Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Protestors were at the UN, protesting Iran

Earlier, I spoke of the disgust I felt at the protestors who protested Bush while Ahmedindinnerjacket was in town at the same UN Bush spoke at. Well, dear friends, taking the subway to work today, I read in a Metro Newspaper of a mass protest that went on against Dinnerjacket - right by the UN. The International Herald Tribune covered the fact that there were Iranian protestors as well as anti-Bush 'peacers.' This puts my mind more at ease. It seems that the Iranian American protestors are more pro-thought and pro-democracy than the deluded 'united for peace and justicers.' Good for them.

13 comments:

Jason said...

Well, its nice that there is dissent, but I certainly don't support"regime change".

It may sound cold of me, but I don't want any more American lives, or resources, sacrificed for Iran.

I think we should fund liberal leaning SECULAR non theocratic movements in Iran, but we don't need to waste any more American lives.

shlemazl said...

Jason,

I agree with your sentiment, but the 9/11 lesson was that the US can't isolate itself from the world.

If you hide your head in the sand, the trouble will bite your ... back.

Red Tulips said...

I want this to be clear...

Do I support America-initiated regime change for Iran? No. Do I support sanctions and economic pressure against Iran and support for local Iranians to revolutionize? Yes. I also support having thousands of nukes aimed at Iran, with Dinnerjacket's knowledge, so that he is fully aware that if he farts, there will be repurcussions.

Jason H. Bowden said...

jason--

Regime change is completely justified in principle in Iran's case. It is a theocracy ruled by a clique of Ayatollahs, not a liberal democracy. Pragmatically, when we can do regime change depends upon the circumstances. I agree that we don't have the resources for this kind of endeavor in Iran at the moment given the instability in Iraq.

Ahmadinejad just said a fing prayer to the 12th Imam at the U.N., and I'm not one to let him have his Apocalypse.

I would advocate airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities immediately, despite the terrible costs we'd suffer in terms of gasoline prices for a few weeks, because the consequences of letting Iran go nuclear are worse. We'd also see more trouble in Iraq, but I see this as an opportunity to kill Muqtada al Sadr and many of his key followers.

Jason said...

""""Regime change is completely justified in principle in Iran's case. It is a theocracy ruled by a clique of Ayatollahs, not a liberal democracy.""""

It doesn't matter to me what kind of government they have or how badly they threat their citizens. Unless we're in real immediate danger, then its not worth sacrificing American lives or american resources to save ungrateful backwards third worlders.



""""Ahmadinejad just said a fing prayer to the 12th Imam at the U.N., and I'm not one to let him have his Apocalypse.""""

No politician who prays should be taken too serioussly or given too much trust. Neither Ahmadajeans or Bush.

As for tactical airstrikes on nuclear facilities.

The idea doesn't appeal to me, but I have no great objection to it either.

I said long ago, when the idea of war with iran was first being mentioned here and there, that I wouldn't greatly support or oppose it. I don't like the idea of doing it because it may ultimately be bad for us to waste lives and effort on some sandpit.

I say, if we don't want them to have nukes, then use airstrikes on their nuke facilities and destroy those.

But if the Iranians want regime change, let them do it themsleves. America isn't obliged to help out ever give-me foreigner who thinks its our responsibility to bring them a way of life they'll probably decide they don't like if they ever get it anyway.



To hell with the foreigners who want us to "liberate" them.

To hell with warmongers who want us to fight just to make themselves feel tough an arch to the left.

And to hell with the left who thinks any of these hellholes are worth standing up for.

Jason said...

"""" Do I support sanctions and economic pressure against Iran and support for local Iranians to revolutionize? Yes. I also support having thousands of nukes aimed at Iran, with Dinnerjacket's knowledge, so that he is fully aware that if he farts, there will be """"

Look at it this way. When we invaded IRaq, we found no WMD's. Why? Because there were none. All levels of the government have all but admitted it.

Why were there none? Because the decade + long containment policy of aggressive sanctions that isolated IRaq from the rest of thw world and destroyed its infrastrucutre worked. And it can work again.

Render said...

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/21/060622014432.acs11f38.html

BUSTED,
R

Jason said...

It says it can't find the requested file.

So yes, in a sense it is busted.

Jason H. Bowden said...

jason--

Your position is exactly the same as Charles Lindbergh andthe America First!ers in the 1930s and early 1940s. Pearl Harbor and 9-11 should falsify this kind of thinking, but unreason continues to prevail among a big section of the electorate.

Secondly, don't equate a Texan Methodist who believes in God with a holocaust denier who is promising to wiping another UN member of the map so the Messiah can return. Not all false beliefs mean the same thing, and not all false believers act the same way toward other members of our species.

Third, sanctions did not prevent Iraq from obtaining WMDs. Familiarize yourself with Israel's preemptive strike on Saddam's Osirak reactor in 1981, which the international left condemned, along with Clinton's robust preemptive airstrikes in 1998 during operation Desert Fox. Sanctions mean spit, and got 500,000 people killed in Iraq, a number far greater than the casualities in three years of war.

Jason said...

""""Your position is exactly the same as Charles Lindbergh andthe America First!ers in the 1930s and early 1940s. Pearl Harbor and 9-11 should falsify this kind of thinking, but unreason continues to prevail among a big section of the electorate.""""



I'm not saing we shouldn't get involved in foreign affairs if we need too. I fully support sanctions against Iran AND things like covert ops and funding revolutionaries to topple Irans government.

I just don't think an all out ground was is the right way or preferable.



""""Secondly, don't equate a Texan Methodist who believes in God with a holocaust denier who is promising to wiping another UN member of the map so the Messiah can return. Not all false beliefs mean the same thing, and not all false believers act the same way toward other members of our species.""""

I'll equate those two idiot chimps as much as I want.



""""Third, sanctions did not prevent Iraq from obtaining WMDs. Familiarize yourself with Israel's preemptive strike on Saddam's Osirak reactor in 1981, which the international left condemned, along with Clinton's robust preemptive airstrikes in 1998 during operation Desert Fox.""""

Well, whatever Clinton did in IRaq during the 1990's seems to have kept Iraq from having any WMD's by the time we went over there under Bush 2. Surely sanctions, inspections, airstrikes, or SOMETHING that happened PRIOR to the current Iraq war kept them from having them. So why don't we figure out what that was and use it on Iran since it obviously worked?

And in one sense, yes, I am an "america firster" in the sense that I think the welfrare of Americans should come before that of foriegners in terms of who we help. We shouldn't go to a county JUST to "liberate" it and solve its problems. We have plenty of problems here we should solve first.

Jason H. Bowden said...

jason--

Contrary to politicians of all ideologies, in this world, there are no problems to be solved. Every action has a cost, and we can't have everything. We're faced with tradeoffs, not solutions. America has social problems today because we have too many solutions, not too few.

There is a global Islamist movement that needs to be stopped. During the Cold War leaders like Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan fought all around the world from Korea to Grenada to prevent the spread and eventually roll back communism. We used every means at our disposal -- supporting democracy where we could, and supporting friendly dictators where we could not. Islamic supremacists require the same treatment.

If we want to give peace a chance, we're going to have to kill the Islamists. Attacks in our own cities against our own people is the cost of not doing so.

Lastly, there is a difference between our Ned Flanders garden variety Christian and people like Osama bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. No one is stopping you from being willfully ignorant; keep in mind just because you want something to be true to satisfy an emotional need does not make it so. We don't stone adulterers in Christian America and we don't hang gays from cranes, and I say this confidently as an atheist.

Jason said...

""""Contrary to politicians of all ideologies, in this world, there are no problems to be solved.""""

Ooookay. This comment and much of your following sloganeering is just that.



""""There is a global Islamist movement that needs to be stopped.""""

If you even paid attention to my other posts on here then you would be aware that I already know this.

Of course, people can differ on HOW to fight it and what will work best. At least, I assume they can, can't they?



"""" During the Cold War leaders like Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan fought all around the world from Korea to Grenada to prevent the spread and eventually roll back communism.""""

Okay. Well, they certainly did.



""""If we want to give peace a chance, we're going to have to kill the Islamists. Attacks in our own cities against our own people is the cost of not doing so.
""""

I'm not willing to give peace a chance. Thats why I advocated airstrikes and funding dissident movements to overthrow Islamist regimes. I also have voiced support at other times for assasinations of foreign leaders.

Not very peaceful, am I?



""""We don't stone adulterers in Christian America and we don't hang gays from cranes, and I say this confidently as an atheist.""""

There are plenty of christers who would love to make that a reality.

As I've said before, our religious fanatics are non-violent only because we know how to deal with them. We've domesticated them with consumerism and apathy and a few WACO style events to scare them.

If we can tame our own religious animals, we can do the same with the Muslims.

Its just a matter of how to go about doing it. We're obviously not doing a good job of it in Iraq, so we shouldn't try the same method with Iran.

Instead, lets fund secular revel movements there, use sanctions to starve the country, and level Iran with airstrikes. Thats a decent way to start.

Or can only a failing war with ground troops satisfy your need for something to believe in?

Red Tulips said...

Jason:

I am in agreement with you on this one.

There certainly are some Christo fascists who would like to see gays killed for being gay, and Jews killed for being Jewish. They are not, however, in power in America or anywhere in the world.

And therein the difference.

Must must defeat Islamofascism, but the trouble with defeating Islamofascism is the way it is intertwined with Islam the religion. You can see it in the long discussion with Monkey Chops that I had on another thread:

http://cultureforall.blogspot.com/2006/09/pope-speaks-on-islam-muslims-riot_15.html

Monkey Chops is a peaceful guy who also believes in Islam. He is the type of person one should be encouraging...and yet it is very difficult to do so and also maintain civility and lack of hurt feelings.

I do not mean to offend people like Monkey Chops. However, I also refuse to use weasel words when writing on this blog. Because weasel words and political correctness is part of the problem.