I like the international-state anarchy.
Unless you have been hiding under a rock for the last two days, you have to have heard of the ongoing electoral turmoil in Iran. Mir Hossein Moussavi, a reformist and moderate, decided to run against the embedded current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The campaign was hard fought, and both sides seemed to take notes from their American brethren about how to play dirty politics. Finally, the day of the vote came, and Ahmadinejad won with 62% of all votes cast. That should have settled everything.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Ruvy
Robert,
I read your essay, and while you assert that the American regime has no right to interfere in Iranian politics (a point, which if applied there, also applies here), you do not talk about the American regime interfering at all. You talk about American citizens, opponents of the oppressive "Mahdi mullahs" in Iran intervening with Twitter and other forms of "new" media. This is very different from the State Department stamping its blood-stained shoes all over the place, intervening in Iran's affairs.
So what is wrong with American citizens doing the right thing? As opposed to the elites who run your country always doing the wrong thing and siding with the wrong people?
It strikes me that decent Americans seem to know what is right and wrong without some great thedakar from the Obama or Bush administrations telling them. And they usually seem to do what is right - so unlike the asshole elites that have been the subject of your studies at school.
27 - Jordan Richardson
Robert,
Just to echo what Ruvy said, if the intention of your article was to say that America has no right to interfere with Iranian politics and so forth, it's really kind of lost in the writing.
You talk about Twitter and ask "why the hell should we care? We're not Iranians." As somebody who's tried to bring a little more than the typical U.S.-centred commentary around here from time to time, I can't relate to that. You then shift to some sort of bizarre satire (I think?) and suggest that the US is "over there trying to police it." In what way? Where are your sources?
That doesn't even touch the continued patriotic arrogance of believing you live in the greatest country on earth (honestly, who cares?) and this idea that all of the countries around the world have the right to simply run amok. Did the United States have the right to go into Iraq? Does the United States have the right to drive its citizens into poverty? Does the "greatest country on earth" have the right to backwoods social policies that cripple citizens with bizarre moralizations and excuses? According to you, they do.
Like it or not, what happens in the world matters. What happens in China matters in America because of strong economic ties, political arrangements, and so forth. And what happens in Iran matters for a host of other reasons. Instead of flippantly setting up false choices (not caring vs. "policing" the situation), why not examine the issues more carefully?
You might discover why it matters after all and why there are multiple courses of action between giving a shit and "policing" the world.
28 - Robert M. Barga
@25
I have seen many calls for Obama to say something, or to do something, including repeat calls refering to bosnia. To me, that is attempting to influence the international state without a right to do so
29 - Robert M. Barga
@26 - Ruvy
if all you can do is insult my country, my leaders, and my teachers, then either grow up or get out
30 - Robert M. Barga
@27
The thing is, most of the twitter posts I have seen indicate the desire for our country to go into Iran and 'fix this'. THat is where my main issue lies
As for if we should care, i would say no. As this has no direct impact upon our nation, we should not be wasting our resources, time, or energy on it.
And, to answer your questions in the 3rd, to all but the Iraq one, yes
31 - Robert M. Barga
Let’s backtrack to bush/gore…… and all the turmoil that ensued with voter fraud, pregnant chads, bla bla bla. I am not capable of determining exactly what the heck happened back there or who won or who had more CHADS. The thing went through the normal process WE HAVE IN PLACE for such contested outcomes. Like it or not, it turned out the way it did.
NOW,,,,,,,,even though we were fighting amongst ourselves about who was right or wrong,,,,,, how would we have felt if ANY OTHER country had attempted to meddle in it? We would have said UH no thanks, we are the US and we can handle, back off
32 - roger nowosielski
Jordan is right in #27 in that " if the intention of your article was to say that America has no right to interfere with Iranian politics and so forth, it's really kind of lost in the writing."
There are, besides, limits to the notion of the sovereignty of states. I would think that one of the main purposes behind the concept of international law is to be able to bypass the strictures of such sovereignty.
It's understandable to take the non-interventionist position you're taking, especially in light of America's recent involvement and meddling in the past thirty or so years. Indeed, it is difficult to insist on our good intentions given that much of our foreign policy is driven by narrowly defined national interests. America has long lost the reputation it once held as being the world's moral leader. And yet, the very popularity of Obama's victory, not so much at home as abroad, stems from the desire of many nations for true leadership and change. Indeed, the eyes of the world are on us.
The matter of rights or obligations is not, besides, written in stone but are a matter of policy, or doctrine. Monroe doctrine was replaced by another, and so it can go back and forth.
In a higher, moral sense, civilized nations do have an obligation to respond to world crises - be it genocide, hunger, the trampling of human rights, events such as Tiananmen Square, and other obvious violation. Effective or not, that's also the reason for the UN - to make all accountable to a higher standard of international law and practice.
A disagreement at home is a lame argument as to what US foreign policy ought to be. It's not a matter of taking a poll. That's what statesmanship is about; and statesmanship cannot be dictated by public opinion but, if and when need be, go contrary to it.
33 - Jordan Richardson
As this has no direct impact upon our nation, we should not be wasting our resources, time, or energy on it.
I think you'll need to elaborate on this particular statement. In our world, it's really difficult to suggest that what happens in Iran has no direct impact on the United States.
Iran and the U.S. have been linked, like it or not, since the late 1800s. The Iranians early on viewed America as on their side in their struggle to break free of British and Russian "meddling." Google "Morgan Shuster" for a little more information on how some Americans even received positions of power in early Iranian governments.
Then you've got what happened after the WWII and the intricacies involved with U.S.-Iranian dealing with petroleum companies and the organized coup by the U.S. and Britian in the 1950s to overthrow Mohammed Mossadeq, a democratically-elected PM. Google "Operation Ajax." (By the way, the U.S. has since apologized for the coup despite offering support for various brutal Iranian regimes).
You've got the '79 hostage crisis. You've got the fact that the U.S. and Iran were once significant partners both militarily and economically. You've got the U.S. giving Iraq and Saddam the damn "green light" to go attack Iran and the material backing of Iraq in that context. You've got the Iran-Contras. Also, g'head and Google "Operating Praying Mantis."
I've got more history and rationale if you need it, too. The history between Iran and the U.S. is deep, complex, and compelling. There's simply no reason to assume, given all of the history and the present situation, that Americans shouldn't be caring about what happens there.
If you don't care, that's a different story altogether.
As for your #31, Robert, perhaps you should investigate just how many elections throughout history the United States has not only observed but has outright meddled in and interfered with the national process of democracy around the world.
Just to get you started, there's the democratically-elected government in Iran that I mentioned earlier in my post. There's the 1954 overthrow of Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán in Guatemala because he wanted to give unclaimed land to peasants and the U.S. found that to be "Communist" in nature.
There's the Bay of Pigs. There's the Congo Crisis and the overthrow of Patrice Émery Lumumba. There's the bringing of Saddam to power in Iraq in 1968 so that the U.S. could have the oilfield control thanks to the Ba'ath Party (the oil was going to go to the Russians). There's the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile in the '70s. There's American backing of radical Islamic rebels in '70s Afghanistan. There's the recent ousting of leadership in Somalia. And many, many more examples.
But, as I see it, you're a little too blinded by your viewpoint of the "greatest country on earth" to do proper research before making these claims. The reason the United States has to care about what's happening in Iran, and indeed anywhere else, is because they've left a very complex, oft-bloody trail around the world. They're now in a position where it is necessary to watch their own backs. And, if you ask me, that's pretty damn "direct."
34 - roger nowosielski
Correct. And as part of what's entailed by "having to watch our backs" (lest we be bitten on the ass, one might add)is the voice of reaction: it's none of our business.
35 - Cindy
25 - Robert,
Of course there will be calls for the US to step in from both the right and the left. (The right from some national machismo maybe and the left maybe from some misplaced idea that states ever help anyone but themselves.) What's new?
I'm just saying I haven't seen it among the green twitterers. Either you're just tossing twitter into your article as a device or we're not looking at the same people. (I somehow don't see Franco and Lumpy sporting green avatars.)
36 - irene wagner
Cindy, JUST in case it sounded, way back yonder in the Cat in the Hat comment, as if I were poo-pooing the twitterers efforts on behalf of the Iranians, I wasn't.
A little bit of self-deprecation can be fun, but it can end up sounding like an undeserved swipe at other people, too. Now YOU have a great day!
37 - Dan(Miller)
Do similar limitations on the propriety of United States "meddling" apply to her relations with Israel?
Dan(Miller)
38 - Cindy
Dan(Miller),
Do similar limitations on the propriety of United States "meddling" apply to her relations with Israel?
Oh, it most definitely (almost especially) applies to Israel, in my book. The US is complicit in the apartheid. Without US interference it could not have been accomplished, imo.
(p.s. Irene, it never entered my mind. And likely never would. I'd probably argue you meant no such thing, if anyone were to say you did :-)
39 - Michael Petrick
Every single action on the stage of world diplomacy affects other nations - even an inaction - like the Obama administration's restraint on discussing the Iranian situation.
Most Iran experts agree that this has made it, thus far, impossible for the regime to get back support by blaming the Americans for meddling in their election. All of your basic contentions show complete blindness to the truly interdependent nature of the world.
"We do not live near the country, nor are we affected by this decision. In short, it really doesn’t matter to Americans."
How in the world could a reformist revolution in the most powerful country in the Middle East, with ability to control the Straits of Hormuz - which most of the worlds oil is shipped through - right next to a country which we currently have troops in, affect us? It sure seems like this revolution could change some stuff.
But I'm glad your wise forecasting abilities have been able to look into the future the week-old unrest in Iran to see that it won't effect the United States. Tell me, are time machines expensive?
40 - Ruvy
if all you can do is insult my country, my leaders, and my teachers, then either grow up or get out
Robert,
What I have forgotten about political science is more than you have learned. That would hold true for most other subjects you think you have learned (except computers and their use).
I grew up a long time ago, and your immaturity shows with your complaining about my mild criticism.
Your article's facts do not address US governmental intervention, they address US citizens acting privately, on their own, and for once doing what the United States government barely ever does - THE RIGHT THING!
But your complaining was not about the private acts of American citizens - it was about the public acts of the American government. And you substantiated none of these, simply asserting that the American government did not have the right to intervene - how nice!
Therefore, first of all your writing doesn't make sense. If I were grading it, it would get a "D" - it badly needs improvement. It would get an "F" if it was something written for a law school. Its logic is so lacking as to be pathetic, and its confusion between the facts it cites and the agent it accuses is criminal.
Secondly, I got out of your country and do not intend to return. I rode from Ma'ale Levona to Ofra this morning in a car, hitching a ride (something commonly done here) listening to a speaker-phone conversation about how a man trying to build a home was having trouble getting a permit from the Defense Ministry (responsible for administering Judea and Samaria) because of Obama's pressure and actions.
If your government doesn't have the right to intervene in the affairs of a country that views you as an enemy, it certainly doesn't have the right to intervene in OUR affairs. So. if you do not have the right to intervene - get on the stick and tell that piece of shit "president" of yours to get the hell our of our affairs!
FOR ONCE you'll be doing the right thing. And, not only that, you will be benefiting the American people and the Jewish People both!
Oh, by the way....
Grow up! If you can't take criticism on a blog site, get off until you get some thicker skin.
41 - Cindy
29 - Robert
This is the attitude of a contemporary polisci? (Please tell me we've advanced beyond 'if you don't like our gov't and our leaders then get out'). Hardly. We haven't advanced much beyond cavemen. (Here I agree w/Mark Schannon, we haven't. I just don't agree that we can't.) We won't get much further unless things change.
I am with Ruvy on 2 or 3 paragraphs of #40 (maybe more, but some is personal).
And I'll add my personalization. Your gov't like all gov'ts suck. Your leaders like all leaders are corrupted. (Notice I didn't say corrupt.)
And another thing, I suggest you learn what anarchy (anarchism) means in a 'political' sense and stop using it the way you do. It has history and meaning. You will need to understand what it means if you want to be on top of things. You'll likely be finding out more about it in the near future. May as well look like you're informed.
42 - Robert M. Barga
@37
No
Israel has asked us to step in, so we have a right to. Unl;ess a country asks for us, we have no right to step in
43 - Robert M. Barga
@39
this is why i loved HS with you Mike
though, your brother is cooler
So, your contention is that if Iran does indeed affect us, we have the right to do as we wish to them? Then you say everything affects us
put two-and-two together...
44 - Robert M. Barga
@40
personal attacks are against the rules, keep that in mind.
Ruvy, we are on agreement apparently, we both think that the government shoudl only interfere if we have permission to
45 - Robert M. Barga
@41
interms of international politics anarchy means that there is no overriding government or organization to enforce or maintain or police the situation and handle conflicts, issues, or other areas of contempt between the states
that work?
46 - Ruvy
personal attacks are against the rules, keep that in mind.
Even by the editors somewhat heavier-handed standards, I've committed no personal attacks against you, Robert. And my criticisms of your essay stand, for all of your complaining.
When you actually come to this country and heft a rifle in her defense, either as a volunteer (like me) or as a soldier (like my younger son) when you share the risk your fellow Jews in Israel face in dealing with the Arab enemy, and all of his many supporters world-wide, then you will have earned yourself a voice in criticizing what we do to survive. And if we disagree, I will be forced to use the term, "with all due respect to a fellow fighter for Israel", in prefacing my remarks to you.
Till then, Robert, you are just another American Jew shooting his mouth off without knowing what he is talking about.
I was once one of those, too....
47 - kyle
@46 - Ruvy
Listen, it's great that you support your country (and I apologize for the off-topic subject matter here) and that your son is too. But don't you dare wear that like a badge of honor to which you can talk down to other people. You are just another "Israeli Jew" who is blindly patriotic and doesn't realize that the land you have is actually not yours to begin with. And it is not, "the Arab enemy". You are the source of the problem and you too, are shooting your mouth off.
48 - Jordan Richardson
Well said, Kyle.
49 - Ruvy
Kyle,
If you choose to buy the bullshit the Arabs have spread so successfully - I'll give them credit where credit is due - that is your problem.
The issues for me are simple. Thirty hours away by tank and twenty minutes away by missile is a country that has pledged to erase mine from the planet. Your nation has chosen to side with them. There are several ways to deal with that problem. One is to bury one's heads in the sand; another is to scream that the goyisher princes (that's you and the other imperialists ruining our lives here) should deal with the problem, the policy of Netanyahu and his pathetic predecessor; a third is to attempt to attack the nuclear plants that give Iran the bomb, a solution that appears more remote daily; a fourth is to bomb Tehran and Qom to nuclear glass, and this kill the command and control center of the Mahdi madmen - effective but with the stink of mass murder attached to it. A final solution is regime change, to a regime that does not feel the need to destroy Israel. The situation in Iran is still fluid, though less so than earlier in the week. But anyway you look at it, WE IN ISRAEL have an existential problem.
So as a Jew, (you can leave Israeli off to the side for the moment) I'll be damned if I tolerate it and not do everything I can to deal with it. And this is MY land under international law - the Resolutions on Palestine adopted on 24-25 April 1920 in San Remo, Italy. Were it not for those resolutions, Jews would have NO rights here under the goyisher laws of the jungle, "international law".
Under those resolutions, Arabs have no political rights to any of the land described in those resolutions. Therefore, it is ours.
So, we ARE the solution, and the Arab interlopers - and all of their friends, relations and imperial interventionists (like the United States, Europe and the UN) ARE the problem. American Jews (who so identify themselves) who spout their mouths off in ignorance bother me far more than someone like you, who just buys a line of bullshit and spouts it.
50 - Michael Petrick
"So, your contention is that if Iran does indeed affect us"
This was the point of my comment.
"we have the right to do as we wish to them?"
I didn't even talk about that. Where did you get that? Were there extra words after the post I wrote that only you saw?
All I was saying is that you were foolishly wrong to say the Iranian Revolution will not affect us. Any logic following from that ridiculous contention is suspect.
51 - Elvira Black
I can't understand why the author of this piece could possibly think this conflict doesn't impact on us. And to say that the election was not "rigged" is also a bit naive, IMO, although we have no proof. Our country has not been free from this "flaw" either.
I feel for Ruvy re: the kneejerk responses to those who don't know the facts or the history of Israel and the Palestinians. How can we moralize about Israel when our own nation has so much blood on our hands, and the Palestinians and the Arab world (or at least, their leaders) are so hostile to us?
America tried isolationism during the early years of WWII (as well as WWI I believe) but since these were WORLD wars, we eventually had to involve ourselves lest we perish as well, even though 9/11 was the first full fledged domestic attack on our mainland.
IMO and those of others, we are for all intents and purposes already in WWIII--ideologically, technologically, and in a real sense, literally.
We are in real danger, so how in the world can you say that this event does not affect us, and how can you take the position that the election count was correct, esp since the Supreme Leader has attempted to ban journalists, stifle protests, and otherwise demonstrate (IMO) that the elections were a farce?
I don't think that ordinary citizens "twittering" qualifies as us meddling. The President has been criticized for not taking more of a stance, even though Iran has claimed that we have done so--I suppose because the Administration had the gall to note its dismay re: the situation.
But again, saying that this doesn't affect us really blows me away. What in the world are they teaching you in that college of yours?
52 - El Bicho
"9/11 was the first full fledged domestic attack on our mainland."
No it wasn't. The same buildings were attacked in 1993.
53 - STM
Robert: "9/11 was the first full fledged domestic attack on our mainland."
Sorry Robert, you need to go back 200 years.
In 1814, the British, after landing and defeating the American forces at Bladensburg, marched into Washington, captured the White House (and ate the dinner left on the table) and most government buildings in the capital (which they then burned down, leaving most private dwellings and citizens alone), and in the two years prior to that they were riding roughshod at various places acrss the US mainland.
At the time, the US was a sovereign nation, even if a fledgling one, although it did show a supreme lack of judgment by foolishly opening the main land conflict of the war of 1812 by invading Canada ...
The fact that Canada still exists today as a nation gives you an idea of why they should've stayed at home, thus sparing all and sundry from the ensuing nastiness.
Had they not done it, my view is that British North America would have been annexed peacefully later as part of the US.
54 - Robert M. Barga
@Ruvy, in general
when you said this was a blog site, you were sadly mistaken. This is a magazine, and a review site, not a blog site
55 - Robert M. Barga
@46
why the hell would i ever want to lift a rifle in the defense of Israel. Frankly, if we abandoned her my country would be much better off. I don't care if you live there and it would be your death, i really dont. I will defend my country to, but, unlike you guys, we don't activly try to get invaded
56 - Robert M. Barga
@47
well said kyle
57 - Robert M. Barga
@49
it is your land because you stole it. If a new law showed up saying that that land belongs to the Palistinian people, what would you do?
You being a Jew has nothing to do with it.
58 - Robert M. Barga
@51
we have never had an attack on our soil since the war of 1812, so why you bring 9/11 into this i do not understand. Iran/Iraq had nothing to do iwth the 9/11 attacks, so leave them out of this
59 - Robert M. Barga
@53 was this geared at me?
60 - STM
Nah, I made a mistake ... it was Elvira who said it, not you :) Apologies
61 - Clavos
we have never had an attack on our soil since the war of 1812...
Isn't Hawaii "our soil?" And wasn't it in 1942?
62 - Dan(Miller)
Re Comment #58
I was very confused, thinking that New York City, the part of Virginia where the Pentagon is located, and the place in Pennsylvania where one of the hijacked aircraft crashed were all on United States soil. Silly me! Since they aren't, obviously the electoral college votes cast by delegates from New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania were invalid and the 2008 election results were therefore fraudulent.
Hawaii became a state in 1959, but prior to that had been a mere territory. Presumably, since New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania are not U.S. soil, neither is Hawaii. Accordingly, it seems obvious that if President Obama was born in Hawaii, he is not a natural born U.S. citizen. Clearly, this means that all electoral college votes for President Obama must be rejected, instanter!
History is a wonderful thing; it can be rewritten at will to fit whatever our needs may be. Wow! This is fun! I shall now write an article about how the Confederacy won the War of Northern Aggression.
Dan(Miller)
63 - Jeannie Danna
I believe also that we should stay out of Iran's business and fix our own government.
64 - Ruvy
why the hell would i ever want to lift a rifle in the defense of Israel. Frankly, if we abandoned her my country would be much better off. I don't care if you live there and it would be your death, i really dont. I will defend my country to, but, unlike you guys, we don't activly try to get invaded
You call yourself a Jew, Mr. Barga? You make me ashamed of myself that someone such as you writes and thinks he knows anything about his heritage. You can wrap yourself in the American flag all you want. But only the fact that your mother is Jewish qualifies you as a Jew - otherwise you do not belong with MY people.
JEWISH belief says that the Children of Israel suffered for 38 years for REJECTING G-D'S GIFT OF THE LAND OF ISRAEL It's called 'SIN OF THE SPIES, and obviously even an unlettered Jew like me knows this basic fact.
Your words above constitute the same rejection of a GIFT OF G-D. They are your words, not mine, and the Children of Israel dropped as carcasses in the desert for holding views like yours. Millions of Jews in Europe died in gas chambers because when begged to leave the cemetery that Europe was to become, they snorted in the same derision you do in your words.
It's your funeral, Robert. If I die defending my country, I will be a hero. If you are murdered off in the wave of Jew-hatred that will sweep the North American continent, you will die a victim.
it is your land because you stole it.
And you call yourself a student of political science? How low the discipline has fallen if such ignorance and stupidity is taken seriously in any classroom except one bought and paid for by a Jew-hater.
You truly have my sympathy, Robert. You have been cheated of an education and whatever you have learned as a "political scientist" is not "worth a continental".
65 - Ruvy
Also, by the way, Blogcritics Magazine started as a blogsite featuring reviews of music, TV and other entertainment media. It is only recently that its owners marketed it as a magazine. And I have been writing here for 3½ years under both formats, so I do know whereof I speak. Maybe you should do some fact checking before you open your mouth. I haven't checked your other article in this series to see what a bad mess you made of it yet, so I'll hold my tongue.
66 - roger nowosielski
I do have a question, Ruvy, and I hope you don't mind my asking it. It had just occurred to me that a good proportion of BC writers are at least part Jewish; I wouldn't know it offhand if it weren't for the fact that I learned that indirectly, from you. And this is the puzzling thing: a good many of them - no names need be mentioned - tend to be, how shall I say? obnoxious. You're excluded from consideration, naturally, if for no other reason that you put your own ass on the line and you're living that reality. But how does it explain the rest?
Any ideas?
67 - Ruvy
Elvira,
Thank you for your kind words of support. They are indeed appreciated.
Shavua Tov,
Ruvy
68 - Ruvy
Roger, why don't you ask them yourself? Off-line of course....
69 - roger nowosielski
It's just as bad, Ruvy. You might call it "In Response To My critics."
A pathetic little piece, if you ask me.
70 - roger nowosielski
I don't think I'd get anywhere what an obnoxious person. You and I may have heated quarrels, but at least you're not impervious to reason.
71 - roger nowosielski
Forget it. It was a dig (not at you). I felt I needed a comic relief.
72 - Robert M. Barga
@60
that is what i thought, was just making sure
73 - Robert M. Barga
@61
i meant attack with the intent to invade
and 9/11 was not an organized country, so i dont see how it counts any more than normal blowing up of a building
74 - Robert M. Barga
@64
Your people are Israli, mine are American. Our race is not our religion, unless you can trace yourself perfectly back to the tribe
I reject God's gift if we have to use violence or pain for it.
Ruvy, did you take the land from people?
YES
did they want to give it up
NO
that is stealing
75 - Ruvy
To your comment #74.
Your people are Israeli, mine are American. Our race is not our religion, unless you can trace yourself perfectly back to the tribe
For your own information, you may want to read this article. Your ignorance of Judaism, its traditions and our roots (or should say my roots?) as Children of Israel is appalling.
I reject God's gift if we have to use violence or pain for it.
Your own words sign you own warrant.
[Non English content deleted by Comments Editor]