interest to have more countries with nukes everywhere? Are you dumb or do you have a death wish?

>You people voted for this*

You people voted for the GWOT. You people voted for Trump who clearly wanted more wars and more war crimes.

>Best I could find on what you're referring to for the Vance insult

You are brain damaged if that's all you can find. And "hasn't fought a war in 30 or 40 years" isn't even remotely true, like, at all. You are completely ignorant.

[Schmerika]

> It has been very revealing in a "see who your real friends are" kind of way.

Nah, not really.

If I had 'friends' who went about kidnapping and assassinating leaders, mass murdering little girls, bombing literally hundreds of schools in a month, blowing up civilian bridges and power plants, etc etc etc... I wouldn't need to invoke "the newsfeed algorithm" to explain why people are genuinely happy to see the people committing those atrocities get a tiny taste of what they've been inflicting.

Friends don't let friends commit war crimes. And indeed, from that perspective, America might never have had any real friends. We've just been the biggest bully with the biggest stick, the kid whose parents owned the biggest local news channel and industry.

And frankly, friendship with America doesn't even come with the same perks as it used to. You want Europe to buy all their oil and weapons from the US at inflated prices? You want to stir shit up all over the world and then use the ensuing refugee crisis to bolster far right parties across Europe? You want to have a go at Greenland??

... And then complain that we don't have any "real friends" except Israel any more?! Well shit dude, I wonder why. Spoiler alert: It's not because Hitler comparisons are being amplified by the evil anti-genocide media.

[sosomoxie]

As an American rooting for Iran, I can offer my perspective. My country is occupied by Israel and used to commit the most heinous crimes against humanity that anyone could imagine. I am sick of it. Iran are fighting the very people occupying my government and the occupied government itself. They are on my side, hell they even offered to bomb Palantir! I'm rooting for the end of Zionism and Iran is really my only hope to make that happen.

This situation has been apparent for a long time, so I do not feel sorry for the people who signed up to fight in Israel's proxy military -- a military that was already guilty of mass war crimes prior to being occupied I might add.

[_DeadFred_]

It's crazy to watch this site go from 'we can't talk about the Russian/Ukraine conflict' to 'this is why I want American servicemen to die' being a community supported topic. There was literally more push back against being OK with Russian military losses in Ukraine than there is with supporting American deaths. To the point all discussion on that topic was stamped out by moderation here, but this cheering against America (and now pro-American deaths I guess) mixed with offhand usage of phrases like hasbara and other ZOG type dog whistles mixed in is one to two of the most active topics every day. And the majority of pushback just ends up flagged dead so it's not like people are looking for a discussion, just a pushing of propaganda/narrative/antisemitic dog whistles like low effort/low value posts with nothing more than calling someone hasbara (separating out 'evil' propaganda with a non-english term used to identify the jewishness and therefore enhanced evilness of the poster).

Personally the pervious moderation to the change in moderation stance for this topic makes it obvious that HN/YCombinators official position aligns with this and I think their official current position will start to have larger impacts for YCombinator. YCombinator, your position is now aligned with posts on your site justifying the deaths of American service members. Not really a good look.

Iran is occupied by a Shia apartheid government. They mandate Shia religious rules that they enforce with extreme violence and death, often against little girls for not wearing hats correctly. They staff the government and the majority of Iranian industry with Shia apartheid supporters. They recently murdered 3,000 (Apartheid regime number) to 30,000 protesters (broader Iranian civilian claim) in the span of 2 day. Iran is currently importing thugs from the Iraqi Shia PMF to be enforcers of the apartheid (showing this is a Shia occupation government forcing itself on the populace) on the streets of Iran along with inviting occupying enforcers from other surrounding Shia militant organizations. People who claim to be against religious apartheid oppressive states immediately turning positions to support such regimes show that they don't really hold that position for any reason but political expedience.

[remarkEon]

Okay. My response to this is that this does not reflect reality. There is ample evidence that, of the countries out there, Israel exercises outsized influence and is in many ways a very toxic partner. But occupying? We should be reasonable and precise in how these things are discussed. The IRGC is not on "your side". They would kill you without thinking twice about it, unless you are muslim, and even then they're probably just ask permission. Words on the internet are one thing, but be mindful that active support for Iran is treason.

[sosomoxie]

IRGC is literally on my side, they are literally fighting my enemies. No money to Israel, no anti-BDS laws, no weapons to Israel, no political coverage for Israel, no media propaganda on behalf of Israel. If the IRGC wins decisively, these things will all become a reality.

I have many Muslim friends, they are some of the best people I've ever met in my life. I'm an atheist. Not one has ever had a problem with that.

[_DeadFred_]

You expressly stating IRGC is your side, not the Iranian people, is very telling.

IRGC caused more suffering/death, more starving of children, in the Yemeni civil war than Israel has in Gaza. If you care about military caused suffering/death, IRGC has to be on the top of your horrible people list.

IRGC is currently importing Iraqi Shia PMF to be enforcers of the Shia apartheid regime currently occupying Iran, because as a religious occupying apartheid regime they don't have enough organic internal support to draw from Iranians in Iran. If you are against occupation, you are against the unrepresentative Shia Theocratic regime (with many regime members born in Iraq) occupying Iran. Daring to dress like this (as a woman, men can dress as they want) will get you murdered by the Shia occupiers:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/09/16/woman-dies-custody-irans...

IRGC is currently recruiting 11-12 year old to man Shia apartheid enforcement checkpoints across Iran and to act as regime enforcers for future events like when the regime murdered 3000 (regime statistic) to 30,000 (civilian statistic) in two days because those people were tired of being ruled by Shia apartheid occupiers forcing Shia conformity (girls must wear hats or be punished, sometime via rape/murder). Again because as an theocratic apartheid occupying (not popular supported) regime they don't have enough manpower without resorting to children/foreign militia.

That is literally your side? Religious theocracies occupying nations without majority organic consent/support of the people? Segregation/lesser/modesty law treatment for women? Imported foreign militias on the streets to enforce unpopular theocratic oppression? Child soldiers? WTF is wrong with you if that is 'your side'.

[sosomoxie]

First of all, I fully reject Zionist propaganda. It's crystal clear that their mandate is to lie to Americans at all times. Secondly, yes the IRGC is on my side, they are attacking my enemies. The only state in the world to do so.

[phs318u]

Israel is an apartheid regime. Palestinian Israelis are constantly discriminated against and have laws apply differently to them. You could also argue that there’s a significant theocratic element in the Israeli government (resulting from the alliances the corrupt war criminal has had to make to retain power and avoid prosecution). Eretz Yisrael anyone?

I think what a lot of Americans fail to understand is just how galling the rest of the world finds your government’s rank hypocrisy. Your current president and his enablers are mostly considered to be literal madmen. Judging by words, deeds and outcomes it’s hard to defend an opposing view.

[remarkEon]

"Decisively" means something specific in warfare, but you are describing a basket of political objectives that are in many, many ways totally unrelated to what happens on a particular battlefield. This is probably a result of your nascent Palestinianism, which is definitely clouding your ability to coherently observe these global phenomena and adjust your priors accordingly. If the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything looks like zionist conspiracies to you.

[Smoosh]

Perhaps they are thinking "I Like People Who Weren't Captured".

[sgt]

Illegally? We're at war with Iran. They have consistently supported terrorism, they have an illegal nuclear program.

They're lucky it's still at this level.

[myvoiceismypass]

What exactly is an "illegal" nuclear program?

[nicbou]

Isn't that war illegal? Doesn't congress need to approve these things?

Speaking of terrorism, only one of the belligerents has been antagonizing both its allies and its enemies recently. Didn't they just snatch another country's head of state? Try a decapitation strike unprompted against Iran? Threaten to invade Canada, Greenland and Cuba? If one regime is using terror to achieve political aims these days...

[HDThoreaun]

No, Congress does not need to approve military action for it to be legal.