Resolution To Support Dissidents In Iran

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[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.

 

[strollingbones]

ahh that changed in this century..didnt you notice? well in reality ...iran hated us for the change in the last century

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

ahh that changed in this century..didnt you notice? well in reality ...iran hated us for the change in the last century

What changed?

 

[Agnapostate]

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

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.

 

[JW Frogen]

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?

 

[Agnapostate]

A resolution is meaningless.

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.

 

[Agnapostate]

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?

Muqtada. Thanks for playing.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A resolution is meaningless.

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.

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.

 

[Agnapostate]

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.

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.

 

[JW Frogen]

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?

Muqtada. Thanks for playing.

Indeed, and democracy placed him in the dust bin, he does not control the Shia dominated government and is being militarily pressed by the "Shia" dominated government.

God forbid the anarchist left allows the little; brown sand people have a real democracy just because Big, Bad, Wolf, American made it happens.

“Ego and ideology before freedom!”

 

[midcan5]

I agree with Kevin on this issue, we don't take sides. Just as we don't like others to take sides over here.

 

[Political Junky]

[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.

Pence and McCain are grandstanding ... anything to disagree with the administration.
President Obama is correct.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well of course this resolution passed 405 - 1, and there's a similar resolution in the Senate.

Ron Paul was the only Representative to vote "No."

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 constitutional 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.

Paul (TX14) - Speech and Statement - Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran

 

[Political Junky]

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.

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.

Henry Kissinger has expressed his approval of President Obama in this matter.

 

[Sunni Man]

Our economy in the toilet
Massive unemployment
bank failures
two wars we can't win nor afford
auto makers go belly up
mortage crisis
major companies going bankpupt

etc. etc. etc.


Yea, we really need to be telling other contries/governments (Iran) how to behave and act