Write your representatives and tell them how you feel and that they should do something about it.
People might think "oh it could just turn into another Iraq." But, really, it can't. Not that pushing back isn't a bad idea. But, really, it can't. If anything happens, it'll be all bombs.
The future of Iran, and of Pakistan too, is crucially important to the future security or insecurity of the entire world. Who can say what future developments may bring?
Sure, who knows what can happen. But it would practically have to be a new world order, slanted towards that possibility. So that's not a good reason for keeping a lid on any talk of Iran being unjust or unfair, just out of fear that such talk now would somehow contribute some fraction of a fraction towards intervention in some unknown, completely removed event in the distant future.
It's not that we can't 'win' in an invasion style conflict with Iran - we can certainly flatten the entire country - but the cost would be far beyond anything the American public could stomach. The things we'd have to do to Iran in order to get them to capitulate would be beyond horrendous.
I don't believe we can actually afford the cost that would be involved. Unless Ben Bernanke is willing to monetize $3 trillion to fund it over the next few years. Maybe they're willing to do that and are that stupid, I'd just like to think not.
Bombs, no-fly zones, naval skirmishes - that's all we're going to see. Unless our leaders are really really really stupid.
In any case, if you believe it's wrong you should speak out against it, no matter the consequences. Staying silent only allows the abuses to continue.
[1] http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jskeJOMwe... [2] http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/news-item/iran-must-halt-exec...
We're constantly sabre-rattling about nukes (or doing more than rattling if you believe we're in cahoots with (most likely) the Israeli government ordering the killing of Iran's nuclear scientists (imagine if Germany/Japan had Feynman, Oppenheimer, Fermi, Bohm, and Bohr killed)). We threaten sanctions or bombing their nuclear facilities, Iran threatens right back with all-out war (only if we do certain sanctions or bomb them first).
So condemning them over this relatively minor action all things considered, just adds to the total amount of anti-Iran propaganda already out there (some of it warranted, most of it not), if it keeps growing then eventually it will be enough that the American Public demands war. I agree that regardless of what politicians chest-beat about they would have to be really really stupid to actually do it, but I wouldn't put it past this administration and this congress let alone with who might be coming up in the next few election cycles.
Meanwhile Canada et al. are free to do as they wish since they're not in the position to actually start something with Iran, and their words are just words.
Like I said before. If you think what someone is doing is wrong, speak out against it, regardless of the consequences. Some principles are worth fighting and dying for, and one of them is protecting the lives of innocent people.
Meanwhile Canada et al. are free to do as they wish since they're not in the position to actually start something with Iran, and their words are just words.
I'm a US citizen, I speak out against these things as much as the next guy here (which isn't terribly much, I don't claim to be an activist). I have a lot of opinions I like to push for with varying strength, some very unpopular. One of them is that the US government shouldn't be speaking out and condemning Iran's decision to execute this guy. I'm not trying to shut anyone up personally (though I suppose by proxy I do want to shut Obama up personally (or anyone in the US gov. with a lot of clout) because it's so easy to uncharitably interpret his thoughts as official US stances); I am trying to dissuade an official condemnation from my country for reasons I've already mentioned. I didn't even mention a secondary consideration that the US does many of the same things and worse, albeit on a much smaller scale, and because of that one could argue it should condemn itself before condemning others. But that's also beside the point, and to me it's a weaker argument.
1. we should not ever attempt to defend people being abused until we erase all vestiges of abuse from our own country or at least 'condemn ourselves',
2. saying that it's bad that some country abuses its citizens is going to contribute in a small way to the potential for starting a war with a country who continuously flaunts its nuclear program in the face of every international body that opposes it and threatens our allies with total annihilation, so we shouldn't make them upset,
3. Canada's words are empty.
You seem to have an unrealistic view on our relations with Iran. You seem to think that us complaining about the unfair treatment of its' citizens will make them more likely to threaten war. This is not really the case. They could give a shit what we think of how they treat their citizens. What they do care about is our continued insistence that they not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. That and the pressure of the international community imposing sanctions on them makes them pissed off.
As you said, condemning them for this is a relatively minor thing. So minor that they will probably completely ignore it; it has no bearing on their nuclear operations or their arms deals or their not-so-secret terrorist war with Israel. The only way it will even pop up on their radar is when their international partners mention it as a concern, because we're concerned. Again, this does not inspire them to go to war, but it makes them realize they have to be more careful about how they abuse their citizens, which in effect does some good.
Finally, for the previous reasons Canada doesn't have to "start something" with Iran. Most conflicts between nations are not dealt with by their military, they are dealt with by sanctions. Our military leaders have stated time and again that it's the only practical thing we have to deal with them at the moment. Canada has resources and influence which may apply here.
Fortunately, there's a lot of room to really help out mideasterners — by getting our government off their backs and stop supporting their regimes.
And anyone in an ethical mood need look no further than their own country! The US jails far more of its own people than any other country. On Feb 20, you can participate in a nearby Occupy 4 Prisoners. (http://occupy4prisoners.org/actions/)
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intellig...
I've read Kinzer's book. I came away much less a fan of Winston Churchill than I was before. He was quite a tyrant when it came to preserving the empire.
More often than not, one hand is not talking to the other. They constantly leave each other out of the loop.
One department wants freedom in the middle east, the other prefers secular military dictatorships under the guise of stability. And so on and so forth.
One of the biggest myths about the US Govt. is that it acts with any form of cohesion internally. In reality, you might as well look at it more like a hundred micro states, all with budgets the size of a nation like Bulgaria (eg - $20 billion).
Maybe countries could do that too...? Hmm. And I'm pretty sure they don't have to be pure virgin countries in order to condemn unfairness.
Maybe the U.S. could do that too...? Hmm. Too bad there wasn't this same energy to stop the U.S. from executing Troy Davis, or murdering Al-Awlaki's 16 year old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen. Probably couldn't get that support in racist North America.
As for the meme that "America is the worst country!"-
Although I would love for us to shoulder less of the burden and withdraw, the nuclear fallout would circle the globe.
And try to make your mind up: does speaking out work too well, or not well enough?
You are exhibiting classic signs of "us vs. them" syndrome.
Instead, they try to control people's individual freedoms, suppress those who speak against them and who propose reforms, try to isolate themselves from the international community and restrict free trade, not allow the UN inspectors to see whether they're building nuclear plants or warheads, threaten other countries in the area and a lot of other stuff. It's going backwards.
It's true that there are some elements in the US and EU who'd like to set up the middle east as a source of cheap resources, but surely there is a better way to control that than isolationism and totaliarism?
On a side note, I'm pretty sure Mahmoud or any other government official wouldn't be arrested for watching porn, for example - that's the sort of inequality that people are fighting against for hundreds of years now...
> "A lot of things happened in the past, it's customary to let it stay in the past."
Except this behavior isn't really past. The U.S. is still eager to unilaterally overthrow the governments of other countries, for purely economic reasons no less. I'm sure you know which country I have in mind.
> "try to isolate themselves from the international community and restrict free trade"
Yeah, and United States of fuckin America don't cotton to no isolationism. That shit's a sure way to get on our bad side, especially if the "free trade" they're curtailing involves oil.
Note that refusing to participate in America's version of "free trade" is not illegal under any sort of law.
> "not allow the UN inspectors to see whether they're building nuclear plants or warheads"
They do allow inspections. A team of IAEA inspectors was there last month. The US just doesn't like to acknowledge this because we already have our fucking mind made up.
> "surely there is a better way to control that than isolationism and totaliarism?"
I'd love to hear your ideas.