Dealing With Revolutionary Regimes and Nation States
By John A. Ross (05/29/08)
After digesting the recent Wall Street Journal article written by Amir Taheri and republished on the IRANVAJAHAN.NET website(1) on 5/28/08, it was apparent most readers would miss the corollaries. A primary premise of Taheri’s article was to elucidate the folly of attempting to civilly deal with regimes focused on exporting their particular form of “revolutionary” dogma and militancy. The article delved into Barack Obama’s ignorance based advocacy of “meeting” with tyrants to promote his interpretation of “change,” and Taheri illuminated the depth of the candidates’ ignorance.
Regimes consumed with maintaining their power by extinguishing lives, common democratic liberties and the pursuit of happiness are routinely called despotic. They are not routinely called nation states; nor are they routinely afforded the same civil courtesies nation states enjoy. Contrary to prevailing ignorance, nation states ensure that their citizens enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Typically, today’s “hot-list” of despotic regimes usually include Iran, Myanmar and Sudan.
Regimes unwilling to transition into nation states by granting their citizens the fundamental human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must be confronted and exposed as the Soviet Union was. Handing despotic revolutionary regimes that export terror and subject their citizens to unmitigated violence to maintain their power base is tantamount to accepting the horrors that have been perpetrated by fascists, communists and radical Islamic zealots. Dismissing, or shielding from exposure the savagery despotic regimes mete out against humanity by affording them nation state status must, by default, also be considered a crime against humanity.
Barack Obama’s offhand dismissal of Iran and other revolution exporting despotic countries by referring to them as being “too small to be a threat to the U.S.” is another example of his apparent elitist ignorance. Reasonably, one must assume that Obama’s statement in San Francisco about Americans “clinging to their bibles and guns” and they are “too small to be threat” is a reflection of ignorant superiority. Departing from a position of ignorant superiority and ascending to the most powerful position on the planet, the U.S. presidency, is a very, very scary proposition.
Equating President Nixon’s meeting with Mao Zedong in 1972 is yet another pathetic straw grasping attempt couched in ignorance to thwart the scorn Obama is receiving from more informed Americans. A more relevant example would be President Clinton’s disastrous Middle East efforts that resulted in Palestinian terrorist Yassar Arafat , ultimately, receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. The corollary in this area is: Should Obama become president, Amadi-Nejad will receive the Nobel Peace Prize for wiping Israel off the map.
John Ross
1) http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2008&m=05&d=28&a=7
(Printer friendly version) Email: John A. Ross
