Obama's Fit of Moral Absence on Iran

[jordan179]

From "The little president who wasn't there," by James Lewis, in American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/the_little_president_who_wasnt.html).

The White House is now occupied by a little president who just isn't there when he

Comments

[marmoe]

I'm not sure, what you want Obama to do?

The Prague spring and the uprisings in Eastern Germany took a lot of time to gather momentum. The protests in Iran so far are a protest against a forged vote, it is not directed against the theocracy with Ali Khamenei as a leader. That might change, but it will take time to organize. If you encourage Iranians to take up fighting now, all you will reap will be a wasted bloodshed, IMHO. If you were intervene with military force, you'd probably have all of Iran against you, like when police tries to break up a fight in a family. I don't like it, but I do not think the time is ripe for overthrowing the Iranian theocracy, yet.

So, what do you want Obama to do, what would you do in his stead?

[jordan179]

So, what do you want Obama to do, what would you do in his stead?

I would have verbally supported the rebels from the beginning, and immediately looked into shipping them arms. The usual problem, that shipping arms to rebels is an act of war, is a non-problem because Iran, having already done this to America and Iraq in arming the Iraqi rebels, has lost her own moral right to not be subjected to this.

Instead, Obama is sacrificing the Iranian rebels on the altar of peace with the Iranian regime, which is giving up something for nothing since peace with the Iranian regime is impossible.

[marmoe]

I don't think you are reading the Iranian protesters correctly. So far, they are trying to do peaceful protest. They want more personal freedoms, not necessarily overthrow the system. Keep in mind, that while Mousavi is more palatable to us (and a way more sane person than Ahmadinejad, but who isn't), he is not a rebel, but part of the system. The protesters are not the type of organized guerilla, that could actually benefit from weapons shipments. Sure, you'd increase the blood toll on the basiji side, but you'd achieve no lasting impact, IMHO. Shipping weapons would be a black op anyway, nothing you'd hear about.

[jordan179]

I'm quite aware that the protestors are "trying to do peaceful protest." The regime, however, has decided to make this a violent confrontation. The better-armed the protestors, the more difficult is their suppression, and the more bloody the confrontations, thus the more political damage done to the regime. Mousavi is not the issue: the protestors have already gone far beyond what he wants.

Increasing "the blood toll on the basiji side" is a worthwhile goal in itself -- the death of the irredeemably evil is always cause for celebration. In addition, such killings would further radicalize the basiji, who as cowardly bullies would take it out on the innocent, and further alienate the regime from the people.

Shipping weapons would be a black op anyway, nothing you'd hear about.

Personally, if I were President I'd boast about it. Why not? It's not as if the Iranian regime have the same rights against aggression by that sort of action as would a Civilized state.

[jordan179]

You know the 'rebels' aren't exactly pro-US, right?

I'm quite aware of that. But they're an improvement over Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. Sometimes one has only a choice of evils. Furthermore, the rupture of the regime might go farther than even the challenger expects -- especially given the anger that the regime has roused in the Iranian people.

I think this may be the last chance of the Iranians to avoid destruction. The political situation will not be as good for a long time. Before the next opportunity occurs, the regime may have nuclear weapons and may call down destruction from America or Israel upon their own country.

[tomcatshanger]

I don't understand the moral high ground of letting unarmed people be killed by their government just because they don't support your ideals.

Maybe I missed something in American 101 somewhere in my life experience, I don't know.

Attempting to support those getting literally butchered by their government couldn't hurt too much in the scheme of things. The current government doesn't like us, any other government almost certainly isn't going to like us, but the world is not a better place when it allows unarmed people to be tortured and killed.

Why should anyone care if they share many of the same goals as the folks doing the butchering? It's not like shipments of small arms could possible destabilize the region's balance of power between nations.

[tomcatshanger]

Western backing might hurt their movement.

Staying unarmed certainly hurts their movement though.

I think the government of Iran is claiming the BBC is inciting riots because thats what totalitarian do, spout out lies, AKA propaganda.

The use the BBC because there are no other western reporters in Iran.

[polaris93]

Yep, yep, yep, and yep. From 300: "Ask yourself, what would a free man do?" That isn't what Obama is doing.