For those who say the US shouldn't meddle

[Extra Stout]

Once upon a time, I believed all the hype about how the Iranians wanted Western-style democracy and would "greet us as liberators."

There were all sorts of blogs, news sites, etc, that supposedly were part of the "underground" Iranian movement to overthrow the Islamic Republic and install a secular democracy based upon the U.S. Cons ution.

But it was all made up. Basically, Iranian exiles in Los Angeles who want to reinstall the monarchy so they can return to their lives of privilege over there were pushing that meme.

Once upon a time the popular reply to those who questioned whether Western-style democracy would work in the Middle East was, "Oh, so you think they're not good enough for it?" as if wanting Western-style democracy were akin to wanting food, or shelter, or companionship, when really it's like pointing out that maybe Jim from Tennessee doesn't want to live in Manhattan as opposed to Tennessee.

Make no mistake, the Iranians aren't crazy about their government -- but that's because of how it behaves. Keep in mind that it is structurally a republic already, in a nation that is unequivocally Islamic, so reforms are aimed at getting it to work the way it was theoretically supposed to work, not at doing away with it entirely.

Iranians are obviously a proud people. We see that in the protests. However, that also means that agenda items like having nuclear technology, and becoming a regional power, and being able to stand up to Israel are sources of pride which are widely popular and won't change even if the protesters get their way.

[PixelPusher]

No military response, but not a flaccid, limp-wristed response.

"Bring em on!" is one the very few mistakes George W. Bush has ever recognized and personally owned up to, and yet the lesson inherent in that eludes you.

[DarrinS]

To spell it out for the uninitiated, the moment an American President opens his mouth in support of the protesters, the mullahs can just say, "Ah, see, they are simply puppets of the Americans, just like in 1953," and the protest movement will lose support.

That seems to be the theory. And if you believe that, then Obama is doing exactly the right thing.

[DarrinS]

The House voted 405-1 on a resolution to condemn the Iranian government’s crackdown on opposition protesters.


Do you know who the 1 vote was?


Ron "coo coo for coacoa puffs" Paul

[PixelPusher]

The House voted 405-1 on a resolution to condemn the Iranian government’s crackdown on opposition protesters.


Do you know who the 1 vote was?


Ron "coo coo for coacoa puffs" Paul

Unlike members of Congress, Obama doesn't have the luxury of issuing empty proclamations you would find emotionally sastifying.

[Marcus Bryant]

The House voted 405-1 on a resolution to condemn the Iranian government’s crackdown on opposition protesters.


Do you know who the 1 vote was?


Ron "coo coo for coacoa puffs" Paul

Yeah, it's pretty crazy to attempt to separate the State from the people. I'll keep that in mind the next time you about the Democratic controlled Congress passing some new expansion of the State into your life.

[Marcus Bryant]

I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about “condemning” the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our cons utional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.

Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.

I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.

link

[ChumpDumper]

That seems to be the theory. And if you believe that, then Obama is doing exactly the right thing.

And why do you, DarrinS, feel the theory is wrong?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Good point.

Thing is that Iran has a vibrant history of free enterprise before President Carters policies caused political negative regime change in Iraq and Iran. The people of both countries enjoyed far more freedom than today, and it wasn't so long ago for them to forget.

WOW it never ceases to amaze me what a ing re you are. Read a book, dude.

[Ignignokt]

Extra Stout seems to know it all yet he's also as dim as anyone here. What ES is doing is arguing strawman, not once did Kraut or Darrin ever imply that helping iran would make them more pro israel or anti nuke.

It's disingenous, and false, unlike Cry Havoc i'm neither appalled and i'm also not surprised. Why Obama is being tepid on this Iranian election bothers me, but there may be some wisdom behind that, i don't deny that.

But just like said buttholes love to publicaly support and enforce change in places like Palestine and South Africa, they don't want to do the same in iran.

It's as if everyone nowadays is a complete isolationist, a neocon, or a selective neocon. Murderous thugs in europe cannot be tolerated, see bosnia. Murderous thugs in the brown regions is totally ok though.

And while ES seems to believe he knows it all, he is so shortsighted. It's not that endorsing reformers in Iran allows a new country to rise up and suck up up to us. It's plainly that a new generation of Irani's while still being anti us, anti israel, are increasingly more materialistic. And if we were to conduct more buisiness with a stable and free iraq, no matter how racist and anti semitic. The Neocons understand that pop culture, Capitalism, and new media will bring about change for better and for worse.

Why do you think both muslim extremist and christian evangelist fear hollywood and libertine literature, because they both know that it can influence and change societies.

When you're a president or govt, you think in the long run.

[Ignignokt]

i meant iran.

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin said so himself. Read the thread.

[PixelPusher]

The Neocons understand that pop culture, Capitalism, and new media will bring about change for better and for worse.

That's precisely what most neocons do NOT understand, or they wouldn't be constantly beating the war drums. Prior to last week, these guys were still calling for bombing Iran.

When you're a president or govt, you think in the long run.

Agreed. The slow, but insidious lure of liberal democracy and free market capitalism has a vastly superior track record to military adventurism. Let's not it up for a change.

[ChumpDumper]

Right -- if Michael Bay movies and cured pork products are going to take over the world eventually anyway, why piss off the Iranians by overtly meddling now?

[DarrinS]

Darrin said so himself. Read the thread.

Do you just make up?

[Extra Stout]

Extra Stout seems to know it all yet he's also as dim as anyone here. What ES is doing is arguing strawman, not once did Kraut or Darrin ever imply that helping iran would make them more pro israel or anti nuke.

No, in fact Darrin did state that his interest here involved Iran not being the biggest state sponsor of terrorism and not having nuclear capabilities, while there is nothing that would lead us to believe that Mousavi would change either of those courses.

Would I rather have Mousavi than Ahmadinejad? Yes, but I don't pile a whole bunch of false hopes about who I really would like him to be onto him.

But just like said buttholes love to publicaly support and enforce change in places like Palestine and South Africa, they don't want to do the same in iran.

It's as if everyone nowadays is a complete isolationist, a neocon, or a selective neocon. Murderous thugs in europe cannot be tolerated, see bosnia. Murderous thugs in the brown regions is totally ok though.

Speaking of strawmen.

And while ES seems to believe he knows it all, he is so shortsighted. It's not that endorsing reformers in Iran allows a new country to rise up and suck up up to us. It's plainly that a new generation of Irani's while still being anti us, anti israel, are increasingly more materialistic. And if we were to conduct more buisiness with a stable and free iraq, no matter how racist and anti semitic. The Neocons understand that pop culture, Capitalism, and new media will bring about change for better and for worse.

Endorsing the reformers at this juncture undermines them. That is the simple, obvious point. If America prefers Mousavi over Ahmadinejad, then the best thing for the President to do is to conceal that preference.

Your sentences about the impact of modernization are barely intelligible, but I will say that while Western interests would rather do business with Iran than not, they also would rather do business on terms where they control everything than on terms where Iranians wield their own influence. Just because a nation modernizes certainly doesn't mean it is going to become amenable to U.S. interests.

When you're a president or govt, you think in the long run.

Well, yeah.

[DarrinS]

No, in fact Darrin did state that his interest here involved Iran not being the biggest state sponsor of terrorism and not having nuclear capabilities, while there is nothing that would lead us to believe that Mousavi would change either of those courses.

While Mousavi does believe that Iran has the right to nuclear technology, he does appear to be much more moderate than Ahmadinejad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir-Hos...usavi#Platform

Mousavi has directly addressed activating foreign policy to boost national interest by reducing tensions with other nations. This includes negotiating with U.S. President Barack Obama if "his actions are in keeping with his words".[13] His other notable assertion was calling Ahmadinejad's at ude of the Holocaust ("a myth") wrong. Mousavi condemned the killing of Jews in the Holocaust, a much different stance than Ahmadinejad.[16]

[DarrinS]

Endorsing the reformers at this juncture undermines them. That is the simple, obvious point. If America prefers Mousavi over Ahmadinejad, then the best thing for the President to do is to conceal that preference.

Well, not endorsing them appears to already have undermined them. If you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, you should at least go waaaay out on a limb and strongly condemn violence against peaceful demonstrations.

[jman3000]

While Mousavi does believe that Iran has the right to nuclear technology, he does appear to be much more moderate than Ahmadinejad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir-Hos...usavi#Platform

He ultimately has minimal input, it's not his call to make.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, not endorsing them appears to already have undermined them. If you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, you should at least go waaaay out on a limb and strongly condemn violence against peaceful demonstrations.

Really, what would have been different -- besides making you feel like you had personally done something?

[DarrinS]

Really, what would have been different -- besides making you feel like you had personally done something?

That made a lot of sense.

[jman3000]

Well, not endorsing them appears to already have undermined them. If you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, you should at least go waaaay out on a limb and strongly condemn violence against peaceful demonstrations.

If Obama had supported them and then the Khohmeini made the same statement as he did today, there'd actually be some truth to it. The resistance might actually think that the US was behind it and it would lose support. These people are still overwhelmingly anti West.

As it is... when Khohmeini says that it's all our doing... the resistance knows it's complete bull and all that does is give them more reasons to distrust the regime.

I don't see how this is so hard for you to understand.

[ChumpDumper]

That made a lot of sense.

Tell me what would be different.

[DarrinS]

If Obama had supported them and then the Khohmeini made the same statement as he did today, there'd actually be some truth to it. The resistance might actually think that the US was behind it and it would lose support. These people are still overwhelmingly anti West.

As it is... when Khohmeini says that it's all our doing... the resistance knows it's complete bull and all that does is give them more reasons to distrust the regime.

I don't see how this is so hard for you to understand.

I understand the argument, I just disagree with it.

[MannyIsGod]

Wanting Iran to NOT be the biggest sponsor of terrorism and wanting them to NOT have nuclear capability is not hating on Israel. But that's just my opinion.