Home / Culture and Society / Why Do We Have the Right? A Look At Iran

Why Do We Have the Right? A Look At Iran

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

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.

Alas, it did not settle a thing. Instead, Moussavi, along with his green-clad supporters, contends that there was election fraud. Sure, all of the votes were counted by the ruling party, which happened to be running in the election. And, sure, some of the districts had more than 99% voting. And, sure, the Twitterverse has a rumor going around that an interior secretary released the real vote, and then was promptly killed. But there is no hard evidence of anything.

As a response to all of this commotion, Moussavi and his supporters are staging rallies, protests, and events all around the country. In Tehran, the government is cracking down hard on these protests, though, contrary to a popular Twitter belief,  they are not sending in the army . There are violent clashes, huge fights, and possibly a large death toll – we will never know the full story, as reporters are currently not allowed to report. That said however, the accusation is still just a rumor, and just a feeling; there is no hard evidence that there was fraud.

Americans have joined in with their ‘brethren’ in Iran. On Twitter, users are changing their locations to Tehran, changing their time zones, and pretending to be Middle Eastern, all to try and confuse the police. Users are altering their avatars to be either a green sign or green tinted. The social media Americans sense fraud in the air, and they have started to try to get in on the action.

Even so, why the hell should we care? We are not Iranians. We do not live near the country, nor are we affected by this decision. In short, it really doesn’t matter to Americans. Yet, here we are, up in arms, pretending and acting on Twitter, for something half the world away. What is it about this event that makes us interested in it?

Well, for starters, we happen to hate the system currently running Iran. Ever since they invaded our sovereign embassy, we have despised that country. The hardliners are anti-American, anti-Jew, and pro-oil-embargo. Oh, and they are also Muslims, which is a big no-no. Basically, they fight against everything we believe in. As we learned during the Cold War, any country that disagrees with us needs to change.

That said however, one needs to wonder: do we have the right to do anything about this? The world is in anarchy, and all inter-state politics take place in this anarchy. While the UN might try to police the anarchy, any attempt to do so is futile and wrong. So, why is the US over there trying to police it?

What gives this country, which I do believe is the greatest on Earth, the right to interfere with others? Iran is a sovereign nation; they run according to their own government. North Korea has the right to have an insane dictator, Cuba has the right to Castro, and Iran has the right to fraud. We have no right, as a country, or as an international player, to try to police what goes on in Tehran.

Hey, Americans, look out your door. You see the problems in your own backyard? Police those, and leave other countries to do as they wish.

Powered by

About Robert M. Barga

  • Baronius

    Thing hasn’t replied yet. I guess he’s too busy reflecting on the powerful words of President Obama on the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

  • Sorry folks, “TheRealThing” is the prodigal JOM who is permanently banned from the site.

  • Somebody is removing my comments, interesting…

    Valid point Baronius. Though, Obama’s words go directly against my entire point here. See, Obama has no right, as an international player, to try and affect other countries

  • That’s cool Mr. Rose
    i figured something like that… enjoy chasing him around

  • Baronius

    Chris, you might as well zap my comment too. It doesn’t make any sense without context.

  • Robert,

    You really don’t have much of an idea why people would show support for other people in the world, do you?

    Different people have different outlooks, certainly and therefore different reasons. But some people are not interested in your back yard my backyard politics. Nor are they all necessarily suggesting the US should police anybody.

    What does supporting one’s fellow humans have to do with states and backyards and policing and the US?

  • This is poorly reasoned and makes no sense

  • If everyone went by that “look in your own backyard” thing, it’d be a pretty boring world. Why not say, cast the first stone, or some other bullshit line? Do as I say, not as I do?

    How ’bout this one…nobody’s perfect?

    But you’re absolutely right, why should America give a damn about a ruler that has publicly called for the destruction of another country in his own region? What happens in the middle east will NEVER affect America. We should all just shove our heads in the sand and go back to sleep…all the bad men died in those planes that day…don’t worry….

    Sorry, but I don’t think that poli-sci thing is working for you pal!

  • I must agree with the last three respondents, Robert [Edited].

    What would you do if your next-door neighbor was beating on his wife or kept on kicking his puppy dog? Just stand there, saying to yourself it’s none of my business?

    We no longer live in a world where other people’s actions are inconsequential. For better or worse, we’re all in this together. It’s called global politics.

  • Franco

    As it states of the author……..

    Robert M. Barga is a student at The Ohio State University and is majoring in Political Science, with an American Policy focus.

    This student’s opinion piece has all the ear marks of the mind numbing effects of a radical professor hell bent on molding young minds to fit the political relativism of the professor. And political relativism, like all relativism, is like AIDS.

    AIDS is a syndrome in which the body becomes helpless in the face of infectious diseases. It loses its ability to distinguish good (food) from evil (viruses). AIDS is a kind of bodily relativism, a self-destructive openness to good and evil alike. Similarly, an AIDS-infected American mind loses its ability to tell the difference between healthful and harmful opinions.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    As El Bicho points out, and I concur – “This is poorly reasoned and makes no sense”

    Maybe if/when Robert finds his own soul, listens to it, and then has the guts to stand up for it, instead of trying to mimic professors who have lost theirs, not only will his writings have a chance of improving, but more importantly, maybe they will start making sense.

    Until then I have to agree with Andy Marsh in post #9 when he says

    “”Sorry, but I don’t think that poli-sci thing is working for you pal!”

  • irene wagner

    (A parenthetical comment to Baronius, and then I will refrain from littering the twitterways with my thoughts on Iran.
    They are all in my prayers.)

    “And Sally and I
    Did not know what to do.
    So we had to shake hands with Thing One and Thing Two.
    We shook their two hands.
    But our fish said, “No! No!”
    Those Things should not be
    in this house! Make them go!”

    The Cat in the Hat Dr. Seuss

  • Lumpy

    Do you think France didn’t have the right to help us fight and win independence from the British? Do you think we should have just left slavery alone in the 1860s?

    The fact is that natiions and people who value liberty have not only a right but an obligation to opppose terror and tyranny wherever they are and by whatever means necessary.

  • Franco

    Bravo! Lumpy

  • M a rk

    Here, here! Thus, I am obligated to advocate opposing Capitalists’ tyrannical abuse of individuals’ liberty wherever it is encountered and by whatever means necessary — almost.

  • Comes with the territory, Mark, especially if individual liberty is in jeopardy not only abroad but at home.

  • Lumpy (@ #12), France in the 1770s had not yet undergone her own revolution. The French aided the fledgling United States not because they valued liberty but because they knew it would piss off the British.

  • Nice revisionism, Dr. D. That may have been true to some extent, but much of the money which went to the US was raised by private individuals like Caron de Beaumarchais and Lafayette, and many of the people who went to fight for the US were volunteers from France, the Netherlands, Germany and Poland who went because they were inspired by the ideals of individual liberty popular in Europe at the time. Even the feckless Louis XVI was a big fan of the idea of liberty, though he couldn’t quite figure out how to follow through in his own country. More conservative French politicians like Vergennes did everything they could to put obstacles in the way of French support for America and wanted to make America a French client state, but the radicals overwhelmed them with their enthusiasm.


  • Bliffle

    …and while he was doing all that, Beaumarchais wrote some great librettos for Mozart.

    What a guy!

  • Not just librettos but full-scale plays. Indeed, what a guy.

  • @6

    I have no issue with a show of support, my issue is with the concept of using our power to police the international stage

  • @7 – bicho

    care to expand upon that?

  • @8 – Andy

    I am sorry that i understand the concept of interstate politics and how they function

  • @10 – franco

    Um, while my professors never are near me, most happen to be to the right of the spectrum. THose on the left, however, have yet to influence me as well. I am sorry that i understand the concept of political science in both the American (my focus) and the international realms, but the case is, it is still an anarchy (they want the UN)

  • @12

    where is that obligation or right? We have no right to interfere with another government, none at all. We have no duty to either

    if that were the case, how can we be friends with Britain, who spies on all of her people? What about Germany, which pubishes free speech? how do you defend this double standard?

  • 20 – Robert,

    I am in agreement with that. I would like nothing better than for the US to stay home and out of the affairs of other countries.

    As a ‘green twitterer’, I’m not seeing calls for US intervention.

    As far as why anyone would care, I’m interested in finding out. I’m not so sure about your assessment. This is a unique experience for some. Being directly involved in the protest of people from another country. And Iran, to boot. It’s not the first time it’s happened, just the first time for mass participation.

    It’s a good start. I’d like to see more of it. It’s an action of solidarity.

  • 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.

  • Jordan Richardson


    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.

  • @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

  • @26 – Ruvy

    if all you can do is insult my country, my leaders, and my teachers, then either grow up or get out

  • @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

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.”

  • 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.

  • 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.)

  • 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!

  • Do similar limitations on the propriety of United States “meddling” apply to her relations with Israel?


  • 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 🙂

  • 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?

  • if all you can do is insult my country, my leaders, and my teachers, then either grow up or get out


    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.

  • 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.

  • @37

    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

  • @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…

  • @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

  • @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?

  • 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….

  • 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.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Well said, Kyle.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • “9/11 was the first full fledged domestic attack on our mainland.”

    No it wasn’t. The same buildings were attacked in 1993.

  • 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.

  • @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

  • @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

  • @47

    well said kyle

  • @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.

  • @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

  • @53 was this geared at me?

  • STM

    Nah, I made a mistake … it was Elvira who said it, not you 🙂 Apologies

  • 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?

  • 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.


  • I believe also that we should stay out of Iran’s business and fix our own government.

  • 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”.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • Elvira,

    Thank you for your kind words of support. They are indeed appreciated.

    Shavua Tov,

  • Roger, why don’t you ask them yourself? Off-line of course….

  • It’s just as bad, Ruvy. You might call it “In Response To My critics.”

    A pathetic little piece, if you ask me.

  • 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.

  • Forget it. It was a dig (not at you). I felt I needed a comic relief.

  • @60

    that is what i thought, was just making sure

  • @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

  • @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?
    did they want to give it up
    that is stealing

  • 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]

  • [Non English content deleted by Comments Editor]

    I wouldn’t post foreign swear words or any comment in a foreign language that was derogatory without translating it. sof siHa means “end of discussion”.

  • I think it in that case, Chris, it would be fair to put a ban on Spanish as well.

  • it would be fair to put a ban on Spanish as well.

    You could also get rid of the Urdu/Hindi that appears in the comments on an article here about an Indian Moslem family, not to mention all the Latin that gets thrown around here, like QED, status quo, etc., et cetera.

  • I have no problem with Latin or French expressions – part of the idiom in educated speech. But what I do object to is people using a foreign tongue by way of making indirect remarks about others.

  • @75

    where do the roots of Judisim say that you and I are the same people? In fact, as i am quite different than yourself, i do not see how we are at all related

    you are an Israli, I am an American, our religion is irrelevant

  • @79 well put

  • I have no problem with Latin or French expressions – part of the idiom in educated speech.

    Perdonnez-moi monsieur! It may be nice to read Ovid in the original, but it sure is easier (if not as true) to say “love means not having to say you’re sorry”. I wouldn’t call knowledge of Latin or French a sign of education, but reasonable people will differ.

    Since I got my education in the States as a native English speaker, I would feel far better if, instead of throwing French or Latin around in a pretense of education, Americans and other English speakers would focus on midiaeval English (what you find in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales) instead. Notg only would you get a clear picture of how the language grew and developed, it would serve as a door to Latin, French and German both as languages on their own and as demonstrating how Englis itself developed, and as a clear view to reading great works in English – like Shakespeare.

    But what I do object to is people using a foreign tongue by way of making indirect remarks about others.


  • There you go, Ruvy. Some French expressions are indispensable. Just proved my point.

  • where do the roots of Judisim say that you and I are the same people? In fact, as i am quite different than yourself, i do not see how we are at all related

    you are an Israli, I am an American, our religion is irrelevant

    I’ll not criticize the spelling mistakes – dyslexia can cause such things, and even famous dyslexics like Nelson Rockefeller had a rough time actually reading statements in public. I suspect his spelling was atrocious that he rarely wrote notes himself.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    I suggest you read my comment #82, as well as the article I sent you to earlier….

  • Ruvy

    let me point out the fact that i am not a practicing Jew, nor am I barmitzphad (sp?) as i never have been one for organized religion

    if i use firefox my spelling is caught, but, during my lunch break, i use IE (no bloody spell checker)

  • let me point out the fact that i am not a practicing Jew, nor am I barmitzphad (sp?) as i never have been one for organized religion

    Whether you are for orgqnized religion or not is rather irrelevant. Whether you mumble meaningless (if you don’t really believe them, they are meaninigless) prayers repeatedly is irrelevant. Whether you had a bar mitzva is irrelevant.

    You claim to be a Jew. You criticize me for defending and giving a damn about my people – the Jewish People – and for worrying over the fate of the country G-d gave us – Israel.

    The essence of Judaism is twofold – doing the things that make you a decent person – described in the Morning Prayer: honoring your fatrher and mother, visiting the sick, accompanying the bride and groom, consoling the grieving and trying to maintain peace between fellow Jews. Keeping kosher and keeping the Sabbath make you aware of who you are as distinct from those around you (if you are in Exile). That’s one part.

    I can’t comment on that – I don’t know you.

    The second part is knowledge and belief in G-d. Knowledge is knowledge of Jewish history, the Hebrew Bible, Jewish culture, Jewish politics and Jewish law. And finally, most important is belief in G-d and faith that He will guide you properly in life if you seek Him out.

    From your comments here, you know nothing of these things. I would politely suggest to you that you not criticize me for trying to be a decent Jew who learns all of these things and who is a believer in G-d.

    And I’ll quote from the essay Confronting the Holocaust Jewishly to give you a taste of why I hold so strongly to the views I do, views which seem to condemn you so.

    And let us remember, on top of all the sins and the reality of Jewish crimes, the refusal to grasp the Land of Israel to our bosom. “And they despised the desirable land,” is the Biblical condemnation of the generation of the desert and its great scholars and leaders who preferred to return to Egypt rather than go to the Land of Israel.

    Their actions led to the night of “weeping for generations,” Tisha B’Av. What shall we say about the rejection of Eretz Yisrael in the decades preceding the Holocaust by so many great religious leaders in Europe? That, too, must be added to the reality of East European Jewry.

    It is time to put an end to the nonsense of “we cannot know the reasons”. That answer guarantees the turning away of Jewish youth.

    It is time to bury the myth of East European Jewry that was pious and saintly. That insures the creation of a Jewish God who is senselessly cruel.

    It is time to put an end to the indictment of God, to hiruf v’giduf, blasphemy against the Lord.

    A Jewish People that clings to the Law, truly and completely, will be saved from Holocausts.

    And one which rejects it and which turns it into a ritualistic sociological fraud will suffer for it.

    And until we learn this, that which was will, God forbid, be again.

    But do not blame God. He remains the One whose duty compels us “to declare that the Lord is just, He is my rock and there is no unrighteousness in Him.” [Tehillim/Psalms 92:15]

    I sauggest you read this entire essay, Robert. It is not pleasant reading, and it is hard going for someone not used to Jewish concepts, as obviously you aren’t.

    But I can hope that you may learn something from this. Hope is fragile, but it is hard to kill.

  • still, how is that relevant at all?

  • Oy vey…

  • Oy vey…

    Meaning, Elvira?