Jump to content

Speaking of Iran ...


Recommended Posts

An entry from a normally liberal leaning blog I ran across recently, in response to a call by its author to show solidarity with the protesters in Iran:

... In reference, it may seem strange when one ponders why the appearance of a rigged election in Iran would trigger such an uprising at this time, when they’ve been rigged by the mullahs for three decades.

Could it be the free elections their next-door neighbor has had, thanks to (hard to form these words here) the Bush administration? ...

In answering the questions concerning the Middle Eastern policies of the U.S. Government during the first 8 years of the new millenium, in the past I have often told my Brazilian friends and family that we may have to wait 10 years to see if those policies bear fruit in that region. However, we may already be seeing what one tyrannical regime change can prompt in that region dominated by iron-fisted control for so many, many years.

Remember the gasps from many of the liberal elite around the world when Bush called Iraq, Iran and N. Korea "An Axis of Evil?" In light of the recent bold and foolhardy displays by the supreme leadership of the latter two nations, he may not have been far off the mark afterall.

The recent actions of N. Korea and Iran mean new stumbling blocks to a better world have been laid down. Newer administrations worldwide, some of which were put in place by a hopeful citizens through democratic elections, in part because those new administrations outlined the need to engage these two nations previously branded as outlaws, have been put in a very awkward position by the actions of the very countries to which an olive branch was offered at the beginning of 2009.

This is where leadership is formed; from the crucible of conflict, long after the dross of diplomacy has been burned from the metal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused. Are you suggesting we invade Iran and North Korea?

I am suggesting that the people - the real day to day walking around people - in those two countries (and many others) would love to lawfully and honestly have their voices heard, substantiating the notion that they count for something.

If strong world leadership (that would NOT be the UN) chooses a path of liberation, to scorn that effort could be a voice considered mocking the willingness of those who have sacrificed their blood to begin the effort.

Are you suggesting the people in those nations might not deserve that consideration?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am suggesting that the people - the real day to day walking around people - in those two countries (and many others) would love to lawfully and honestly have their voices heard, substantiating the notion that they count for something.

If strong world leadership (that would NOT be the UN) chooses a path of liberation, to scorn that effort could be a voice considered mocking the willingness of those who have sacrificed their blood to begin the effort.

Are you suggesting the people in those nations might not deserve that consideration?

why not the UN? who else if not the UN?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why not the UN? who else if not the UN?

Well, in the 60 year plus existence of the U.N. let's consider all the nations the UN combined forces have liberated from tyranny.

I'll start the list:

none

(Ooops ... forgot Kuwait, but then the UN mandate forebade forces from completing the job by capturing and trying Saddam; which may have very well changed recent history.)

Now let's list the wars, genocides and mass migrations of nationals that the UN indircetly precipitated through inactivity, loathsome desire to become involved or stalemated efforts brought about by that agency's own rules of how to bog down its threat against injustice. I'll let someone else start that list.

Farin, this could be a thread in itself, but many consider the UN to be a bloated, bureaucratic dragon with few teeth - worn down by its cud-chewing - comfortably lounging on the banks of the Hudson with a single purpose, self-preservation of that agancy. Being a UN ambassador is a great gig! Live in comfort in or near NYC with the single purpose of debating the merits of ones own government's intractable positions on matters global. A politician's delight! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what's the alternative then?

From the Christian Science Monitor:

"The debate over a supreme leader may not fade. There are signs in Iran of increasing popularity for Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the leading Shiite figure in Iraq. Since the 2003 US invasion, he has supported a democracy that is run by secular leaders and inclusive of all faiths. (The Shiite spiritual leader in Lebanon, Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, also does not see himself as a political leader.)

An Iranian by birth, Mr. Sistani holds much sway over the clerical establishment in Iran's most religious city, Qom. And he lives in the Iraqi city of Najaf, the most holy of Shiite sites and a popular pilgrimage for Iranians.

If he wants to send a subtle signal to Iranian dissidents, Mr. Obama could simply praise Sistani's calming, background role as the top ayatollah in helping Iraq's secular democracy.

He could also point out, as many Shiite leaders have warned, that Islam's best protection is not to run a government for fear it would harm the religion.

Iran's clerical rule and its support of terrorism have certainly harmed Islam over the past three decades. Perhaps that is one reason why so many Iranians took to the streets in opposition to an election that they suspect did not reflect their will."

That's a good start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...