On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at  5:07 PM, <[email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) 
> wrote:






 
Lennart :
You may well be right......unless this is  a Gandhi moment.
At one point in his career, Gandhi is  reputed to have said,
" I must hurry to catch up with the  people whom I am leading."
 
IF   --and God only knows --  the "movement " in Iran has gotten to 
the place where old distinctions don't  matter any more, then 
this is anything but one kind of idiot vs  another kind of idiot.
About this I would  not trust Buchanan, someone who has  little or 
no comprehension of the world outside of  Europe or America.
 
But he is right about autocrats and guns,  things could get very ugly in 
Iran.
I don't want to even guess how this will  go.
 
Billy
 
============================
 
PS   
OK to send this along to Centroids  ?
 
 
=============================
 
In a message dated 6/19/2009 12:53:22  P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, 
[email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected])  writes:

Hello Billy,

I think I am with BHO and Pat  on this one. However, I'd step up the covert 
support of the regime critics  1,000%

// Lennart


Tiananmen  Moments
by  Patrick J.  Buchanan
06/19/2009


On Dec. 14, 1825, following the death of  Alexander I -- who had seen off 
Napoleon -- his brother, the grand duke, who  had just taken the oath as Czar 
Nicholas I, was confronted by mutinous  troops and rebels in Senate Square 
before the Winter Palace.

For  hours, the czar stood at the end of the square as the crowd shouted 
for a  constitution or for Nicholas' brother Constantine to take the throne. 
Shots  were exchanged.

As darkness fell, a czarist general rode up to  Nicholas and said, "Sire, 
clean the square with gunfire -- or  abdicate."

The cannons belched -- and Nicholas reigned for 30  years.

Most autocratic regimes face such moments.

After Joseph  Stalin's death in 1953, East German workers rebelled, and 
were crushed.  Rather than let the Hungarian Revolution triumph, in November 
1956 Nikita  Khrushchev ordered in the tanks. In August 1968, Leonid Brezhnev 
sent in  tanks again to crush Prague Spring. In 1981, Moscow ordered Gen. 
Jaruzelski  to smash Solidarity. Those communists did not shrink from massacre 
to keep  what they worshipped: power.

In June 1989, Beijing, rather than let  hundreds of thousands of dissidents 
occupy Tiananmen Square, waited for  nightfall and sent in tanks and rural 
troops, avoiding the fate of the  communist regimes of Eastern Europe.

Authoritarian rulers who recoil  at bloodshed to preserve their power have 
not fared well.

Louis XVI  let the mob lead him away from Versailles, which he never saw 
again. When  artillery captain Bonaparte asked one of the late king's 
ministers why Louis  had not used his cannons, the minister is said to have 
replied, 
"The king of  France does not use artillery on his own people."

To which Napoleon  is said to have replied, "What an idiot."

The Shah refused to use his  army on the rebels and lost his throne. 
Mikhail Gorbachev refused to use the  army to save Moscow's allies in Eastern 
Europe and lost the Soviet  Empire.

Though Gorbachev is hailed in the West for not being a  Khrushchev, no true 
authoritarian would regard him as a great  statesman.

Tehran appears to be facing its Tiananmen  moment.

Hundreds of thousands are still demonstrating against  Friday's election 
and the regime that validated it. They are now being  joined by crowds in 
cities where Baluchi, Arabs, Kurds and Azeris outnumber  Persians, thus 
imperiling the unity of this diverse nation.

It is  hard to believe that this theocratic regime, backed by the 
Revolutionary  Guard and clerics, will not do whatever is necessary to preserve 
its 
power  and national unity.

This is another reason President Obama is right  not to declare that the 
United States is on the side of the demonstrators in  Tehran or the other 
cities -- and against the regime.

Should this end  in bloodshed, Obama would be blamed for having instigated 
it, and then  abandoned the demonstrators, as Ike's U.S. Information Agency 
was blamed for  having urged the Hungarians to rise and then left them to 
their  fate.

When Vice President Nixon went to the bridge at Andau to  welcome the 
Hungarian patriots fleeing the bloodbath, many cursed America  for having 
misled 
them into believing we would be at their side.

If  Obama cannot assist the demonstrators, why declare we are with them? 
That  would call into question the nationalist credentials of the protesters 
by  tying them to a power not universally loved in Iran. It would play into 
the  hand of the regime by confirming charges that the crowds are 
"rent-a-mobs"  like the ones Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA used to dump over the 
regime 
of  Muhammad Mossadegh in 1953.

Moreover, the alternative to the  Ayatollah and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not 
a republic that will renounce  Islamism and Iran's nuclear program. It is 
ex-Presidents Khatami and  Rafsanjani, and ex-Prime Minister Mir-Hossein 
Mousavi, all of whom trace  their roots to the Revolution of 1979 and none of 
whom bears any great love  of Uncle Sam.

It is Ayatollah Khomeini's boys versus Ayatollah  Khamenei's boys. As Obama 
observed, in policy terms, there is no great  difference.

For six days, the world has watched riveted as hundreds  of thousands of 
Iranians peacefully protested what they believe was a stolen  election, 
challenging the ayatollah who validated it just hours after the  polls closed. 
For 
six days, the regime, born of the Islamic Revolution of  1979, has been 
leaking legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of its own  people, the Islamic 
world, the whole world.

Why interfere? Why turn a  widening confrontation between the Ayatollah 
Khamenei and the people into a  spat between the president of the United States 
and the president of  Iran?

It is impossible to believe a denunciation of the regime by  Obama will 
cause it to stay its hand if it believes its power is imperiled.  But it is 
certain that if Obama denounces Tehran, those demonstrators will  be portrayed 
as dupes and agents of America before and after they meet their  fate.

If standing up and denouncing the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad  from 7,000 
miles away is moral heroism, it is moral heroism at other  people's expense.

Link: _http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32370_ 
(http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32370) 











-- 
Lennart  Johansson
Webstix, Inc .

_http://www.webstix.com_ (http://www.webstix.com/) 
Office: 608-277-7849
Mobile:  608-628-5662

Blog: _http://www.webstix.com/lennart-blog.html_ 
(http://www.webstix.com/lennart-blog.html) 

_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/

Reply via email to