Mar 1, 2011

What about Iran?

While President Obama sends U.S. warships to Libya, and Secretary Clinton calls for regime change, and the Obama administration openly sends in weapons to rebels to overthrow a government, the liberals cheer.
And so does Ahmadinejad, as his warships complete a trial run to Syria, and he arrests and executes adversaries in Iran, while our President says only "it would not be wise for the U.S. to be seen as meddling in Iranian affairs".

"According to the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, 500 Iranians are serving jail terms for political protests. Another 500 are detained and awaiting processing, including 80-year-old former Foreign Minister Ebrahim Yazdi, the world's oldest political prisoner."

Even more ominous, 120 Iranians have been executed since Jan. 1, according to the rights group. Iran executes more prisoners per capita than any country and is second only to China in the total number of those killed by the state.

Where is the western media? Where is "the Beeb"? Where are the hushed tones of NPR reporting the arrests in the dark of night, and the executions in the broad light of day? Where is the condemnation from that august body, the UN? And where is our President...who chooses so carefully his places to "meddle"?

The Old Man

5 comments:

  1. I’m not sure about the accuracy of first part of your opening paragraph - I don’t know that we are supplying rebels or that Liberals are cheering - but there are multiple reasons why condemnation is muted for more repressive regimes. There is the fact that it is more difficult to criticize what you don’t truly know. Then there is the ‘out of sight out of mind’ phenomenon. And of course how can you be expected to report the news if you can’t show pictures?

    There is also the apparent imperative of holding those who seek our demise to a gentler and more ‘nuanced’ standard than our friends and supporters. Hey, if you’re not part of Western civilization then you are not responsible for the ills of the world and your actions can be interpreted as a rebellion against that oppression.

    Finally there is the need to be sensitive to the hopes, habits, hygiene, fears, aspirations, culture, strengths, weaknesses, philosophy and beliefs of all people everywhere. Well, Conservatives exempted, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  2. According to the Old Man, our President "chooses so carefully his places to 'meddle'". One might contrast such a policy with that of previous Presidents, who did not choose carefully which places to meddle, and interpret the Old Man's statement as praise rather than criticism.

    As long as we're listening to what human rights groups and opposition leaders have to say about Iran, we might want to consider their opinion on whether U.S. invasion is the best option for their country.

    -Freyguy

    ReplyDelete
  3. Back in 2009, you said you agreed with Obama's response to the upheaval in Iran:

    http://freyvsfrey.blogspot.com/2009/06/news-flash-old-man-agrees-with-obama.html

    It appears now you have completely changed your mind on this. Could you explain?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I agree with President Obama’s public stance that the U.S. should not be seen as “meddling” in Iranian politics." -The Old Man, June 21, 2009

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rather than being concerned with the 'meddle of the man', whether Obama or simply Old, I would like to get back to the original topic (for reasons that escape me at the moment).

    There are of course multiple explanations as to why condemnation is muted for more repressive regimes. There is the fact that it is more difficult to criticize in the absence of precise information, although that seldom stops anyone. Then there is the ‘out of sight out of mind’ phenomenon. And of course how can you be expected to report the news if you can’t show pictures?

    There is also the apparent imperative of holding those who seek our demise to a gentler and more ‘nuanced’ standard than our friends and supporters. This of course is as it should be. If you’re not part of or a supporter of Western civilization then you are not responsible for the ills of the world. Your actions might simply be a principled rebellion against the oppression of the West – even if it does involve killing and imprisoning thousands of your own citizens.

    Finally there is the need to be sensitive to the hopes, habits, hygiene, fears, aspirations, culture, strengths, weaknesses, fantasies, philosophy and beliefs of all people everywhere. Well, Conservatives exempted, of course.

    I hope the Administration understands that any course of action or inaction carries the potential for adverse reaction. If you demand that Gadhafi go, what happens to your prestige and influence if he doesn’t? If the UN does nothing while thousands are massacred, how long before even its apologists stop making apologies?

    What are the risks of actively supporting democracy in the Middle East verses standing on the sidelines like a cheerleader without pompoms? Stay tuned.

    ReplyDelete

Tell us what you think!