0 comment Friday, October 31, 2014 | admin
I noticed that all day, the news channels were covering Iran nonstop, with shaky video footage of the street disturbances. FoxNews seems to be covering it with the most urgency, with CNN slightly less so.
I've also checked in on the FReepers to see what the consensus over there is, and the original poster of this thread
challenges those FReepers who say 'it's none of our business' and asks "...how can we watch this brutality with good conscious [sic] and do nothing to stop it?"
Answers?
I am one of those the poster denounces, who say 'it's none of our business' and 'we can't be the world's policeman.'
Many Republicans argue that as Americans, we are the ones whose job it is to speak out for 'freedom' and 'democracy' in every country, and that when necessary, we have to be ready to intervene directly so that others can also have 'freedom' and 'liberty'. If not, we are hypocrites. Some are saying that Reagan was our exemplar, and he would surely intervene to 'free' the Iranians.
I can't help cynically wondering if some of those who decry our country's lack of action (so far) on behalf of the Iranians simply enjoy being able to criticize a Democrat President for his inaction. Mind you, I am not saying he is wise in his refraining from action; I think he is simply trying to stay above it and not ''take sides'' since he has aspirations to being some kind of world leader.
However, I don't know whether America will perhaps intervene and do something at some point.
And to be honest, I don't follow the internal politics of Iran to be able to judge their situation. I don't see it as a pressing need. We have our own worries right here in our country as to our own liberty.
For me, it all comes down to the question of whether every people is 'entitled' to freedom, or fit for it, or capable of it. Are all people meant to live under some kind of 'free' republican government, or representative system? And if so, should they not also be capable of establishing it themselves eventually? If freedom is obtained for someone without their having done so themselves, will they appreciate it, or more importantly, will they have what it takes to sustain it and preserve it, once having gotten it?
To me, it seems that this idea that we have to go around bestowing freedom and democracy around the world, and be the world's guarantor of what are vaguely designated as 'human rights', is an extension of colonialism in a way. Why should we have to be 'daddy' to the world, whether sugar daddy for immigrants, or Big-Stick Carrying Daddy for the world outside?
Benjamin Harrison spoke truly when he said "We Americans have no commission from God to police the world."
And Kipling said, accurately, that what we get in return for our troubles, when we try to shoulder others' burdens is "The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard".
I've also checked in on the FReepers to see what the consensus over there is, and the original poster of this thread
challenges those FReepers who say 'it's none of our business' and asks "...how can we watch this brutality with good conscious [sic] and do nothing to stop it?"
Answers?
I am one of those the poster denounces, who say 'it's none of our business' and 'we can't be the world's policeman.'
Many Republicans argue that as Americans, we are the ones whose job it is to speak out for 'freedom' and 'democracy' in every country, and that when necessary, we have to be ready to intervene directly so that others can also have 'freedom' and 'liberty'. If not, we are hypocrites. Some are saying that Reagan was our exemplar, and he would surely intervene to 'free' the Iranians.
I can't help cynically wondering if some of those who decry our country's lack of action (so far) on behalf of the Iranians simply enjoy being able to criticize a Democrat President for his inaction. Mind you, I am not saying he is wise in his refraining from action; I think he is simply trying to stay above it and not ''take sides'' since he has aspirations to being some kind of world leader.
However, I don't know whether America will perhaps intervene and do something at some point.
And to be honest, I don't follow the internal politics of Iran to be able to judge their situation. I don't see it as a pressing need. We have our own worries right here in our country as to our own liberty.
For me, it all comes down to the question of whether every people is 'entitled' to freedom, or fit for it, or capable of it. Are all people meant to live under some kind of 'free' republican government, or representative system? And if so, should they not also be capable of establishing it themselves eventually? If freedom is obtained for someone without their having done so themselves, will they appreciate it, or more importantly, will they have what it takes to sustain it and preserve it, once having gotten it?
To me, it seems that this idea that we have to go around bestowing freedom and democracy around the world, and be the world's guarantor of what are vaguely designated as 'human rights', is an extension of colonialism in a way. Why should we have to be 'daddy' to the world, whether sugar daddy for immigrants, or Big-Stick Carrying Daddy for the world outside?
Benjamin Harrison spoke truly when he said "We Americans have no commission from God to police the world."
And Kipling said, accurately, that what we get in return for our troubles, when we try to shoulder others' burdens is "The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard".
Labels: Democracy, Interventionism, Liberty, Middle East, Non-Interventionism