The Iranian people are obviously speaking. And not only in Iran, but also with protests near to me in Toronto, Canada.
I love protestors. I was happy to see the people raising awareness of the people, the Tamils, and the military in Sri Lanka. I was even pleasantly surprised when several people walked on to the Gardiner Expressway and shut down traffic. What power protestors have!
Will it just take time for Obama to step up more than just feeling remorse over what happened with the recent Iranian election? John McCain spoke to Congress recently about his dismay with the Obama Admin's stance of inaction. Of not wanting to meddle.
Elections are supposed to represent the voice of the people. But often that is not the case. Where are the groups of equal size, marching for their satisfaction with the President?
The US should begin aide of Iran by giving an ear to the Iranian people. By getting them chance for a collective international voice. The media is so restricted there right now, save images of the Ayatollah. What are the people to do?
When the people do something they have never done before, its because they want change.
change...
civil rights, education, goals, politics, Ayatollah, better future, civil rights, culture, dreams, education, expression, government, Obama, politics, progress, prosperity, US policy
...from the Congress floor, but it really doesn't make sense for us to directly support the protestors in Iran. In fact, there is a wide agreement among foreign policy experts that doing so would actually HINDER the actions of the Iranian people. For one, BOTH sides of the conflict in Iran are distrustful of Western governments, and any direct overture would likely be met with skepticism, and could easily re-direct the ire currently being directed at the conservative Iranian establishment towards the "foreign interlopers" which we would likely be labeled. Furthermore, any direct support of the protestors from the White House would be viewed disfavorably by almost all of the religious leadership in the country, which is currently divided on the issue and again could easily cause them to put aside their differences in response to our interference. And finally, direct involvement from our government would serve as a very convenient excuse for the conservative establishment to institute a violent crackdown under the pretense that they are reacting to another attempt of the U.S. to effect a regime change. Do you remember the Shah? That's one of the main reasons we have such a weak relationship with Iran, now. I think it is likely that the Obama administration is taking a lesson from history by letting this issue play out as an internal issue for Iran.
The most supportive thing that we can do for the people of Iran is to keep an eye on the situation and stand ready to reach out to them IF they are sucessful in establishing a more democratic and western-friendly government.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Patriotic Atheism
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
We can and should support them by celebrating their efforts. We can spread their word, but as a nation we should keep our distance and let them fight their own revolution.
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
I don't think it's right to assume that we, as Americans, have an obligation to intervene and police the world. If we are truly a country of freedom, we should respect the will of other countries to govern as they see fit, and for "revolutionaries" to fight their own battles. Our government shouldn't search for foreign battles to fight.
Whatever we might want to say wouldn't make a difference, so why say it? Besides, the Iranian regime is already claiming "foreign interference," so strongly condemning the government's actions just gives them more ammunition for their propaganda.
On the other hand, I do believe that, as MLK noted, "an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." I also believe, perhaps somewhat cornily (yes, a word a made up) that all human beings have a vested interested in preserving the life and liberty of all other humans. We're all brothers and sisters, in a metaphoric way. We would be outraged if our family members were being beaten in Iran- but in a sense, isn't that exactly what's happening? So where's the outrage?
Additionally, those who would advocate restraint seem to be lacking compassion. The leader of the free world- which the U.S. undeniably still is- shouldn't condemn Iran's atrocities (17 have been killed as of today, June 21st) because we need to respect Iran’s sovereignty and not meddle? Seriously?
Ultimately, I find that there are strong political/diplomatic reasons for staying quiet over the Iranian election, but there are also strong ideological reasons for expressing outrage. It just comes down to which you think are more important.
is not the same thing as "aiding" in the revolution. we can express ourselves all we want, we enjoy that freedom. so maybe some of us can be voices for those who can't speak, in our own language. that is not "interfering," its noticing, and its putting out a call to ask everyone everywhere to pay attention and to heighten their awareness, so that we can recognize tyranny when we see it. we can't fight it on their battle ground, but we can isolate it, by growing strong ourselves, and strengthening our allies, so that the oppressors have no where to turn when the people start to recognize that if they win, they will have support, unlike their corrupt leaders...this can encourage them and help them to find strength in numbers.
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
Who has less compassion?
1) A person who wants freedom for the Iranian people, but supports them quietly with the understanding that doing otherwise is actually likely to lower the chance that they might actually suceed...
...or...
2) A person who jumps up and down screaming their solidarity with the cause of Iranian freedom who then becomes an example that the conservative Iranian establish uses to build their case to the rest of the Islamic world about how a violent crackdown was needed in order to combat America's interference?
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Patriotic Atheism
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
A friend sent this to me, I hope it is effective and encourage all to attempt:
If anyone is on twitter, set your location to Tehran and your time zone to GMT +3.30. Security forces are hunting for bloggers using location/timezone searches. The more people at this location, the more of a logjam it creates for forces trying to shut Iranians' access to the internet down. Cut & paste & please pass it on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/mai
Peace & Blessings
for anyone concerned with the religious aspects of these conflicts:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
I think that we are citizens should support the Iranians but I do think our government should stay out of it. Quite frankly I don't trust my our government to help without hurting or wanting something in return.
I think this is proof that oppressed people do not need the "great west" to get in their business. They will handle it themselves.
Love-Health-Awareness-wealth
Mjh
I understand your pov, and appreciate your comments. While I wouldn't like to see the US get involved with force in Iran, I would like to see an overt claim of the admin wanted to make the voice of the opposition heard. I want them to send 5,000 video cameras to civilians in Iran for them to document the riots. I want them to set up proxy servers that the president and the supreme leader cant block, right or wrong the opposition should be heard. It makes me think of how Paul Kagame, pres of Rwanda, said that directly because of the genocide history of Rwanda, Rwanda should and will be a champion for anti genocide efforts worldwide. Similarly the US should stand up for freedom and be a champion for it, as we have our own sordid history and challenges we've come thru and continue to battle today.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/mai
Peace & Blessings
While I wouldn't like to see the US get involved with force in Iran, I would like to see an overt claim of the admin wanted to make the voice of the opposition heard.
This has already happened.
I want them to send 5,000 video cameras to civilians in Iran for them to document the riots. I want them to set up proxy servers that the president and the supreme leader cant block, right or wrong the opposition should be heard.
This is neither wise nor realistic. For one, there really isn't any way to implement an internet acessible network which could connect the common Iranian directly to the rest of the world which could not be interrupted by the conservative establishment in the Iranian government, since any such connection would require access through Iran's existing communication infrastructure. And, even if we COULD implement such a network without the cooperation of the Iranian government, this would be EXACTLY the kind of interference that would drive the more moderate factions within the Iranian political theater to abandon their still tentative support for the revolutionary reform movement.
The sentiment here is admirable, but it isn't a viable option in terms of our foreign policy. And even if it were, one of the consequences of not having an official relationship with Iran for the last 30 years is that we have neither the contacts nor the influence within Iran to execute such a plan.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Marriage in the Bible
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.