Ron Paul: Leave Iran Alone!
This Friday, June 19, Ron Paul was the only member of the House to back President Obama on Iran by voting against HR 560, a resolution authored by Rep. Howard Berman (D–CA 28) and Rep. Mike Pence (R–IN 6) which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions. The text of the resolution follows:
RESOLUTION
Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes.
Resolved, That the House of Representatives–
(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;
(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and
(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.
HR 560 passed 405-1. The only member of the House to vote against it was Ron Paul, and here is his statement explaining his position:
Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran
June 19, 2009
Ron Paul: I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about “condemning” the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.
Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.
I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.
Print This Post
Once again, Ron Paul stands alone in obeying the Constitution and his Congressional oath. I wonder if any other country passed such a resolution? I dont think so. Only the U.S. thinks it has the right and duty to meddle in the affairs of others. Thank you sir!
longshotlouie Jun 20th, 2009 at 5:15 pm Are the Iranian Protests Another US Orchestrated “Color Revolution?”
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06192009.html
This was posted above.
It shows exactly why we need to stop meddling.
The purpose of wars are not the “patriotic” reasons we are told they are for. They are for profit and domination, control over others. The US instigates them a lot of the time. The deceptions are perpetrated over time and, every time there is another war, they say we are protecting our freedom and going for peace. The odd thing is, that’s never happened. We are not more free. We are not more peaceful because of war. We are less free and in more turmoil due to wars. Americans are lied to by our governmental political leaders and people’s lives are destroyed, on both sides…including the families. My beliefs do not support war and the lies that are used to convince people to fall away from and waiver from truthful, moral beliefs.
Now if we put forth efforts to be friendly with other nations, minded our own business at home, our world and the world at large would be a friendlier place to be. Instead we have a world with people in government and banking industries who are concerned with world domination and having an overt sense of power and control over everyone and everything. Of course they would view others as “enemies” in their “game” of power and control. They have to use manipulative plans to convince us to see others as enemies all the time. But we do not. They are regular folks with families, dreams and wishes just like we do. We see human beings who want to live in peace just as we do.
Rather than control over others, these supposed intelligent leaders need to gain self-control.
They use people in the military to accomplish their goals and it makes the world less and less like the place God intended it to be. It’s also a display of how little they value life. Where are the pro-life folks?
This round of fighting all started when the US government caused, planned and executed the destruction of the twin towers and building 7, when 3,000 of our own citizens died. (see Zeitgeist The Movie on YouTube.com) People’s lives are so incidental to their new world order game. 3,000 Americans + all these to manipulate the minds of people into believing we have enemies so they can achieve world domination and control over oil and the money and power associated with the oil and sale of weapons.
If 911 were real, and we did have an enemy that caused 3,000 deaths in New York, we can imagine how Iraqi citizens feel, knowing the daily losses of life they are suffering at US hands and all the destruction going on there in their country. They don’t show us the magnitude in the news, but a look at these numbers of deaths totaled below and knowing the magnitude of 911 and 3,000 people experiencing horrible deaths…. we can imagine what has been occuring not on just one day, but over years since 2001 to ? When will it end?
Patriotic statements are made over and over again, but they really have lost their true meaning. Instead of being used because we are proud of our accomplishments and how our citizens thrive and live such wonderful lives, they are now used now to get as many people as they can to rally behind some of the most destructive acts of violence against humanity. What is the gain when there is so much loss of life and ….we still have not figured out a way to have peace. Peace will come only when we choose to be peaceful.
US Military Deaths (Iraq): 4,316
US Military Wounded: 31,354
Iraqi Civilian Deaths: 151,000
‘Excess’ Iraqi Deaths: 655,000
totals from http://www.michaelmoore.com
Mr. Paul,
You voted to halt Thomas Jefferson’s “ball of liberty” by your single vote against HR 560.
A REVOLUTIONARY WORLD
Recognized in Europe as the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson quickly became a focal point or lightning rod for revolutionaries in Europe and the Americas. As United States minister to France when revolutionary fervor was rising toward the storming of the Bastille in 1789, Jefferson became an ardent supporter of the French Revolution, even allowing his residence to be used as a meeting place for the rebels led by Lafayette. Jefferson maintained his support for the French Revolution, although he wavered during the most violent and bloody stages. This became a key policy of his opposition political party. A revolution led by blacks in St. Domingue (Haiti) proved to be a crucible for testing the Jeffersonian right of revolution. Jefferson did not applaud the successful revolt, though he did propose that black rebels and convicts from the United States be relocated to the new nation. Jefferson reached the limits of his influence when he attempted to intrude republican principles in Russia, Poland, Greece, and the emerging South American nations. Until his death Jefferson was convinced that “this ball of liberty . . . will roll round the world” aided by the beacon of the Declaration of Independence.
Wow, what a meddling fool that Thomas Jefferson was… Supporting other revolutions, and the wrong ones at that! Maybe had he spent more time being concerned with his own United States we wouldn’t have had a states disagreement and resulting civil war!
Man, he really thought this Declaration of Independence thing was something worth espousing and emulating… Nah, don’t let government do a good thing like promoting freedom and condoning slaughter, we need to concern ourselves with AUDITING THE FED!!!!
Should our founding fathers have not entered into an alliance with France during the American Revolution? Was France “meddling fools”?
Your ignorance of history regarding Jefferson shines when you state, “Maybe had he spent more time being concerned with his own United States we wouldn’t have had a states disagreement and resulting civil war!” What are you talking about? The American Civil War was more than a half-century after Jefferson’s Presidency!
We can audit the fed and sign a resolution which supports a people who are expressing their god-given rights of free speech and assembly.
Yep, they were all meddling fools, the government should never approve/ally/denounce/comment on any matter of any country anywhere. It’s unconstitutional.
Ummm, my point was that had the Framers constructed a better framework for enforcement of consistency of freedom for all (instead of just paying lip service) maybe the stage would not have been set for so much blood to be shed. Again, adherence to the Constitution is paramount.
Big picture man… Big picture…
If the founding fathers would not have entered into an alliance with France.. the U.S. would not exist and the constitution would have never been written.
“the government should never approve/ally/denounce/comment on any matter of any country anywhere. It’s unconstitutional.”
Matt, Where in the constitution does it prohibit such action?
I was actually being a little sarcastic with the intention of pre-empting forthcoming arguments… I actually completely agree with you Kevin, just trying to put some emphasis…
Thomas Jefferson was the biggest hippocrate ever. He expanded the power of the executive branch farther than any other president..
“Leave the President free to choose his own coadjutors, to pursue his own measures, and support him and them, even if we think we are wiser than they, honester than they are, or possessing more enlarged information of the state of things.” –Thomas Jefferson
“The appointment of a woman to office is an innovation for which the public is not prepared, nor I.”
- Thomas Jefferson
I’m not going to debate every single flaw in Thomas Jefferson or any of the other founding fathers. I used Thomas Jefferson because Ron Paul often crows that he is adhering to the principles of our founding fathers regarding our involvement with foreign nations. In the original post I was simply pointing out that Jefferson supported revolutions and try to intrude republican ideas in foreign lands. Jefferson wanted the “ball of liberty..to roll round the world”.
Who’s anal?
Once again you led the pack. Whether it’s the war on drugs, illegal monitoring, Iraq. You manage to get there before everyone else. Keep up the good work.
Dr. Paul is my favorite politician in Washington, but we often forget he is human too. He talks about a lot of issues and he may or may not be right on all issues. He himself says we are free to disagree with him, but he would say let us still be friends.
I have many neighbors who live in my neighborhood and we all disagree with each other on many issues, but we have respect to stay out of each others’ lives.
All the letters here are from Americans. I would like to see the Iran people post messages here on this issue. What do they think of the United States and how do they feel about us making comments about their country. Do they love us or hate us and why?
How many third world countries are shooting and killing women and children in the streets with weapons that the united states government either sold them or outright gave the weapons to them? The united states government is in no position to be criticizing anyone. Many millions of women and children have been butchered with weapons that the U,S government handed over to dictators such as Saddamn Hussein, even after he took 1/3 of his cabinet members out to the courtyard and had them shot in the head in front of the whole world. Donald rumnsfeld could not get to iraq fast enough to give that dirty SOB massive amounts of weapons, many of which were used to butcher his own people. Many more were used to butcher Iranians after Saddamn started a war with Iran that he soon found he could not win on his own.
Iran is not Germany. Iran had a democratically elected leader up until 1953 when that leader was pushed out of power through a coup orchestrated by the U,S and British governments. Any problems that are happening in the country of Iran today are a direct result of the manipulation into Irans personal affairs back in 1953. It is one thing to get involved in a world war to stop adolph hitler. It is quite another to manipulate the internal affairs of a sovereign nation such as Iran, then continue to screw with them decades after you have caused the destruction of their democracy. In 1953 Iran had a democratically elected leader who refused to kiss our leaders a$$e$ and give us cheap oil. If our government continues screwing with the internal affairs of sovereign nations, our government has only itself to blame when those countries retaliate. If these comments offends those of you who refuse to find fault in our governments intervention into the personal affairs of sovereign nations………….Get over it.
Thank you for being you Dr. Paul. We do not fully understand the situation in Iran, and therefore should not use mere conjecture and jump to conclusions about what is going on.
You people do realize that if the French hadn’t been such “interventionists” we would be the united states of britain and be ruled by a king right?
Not even Britain is ruled by a king…
Hello again, Logan
A good point, but the trouble is is that France held land in this country, too, so why be so hasty to assume that there was no mutual interest in that alliance?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0dh774ab6w&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRoHIzrH1ZI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsBPDXKoFPk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fDzEVgCKYw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIrX6UiXReE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2qV9_VjXVA
http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?&next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DOjQxq5N–Kc
This video is VERY GRAPHIC.
But most of you need to watch it.
The Basij are shooting and killing kids and women in the streets at what point will it be okay to criticize this??? 1000 dead? 10,000 dead? 100,000???
How dare we denounce such blatant disrespect for humanity.
You may think as americans we are supposed to watch in silence but as HUMAN BEINGS we should support those being beaten and shot in the streets.
I can imagine your arguement about Hitler. Well, he is only shoving all the jews in the ovens but he is not an American so how dare America do or say anything about it.
Sounds like a GREAT plan….freakin idiots.
Logan Haarz,
First, Dr Paul said “with great regret, I voted against this”. Make some room in your emotional outburst-prone mind for at least some of the facts please.
Now, I have some questions to ask you. In my miniscule mind, they are good ones that I do not know the answers to. So I would greatly appreciate it if you took the time to help me formulate some good answers, seeing as how you are so much smarter than me…
During the Bolshevik Revolution, assuming it was your decision, who would you have sided with that would have lead to a greater respect for human rights and reduced pain, suffering, and death, considering that…
a) the status quo was decidedly imperialist and desperate in their out-dated form of rulership and
b) the revolutionaries were Marxists, which lead to the rise of Soviet Russia, it’s gulags, it’s nuclear threat to the rest of the world etc?
During WWI, why would you have sided against the Germans… knowing now that a victory on their part in that great conflict could very well have avoided the rise of Hitler altogether? Would it not have been better to side WITH Germany, then, in order to avoid that terrible second war that has lead directly to our involvement in an ancient conflict between Jew and Muslim in which we can “prove yet again” that we can solve the world’s problems? Would it be so soothing to the conscious to have fought and killed Brits, French and a whole slew of other nations in order to avoid what couldn’t have been anticipated?
If you can answer those questions to my simple, Constitutional-thumping dunder-headed mind, I will ditch God and send my prayers to you instead… for you would obviously be the Real Deal, wouldn’t you?
But before God-hood (unfortunately, nothing in life comes easy, junior…), I think since you feel so strongly about Iran’s struggles that you should go over there and pick a side and fight for it, using your great nobility and endless resources that the rest of us so lack to, who knows, maybe become their president instead. Why, then you could declare war on this country of such antiquated notions for not seeing things your way (if that is what you wanted to do, but I give you the benefit of the doubt, just so you know).
awesome
How about somebody having a revolution without the US running interference for once? Speaking of revolutions -Go Ron Paul!
It would seem to me that after the world trade center was bombed, people would begin to question the wisdom of our government meddling into the internal affairs of sovereign nations. The U,S government has been screwing with Irans internal affairs since at least 1953 when the U,S and britain orchestrated a coup to have the democratically elected leader of Iran removed from power so that the U,S and britain could replace him with a leader who would provide our countries with cheap oil. That leader was none other than the shaw of iran, who by the way was a sadistic brutal suppressive leader who abused the irainians until they finally removed his sorry a$$ in 1979. No wonder why they irainians hate our guts. The U,S also put saddamn hussein into power and supported his butchering of his own people as well as the irainian people. Maybe it’s time that the U,S and britain stops screwing with sovereign nations and learn to mind their own business. Hope my comments don’t offend those of you who never question your governments policies, but if they do, get over it.
Are the Iranian Protests Another US Orchestrated “Color Revolution?”
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06192009.html
The resolution is absolutely meaningless. The U.S. has real problems. Congress is clueless about solving them.
Ron Paul is wrong about opposing a useless resolution? Give me a break. A thinking person can see right through this garbage, as Ron Paul most certainly has.
Ron paul is right. We should not be sticking our noses into the internal affairs of other nations. It is up to their people to deal with their own internal problems. Our country needs to clean up its own messes. God knows that we have enough problems right here at home that our elected politicians should focus their attention on.
Our politicians sure as hell don’t need to distract themselves with the internal problems of other nations, Especially since our politicians have a collapsed economy to deal with right here at home.
Okay, enough slobbering love letters to Ron Paul. Stop the cult-ish adoration of this man. It reflects poorly on you.
By the way, having a statue of liberty icon doesn’t make you a patriot. Nice try. Supporting Ron Paul doesn’t make you a patriot either.
“Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made.”
OF COURSE he doesn’t support suppression of democratic aspirations! As Obama would say–Just words?
Okay, so we haven’t criticized Egypt or Saudi Arabia lately…but maybe we should. In other words, rather than criticizing none, maybe we should criticize all. If his only excuse is that we haven’t criticized other countries lately (a silly argument on its face) then the answer is that we should criticize Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
This is typical Ron Paul logic. I mean, how dare we criticize Hitler when we teamed up with Stalin? How dare we criticize Stalin when we were once his ally? I mean, for crying out loud–WE CREATED Osama bin Laden! How dare we do A, when we allow another country to do B? This is so tiresome.
Liberty-minded people should remember that when Liberty was at risk in the Middle East, Paul said it wasn’t his business to interfere. Far be it from him to come to the aid of liberty.
Please learn to think for yourselves.
The House of Representatives is not the Department of Foreign Affairs.
No, but if the Department of Foreign Affairs issued the same proclamation, RP followers would be equally opposed, so what is your point?
Ron Paul should run for Senator. I’d prefer him to John Cornyn.
The best way to help other countries is to model the behavior ourselves. We have so many issues gone wrong within our own government, so much dishonesty. Pick any topic. we are sure to find it within. So much is not working well for the most of us (and in that case it is not working for any of us). Rather, we can let other countries show us our own faults and our own need to self-correct. That is our job. It is also why we are so sensitive and alert to the errors in other countries, because we know it is true of ourselves. Our elections have not been honest either! So much of what we model is not honest. If we can make our own corrections, only then can we model the behavior that teaches others what works without the need for war or involvement in another country’s affairs. If we cannot first model it, then we don’t truly have it. So how could we be of any help? it would be like the blind leading the blind. We also have no proof that we can practice what we only pretend we know and condemn.
I understand Dr. Paul’s disapproval of the resolution; it is undeniably worthy of disapproval. But on the other hand if you look at the language of the bill, it has a certain reaffriming quality to it.
Take a look:
Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes.
Resolved, That the House of Representatives-
(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;
(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and
(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.
I mean with all the things our nascent fascist administration has in mind for the country, including an ultimate dismantling of the Bill of Rights, the Congress would be hard put to lend its support to the president in view of its lecturing foreigning governments to respect the same. Unfortunately, the resolution is so vaguely worded that even a tyrant could openly interpret what the authors meant by “freedom”, “human rights”, and “civil liberties”. After all, millions of people in this country are under the impression that rights are bestowed on us by governments
The words do have meaning, to be sure, but what they lack is a clear goal of the outcome being mutual beneficial to both the U.S. and Iran. It just assumed that it would be.
What is missing itself speaks unspoken volumes as well.
Despite the differences between the British empire and our founding fathers, Britain did manage to build a successful empire mostly on the idea of mutual advantage rather than by conquering and/or playing favorites. India was a prime example. They simply asked the crown to become a part of it and so they were made a part of it.
But to speak of such policy of accquisition via mutual advantage is very taboo in the world today, especially if it’s the US. It would be called “evil imperialism” by many if Iran (hypothetically saying) wanted to become a part of the U.S. and the U.S. agreed. Now why is that?
Well, the debtor is slave to the creditor and if the slave made alliances of unity (again, hypotherticaly speaking) and benefited from it, the creditors would take it away as payment.
Imv, we are like the Visigoths serving in the Roman legions as military fodder during that empire’s fall. We’re the world police force as a matter of servitude because we are so indebted to our creditors. They call the shots, ie, and to the victor goes the spoils after those shots are fired.
So our leaders use empty words in a desperate attempt to evade the reality that we are a slave nation, and can not make deals *as WE see fit* with other nations (and they with us, even though in all likelihood that isn’t what Iran wants). They cherry-pick their empty words and avoid the Constitution as much as possible, using that rhetoric that merely ASSOCIATES with that spirit of that document…rather than standing on the whole of our Constitution solely. Which is funny, because Dr Paul is accused of the same thing (cherry-picking, being Constitutional for the sake of being difficult according to his critics here). But if they had to argue their case based SOLELY on Constitutional grounds, it would become abundantly clear that they’re just following orders of a policy foreign to us.
Which is why they don’t!
Very well put, Dr. Paul!
To Logan Haarz: The decision to go to war (The Barbary Wars) was made because those countries were attacking and committing acts of piracy on American ships. In that case it was an act of retaliation, not meddling in foregin affairs.
Then, by that logic, you would support ‘retaliation’ against Somalia right now for attacks instigated by pirates?
Logic? No, no, no… lol… Good God, no! I rarely if ever argue using logic! Any logician worth their salt will tell you that logic is too easily turned inside out and stood on it’s head. That’s why logical arguments almost always become a debate about logic fallacy.
Logic fallacy: modified noun : when one’s argument doesn’t mirror their opponents argument!
So I stay away from logic whenever I can and instead opt for facts and principles. And the facts are… The north African nations involved in the Barbary Wars not only supported piracy, but provided for it. These pirates attacked U.S. (among other nations) merchant ships. The U.S. nor any other nation did anything to provoke this. So principle dictates that military action was justified.
There are a few courses of action that can be taken once facts and principles are established. But first I must confess that I’m not entirely sure, in fact not very sure at all (I have a life outside of world matters, funny as that sounds), what the case is with Somalia. But it still all depends on what the facts are that would guide our principled in/actions.
IF Somalia is in support of the pirates, then at some point they will have to be dealt with, wheather by annexation or by means of crippling their ability to support piracy. If the Congress were to decide against annexation, then we would attack them to cripple their pirating capabilities only, which would include any means nessecary to end the continued threat. If Congress decided to annex, then we fight the battle to annex of course. Simple.
IF, on the other hand, the Somali govt simply lacks the means to controll their waters, but otherwise desires to cooperate, then the U.S. can justify the presense of our navy in that part of the world to deal with the pirates. But IF the Somali govt doesn’t agree to that policing effort, then, yes, we could justifiably annex them (but not cripple them, as that would solve nothing) on the grounds that they are unwilling/unable to cooperate in policing their waters. Of course, we wouldn’t HAVE TO annex Somalia, as our navy can more than likely to stand up to whatever their government would do in protest to their presence there. So we could probably defeat the pirates with or without approval, annexation being un-nessecary to that objective.
In the case of the Barbary Wars, it was decided that crippling capability was the best course of action. They wouldn’t back down, which naturally they did not desire cooperation in dealing with the problem, and we did not want to add them to our nation. Crippling retaliation then was nessecary because that was the only course left, given that the government of those nations was in support of the piracy.
Again, and getting back to the dictatses of logic… ONLY facts, principles, and practicality (with none being absent the others) can guide foreign policy. Otherwise, we may as well use false information, because logic alone can lead us and others down a potentialy more dangerous road.
[...] to vote “nay” to HR 560, which condemns Iranian violence against protestors. Paul, on his website, had this to say: I am always very cautious about “condemning” the actions of governments [...]
And I would hesitate to use the word “distance” in the Information age. It sounds very Sara Palin….
Oh Really Mr. Ron Paul?
Why the distance and lack of knowlege of the nation is not an issue when it comes to exploiding that nation and sending American jobs to India? Isnt that few thounds miles away???? But supporting a nation who is seeking freedom, the same values U.S. brags about, all of the sudden the distance becomes an issue???? Iran is even closer than India!!
THIS IS DOUBLE STANDARDS
“To speak of popular sovereignty is to place ultimate authority in the people. There are a variety of ways in which sovereignty may be expressed. It may be immediate in the sense that the people make the law themselves, or mediated through representatives who are subject to election and recall; it may be ultimate in the sense that the people have a negative or veto over legislation, or it may be something much less dramatic. In short, popular sovereignty covers a multitude of institutional possibilities. In each case, however, popular sovereignty assumes the existence of some form of popular consent, and it is for this reason that every definition of republican government implies a theory of consent.”
It seems obvious to me that the people of Iran are marching, in the face of a violent opposition, to demonstrate that they do not consent….
Yes exactly! They are marching against government that they don’t consent with and that is their right as a citizen of THAT NATION…america has no right to make itself an issue in the evolution of the Iranian political system….the people of Iran alone will voice their concerns over their government and then with their own power determine the outcome of the republic – obviously anybody who believes in the concept of liberty supports their opposition efforts and defiance against a repressive government, but that doesn’t require a U.S.-sponsored resolution to take place — letting Iran be their own nation will mobilize their people to fight for a government they believe in
Popular sovereignty or the sovereignty of the people is the belief that the legitimacy of the state is created by the will or consent of its people, who are the source of all political power.
And you think this describes Iran????
That the Iranian government actually represents thee Iranian people??? Are you freakin nuts???
Logan: Unfortunately the government of Iran does represent the Iranian people. Until they change it then it will continue to represent it. These people are elected by the Iranian people either directly or indirectly. There is a deep division of opinion in Iran now just like there is here in the United States. It is unfortunate that the government has shown a need for police-state tactics and we should condemn these activities. And yes we should condemn a lot of countries for this that we don’t. We should also condemn ourselves for the Patriot Act and repeal it as soon as possible. I believe that a “not-voting” would have been a better response from Ron Paul on this resolution. Obviously a few reps didn’t express an opinion one way or the other as the vote was missing the votes of 29 reps.
OK, well, problem solved! “Logan: Unfortunately the government of Iran does represent the Iranian people. Until they change it then it will continue to represent it.”
Lindsey, unfortunately your government voted FOUR HUNDRED AND FIVE TO ONE to support this bill, so why are you not supporting YOUR government and condemning these actions? Isn’t it hypocritical for you to be telling someone in a country that is ACTUALLY undergoing a revolution to ‘oh, sorry, government rules’ when RP supporters spend EONS of their time looking for conspiracies to NOT TRUST THEIR OWN?
Must be nice for RP followers to fervently oppose the overwhelming current US governmental populace, radically endorse your TINY rEVOLution and blow out of proportion a puny (2% of the vote?) vote and nonviolent (relatively speaking) tea parties while insinuating a revolution is occurring (when it is not), and at the same time proffering that their government should ignore a violent protest and government-led slaughter of liberty-seeking individuals while allowing the barbs of other anti-liberty dictatorships go unanswered.
In its simplicity, this is not a declaration of war, it’s a validation of principles that are worth fighting for, our founding fathers would be proud of the Iranians fight, and disgusted with Ron Paul’s shunning of those same principles, and disgusted with your hypocrisy. Revolution and liberty should be supported in any way possible, there is nothing more important than freedom.
The barbary wars were an infinitely worse cause than denouncing the killing of iranian protesters and the founding father’s had no problem with it…It is not a good enough excuse to turn a blind eye to violence…As my friend in Tehran said,
“Most of us are not “SMART” enough to have a hidden political agenda. Most of us are not “in it” to overturn this or return that. Leave the politics to the politicians.
The message is simple: NO MORE KILLING KIDS.
It doesnt matter if you speak Farsi or not. I am sure we can ALL understand that”
If we do not stand with the oppressed, who do we stand with?
“The First Barbary War (1801–1805), also known as the Barbary Coast War or the Tripolitan War, was the first of two wars fought between the United States of America (briefly joined by a small Swedish fleet) and the North African states known collectively as the Barbary States. These were the independent Sultanate of Morocco, and the three Regencies of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, which were quasi-independent entities nominally belonging to the Ottoman Empire.”
is this the non-interventionism that the founding fathers supported??? Notice it says “independent sultanate of morocco”
HMMMMMM…. who was president i wonder??? some guy named Thomas Jefferson….
Hello ,Logan Haarz
They (Sultanate of Morocco) were attaching U.S. trade ships and holding sailors hostage . That is the reason we have a navy . You misunderstood the difference between respect for a sovereign country and an act of war by a foreign power .
Ron is in my opinion right on this one . If there was voter fraud and a true majority of the people support the demonstrators then the incumbent will prevail . Let the Iranian people have the dignity they deserve to fix there own problems . I surly would not want any foreign power trying to fix any of our internal messes .
Hughey
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124537040666029677.html
Dr. Paul:
I would just like to say thank for being the only intelligent congressman in all of Washington and preaching the ideology of non-interventionism. It baffles me that the neo-cons and washington democrats continue to feel the need to “fly the flag of democracy” and further destroy our image to the rest of the world. Its disheartening that a government supposedly based on the principle of popular sovereignty, does not respect the sovereignty of other nations and continues to force itself into affairs it knows nothing of. Dr. Paul, in a world of politics driven by populism and an insatiable desire to be reelected, you are one of the few who are willing to speak the truth and stand with the principles this country was founded upon…THANK YOU!
~just another young person cured by Dr. Paul
I love you Dr. Paul…..but I think you’re wrong this time. Instead of arguing that Iranian’s seeking deomcracy and being denied it aren’t worthy of our support because we do not support the same factions in Saudi Arabia or Egypt is backwards. We should support all three. Are you implying you would vote no on condemning Saudi Arabia as well if we don’t condemn Burma. And then no to Burma unless we include Egypt….At least Iran is a start.
As for the arguement that the regime would like America to condemn them/the situation…This is correct but I feel irrelevant. What should matter is what those “on the ground” want and need. And from the limited emails friends inside Iran have been able to send me, they are saying they want to know that the world is watching and that America in particular supports them….Ignoring the crimes of the regime says precicely the opposite.
Also, I do not endorse millitary interaction in this case in any shape or form but to say that America should never interfere with the doings of foreign nations is a bit shortsighted. Would the ban on intervention include Hitler’s Germany??? I feel there comes a point were silence becomes endorsement….We need to keep that in mind as well.
It is not the place for congress to condemn the actions of another government. Congress is in place to represent the people, and that’s it. Congress is not a foreign affairs office. Now the Government in Iran has another action from the United States to twist (although not by much) to show ‘American Arrogance’. We simply shouldn’t provide them with the ammo.
If I am someone “on the ground” in Iran, as Logan Haarz puts it, and I’m getting shot at by my government, I don’t think it would matter much to me if the U.S. government gave my government a stern ‘finger wagging’ or not. Which is all that a Congressional Condemnation amounts to if it is not backed up with any meaningful action, like sending fighter jets in to save me. I don’t understand how Logan can be against “military action in this case” but for a public condemnation. To what end is the aim of a Congressional Condemnation? What will it solve for Iranian people “on the ground”? Either you condemn something and put your money where your mouth is and do something about it, or you zip it. Seems to me the worst thing you can do is make Iranian people think you’re going to help them by condemning an action, and then actually doing nothing about it, “We were just blowing off some steam guys. Sorry if we gave you false hope.” Wow. That’s really nice.
I understand where you’re coming from, Shane, but I think it’s inevitable in this day and age where people demand that the government always at least appear to be doing something that they do the minimum finger waggling criticisms. And since we live in the age of information, their opinions of another government would get out into the world wheather they meant for them to or not. But even if things were different, I still think our govt would at the very least, from time to time, tell us what they think of such and such’s government’s actions even though we weren’t going to get involved. It is human nature that some will construe silence with support, and so a government official(s) might have to reassure otherwise (or possibly be replaced themselves in the next election). It is unfortunate that this need for breaking silence might be construed by struggling revolutinaries as pending support/support, but… and I hate to sound callous… but that’s simply how things are and forever will be wheather our government is a good one or not.
405 to 1 – Thank you sir for being the most reasonable/rational representation we have.
Ron,
God bless you for being the only one in the House with any common sense. Of course we should not get involved — not only is it against our founding principles, but it is exactly what the establishment in Iran would love for us to do. This is a time to let Iran’s action speak for themselves without any influence or a convenient scapegoat.
I have never followed you much, but I am now a supporter. We need rational people with the courage to follow their convictions in times like these. Thank you.