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

New book

[madwriter]

In something (pretty much) unrelated, here's a new science fiction novel you might like if you haven't caught it already: it's called Without Warning, by John Birmingham, the fellow who wrote the Axis of Time trilogy (about an early 21st century international naval task force being zapped back in time almost right on top of the Battle of Midway).

The premise of this is that a mysterious energy wave strikes nearly all of North America and half of Mexico. Every human being and animal inside the wave disappears, effectively destroying all of America except Hawaii, Alaska, half of Washington state and a sliver of Oregon. So in a world with America newly gone, long story short, the rest of the world goes bonkers.

(I checked at the end of the book early on to learn, as I figured, that the second book in the series--After America--doesn't come out till next year.)

[mosinging1986]

Thank God people are starting to see this coward, this egomaniac for what he is. Finally!

[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.

[polaris93]

That last phrase is . . . accurate. Very accurate. Real morality doesn't talk -- it does. And runs the terrible risk that people won't like what is done, and will therefore condemn the doer -- even when the doer is right, and it's for their benefit. As was the case with Dubya -- and I'm sorry, people, you can go on all day about taxes and ideals and abstract bullshit as to why you hate Dubya, but if it had been your sorry asses there in the Twin Towers on 9-11-2001, and you somehow managed to survive, you just might have been singing a different tune for the man who did his very best to keep Americans safe from such horrors thereafter. So now you've got the Obamamessiah in office. He isn't Dubya. Stop bitching. Keep remembering he isn't Dubya. And try not to realize that he's Carter Lite . . .