Post #01: The Red Hunter...
Date: June 28, 2009
"The less we protest, the more people will die"
Yesterday I outlined many reasons why Why President Obama Should Stand for Freedom in Iran and other places around the world. I described why his policy of silence was foolish and how no, speaking up did not give the tyrants a reason they would not otherwise have had to crack heads. I quoted ex-Soviet dissident Anatoly (now Natan) Sharansky about how Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech gave their movement a much needed boost in the arm. I also quoted from The Washington Post some Arab democracy activists who were distraught at Obama's lack of forceful action with regards to Iran.
Today I bring you Jose Maria Anzar, prime minister of Spain from 1996-2004. He hits it out of the part in an editorial in the today's Wall Street Journal:
Post #02: Punkerslut to The Red Hunter...
Date: July 1, 2009
After perusing through a listing of conservative organizations, I stumbled across your website. There are some things that I would like to correct. First and foremost, there is this line: "Yesterday I outlined many reasons why Why President Obama Should Stand for Freedom in Iran and other places around the world." This baffles me entirely. Never before has a US President ever stood for the liberty or freedom of another nation.
Against international trade embargoes, our nation gave oil to the leaders of a Spanish, Fascist coup. [*1] Our government led a coup against democratic self-rule in Venezuela, [*2] Haiti, [*3] Guatemala, [*4] Mexico, [*5] Panama, [*6] and Chile. [*7] Ironically, our government also led a coup against the democratic Iranian government. Who did it? Kermit Roosevelt led the Shah's seizure of power. [*8] That's right -- on the front of your page, you quote Roosevelt, and then you complain about how the present government has done nothing for Iran. This isn't quite true: the dictatorship that exists presently in Iran is the product of Roosevelt's grandson. If you support your government when they created a dictatorship in Iran, and then attack it when they don't stop it, you're obviously contradicting yourself. Either that, or the basic history of Iran escapes you, though you still feel the need to talk about something you're ignorant of. There are many other baffling statements...
Obama has given his verbal support of the people, much more so than Ronald Reagan gave his support of the Russian people. In a statement, he said, "The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days." [*9] What do you want him to do, besides talk about it? Do you want him to invade Iran, and establish a Democracy? I know you were just briefed on the history of Iran, but I'll repeat it for you: the last time the United States changed the Iranian government, we abolished the rule of the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh, and established a religious monarchy. If Obama hasn't done enough in speaking out against it, then please, tell me what you expect him to do. He's already taken the same actions as Republican leaders opposing the Soviet Union -- Ronald Reagan didn't invade, did he?
Furthermore, I'm shocked that you think the Soviets were concerned about their image from illegal imprisonments. The Soviet Union has untold, millions of mass graves, of the common, the poor, and the working-class. Staged trials, only a state press, and a people who are completely alienated from their social order. The fall of the Soviet Union had virtually nothing to do with the West. After all, it was the West -- the German, Wilhelm state -- that paid millions of deutschmarks to Lenin to overthrow the Russian tzar. [*10] Once again, just like Iran: when your government gets involved, the only thing they've done is establish a new dictatorship. But when that dictatorship goes run amok, slaughtering its people without so much as a second thought, now you become the big moralists!
Let's take a look at what brought down the Soviet Union: in Poland, it was the trade union federation Solidarity. By use of the General Strike, the unions were able to topple the government, which led to the Polish Round Table Talks. [*11] The General Strike, which overthrew British rule in India [*12] and French rule in Syria, [*13] was also the tool that overthrew the Soviet Union? If you want to help the Iranians, do what has worked in the past! Don't moralize about your leaders, your gods of state, and about what they can do for you -- advocate unions, advocate anti-Capitalist actions, advocate strikes and boycotts, and all sorts of sabotage used by the working-class.
If the Iranian people want to have a Democracy, then the will for it must come from within them. But if we want to make then successful, then we need to help them unionize and resist the power of the government.
From a red to a non-red,
*1. Antony Beevor, The Spanish Civil War, 2001 (Reissued) ISBN 9780141001487, p.138.
Post #03: The Red Hunter to Punkerslut...
Date: July 1, 2009
You correct nothing.
Post #04: Punkerslut to The Red Hunter...
Date: July 1, 2009
Wow, well, thank you for pointing out how I was wrong. You argue against history all you want.
Me? I want the truth. But you believe what you want: it's your right.
Post #05: The Red Hunter to Punkerslut...
Date: July 1, 2009
Oh stop your whining.
Post #06: The Red Hunter to Punkerslut...
Date: July 1, 2009
I'm not sure why you considered it necessary to send me your comment by email, but apparently a response by me is demanded. Either that or my post got under your skin. Odd, because I'm not a ranter and try and keep my posts respectful.
Please also read my comments policy, the link to which is at upper right. If you come back you can have the last word.
Heavens. World War II? We gave Germany, Italy, and Japan a democratic form of government afterwards. Ditto for Iraq and Afghanistan today. I suppose you can quibble over the meaning of "stood for" but my point was that we do or should want everyone to live in liberty.
Your next paragraph tells it all. You really don't like America. You're part of the "Blame America First" crowd that Jeane Kirkpatrick talked about back in 1984.
Sorry, but it's not entirely clear that the U.S. played as big a role in 1953 Iran as you say. Yes I know, this is an article of faith on your part, but there it is.
More to it, the 1953 coup is irrelevant, and quite frankly you bore me by bringing it up.
Enough of 1953. Not that it was necessary, Madeline Albright apologized to Iran for this in 2000. What did this gain us? Nothing. Did the Iranians say "oh thank you, we forgive you." Of course not. They took it as an admission of weakness and realized that they could rachet up the rhetoric and we'd wallow in guilt forever.
Enough is enough and it's time to move on. It's been over 50 years since this occurred and people need to get over it. Get a life and get over it.
I looked up the "Great Satan" charge and from what I can tell it was first used in a speech by Khomeini in in a speech in 1979, and referred to a variety of U.S. actions that they don't like. But even if it did specifically refer to 1953 so what.
Understand that the Mullahs hate us not because of 1953 or any specific U.S. or U.K. action but because we are infidels standing in the way of their goal of regional hegemony. They want to create a regional Imamate based on their Shite vision of Islam. This whole thing goes back almost 1400 years.
They use 1953 because they know it plays to Western liberals, always ready to feel guilty over some Western transgression, real or imagined. They also know they can use it to whip up their own people. And it works like a champ.
Let's cut to the core here - whatever happened in 1953 is being used as a tool to paralyze the U.S. into inaction. It is used by American liberals, and it is used by Iranian demagogues, both for the same purpose.
It makes absolutely no sense to use an event in 1953 as justification for inaction today.
Just the opposite, in fact. If we made a mistake then by putting a dictator in power, should we then not be the ones to correct the mistake by actively supporting liberty there today?
It's like China and other Pacific rim nations using Japanese crimes in WWII to argue that Japan should not spend more on it's military and take a more active role in the region.
How long must all this go on? How long must the U.S. pay for 1953, Japan for WWII? Another 50 years? 100? 1000?
What is it with this perpetual guilt that has such a hold over some people? It's kind of a medieval concept, kind of like the family guilt whereby if one person in a family committed a crime future generations where held liable.
We see this phenomenon here at home too, whereby racial grievance groups use the sins of the past to gain government benefits all out of proportion to the situation today. Whitey was guilty in the past, and so he must be held to account today.
So I have had it with 1953 being used as an all-purpose reason to paralyze the U.S. into inaction and this has to end.
Be shocked all you want, it's true. Hitler tried to cover up the murder of the Jews, telling everyone that they were simply being relocated to the east. Stalin tried to cover up the murder of millions by faking census numbers (Conquest, The Great Terror, and yes, Brezhnev and his cohorts didn't like their crimes exposed either. The Helsinki accords backfired on them badly (Sharansky, The Case for Democracy). The truth is that the days of Genghis Khan and the like glorifying in their killings are long gone. As Amnesty International and other such groups will tell you, the surest way to shame dictators is to bring their crimes to the light of day.
Correct, but you're leaving out some crucial parts, 1) President Reagan spoke loudly about the situation, and 2) he initiated a massive clandestine program which aided Solidarity and helped undermine the communist government. I blogged about all this in some detail here (see comments section also for link to Carl Bernstein article).
Ah, you're a communist. That explains everything!
Post #07: Punkerslut to The Red Hunter...
Date: July 3, 2009
Thank you so much for you highly-valued response. Of course I demand a response from you, as I feel quite privileged to discuss with those who love their nation so much.
Actually, it is what is generally referred to as "common knowledge." The wikipedia articles on Iran and Mohammed Mosaddeq thoroughly cover this. More importantly, they provide research and evidence into the situation. Far from "an act of faith," it's been accepted by historians as simply just a fact. Quoting Wikipedia and the resources they used...
I would also like to add the journalist, John Perkins, who has covered underground and insurgent movements in the country. [*1] There's another comment of yours here...
I never blamed the American people -- I blamed the American government. When you say "America," you must mean specifically the politicians down in Washington. Yes, I blame them, and I think it's dishonest to refer to them exclusively as America -- Americans themselves must not be worthy of the counting as "America."
Wait, you're saying that the US and British governments WERE NOT involved in a coup against the Iranian Democracy, but THEN THEY APOLOGIZE FOR IT? Could you please explain this discrepancy? And furthermore, how does it bore you? You see interested enough in it to quote a page-long newspaper about the present Iranian Revolution, but you have no curiosity where the religious monarchy came from?
What are your real feelings about the Iranian people? Because it would seem to me, that if you want to help them overthrow their tyrants, you need to know where they came from. If those tyrants came from US forces trying to "establish democracy," then maybe doing that again won't work!!!
Hey, so I guess we can take god out of the pledge of allegiance and stop talking about Jesus all together. "Jesus Christ died for your sins, and you need to repe - ", and your response, "You know what? That was like, a really long time ago, okay? Let it go. Stop bringing it up!" I assume, Red Hunter, that you probably won't be talking about religion or faith in god anymore, because it happened a long time ago. "Marriage is a Christian idea -- " me: "You know, Jesus died so long ago. Stop bugging me with it!!!"
Yes, and going back that amount of time, you find that Christians and Western nations have pillaged, robbed, and raped the area for centuries. So what should my conclusion be now? That it's just two groups of people killing each other over who has the better imaginary friend? And hey hey hey -- you're going back 1400 years in history, but I can't even go back 50 years? Please! YOU ARE BORING ME!
So, without US involvement in the Middle East, their own people would have already overthrown their own dictatorships, and would have created Democracy on their own? Then get the US the hell outta there! If all we do is convince them that we are trying to genocide them, then maybe we need to think of another tactic! I am, in fact, completely in favor of establishing a democratic order in Iran. The reason why I bring up the coup by the US is to demonstrate something you must've missed: the US, by becoming involved militarily in the Middle East, has only established tyranny and dictatorship.
You're bringing up events from 1400 years to justify ignorant action today. Yes, ignorant action. If you don't look at what your actions have done in the past, and you commit them again in the future, you will fall to the same failures! Please explain to me how you don't care about how the US government created dictatorship, and how you think the same exact tactic, is going to create Democracy?
Shameful dictators, like shameful presidents, have not stopped them in their conquest over people. And if it is all that needs to be done, why advocate more out of the US? All the president has done is argued that what is happening in Iran is barbaric. What more do you want him to do? Because so far, he's done more than you.
Ah yes, I can see your respect coming out now.
Actually, World War 2 was caused by the economic sanctions levied against the Germans and Austrians after World War 1. The most influential economist of the 20th century predicted this: John Maynard Keynes in his book, "The Economic Price of Peace." Without the grinding poverty created by Liberalism in Germany, they wouldn't have had conditions that created dictatorship. After all, the biggest opposition to Hitler's Party was the Bolshevik-controlled Communist Party -- people picked very unhealthy extremes, because everything else failed. [*2] And World War 1 is another great example: the US commits a war crime, by loading civilian passengers onto the military carrier the RMS Lusitania, and then after the Germans sink it, we accuse them of war crimes! [*3] Once again, read the wikipedia article, and it'll inform you that the ship was running weapons, and had unaware, civilian "shields" on it (against international law, according to the International Law established in the Hague Conventions of 1907). [*4]
The whole justification for the war was that Austria was being unfair to their "protectorate" Serbia. Just the year before, France had done far worse to the people of its Algerian colony. [*5] Our government creates dictatorship through World War 1, creates the conditions for World War 2, and then somehow comes out with all the credit? And we get credit for toppling Sadam Hussein, when we gave him chemicals weapons to gas his own people? [*6] And we get credit for liberating Afghanistan, when Ronald Reagan gave millions of dollars and illegal chemical weapons to terrorists in the Taliban? [*7]
Okay, let's make a deal: don't create dictatorships, and I won't expect you to overthrow them. What about Batista in Cuba, or the dictators supported in Haiti? Even there, the US government created a dictatorship, and then left it alone!
If only the US wouldn't get involved, then they wouldn't have to spend trillions on a military to correct their pathetic mistakes. [*8] And when I say America, I say it as you do: not the American people, because how would they ever come into mind? When I say America, I just mean whoever is in charge!
*1. "Confessions of an Economic Hitman," by John Perkins, Chapter 20: The Fall of a King, page 139.
Post #08: The Red Hunter to Punkerslut...
Date: July 3, 2009
Given that you don't allow comments on your own website, that's an amazingly hypocritical statement.
Let me refer you to my comments policy, the relevant section for you is:
So thank you for your comment, Andy, we've each made our points, and it's time to move on.
Post #09: Punkerslut to The Red Hunter...
Date: July 3, 2009
Yeah, and in the same sentence, I said I felt privileged. Hint: I was being sarcastic.
Not allowing comments on my site? Please, I've been writing a bit longer than before the existence of blogs. And unlike a blog, I don't just post news articles and respond to them with two-bit, meaningless slogans. I write essays, not myspace posts.
Everyone can have a chance to criticize my pieces, since they're COPYLEFT, meaning completely free for redistribution. A number of pieces have appeared on other sites, where I'd end up debating there, and then reposting the debate at my site. That's actually happened a number of times. So, if you're dying to respond to something in the public arena, by all means, repost it and criticize it.