seattle.politics

Charlie Wilkes wrote:

> > and I say it doesn't, because the neocon approach only makes the
> > repressive governments stronger. You argued that the current situation
> > there warrants military aggression as per the neocons, and now you argue
> > that it's the best hope for a more liberal democratic society. These two
> > views do not reconcile, especially if the military aggressor is the US.
>
> If my comments don't reconcile, it's because I don't know what to think
> about Iran. It ought to be a gleaming success story... it is rich in
> resources, it has a rich and venerable culture, and it is full of well-
> educated young people who are enthusiastic for a better life. But it is
> saddled with a dour, puritanical gov't that lynches homosexual teenagers
> and leaves the bodies dangling from a construction boom in downtown
> Teheran, as a moral lesson for the public. And this gov't also pursues an
> active and obnoxious foreign policy that has turned Iran into a global
> pariah. I don't like war as a policy tool, but Iran is a sad case and it
> seems like somebody ought to do something.

Like I said: They *were* doing something before Bush.

But all the things you're saying are wrong with Iran are also wrong with
the US, differing only in matters of degree. We don't hang gays, for
instance, but we do leverage hatred of them in order to win elections.
We have a lot of promise, but we're saddled with a dour
religio-governmental establishment that wants to teach creationism as
science and deals with health issues by demanding abstinance.

I say all this because it's not really up to us to change things in Iran
while we have similar problems of our own to deal with. I also think
that we'll only be able to help Iran (if at all) after we've reached a
better equilibrium for ourselves. After all: Much of our support of
Israel comes from the religious right, and while that's going on, Iran
is forced to hate us.

--
/cartoons/2007/