Obviously not in Iran, even though it is obvious that assuring free elections there would change the course of the Middle East dramatically.
So why hasn't the USA insisted on an emergency session at the UN to intervene in the Iranian crisis?
As the leaders of the free world we should be enlisting help from other nations to go into Iran and monitor a truly free election to be sure that the Iranian people get what their government obviously does not want them to have.
Dropping acid from helicopters onto crowds of protesting citizens in the streets is not the action of a government elected by the people. When government leaders turn guns on their constituents, it is time for other governments to intervene -- not to take over but to assure that the people achieve free elections.
We're accused of intervention anyway, so what do we have to lose? What we have to gain is immense because it is obvious that the people of Iran want change and are willing to risk their lives to get it. The trouble is, the people don't have the ability to fight guns and acid.
When we needed help in the 18th century the French came and fought for us. We are not asked to fight for Iranians but simply to assure that they have a free election. That's what the UN (and our participation in the UN) is for.
No comments:
Post a Comment