About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Sunday, June 21, 2009 - 3:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So, you think the Founders who talked about "no entangling alliances" and advocated a hands off, laissez-faire approach to foreign affairs were all wet?

I doubt that is the reasoning behind Obama's inaction, but even a stopped clock ...

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Sunday, June 21, 2009 - 6:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim,

Have you ever in your life hoped for, or received encouragement from someone better than yourself during a time of struggle?

I know I have.

There's nothing meddlesome about offering an "atta boy" to people trying to do the right thing.  Were the Founders so isolated in principle that they wouldn't dare extend even a hopeful idea, or rational advice to a people struggling against oppression?  Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson would find that absurd, and cruel.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 6/21, 6:16am)


Post 2

Sunday, June 21, 2009 - 6:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Another comment from a different poster on the video who supports Obama:

Obama isnt a coward.. He isnt in a situation right now to react. Its too early. If he reacts too soon it could hurt the people in Iran protesting against the Dictatorship and could put their lives in more danger.
Then I guess the people who've been murdered and maimed already are just sacrificial lambs to the cause for you, then. Right?  Even as Obama cowers, says nothing, while Iran's Supreme Leader blames him anyway.  Real smart.


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Sunday, June 21, 2009 - 9:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What is the principle for which the political opposition in Iran is fighting?

I suspect that the opposition embraces the idea that physical force is appropriate and normal in human relationships. Most likely, those people are religious, superstitious, and mean.

Teresa, you write as though America were a beacon of truth and reason in a troubled world. By comparison with the Middle East and other regions, we are. But that's not saying much, because most Americans believe in all sorts of irrational, collectivist, vicious nonsense.

The battle we face is intellectual. Until we can alter the philosophical orientation of a large minority of Americans, no good will come from government actions.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Sunday, June 21, 2009 - 11:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It is interesting that Obama's role here is exactly parallel to that of Bush the Elder in the Tianamen Square uprising.

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Sunday, June 21, 2009 - 11:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Theresa -- there is a profound difference between an individual acting in that individual capacity offering support to the Iranian opposition, and the president of the U.S. siding with the opposition in a disputed election in a foreign country.

Anyone reading this website should have noticed the inclination of many of the posters here to urge an American military response to the slightest provocation, real or imagined. And given the checkered history of all the wars the U.S. has gotten involved with in the past century, wars where we should have taken the Founders' advice to stay the hell out of them, it is encouraging that for once this incredibly statist President who has engaged in a plethora of unconstitutional activities (nationalizing banks, nationalizing car manufacturers, ad nauseam) is (for perhaps entirely the wrong reasons) finally saying there is at least one situation where the U.S. government should take a hands-off approach.

I mean, seriously -- does anyone here trust that Obama and the Democratic Congress can intervene in a situation and make it better? Is there some hidden competence to this administration and Congress that I have missed? It would be a massive improvement if they repealed everything they've done, then took a long vacation -- say for four years.
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 6/21, 12:02pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Sunday, June 21, 2009 - 12:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm sorry, Jim, I missed where the Congress passed a resolution of support for Mousavi.

The protests are not pro-Mousavi. They are anti-establishment. The vote for Mousavi was a vote against Ahmedinejad. Countless protesters and Persian-American sympathizers have made this point, even if much of the meida continues not to get it.

I would think someone who votes Libertarian would understand the concept of a protest vote.

Post 7

Sunday, June 21, 2009 - 12:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

This is a little off topic as such; however, I just heard an amazing interview by Ian Masters of Bob Bear, former CIA Iran analyst of 21 years experience,  plus one of the major figures involved in the protests, who is coordinating smuggling footage of the killings and beatings of the protestors out of Iran.  The two interviewees agreed that what is actually happening is that the military is staging a coup.  The head ayatollah, Kamanie, is basically a puppet, without really having the qualifications for his position.  He was fast-tracked by the Revolutionary Guards as part of the long war of succession following Khomeini’s death.

 

Note that Rafsengani's - one of the pillars of the opposing "moderates" ranks -family has been arrested in the past couple days.

 

According to the interviewees, the military itself has been going through a long period of religious radicalization, spear-headed by the Revolutionary Guard, and now they are taking over.  End of the Islamic Republic.  Enter the new Iranian military state. 

 

They also commented on the recent meeting between Akmadinajad and the Russian and Chinese leadership.  Bear, especially, is convinced that a new Cold War is starting, with China, Russia and a host of lesser regional powers lining up against the U.S., Israel, and the Arab states, who are terrified of IranIran, meanwhile, is focusing its energy on becoming a regional superpower militarily.  They also mentioned that Akmadinajad's seemingly crazy rhetoric regarding issues such as the existence of the Israeli state or the truth of the Holocaust are never for internal consumption, but rather are aimed at the lower class Arab/Palestinian street, for the purpose of destabilizing various hostile regimes, such as the Arab states.

 

I personally don't see anything useful that Obama can do at this point regarding the internal politics of Iran.   Bear is convinced that the Neocons are still a power in Washington, and are quite pleased with recent developments, as they play into their continued desire for a war with Iran.

 

So, I'm divided now in my worrying between North Korea, Venezuela, China and Iran, and their connections and coordinations, military and economic.  What a fine kettle of fish!  North Korea, in particular, seems determined to keep pushing until the U.S. is forced into a preemtive strike.  I suspect that, canny as they are in manipulation, they utterly fail to grasp the underlying fact that when pushed into a corner, the U.S. does ultimately act.  That point may well come when N. Korea demonstrates its capability to hit Hawaii, and could very possibly take the form of a nuclear strike against the massive artillery positions just North of the DMZ. 

 

Much of that artillery, most likely aimed at Seoul or other civilian centers, allegedly including germ and gas shells, is buried far underground in the mountains, meaning that only the heaviest - ~25Megaton - weapons would take them out, and it would have to be a precisely coordinated attack, involving perhaps a dozen warheads all hitting within a minute or so, before the artillery could be fired.  If it worked in preventing the carnage to the South from the buried artillery, the consequences would include a new highly radioactive DMZ stretching fifty files into the North, through which no army could pass and live.  It might also serve as a useful warning to wanna-be nuclear powers, such as Iran.

 

Of course, there would also be blowback... 

 


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Sunday, June 21, 2009 - 12:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mark:

The battle we face is intellectual. Until we can alter the philosophical orientation of a large minority of Americans, no good will come from government actions.

100% agreement.  I won't shut up, however.  Not that you're saying I should, of course. ;)

Ted:

I never thought of that, and you're so right, as usual.  As I recall, Bush Sr. was quit verbal in his support of the students.

Jim:

I can't figure out why so many people want to immediately bring military action into this, or assume right off the bat that's what American will or should do. Lindsay Graham said today that moral support isn't "interfering," and it certainly isn't military in any way.  That's all I'm talking about.  If the opposition wants and needs a little advice from our Pentagon somewhere down the line, I say give it to them.

Iranian women are marching, and dying, in the street with the men. Iranian woman are extremely educated, and those in the urban areas take pride in being fashionable, not to mention that I had a difficult time finding one that looked even slightly homely. They're all gorgeous.  A little moral support for these females who only want to show off their fabulous black hair, incredible legs, and classic Persian frames, please!



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Sunday, June 21, 2009 - 2:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Iranian women are marching, and dying, in the street .."

You are not exaggerating:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/21/they-killed-neda-but-not-her-voice/

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Sunday, June 21, 2009 - 3:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim, you manage to mangle two concepts beyond all recognition here:

So, you think the Founders who talked about "no entangling alliances" and advocated a hands off, laissez-faire approach to foreign affairs were all wet?

First, on "entangling alliances" read this thread. Not only is it quite unlikely that the Founding Fathers meant by entangling alliance what you mean, there is simply no question of any alliance here with anyone. You are objecting to an entanglement that would consist only of spoken support as if it were a commitment to throw American children under mullah-driven tanks.

Second, laissez faire doesn't mean refusal to take sides. It means taking the side of those who do not initiate force. The innocent are the only ones whom il faut laisser faire, whom one must let alone. By using laissez faire this way once again you are conflating the initiaion of force with the act of self defense, and reducing a necessary moral distinction to a concrete bound focus on physical motions with no regard for human motivations or justice.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 6/21, 6:55pm)


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Sunday, June 21, 2009 - 6:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim,

Ted and I disagree somewhat on the "entangling alliances" concept, but in this instance I agree with what he said - that to make a moral judgment is what we require of our leader - not silence when things of importance are happening, and not Obama's first statement of moral equivalence, and not the wishy-washy statements that followed.

All we are talking about here is a statement - not sending money, arms, or troops. This is not our self-defense we are talking about - That is a different consideration and not being discussed here. If our self-defense were the issue, then it would be best served by a regime change... one that would not require invasion and nation building... in other words, an internal revolution. So, if we were talking about our interests (beyond that of advocating freedom and respect for democratic policies) we would be speaking of the right to assemble, the right to a fair election, the right to self-determination, and the immorality of storm troopers wielding truncheons as sanctions for their movement.

I'm flabbergasted that people object to our president saying that those young people, engaged in peaceful assembly did not deserve to be attacked, beaten and shot. This is a corrupt, rogue tyranny that falsified election results, advocates stoning women to death for adultery, and advocates, supports and engages in terrorism. How anyone can twist reason about so far as to pretend that anything other than condemnation, loud and clear, is not required is beyond me. Talk about sanctioning evil... that is it.

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Sunday, June 21, 2009 - 6:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
They call us the great Satan, they speak of the earth vomiting out Israel, and their president is a war criminal, a torturer and a hostage taker. But lord forfend we should say we support the protesters because then he might really get mad?

Wikipedia:

The most terrifying night for the hostages came on February 5, 1980, when guards in black ski masks rousted the 53 hostages from their sleep and led them blindfolded to other rooms. They were searched after being ordered to strip to their underwear and keep their hands up. The mock execution ended after the guards cocked their weapons and readied them to fire but finally ejected their rounds and told the prisoners to pull up their pants. The hostages were later told the exercise was "just a joke" and something the guards "had wanted to do."[47]



Post 13

Sunday, June 21, 2009 - 6:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I didn't catch the whole story, but its been reported that (so far) two of Iran's provinces had OVER 100% voter turnout.

Reporters from around the world are being arrested, detained, and told to leave the country.  A Canadian reporter for Newsweek was arrested and beaten when he was thought to be a (unarmed) protester. When his passport and press credentials were discovered, they apologized, and said it was a misunderstanding.   He was then told to leave the country.

The U.S. state department is asking on line systems, like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc., to keep maintenance to a minimum so "citizen journalists" in Iran can post without time delays.


Post 14

Sunday, June 21, 2009 - 7:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So now making a comment is considered meddlesome. What's next? If the President had a sour look of disapproval on his face for what the mullahs are doing, that too would be meddlesome?

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Sunday, June 21, 2009 - 8:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa, your comment about Persian women, with their shining black hair and great legs, is perhaps the best argument I've encountered in favor of aiding the cause of Iranian opposition. I just think the aid ought to be voluntary.

Steve, what is the basis for assigning the President of the United States the authority to make ethical-political pronouncements on behalf of "the people"? I prefer to make my own judgments about moral principles, as I am sure you do. I don't want to make this President...or ANY President...the American Moral Spokesman.

John, you state (approximately) that you think it is trivial to object to the President's declaring "official moral support" to the (undefined) cause of the Iranian political opposition. But taking sides in foreign political contests is ill-advised and can be dangerous.

First, the character of the opposition is morally tainted, to put this politely.

Second, when our government chooses sides in a foreign political contest, it inspires animosity and adds fuel to the fires of potential blow-back--a real danger among radical Islamics.

Third, an official declaration of support for some movement creates pressure for more tangible forms of official support. When our government begins pushing money and arms into some cause, thugs ascend to power. Small time thugs eventually become oppressive monsters. You may recall that this is how Saddam Hussein came to power.

Fourth, choosing favorites prompts a counter response from other powers worried that they will lose authority in the region.

I'm not implying that it is dangerous to take principled stands on right and wrong. I applaud principled stands, made public. However, the job of the US government and the President is to protect Americans from foreign attack. Issuing pronouncements of Official Moral Support for some Iranian political cause will not promote our safety nor advance the cause of individual liberty in Iran.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Sunday, June 21, 2009 - 9:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mark Humphrey said: "I don't want to make this President...or ANY President...the American Moral Spokesman."

Well, that does seem prudent Mark. So how bout instead we just have Obama affirm these words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Sunday, June 21, 2009 - 9:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted, sorry, I did not take the time to read the thread you linked to. However, "entangling alliances" has clear meaning. Washington wanted Americans to remain aloof from Europe's endless wars--advice John Adams put to excellent use.

Pushing Americans deeper into the mire of endless Middle Eastern wars and feuds serves no defensive purpose for Americans. For the fact remains that there is no state in that region that poses a military threat to Americans.

Having read a few of your posts, I have the impression that you favor supporting the political opposition in Iran, because you want our government to promote the moral good.

However, this is not a proper role for government. Its role is narrow and mundane: to protect the rights of its citizens from criminals, domestic and foreign. When government crusades, it invariably violates the rights of its citizens and others. It taxes and drafts its citizens to advance its foreign political objectives; it uses force against uncooperative foreign populations.



Post 18

Sunday, June 21, 2009 - 10:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No, neither the protesters in Iran or L.A. support the opposition itslef in Iran nor do I, which I have repeatedly made clear, including on this very thread:

""The protests are not pro-Mousavi. They are anti-establishment. The vote for Mousavi was a vote against Ahmedinejad. Countless protesters and Persian-American sympathizers have made this point, even if much of the [media] continues not to get it."

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Sunday, June 21, 2009 - 10:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mark,

It is the current practice, the precedent, for presidents to speak on the moral issues that are of significant importance in the political news of the day. Leadership requires speaking out in all areas where government may have a role to play. Iran may one day soon have a WMD and they have already indicated that we are the Great Satan they'd like to kill.

If Iran had not declared themselves our enemy, if this was not an event of great significance in world history, if we were not a country founded upon principles of self-determination, if the president had made it clear from early in the campaign that he would never have anything to say on things occuring in other countries... if any of those were different, then Obama's silence would make sense. Otherwise it was glaringly loud.

The opposition that we see on our TV's are students fighting against hypocrisy and tyranny. If the only change they want is honest elections and for women to not be forced to wear the bee-keeper suits, that makes them more the good guys then the evil clerics and their thugs.

You are right that we suffer blow-back and that is a reasonable thing to weigh in the practical balance of options. But if all that we do is speak the truth about evil practices, and blowback consists of vile lies, bombings, funding of terrorists, and jihad in general, then we would be catering to irrational maniacs with self-imposed censorship.

Your third point is valid in that it makes good sense to differentiate between making judgments and taking actions. I may tell someone that I'm offended by the racist joke they told, but I don't need to hit them, or to organize a boycott of them in some fashion. I don't have to take sides with their opponents, or take any other action. If our government can't tell when it needs to act in our defense versus when not to, THAT is the problem to address. Improper acts of support like you describe arose out the Meternich-like policies that have never been moral or practical.

"Choosing favorites" isn't what should be done. What should be done is to speak on behalf of individual rights. And if other people in the region are tyrants and they see this struggle as one where a new generation wants less of the Islamic tyranny seen in Iran, then they should be worried - not about us, but about the price they might pay for turning a deaf ear to freedom.

I agree with your last paragraph. And I usually cringe when any of our political "leaders" presume to speak with moral authority on anything. The principle is to speak of principles - and not to make of a current movement or group more than they are - not to take sides, but not to shirk from identifying tyranny. This would be a good time to show the video of Reagan giving a lecture on the virtues of Capitalism at the University of Moscow to the horror of the Soviet leaders. That man knew how to do this the way it needed to be done.

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.