Posted on 06/19/2009 10:24:56 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
WASHINGTON (AP) - In the strongest message yet from the U.S. government, the House voted 405-1 Friday to condemn Tehran's crackdown on demonstrators and the government's interference with Internet and cell phone communications.
The resolution was initiated by Republicans as a veiled criticism of President Barack Obama, who has been reluctant to criticize Tehran's handling of disputed elections that left hard-liner President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power.
Rep. Mike Pence, who co-sponsored the resolution, said he disagrees with the administration that it must not meddle in Iran's affairs.
"When Ronald Reagan went before the Brandenburg Gate, he did not say Mr. (Mikhail) Gorbachev, that wall is none of our business," said Pence, R-Ind., of President Reagan's famous exhortation to the Soviet leader to "tear down that wall."
Democrats, who are quick to voice their support for Israel anytime the Jewish state is seen as under siege, easily agreed to push through the mildly worded resolution.
Rep. Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and co-sponsor of the resolution, said "it is not for us to decide who should run Iran, much less determine the real winner of the June 12 election.
"But we must reaffirm our strong belief that the Iranian people have a fundamental right to express their views about the future of their country freely and without intimidation," added Berman, D-Calif.
Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., have proposed a similar measure in the Senate, although a vote was not certain.
The policy statement expresses support for "all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and rule of law" and affirms "the importance of democratic and fair elections."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Of course! Military spending for self-defense is a perfectly legitimate function of goverment. Military spending to become a world nanny state, however, is not what the founders envisioned.
Clearly in our interest? I don't think that the president has a crystal ball to determine any more than he ha as crystal ball to determine whether more welfare or housing subsidies are in our national interest. After all, back in 1953 the president thought it was "clearly" in our national interest to overthrow a democratically elected government in Iraq. Most recently, the president thought it was "clearly" in our national interest to support dictatorships in the Muslim states in the former Soviet Union.
Fighting for Freedom? They’re shouting Allahu Akbar and their leader declared himself ready to be a martyr, Islamic style. I think of the economy and see that a good deal of it is owned by the Red Chinese, as in 60-70 million murdered; the guy responsible in a mausoleum (like Lenin was), supportive of N. Korea (as in reduced to cannibalism) and supportive of Burma (as in slaughtered monks). There seems to be an enormous contradiction in getting all hot and bothered about a civil war among Muslims while allowing ones economy to be taken over by a country that in terms of body counts, out-hitlered Hitler and out-stalined Stalin.
All the Islamic countries are insanely Anti-Jewish all are run by cut-throat dictators, none respects womanhood, none allow freedom of anything.
The Iranians CHOSE the Islamic revolution; chances are the the Nutjob DID actually win the elections. This affair is entirely their business.
And there's nothing in the Constitution, to my knowledge, that allows for the paying of tribute or ransom, yet that's exactly what Congress did concerning foreign policy with the North African Barbary States...and interestingly enough, they were also Muslim who practiced the very same ideology that we are dealing with today.
This is not about ideology.
Well, oddly enough, the Barbary Pirates, to justify their actions, used the same book that the Muslims use today to justify their actions...the Koran. But you keep telling yourself that this is not about ideology.
We went there with a purpose “supposedly” to disarm the regime, free the people from tyranny and enforce the U.N. resolution
Which means we are bound by the Geneva Convention to restore and ensure public order and safety. The Libertarian view that we should have left after deposing Saddam, and the failure to find WMD's, is not consistent with the Geneva Convention, nor is it practical.
My point is, unless a foreign state directly threatens the security of our nation (and I'm not talking about cave dwellers), we should not intervene.
Cave dwellers? You're definitely a Paulian. You have the same understanding of the enemy that he does, which is none at all. Go ahead, stick your head in the sand. Thank God you guys are a small minority, because to be perfectly honest, ya'll are dangerous.
I meant to say to “overthrow a democraticaly elected government in Iran.”
Ron Paul walks his talk, well not always but on foreign affairs he is fairly consistent.
I’m not saying now is the time. Clearly while there is some pretty decent internal strife, it’s not a civil war or anything yet.
We’ll know when the time is right. Right now, I agree, it’s time to lay low.
Yeah, just like a congressional resolution which apologizes for slavery could never pave the way for reparations. It it is just a matter of "words" after all and has no force of law.
What is ironic about your post is that yes, words do mean things.
Dictionary.com:1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation;
The resolution does contain the definition of the word "war". Yet you ignore it and call it vapid.
As I said the resolution was a Constitutional declaration of war.
BTW don't worry, because you don't sound like a "scold". You instead sound like somebody who is incorrect.
. You mischaracterize the foreign threat of that period. During the eighteenth and century, our enemies didn't have to "cross an ocean" to attack us. They were just next door. At various times, we were surrounded on all sides by imperial powers, the British superpower to the North, the Spanish to Southwest, and the French to the West. In this respect, we were less "isolated" from military attack that we are now. The Canadians and Mexicans. are not a military threat (as the British, French, and Spanish Empires once was).
The founders and their successors in the early Republic had to contend with direct foreign threats on a daily basis. BTW, I don't claim to "speak for" the founders. They were great men but hardly demigods.
...and again the dictionary definition of the word, "war".
Your cute little shtick makes people think libertarians are crazy and have no sense of proportion. Words of encouragement to the rioting Iranians is a million miles from invading Iran. Like I said....no sense of proportion
Kirk is in outer space
Okay, since that is the only mode of argument you understand let me turn the tables: Do you support legalization of drugs? If so, why are giving libertarians a “bad name?” You must be a “doper” to take such a “wacked” position.
U.S. President to the People of Iran
Free Republic ^ | Jan. 13, 2008 | Saudi-US-Relations.org
Posted on Sun 21 Jun 2009 11:57:24 AM PDT by Admin Moderator
"To the people of Iran: You are rich in culture and talent. You have a right to live under a government that listens to your wishes, respects your talents, and allows you to build better lives for your families. Unfortunately, your government denies you these opportunities, and threatens the peace and stability of your neighbors. So we call on the regime in Tehran to heed your will, and to make itself accountable to you. The day will come when the people of Iran have a government that embraces liberty and justice, and Iran joins the community of free nations. And when that good day comes, you will have no better friend than the United States of America." - President George W. Bush, January 13, 2008.
Yup. Even when he's dead wrong. Libertarians should stand for Liberty!
Negative on legalization. Execute the pushers of anything more powerful than marijuana
Check out comment #336....says it all
That fear is legitimate. Those reparations resolutions are prologue and lots of freepers will agree on that. Very few agree with you on there being any problem with some encouraging words for the rebelling Iranians
I am not a “neo” anything, and don’t ever call me one or suggest I change my handle again, or I might tell you to eff off...
I falsely advertise nothing - You have assumed too much on the basis of too little evidence (none).
I am to the right of Barry Goldwater....Senior...in every conceivable way.
BTW, WTF is a ‘Moselm’ Fundamentalist? In your neglect of spell check, you fixed exactly nertz!
Easy buckaroo - I recognize a typo when I see one - I make them regularly enough myself!
I use the various terms interchangeably, and am not particularly attached to many of them, but my personal fave is probably my pejorative term, ‘muzzies’.
I do not really believe there is such a thing as a militant islamist, nor a moslem fundamentalist. These are all whitewash terms concocted by the media and the muzzie scum that feed them spoonfuls of tripe. I use them only to mock the pseudo-media that produces them.
In real terms, I believe that there are only moslems who practice their Islam as written in their qur’ap, and those who do not do so.
Those who are killing infidels, fellow moslems, and breaking/damaging/wrecking things are by definition real moslems following the commands of their phony pissant moon-god alla-uzzah. Those who are peacefully living and letting live in their communities are either NOT real muzzies, or simply have not acted like real muzzies YET.
I do not much know or care who Gaffney or Ledeen are.
Most of what I know about muzzies came to a head on 9-11-2001, buit they were throwing crippled old Jewish Americans off of cruise ships and hijacking airline flights and committing mass murder in Olympic villages long before that.
Canon Sell wrote about the muhammadans over a hundred years ago, and he was spot on about them. It is not so much a religion as a twisted, sick, evil cult of death worshippers in practice.
“Alla” is in fact, Satan, in my studied opinion (and if there are,as before, any lurking muzzies on this thread, they can all kiss my infidel azz!)
AAC
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.