Ron Paul speaks out against "meddling" in Iran and against anti-Iran hysteria

[Lenny]

Yesterday, the U.S. Congress passed a GeorgeSoros-approved resolution condemning Iran (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/98608.htm?sectionid=3510203) for not allowing its "opposition" rioters to destroy millions of dollars in property unimpeded.

The resolution passed, 405-1.

The sole opposing vote was from Ron Paul. As is often the case.


Ron Paul:

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.

[Lenny]

condemning Iran (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/98608.htm?sectionid=3510203)

Btw, I recommend Presstv.ir (http://www.presstv.ir), an English-language site, for another perspective than the likes of CNN and BBC [which has been caught falsifying photos (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5547) and has been agitating hard in favor of the unrest].

[Birka]

Whenever you see that there was a 400 something to 1 vote, you know the 1 dissenter is going to be Ron Paul. He is the only man in Washington D.C. who stands on principle.

Ron Paul is the only man capable of leading this country out of this mess.

[RoyBatty]

Yesterday, the U.S. Congress passed a GeorgeSoros-approved resolution condemning Iran (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/98608.htm?sectionid=3510203) for not allowing its "opposition" rioters to destroy millions of dollars in property unimpeded.

The resolution passed, 405-1.

The sole opposing vote was from Ron Paul. As is often the case.

It is quite a bizarre situation where activists, angry kids, frustrated residents and so forth are being manipulated by the usual NWO suspects into participating in an orgy of wanton affray. Obviously this won't be tolerated and as usually happens with these Soros-style "colour revolutions" (which have typically been carefully prepared years in advance) it'll either succeed (highly unlikely in Iran) or blow over as happened in Burma and also in Uzbekistan.

Iran obviously has some issues that need dealing with with regards to the hold the conservative hardliners have over society but it's something they need to take care of for themselves as opposed to being interfered with from the outside. After the USA and Great Britain attacked Iran in the 1950's for its oil and installed their puppet dictator into power (the Shah) the mess culminated in the 1970's Islamic Revolution.




Btw, I recommend Presstv.ir, an English-language site, for another perspective than the likes of CNN and BBC [which has been caught falsifying photos and has been agitating hard in favor of the unrest].


There are naturally hysterical efforts underway to turn a few street protests into a Hollywood epic complete with tragic martyrs, heroic "defiance by the fearless opposition" "against the cruel oppressive regime" "to gain freedom" and all the usual bs. As always happens when these types of revolutions succeed (not that this one is likely to) the "liberators" turn out to be even bigger scoundrels than the ones they replaced, lol. :D

ITV, the BBC, CNN and the rest falsified report after report during the Balkans and Gulf wars so Iran is in "good" company.

Iran obviously has issues with being a too restrictive society and too many mullahs being busybodies and telling people how to live (hence the many protestors) but this is something they ought to be solving for themselves instead of having Westerners and Israel use it as an excuse to manipulate them to sow discontent and cause chaos in the country.

[Cato]

I wonder if the U.S. Congress will issue a strongly-worded condemnation of the Roman empire for destroying Carthage and running the Jews out of Palestine- twice? :rolleyes:

I supported Ron Paul's bid for the White House last year. The man has a lot of common sense and courage.

[SwordoftheVistula]

After the USA and Great Britain attacked Iran in the 1950's for its oil and installed their puppet dictator into power (the Shah)

That was actually the USSR and Great Britain in the 1940s and because they wanted a route to ship lend-lease supplies up to the USSR. The King ('Shah') was pro-German, so he was removed and his son as the new Shah in September 1941, who then held power until 1979.

Coincidentally, I just posted an article on this on the WWII thread:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=62515&postcount=35

In 1979, the US was run by Jimmy Carter who favored spreading democracy and human rights as the foreign policy, so the Shah was allowed to fall. Iran became a democracy alright, but not quite in the way that was expected, as they now elect people like Ahmedi-nijad with 2/3 of the vote.

[Lenny]

That was actually the USSR and Great Britain in the 1940s and because they wanted a route to ship lend-lease supplies up to the USSR. The King ('Shah') was pro-German, so he was removed and his son as the new Shah in September 1941, who then held power until 1979.

Coincidentally, I just posted an article on this on the WWII thread:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=62515&postcount=35
Thanks for that information, I was unaware of this angle. Another example of the ripple effects of the stupidity of the 1918-1945 period. Iraq's problems can also be traced back to the 1918-1945 period, and they too had a pro-(pan)Nationalist government deposed by British invasion in 1941.



In 1979, the US was run by Jimmy Carter who favored spreading democracy and human rights as the foreign policy, so the Shah was allowed to fall. Iran became a democracy alright, but not quite in the way that was expected, as they now elect people like Ahmedi-nijad with 2/3 of the vote.
That's because Iran's people have been subject to 30 years now of theocratic socialization/propaganda.

Democracy is and always has been an illusion. Any given People can be made to vote a certain way if they are socialized to do so, are barraged with constant reinforcement to do so, and there is an absence of famines and the like.

It all depends on who controls the powers of socialization and propaganda, not on whether people are "allowed to vote" (this silly and infantile notion seems to permeate the mindset of most Americans re sociopolitics in the world).

[Cato]

Democracy is and always has been an illusion. Any given People can be made to vote a certain way if they are socialized to do so, are barraged with constant reinforcement to do so, and there is an absence of famines and the like.

It all depends on who controls the powers of socialization and propaganda, not on whether people are "allowed to vote" (this silly and infantile notion seems to permeate the mindset of most Americans re sociopolitics in the world).

You remind me of a bit I just read in The First Man in Rome, Colleen McCullough's excellent beginning to the Masters of Rome series. Gaius Julius Caesar (grandfather of the much more well-known Gaius Julius Caesar) was having a conversation with Gaius Marius and the subject of democracy came up. The gist was that people have always preferred the rule of the few over the many and that democracy was a silly Greek utopianism because it elevates the many, who are usually irresponsible and ignorant, to a position of equality with the responsible and civic-minded. Caesar and Marius conclude that a just government by the few, or even a single authority figure, is much better than an "equal" government wherein, really, the mob rules. Look at the system of "government" in the modern-day U.S., where it's really mob rule (with a twist): he who can pander to the greatest assortment of rabble and political trash will come out on top of the (dung)heap. Nothing is said of civil morality or civic-mindedness or, heaven forbid, the rule of those who have the characteristics and capabilities of ruling. A poor illiterate farmer with common sense, civic piety and respect for "the way things ought to be because that's how things were done in the past" is much better than a thousand Barack Hussein Obongos.

A similar situation occurs in the ancient episode where the Israelites clamor for a king. Tired of the judges, they holler so loudly that Jehovah relents and gives them a king: Saul (whose legacy is really much better than the bible makes him out to be, mainly because he fought many successful battles against the arch-foes of the Israelites; David still gets the glory, however).

[Lenny]

(Mass-)Democracy in itself is an illusion. There is in fact no such thing as Democracy: The ballot box is a mirror of the Ruling Ideology. Control socialization (and the tools of propaganda and discourse-setting) and you control the ballot box. Or at least you control the range of outcomes possible therein.


Pallamedes, that line from Marius/Caesar that people "prefer the rule of the few"-- I'd go one further and say (along the lines of the above) that there never is anything BUT the rule of the few. The only question is, who "the few" are in any given case, and what they believe the animating-sociopolitical-impulse should be. Whether these "few" have us perform these strange "voting" rituals every few years matters not at all, as they have already socialized the masses on which way to vote, so it functions as a mirror to the direction already given by "the few".

[Cato]

(Mass-)Democracy in itself is an illusion. There is in fact no such thing as Democracy: The ballot box is a mirror of the Ruling Ideology. Control socialization (and the tools of propaganda and discourse-setting) and you control the ballot box. Or at least you control the range of outcomes possible therein.


Pallamedes, that line from Marius/Caesar that people "prefer the rule of the few"-- I'd go one further and say (along the lines of the above) that there never is anything BUT the rule of the few. The only question is, who "the few" are in any given case, and what they believe the animating-sociopolitical-impulse should be. Whether these "few" have us perform these strange "voting" rituals every few years matters not at all, as they have already socialized the masses on which way to vote, so it functions as a mirror to the direction already given by "the few".

The few that rule know aren't worthy of the power that they wield. In an ideal world, like that of Plato's republic, the wise and virtuous would rule. These mythical benevolent tyrants would represent the finest specimens of their society- not so much born to rule but, owing to natural predispotion and proper training, selected to rule. So, there'd emerge a caste of political overlords, gentlemen in a Confucian sense who are severely aware of their duties to society, and who wouldn't lord it over the rest of the world. This is the ideal, and storybooks are filled with such individuals: King Arthur, Liu Bei and King David just to name a few. Marcus Aurelius is the only one I can think of whose exploits aren't exaggerated.

[SwordoftheVistula]

More likely though, you get people like this guy in Nicaragua who tried to stay in power in defiance of the law