Resolution To Support Dissidents In Iran

Discussion in 'Congress' started by Kevin_Kennedy, Jun 17, 2009.

  1. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,592
    Thanks Received:
    1,582
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,028
    [youtube]X_LpvVFwybM[/youtube]

    No good can come from this resolution. The Iranian dissidents do not require American approval to practice their fundamental human rights, and Iran's government can point to this and say that America is once again trying to stir up trouble within their nation. We need to realize that we don't have the authority, morally or otherwise, to pass judgement on the actions of other sovereign governments.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. strollingbones
    Offline

    strollingbones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,657
    Thanks Received:
    15,627
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    chicken farm
    Ratings:
    +31,973
    ahh that changed in this century..didnt you notice? well in reality ...iran hated us for the change in the last century
     
  3. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,592
    Thanks Received:
    1,582
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,028
    What changed?
     
  4. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    A resolution alone is meaningless. However, objection to the violation of "sovereignty" is a similarly meaningless concept since greater authoritarianism would be permitted through a course of non-interference.

    And I'm sure that bones means the U.S. sponsored anti-democratic regime change.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2009
  5. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,592
    Thanks Received:
    1,582
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,028
    A resolution is meaningless. It doesn't help the Iranian protestors in any way and will simply lead to more problems between the Iranian and U.S. governments. Greater authoritarianism will be "permitted" regardless. A resolution isn't going to stop Iran's government from cracking down on the protestors.
     
  6. JW Frogen
    Offline

    JW Frogen Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    6,165
    Thanks Received:
    1,167
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Ratings:
    +1,206
    There is a real democracy rising in Iraq, a Shia dominated one, that will have more influence than anything we say.

    Now who said that would happen?
     
  7. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    I believe that's what I said. Regardless, the military removal of authoritarian governments ultimately constitutes a lesser imposition of authoritarianism than a course of non-intervention would have yielded, since the suffering of the respective citizenry through their denial of liberty would have been greater had no intervention occurred. But I don't advocate the military removal of Iran's government, as it were.
     
  8. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    Muqtada. Thanks for playing.
     
  9. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,592
    Thanks Received:
    1,582
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,028
    I was agreeing with you. Though I disagree with the second part. We can't afford to be the policemen of the world, and we only ever make things worse in our attempt to change regimes.
     
  10. Agnapostate
    Offline

    Agnapostate BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,860
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Quake State
    Ratings:
    +344
    That's a technical objection, not an ideological one. Regime change has typically gone badly because it often has an explicitly reactionary or authoritarian basis. For example, the CIA of course backed regime change in the cases of Mohammed Mossadeq, Jacobo Arbenz, Salvador Allende, and supported the terroristic Contras, the dictators Somoza, Noriega, etc.

    Of all regime changes that the U.S. has engaged in, there are few authoritarians in the U.S. crosshairs, and the only two major figures that jump to mind are Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein. Every attempt to remove Castro, failed, of course, but the interest in removing him was based on a ruling class desire to prevent the adoption of "subversive" Marxist ideology. Similarly, I would have supported the removal of Saddam Hussein based on his authoritarianism alone, but there were similarly unscrupulous motives behind his removal.

    I maintain an anti-imperialist stance, of course, but not to the point of opposing potentially benevolent interventionism if it would prevent more repressive authoritarianism in the long run.
     

Share This Page