“Gotta wonder how the St. Pauli Girls are gonna defend this one.”
Here is what Ron Paul had to say about it, in his own words:
“I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about “condemning” the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.
Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.
I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.”
Seems reasonable to me.
Condemning the suppression of freedom is hardly interfering in the affairs of a foreign country.
I guess St. Pauli Girl couldn’t condemn the murder of thousands of freedom loving Chinese back in 1989 either...
Ron Paul is right on this, not only for idealistic reasons, but also for practical ones.
We've got no dog in this fight, because Mir-Hossein Mousavi is, as one reporter described, "no Lech Walesa or Vaclav Havel, no Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Gandhi bent on destroying an evil regime. He is, and has been, a part of the Iranian regime throughout its 30-year history."
Anyone who thinks that even if Mousavi wins, Iran is going to change for the better, is fooling themselves. As a matter of fact, the US is better off with a complete loon like Ahmadinejad as "the face of Iran" to the world than we are with a well-spoken but cunning Mousavi. So why would we condemn Iran for the protests? Better we let them stew in their own juice and build up anger toward the whole regime on their own, than get involved and take sides. Our US condemnation only serves to unite Iranians against us and to make Mousavi look like "our guy", instead of letting them get angry enough to take on not just the throne, but the power behind it.
Once again, the moral high road is also the pragmatic one.
Ron Paul in his statement (that you posted) says that he admires Obama for his cautious approach in regards to Iran. So can you show me a Ron Paul statement in regards to Obama’s extreme meddling in regards to Israel? Or in regards to Obama’s pre-election meddling in regards to Iraq as a senator? It seemed to me that Ron Paul himself had no problem in meddling in the liberation of Iraq with his constant speaking against it.
The only thing I see consistent (so far) in regards to Ron Paul is his sneaky anti-Israeli sentiment.