RoR: Forum

Ted, you have helped me to better make the point I'm trying to convey.

You want to use the force of government to conduct moral crusades, to uphold ethical-political good. I too favor the good. But the means you have selected for promoting the good is inappropriate, because it is corrupt. It is corrupt, because it characteristically, without exception, uses physical force to further its objectives.

For example, President Obama sees his role as Ultimate Moral Dictator, with the right to coercively use other people as the means to his ends. The idea that such a man should issue a proclamation defining the good by reference to the Declaration of Independence is absurd. For the language of the Declaration contradicts everything that Obama stands for, as defined by his choices.

The contradiction would still exist, regardless of the identity of the President. If John McCain had won the election, nothing would be changed; like Obama, McCain stands for the sanctity of aggressive force in politics. If the President were Ron Paul, who actively supports the values of the American revolution, the contradiction would stand between the language of the Declaration of Independence and the ethical nature of Federal activities.

I'm all for moral crusading, conducted by proper methods. Proper methods involve waging intellectual battle: showing people that the world is understandable, not mysterious; that reason is man's natural means of understanding; that individual freedom is essential to the pursuit of knowledge; that individual rights are appropriate to human life; that capitalism is essential to achieving human prosperity.

Post 21

Sunday, June 21, 2009 - 10:49pm

Mark:

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

I think chants of "death to the dictator" is a pretty well defined cause to me.

But taking sides in foreign political contests is ill-advised and can be dangerous.

Define "taking sides". How is making a comment that a government ought to respect basic human rights "ill-advised" and "dangerous". That accusation sounds pretty undefined to me. The "sides" here are the dictators, and the people the dictator's oppress. Taking sides with the innocent and against an aggressor is not "ill-advised" at all. It is rather just and advisable. Unless you prefer evil to flourish and receive sanction from the cowardly.

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

I don't dispute that. But this is no longer about Mousavi, this is about the Iranian youth being tired of living under a tyrannical, misogynist regime that won't allow for some of the basic human rights they want to have respected. I'm not making some kind of analysis that an elected Mousavi would be a means to that end, but clearly these demonstrations are more about being AGAINST the dictator Khomeni, not necessarily so much about being FOR Mousavi.

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.

Guiding your behaviors based on the fear of "blowback" is a philosophically corrupt principle. It places the blame on the victim rather than on the aggressor. It is a principle that says you can't exercise your freedoms because you have to acquiesce to the subjective and irrational whims of the uncivilized.

Third, an official declaration of support for some movement creates pressure for more tangible forms of official support.

It absolutely does not. Your argument is a slippery-slope fallacy.

I'm not implying that it is dangerous to take principled stands on right and wrong.

You most certainly are. You are implying that taking a principled stand on what is right and wrong is "dangerous" and "ill-advised" and must lead to a war, or it must lead to terrorism. Your entire post was attacking the very idea of taking a principled stand against evil.

(Edited by John Armaos on 6/21, 11:10pm)

Post 22

Monday, June 22, 2009 - 3:47am

I just think the aid ought to be voluntary.

Of course!

Post 23

Monday, June 22, 2009 - 9:13am

Teresa and Ted and Steve -- I appreciate your comments, and perhaps what I'm trying to say is being misunderstood. So, take 2:

The short version -- Go ask Jimmy Carter about how well Democrats managed the last time they took action in Iran.

The long version -- I support the opposition in Iran. I hope they take down not just the incumbent president, but the theocracy that is oppressing their country. But, note that Mousavi is not calling for an end to the theocracy. He's calling for him to be installed as the new, somewhat less oppressive figurehead to put a positive spin on the actions of the theocrats who are oppressing their citizenry.

But, yes, I do get the concept of a protest vote. I do get that many of the protesters want way more than Mousavi is willing to publicly call for -- bringing down the end to rule by clerics, and replacing them with elected officials. But, since the clerics completely control access to the ballot, having someone on the ballot who is opposed to their rule wasn't even an option.

My concern with the Congressional resolution isn't with lending moral support to the protesters -- I think that's a great idea. Yes, the opposition should be encouraged. My concern is with the practical effects -- the blowback, the unintended consequences -- and the timing. The theocrats would love to portray the U.S. as being on the verge of invading or attacking Iran -- and with at least some reason. They'd love to change the subject from how they're oppressing women and everyone else who doesn't want a theocracy to "Look, the Great Satan is trying to attack us! We have to all rally together!"

And, Obama and the Democratic Congress have not displayed an ounce of common sense so far, so I don't want them to have a resolution out there that could be used as an excuse for them to intervene, and in all likelihood screw things up.

The Iranian people got themselves into this mess -- they threw the revolution that brought the clerics to power. They brought these consequences upon themselves. And the practical effect of the U.S. government meddling right now would likely be that we would harm the cause of the dissidents.

Far better for individuals, not officially connected to the U.S. government, to lend aid and support to the opposition. Far better than relying on a U.S. government that isn't particularly devoted to freedom for its own citizens, and has a long history of screwing up hamhanded attempts at foreign intervention, and is currently under the control of incompetents who are taking away our freedom, and that isn't particularly trusted or loved by most Muslims.

I don't trust the U.S. government to do anything right, or to promote freedom. They haven't earned that trust. They don't deserve that trust.

Post 24

Monday, June 22, 2009 - 9:19am

"You want to use the force of government to conduct moral crusades, to uphold ethical-political good."

What force? What crusade?

How does an expression of support for the principles this country was founded on amount to violence?

Words have meanings, Mark.

Post 25

Monday, June 22, 2009 - 11:15am

Jim:

But, note that Mousavi is not calling for an end to the theocracy.

If you've been following the events closely these past few days, his rhetoric has drastically changed and has become more extreme in favor of a legitimate democracy and more towards the ideals of freedom. Now I'm not taking some pro-Mousavi stand, but it's interesting to see that he seems to understand where the political wind is blowing at the moment. But again I think it misses the point to attribute these protests as being pro-Mousavi, it's gone beyond the election at this point and into a pro-democracy anti-Khomeni movement. It's not just that they wanted their votes to count, they're now calling for the end of the "Supreme Leader". I think that's pretty profound and we're probably witnessing the beginning of a revolution towards a more Westernized Republic.

My concern is with the practical effects -- the blowback, the unintended consequences -- and the timing. The theocrats would love to portray the U.S. as being on the verge of invading or attacking Iran --

The theocrats would do this no matter what actions taken or words spoken by our government. This is what dictators do, they try to find a scapegoat, and deflect blame from their own failed governance in a desperate attempt to maintain their existence. They don't need a rational reason, these dictators think the United States is a Zionist government, should we give any credibility to this thought? If not why do we care what these thugs think? This blowback principle is absurd, it's an excuse to shirk away from exercising our basic rights to free speech out of fear what an uncivilized brute would do or think. It's cowardly and does nothing but sanction evil.

The Iranian people got themselves into this mess -- they threw the revolution that brought the clerics to power. They brought these consequences upon themselves.

Which Iranian people? 60 percent of the population of Iran is under the age of 30. Most of them were either not born or still infants when the Shah was deposed. How did they bring this on themselves? Now they're taking matters into their own hands and dying in the streets to fight for their basic human rights, and you're taking the attitude that these youths who had nothing to do with the 79' revolution somehow deserve to be murdered in the streets. You're making this broad generalization that all Iranian people are the same. A bit of a racist attitude I would think.

And the practical effect of the U.S. government meddling right now would likely be that we would harm the cause of the dissidents

I don't think anyone is saying the U.S. should "meddle" in Iran. I don't think that's even needed. The protestors are taking matters into their own hands and for the first time since 1979 the Islamic Republic is in danger of falling. All we need to do is say "good job guys, we stand in solidarity with you". It's a comment, it's not taking military action.

(Edited by John Armaos on 6/22, 11:22am)

Post 26

Monday, June 22, 2009 - 12:25pm

Now they're taking matters into their own hands and dying in the streets to fight for their basic human rights, and you're taking the attitude that these youths who had nothing to do with the 79' revolution somehow deserve to be murdered in the streets.

John, I agreed with much of what you said in post 25. But the above statement about what I allegedly believe is completely untrue. Perhaps you could show me where I said these protesters deserve to be murdered? Were you perhaps referring to this?:

"I support the opposition in Iran. I hope they take down not just the incumbent president, but the theocracy that is oppressing their country."

What I WAS trying to convey is that one generation of Iranians brought their current government into power. Not everyone back then supported this, and some of the ones who supported it then have since changed their minds, and there is a new generation full of kids who don't support this government. And I hope they succeed in overthrowing their government. And I hope our government has the good sense to not meddle in this revolution and possibly screw it up.

The protestors are taking matters into their own hands and for the first time since 1979 the Islamic Republic is in danger of falling. All we need to do is say "good job guys, we stand in solidarity with you". It's a comment, it's not taking military action.

If all the resolution is, is a comment and an expression of support like this, I'm OK with that. I sure hope that is all that happens with it.

But, there is some history here. I do recall these selfsame Democrats voting for a different resolution about a neighboring country, and then being shocked, SHOCKED, when an ambitious and power-hungry president used that resolution to wage war, and their cries of denial that their resolution was ever intended to be used that way, and their protestations that they would never have voted for that resolution if they had known the president would use it to wage war.

I do recall the former and current president taking a bailout bill that was supposed to be limited to financial
companies, and both of them have used it to bail out car companies and car parts manufacturers and do all sorts of things that they weren't authorized to do.

Can you see how, as much as I want the protesters in Iran to succeed, that I might be a tad bit worried about how the current president might seek to use this resolution to further his own agenda?

Can we at least agree that Obama is not a trustworthy politician?

Post 27

Monday, June 22, 2009 - 12:37pm

Jim:

Now they're taking matters into their own hands and dying in the streets to fight for their basic human rights, and you're taking the attitude that these youths who had nothing to do with the 79' revolution somehow deserve to be murdered in the streets.

John, I agreed with much of what you said in post 25. But the above statement about what I allegedly believe is completely untrue. Perhaps you could show me where I said these protesters deserve to be murdered?

You said: "The Iranian people got themselves into this mess -- they threw the revolution that brought the clerics to power. They brought these consequences upon themselves."

How else am I to interpret that? You're saying the protesters (which are some of the Iranian people) got themselves into this mess by bringing the clerics into power and that they brought these consequences (oppression and murder in the streets) upon themselves.

If that's not what you mean then I'd like to hear a retraction of that statement and an apology for taking such a racist stance.

Post 28

Monday, June 22, 2009 - 12:42pm

Jim:

But, there is some history here. I do recall these selfsame Democrats voting for a different resolution about a neighboring country, and then being shocked, SHOCKED, when an ambitious and power-hungry president used that resolution to wage war, and their cries of denial that their resolution was ever intended to be used that way, and their protestations that they would never have voted for that resolution if they had known the president would use it to wage war.

And that would be an absurd analogy that does not apply at all to the current situation. The Democrats feigning ignorance over what they authorized the President to do was completely insincere on their part, and they only made these accusations when they recognized the political expediency of making such a statement could be perceived as avoiding taking responsibility for authorizing force to their constituency. If they had any backbone and any ounce of integrity, they would've stuck by their decision to authorize the use of force in Iraq and own up to what they did.

Post 29

Monday, June 22, 2009 - 2:37pm

John,

Saying that the blowback issue is absurd... is absurd. Comments coming from the office of the president should be measured - support, yes. but support what? I'd say strong verbal support of the principle of free elections, freedom to assemble, and freedom of speech. Say something that will be repeated again and again in those Iranian student's ears, that will resonate with them, ideas that the mullahs cannot effectively criticize or argue against without losing their credibility.

The president needs to make no accusations or direct comments about the riots or rioters or the crackdown in Iran. He only needs to comment that these are the particular principles the US supports. Only a jackass won't get the message.

jt

Post 30

Monday, June 22, 2009 - 2:48pm

Jay:

Saying that the blowback issue is absurd... is absurd. Comments coming from the office of the president should be measured - support, yes. but support what? I'd say strong verbal support of the principle of free elections, freedom to assemble, and freedom of speech.

And that's exactly what he did. But the principle of blowback is indeed absurd, because apparently even expressing sentiment of support through exercising your right to free speech is considered "dangerous" because it can result in "blowback", which essentially means we should voluntarily restrict our own freedoms for fear of what a thug might do. I'd rather die than acquiesce to a thug's irrational whims. The principle of blowback says that the innocent are responsible for what the guilty do. This concern of blowback is simply cowardly and a clear sanction of evil.

The president needs to make no accusations or direct comments about the riots or rioters or the crackdown in Iran. He only needs to comment that these are the particular principles the US supports.

It's disingenuous to make broad abstractions and deny the concretes right before your nose. The protesters are the ones that are obviously exercising their right to assembly and protest, and Khomeni and his merry band of misogynist thugs are the ones denying these basic human rights. To not call a spade is spade is just wishy washy and totally insincere.

Post 31

Monday, June 22, 2009 - 3:13pm

I suppose when the Iranians have already accused you of interference before you have interfered that then you hold your tongue not because of fear of blow back, but because of, what, suck forward?

Post 32

Monday, June 22, 2009 - 3:32pm

John,

There is a distinct difference between being accused of interference, and being seen as interfering. Stepped up rhetoric by the US could at some point make the protesters think we are trying to "buddy-up" with them, and could work against our better interests.

However, just hearing a cleric rail against the US for acknowledging a principle with which the protesters may fully agree, is only going to compromise the clerics.

How is speaking to the right to free assembly, or freedom of the press NOT a concrete?? or disingenuous? I'm afraid I'm not sure how such statements could seem "wishy-washy".

Ted,

On the basis of all the newscasts, I'd say the Iranian clerics have been "sucking forward" further and further each day. : )

jt

Post 33

Monday, June 22, 2009 - 3:37pm

Jay:

How is speaking to the right to free assembly, or freedom of the press NOT a concrete??

Citing the right to free assembly is an abstraction, pointing out specific people who are trying to assemble is a concrete. I thought that was pretty obvious.

Post 34

Monday, June 22, 2009 - 3:42pm

Jay:

Stepped up rhetoric by the US could at some point make the protesters think we are trying to "buddy-up" with them, and could work against our better interests.

I don't see how. There's nothing at all to gain by engaging in any kind of diplomacy or dialogue with the Mullahcracy. That regime is not going to give up nukes nor stop funding their proxy wars throughout the Middle East. A lot of these protesters are making their signs in English, not in Fari, and uploading these images and videos onto the internet. Obviously they have an audience in mind.

Post 35

Monday, June 22, 2009 - 3:52pm

Ted, if I have mis-characterized your thinking about this subject, I apologize.

My impression is this: you favor using the force of the US government, primarily through military actions, to achieve what you think are good political objectives in foreign policy. The objectives that you consider to be good include waging war abroad to overthrow various dictators for the sake of freeing their subjects, and for the sake of just retribution.

From this perspective, on this thread, you also want the President to serve as official ethics spokesman for the American people on the subject of Iran�s mistreatment of political opposition. I assume (but I don't know this) that you want the President to speak out for Americans on this issue, because you see the US government as the proper authority for avenging wrongs abroad.

Obviously, I have assumed a lot, which is risky. If I'm wrong about the way you view this issue--and I may well be--I will shut up in the future (for about 3 weeks.).

In any event, it is from this broader perspective that I wrote about why I think using the force of our government to right wrongs abroad is misguided.

You state that merely having the President affirm certain ethical truths does not involve the use of aggressive force. But the issue isn't that narrow or concrete.

Obviously, Presidents and Prime Ministers make many pronouncements about moral issues, because politics is the application of ethics to public policy. They do so to appeal to public support for their programs. As long as disagreement exists about proper policy, politicians will issue ethical appeals.

However, I don't like moral pronouncements from Presidents or other politicians, because our contemporary political system and those who run it are corrupt. Certainly the level of American corruption pales compared to the corruption in Iran, and doesn�t even register compared with the corruption in North Korea. But still, our government and its policies are deeply and incorrigibly corrupt.

Since politicians generally cannot resist lecturing everyone about ethics, I would hope that the policy implied by their statements would be proper. By the policy implications of the announcement that you want President Obama to make are improper.

Monitoring and refereeing political conflicts in Iran is not the responsibility of the US government. The proper authority of our government is to uphold the rights of its own citizens, by protecting them from domestic and foreign criminals. Of course, our government neglects these responsibilities while busily robbing Peter to pay Paul, and in bullying abroad.

Is there force involved in simply issuing a statement objecting to the mistreatment of the political opposition in Iran? If one drops context, there is no force in making a statement. However, the statement would declare in effect that how the Iranian state treats its subjects is a matter of on-going interest to the US government. This implies that at some point the US military might intervene to right Iranian wrongs. As I have argued, this is improper foreign policy.

There is another implication contained in any such statement. The statement affirms the imperial power of the Presidency as the Seat of Power. The Presidential Throne supposedly imparts the authority to impose the occupant�s vision of right and wrong on other people. But this imperial role is improper for a free society. For the Imperial Presidency can be sustained only by the continuing application of force�by taxing and inflating, spending and borrowing, and through constant military adventuring abroad.

Any time this subject comes up, I collide with the hawks on this site. We just see the proper role of government differently.

I am in favor of principled arguments that criticize and deplore wrong doing. I am in favor of broadcasting those arguments, including public criticism of bad behavior by the Iranian regime.

I just don�t want my government to issue those statements.

If you want to fight the mistreatment of political opposition in Iran, do something. Circulate a petition around the internet, write letters to newspapers, start a crusade.

But leave me out of it. We face enormous and growing problems right here in the USA. I think we should worry about securing our own vanishing freedom, before launching a crusade to save the Iranians.

Post 36

Monday, June 22, 2009 - 4:47pm

Mark:

From this perspective, on this thread, you also want the President to serve as official ethics spokesman for the American people on the subject of Iran�s mistreatment of political opposition.

The way you put this, it makes it sounds like it would be arrogant and presumptuous for the President to make a comment about Western principles of freedom since that might not be what his fellow citizens think. No one is dubbing him "Ethical commander and chief" but it's not arrogant for the President to express the sentiments of freedom this country represents, we are instead asking that he stand by the values of this country of human decency and respect for freedom. You act as if he would be committing some moral breach by just saying "we value freedom and think all human life deserve it, we morally support anyone's struggle for that freedom that they deserve". Do you realize how callous disregard may come off as appearing to the American voter and to the protesters of Iran? Do you think maybe there would be blowback and unintended consequences to staying silent?

Post 37

Monday, June 22, 2009 - 4:52pm

Comments coming from the office of the president should be measured - support, yes. but support what? I'd say strong verbal support of the principle of free elections, freedom to assemble, and freedom of speech. Say something that will be repeated again and again in those Iranian student's ears, that will resonate with them, ideas that the mullahs cannot effectively criticize or argue against without losing their credibility.

I'm all for this kind of covert support from the Prez, but, again, seeing has how the mullahs blame us for everything anyway, I don't see the point.

All of the supplicant, sycophantic Obama supporters on YouTube claimed to be concerned with one thing: More Iranian deaths, prompted by the President's support. It was like reading notes scribbled by little children who're terrified of they're abusive, drunken daddy. "Sssshhh! Don't make too much noise! Maybe he'll just pass out."

Then, when the kids get old enough to stand up to the bully, an uncle living in a safe place gives them no encouragement. In fact, he states outright that saying anything would be "meddling." Nice. Its for their own safety, people say, as they get slaughtered anyway.

Make no mistake, these are murders, not "killings," or "deaths," but murders. Obama "supporters" were all fine with the fact that Barry had precious little to say about the murder of unarmed Iranians in the street, and I found that amazingly unforgivable.

I said it once, and I'll say it again. Barack Obama is a complete moral coward. I for one don't want to give even the faintest impression of supporting this guy. I'm embarrassed to the core over how he's dealt with this, and pretty much everything else. He's a dick in the first degree.

And now we have North Korea tugging toward Hawaii. Big surprize. Jong Il obviously knows a coward when he sees one. Good luck, Jim, I know you live there. Just know that I support you in your quest to be free from North Korean tyranny, even if Obama stays silent through the struggle, or offers only half hearted platitudes.

Post 38

Monday, June 22, 2009 - 5:56pm

Teresa,

I see all messages that the US makes in connection with these Iranian riots as being intended for the rioters, not the government. We know what the mullahs will say. Who cares about them? Messages about rights are for the protesters.

I'd like to think that we or (hah) the UN will at least stop, board and inspect that ship before it reaches its destination. If they think it may have illegal weapons, they will be inconceivably, inexcusably irresponsible if they do not.

jt

Post 39

Monday, June 22, 2009 - 7:16pm