tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post7115866447299362086..comments2023-12-31T03:18:37.403-06:00Comments on "E pur si muove!": False Dichotomy on IranLester Hunthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-23790640461971167452009-06-28T13:33:39.626-05:002009-06-28T13:33:39.626-05:00If I were to try to say what I think about the que...If I were to try to say what I think about the questions you raise, it would be a whole post in itself, so that maybe is what I should do -- write a separate post. <br /><br />I can say something here about why expressing an opinion is meddling. I think the problem was being "seen as" meddling. Whoever ends up in power, he the POTUS will have to deal with that person -- and if he has just supported his being deposed, that could create problems. Also, that regime is based on a constantly-inflamed hatred of America, and anything he does that is seen as meddling will of course be used to inflame it further. That of course is what Little Squinty (as John Derbyshire calls him) is doing right now.Lester Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-78865935724039428712009-06-28T11:40:53.401-05:002009-06-28T11:40:53.401-05:00I'm cynical enough to think Obama was only mot...I'm cynical enough to think Obama was only motivated by what would make him look good politically. In the beginning he wanted to be the anti-Bush, don't meddle kind of guy, then receiving criticism he switched tactics and finally came out condemning the violence -after- the congress had already passed a bill condemning it. This is a president who spoke about how he himself would not have been allowed to sit at soda fountains in the U.S. during discrimination times, yet now could be elected president. I would have liked to see him speak out for basic rights in Iran earlier and more strongly than he did. Rhetoric is supposedly his strong suit, and I think he's quite clueless if he truly believes speaking out would affect his relationship with the current regime for the worse. Sending in troops would clearly be a case of meddling, but expressing a viewpoint? Also, this is trickier and I don't have a good answer, but when does intervention in another's fate have a good moral basis? We respect our neighbors private property, just as we respect the sovereignty of nations. If you hear your neighbor murdering her husband next door, do you intervene, violating private property principles? I guess that would be meddling, but to me, it would seem immoral not to meddle. If a country is shooting and hacking and gassing its unarmed populace in the streets, should an armed foreign power ever try to physically stop this murder? I don't like Obama's facile moral capitulation to the notion that it's okay for us to do nothing because to do anything would be meddling. (I'm not advocating we invade Iran, btw, but I wonder what other ways we could encourag, support freedom in Iran.) Obama won't like to make hard choices, but he may have to at some point in his time in office.Annnoreply@blogger.com