Compare and Contrast-Part 2

Franklin D. Roosevelt -

“Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights and keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose. To that high concept there can be no end save victory.”

John F. Kennedy -

We stand for freedom! That is our conviction for ourselves–that is our only commitment to others. No friend, no neutral and no adversary should think otherwise. We are not against any man–any nation–or any system, except as it is hostile to freedom.

Ronald W. Reagan -

“General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!’”

Barack H. Obama -

“It’s not productive, given the history of US-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling.”

If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds

Post meta

This entry was written by Scott Allan and posted on June 16, 2009 and filed under Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment(Latest is displayed first) or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Share with others

Post Compare and Contrast-Part 2 to digg.

Post Compare and Contrast-Part 2 to Reddit

7 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

I think the President has a point:
“the easiest way for reactionary forces inside Iran to crush reformers is to say it’s the US that is encouraging reformers.”

1. Silke on June 17th, 2009 at 6:40 am
The easiest way to crush the reformers is to not support them. Who will take risks against an oppressive government if no one stands behind them. Look how Reagan supported Solidarity in Poland. Lech Walesa credits Reagan for making it possible. http://www.rwnetwork.net/Article207.html

We must support liberty and democracy wherever people fight for it. If you say nothing, you are complicit in the tyranny.

2. Scott Allan on June 17th, 2009 at 7:19 am
Who says we don’t support them? We are supporting them but we are also making it clear our government is not the one responsible for the protests – which is how the regime would like to characterize this.

3. Silke on June 17th, 2009 at 10:17 am
That sounds cowardly to me. They are going to blame us anyways, we might as well stand up for what is right unless we want to go the way of Neville Chamberlain.

4. Scott Allan on June 17th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Scott said: They are going to blame us anyways

And how ridiculous does that make them look to Iranians protesting in the stree and to the rest of the world? It is one thing for private citizens in this country to support thses peaceful protests but given our history in Iran the President risks delegitimizing the Iranian opposition if he’s not careful. It’s a legitimate concern.

5. Silke on June 18th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
It does not make them look ridiculous at all and it is not a legitimate concern. Playing upon anti-American sentiment is actually a perfect strategy for them and the world’s favorite sport. So if the freedom movement fails, we should be proud of ourselves somehow because we didn’t interfere with their “legitimate” government? I can’t stand this moral relativism where we tolerate oppressive governments because we don’t want to get involved or someone might not love us anymore. Some misguided people here say that the war in Iraq was unnecessary, too expensive, and that Saddam Hussein was contained. Ask the people in Iraq now if they would rather trade their freedom for containment. How much is freedom worth or is only your own freedom special? Everyone in the world deserve freedom and self-determination and if the United States does not stand up for them, no one will. You can’t say that our citizens can support the revolution but our government needs to take a more politically correct position. Our government is the people. That’s the entire point. The government is our voice. That’s what we want for Iran as well, not a couple of candidates hand picked by the mullahs with a pre-determined outcome. Our government has a responsibility to speak for our citizens and stand up for our principles even when they may seem unpopular. Clearly the Iranian people want this freedom and not “officially” supporting them is a crime against their humanity.

6. Scott Allan on June 19th, 2009 at 7:31 am
This isn’t about us. This is about them and what they want. If the freedom movement in Iran fails it won’t be because the President’s rheotoric wasn’t sufficiently strong enough to suit you. Again, given our unique history in Iran, it’s not unreasonable to believe that inserting ourselves more directly into the situation would only undermine their efforts.

7. Silke on June 19th, 2009 at 8:26 am