God's Politics

God's Politics


Elizabeth Palmberg: There They Go Again (And Again…)

posted by gp_intern

Deputy National Security Advisor Elliot Abrams has allegedly “blessed” an undercover CIA attempt to destabilize the government of Iran. Abrams was, of course, involved in an earlier covert attempt to undermine a foreign government (of Nicaragua) which involved illegally selling arms to Iran. This November will be the 16th anniversary of Abrams’ conviction of lying to Congress about the Iran-Contra affair. We suggest that he celebrate with cake, ice cream, and maybe taking some time to talk with other administration officials about blowback.

The term “blowback” was, it turns out, first used by the CIA to describe unintended negative consequences of its 1953 plot to overthrow the elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mossadeq.

To be fair, the current alleged plan against the Iranian government is not licensed to kill anyone, and so far does not appear to involve lying to Congress.

Elizabeth Palmberg is an assistant editor for Sojourners.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(38)
post a comment
Mike Hayes

posted May 25, 2007 at 5:32 pm


Elizabeth, Also, some “dyed in the wool” conservatives do see the folly of US government interference in the internal operations of foreign governments… they do see the consequences of the US using its military and economic might to undermine foreign governments… and the subsequent liablity of the US for the shortcomings that follow in those countries. But, as you point out, “There they go again… and again…”. “When will they ever learn…”? I wonder how soon these nationalists will again repeat the mistakes of Vietnam and Iraq…



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted May 25, 2007 at 6:44 pm


So because one covert plan had unintended consequences, we should dispense with covert plans? Why wouldn’t we want to destabilize the Iranian government? If doing so staves off a nuclear war (or an invasion to prevent same) I’ll take my chances with unintended consequences. That said, there is a difference between fearing the nationalization of oil and fearing the production of a nuclear bomb.



report abuse
 

Ngchen

posted May 25, 2007 at 9:07 pm


So far, there has been no concrete proof that Iran’s going after a nuclear bomb. Sure, there are some questions, but after the Iraq WMD fiasco, people are rightfully questioning the assertions. Does it occur to anyone that a neutral third-party can argue that it is hypocrisy in the highest to engage in covert activities against another government, while forbidding others from doing the same to oneself?



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted May 25, 2007 at 9:29 pm


So because one covert plan had unintended consequences, we should dispense with covert plans? Why wouldn’t we want to destabilize the Iranian government? Excuse me, but the Iran hostage crisis was connected to the last time we destabilized a government there and they’re STILL understandably mad about that. On top of that, it will take years and lots of testing before it sets off a nuclear bomb — and even at that it will be a pop gun compared to the arsenal we still have.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted May 25, 2007 at 10:38 pm


OK – so we should not fight ‘fire with fire’?Iran is on record as calling for the demise of Israel, the US and many of our Allies. They are developing nuclear weapons to be used against US and others. Their whole desire is to destabilize the west because the hate us. (9-11 was ment to destablize US and others) So – are we to go to the UN and tell the General Assembly that ‘Iran is not playing fair’? They are out to get us so to quote one of my favorite movies. ‘they send one of yours to the hospital – you send one of theirs to the morgue’. We need to talk the language that they understand so that they know that we mean business. (if most of the authors on Sojo were leaders of the free world in the movie Independence Day – we would all be Allien poop)Have a great weekend everyone and God Bless our Military Personnel and their Families where ever they serve for the cause of Peace around the world. Later – .



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted May 25, 2007 at 11:00 pm


“So because one covert plan had unintended consequences, we should dispense with covert plans?” One covert plan? What was the Bay of Pigs? (I m sure there were many more) Should we dispense with covert operations? What if we add the qualifier ill-conceived? Why wouldn’t we want to destabilize the Iranian government?Why wouldn t they want to destabilize the government of Israel or ours? The problem with that egocentric line of thinking is that it presumes we are right and they are wrong. History abounds with examples of nations, including ours, that presumed themselves and their actions to be just and noble when nothing was farther from the truth. Peace!



report abuse
 

Don

posted May 25, 2007 at 11:31 pm


Why wouldn’t we want to destabilize Iran? In addition to the reason previously mentioned (we did it before and regretted it), here’s why: The Iranian people don’t like the Islamic Revolutionary government. About 70% of the population is under 30 and have no recollection of the Shah–they likewise have no recollection of the hostage crisis, the “Death to America” chants, or the Great Satan. And here’s the kicker: most of these young Iranians actually like Americans. I belive most of Ahmadinejad’s bluster is aimed at a domestic audience–i.e., blame the rest of the world, tell the Iranians he’s out to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, tell the people that America is out to get them, and that takes some of the pressure off his unpopular government. But if the US tries to destabilize his government, as unpopular as it is, the people will rally behind him. The last thing we want is for the Iranian people, who right now are largely pro-American, to turn against us. If that happens, we’ll not only have a replay of 1978-79, but we’ll likely unleash more problems than we had back then. Peace!



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted May 25, 2007 at 11:50 pm


So because one covert plan had unintended consequences, we should dispense with covert plans? Why wouldn’t we want to destabilize the Iranian government?Kevin, This is not just one. there were quite a few plans that went wrong and that is one of the many reasons socialism crept up into Latin America. p



report abuse
 

Doug7504

posted May 26, 2007 at 12:23 am


Our government still hasn’t learned that we meddle in the affairs of other nations (Vietnam, East Germany, Iraq, Iran, Colombia, Venezuela, North Korea, the list goes on) and end up destabilizing the region, not achieving our goals (provided we know what they are) and fighting a war or a “police action” later to try and correct the problem. Our track record proves that we have no business engaging in this type of activity. It doesn’t make things better, or safer, for anyone. Beyond this, as an allegedly Christian nation, we violate our own beliefs by waging war in ANY form against other nations whose “belligerance” usually takes the form of not agreeing to our policies.But, it’s simpler to play our covert games, which feeds the war machine, and when all else fails, wrap ourselves in the flag and blame the liberals when these policies fail again… Wake up America!Peace!



report abuse
 

HASH(0x11f819b4)

posted May 26, 2007 at 4:56 am


“Iran is on record as calling for the demise of Israel, the US and many of our Allies.” Mod-Lad An Iranian young lady I had in a class last semester was quick to make a distinction between what Iran wants and what the nutcake who currently runs the government over there wants. Do we assume he speaks on behalf of Iran? Does GWB speak on behalf of the USA? Yes and no, I’d suggest.



report abuse
 

HASH(0x11f83024)

posted May 26, 2007 at 4:58 am


The problem with that egocentric line of thinking is that it presumes we are right and they are wrong. History abounds with examples of nations, including ours, that presumed themselves and their actions to be just and noble when nothing was farther from the truth. Peace! neuro_nurseGol-lee, I’m glad to hear an American say that, N-N. May the saints bless you (and may they win at least one more game this year too.)



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted May 26, 2007 at 5:12 pm


May the saints bless you (and may they win at least one more game this year too.) Anonymous | 05.25.07 – 11:03 pmWHO DAT?! I lived in Tehran in 1978 – I heard the other side of the story, the one that many Americans don’t seem to want to hear. Peace!



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted May 26, 2007 at 8:31 pm


My point was that we, as a nation, have executed any number of covert operations. That one (or even many) have had unintended consequences is not a reason to suggest that we ought not execute them in the future. Right now, we are left with the question of whether or not to believe a leader who says that he is acquiring nuclear technology, and has threatened to wipe an ally off the map. If a neighboring country threatened to wipe Britain off the map, and was acquiring the means to do so, we wouldn’t have to have this discussion. They would go ahead and take care of business, and we would be obliged to help them, regardless of our history with that particular nation, and nobody would think twice.Britain has done awful things in the past. Britain may or may not be acting in a manner that is agitating that particular nation in some way, but the fact remains that they are an ally, and a qualified ally at that. Eventually, Israel is just going to take care of business anyway. If we can work covertly to make the transition as painless as possible, while minimizing our troop involvement, than that is good. If you want to contend that Ahmadinejad is preferable to the alternative, I would be interested to hear counterproposals. However, the argument that Iran may be right and we may be wrong is absurd. I’d love to see a Democratic candidate run on that platform, however, but even Obama isn’t that far left.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted May 26, 2007 at 10:10 pm


“Eventually, Israel is just going to take care of business anyway.” If that’s the case, it sounds like the best course of action would be to get out of the way.There is no denying that Ahmadinejad is bellicose, but then, so is bush. The invasion of Iraq was ill-conceived, the consequences were obviously not seriously considered.I doubt that we have the objectivity to deal appropriately with Iran. I have personal reasons for not wanting to see the U.S. go into Iran – covertly or overtly – I lived there. The word “Iranian” means something to me, it’s not an abstract concept. They are people I knew – kind and very generous people. Peace!



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted May 26, 2007 at 10:29 pm


“If that’s the case, it sounds like the best course of action would be to get out of the way. ” Why?”There is no denying that Ahmadinejad is bellicose, but then, so is bush.” Right. And when Bush says he is going to take a certain military action, I believe him. “The invasion of Iraq was ill-conceived, the consequences were obviously not seriously considered. ” I think they were. I just don’t think we can predict the outcome of every strategy. Rumsfeld wanted to run lean, a tact which worked in Afghanistan. This tact put us behind the 8-ball, so it is tough to say whether these consequences were inevitable. “I have personal reasons for not wanting to see the U.S. go into Iran – covertly or overtly – I lived there. The word “Iranian” means something to me, it’s not an abstract concept. They are people I knew – kind and very generous people.” Iranians mean something to me as well. It is a tough spot to be in a nation led by a malicious lunatic. However, as I understand it, most of them are not supportive of Iranian leadership. As such, it would seem that political instability would create an opening for democratic reforms. My point was that, if you don’t support an invasion, why wouldn’t you support an operation to create instability?



report abuse
 

canucklehead

posted May 27, 2007 at 1:30 am


“Iran is on record as calling for the demise of Israel, the US and many of our Allies.” Mod-Lad An Iranian young lady I had in a class last semester was quick to make a distinction between what Iran wants and what the nutcake who currently runs the government over there wants. Do we assume he speaks on behalf of Iran? Does GWB speak on behalf of the USA? Yes and no, I’d suggest. Anonymous | 05.25.07 – 11:01 pm | #——————————————————————————– The problem with that egocentric line of thinking is that it presumes we are right and they are wrong. History abounds with examples of nations, including ours, that presumed themselves and their actions to be just and noble when nothing was farther from the truth. Peace! neuro_nurseGol-lee, I’m glad to hear an American say that, N-N. May the saints bless you (and may they win at least one more game this year too.) Anonymous | 05.25.07 – 11:03 pm | #Sorry, folks, don’t know what happened to my handle on those posts.



report abuse
 

canucklehead

posted May 27, 2007 at 1:32 am


“Britain has done awful things in the past.” Kevin s I’ve forwarded our post to Scotland Yard. Since Prince Harry can’t go to Iraq I anticipate that he’ll be dispatched to come over to MN, track you down and smite thee on the head with Daddy’s polo mallet.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted May 27, 2007 at 7:16 pm


“I’ve forwarded our post to Scotland Yard. Since Prince Harry can’t go to Iraq I anticipate that he’ll be dispatched to come over to MN, track you down and smite thee on the head with Daddy’s polo mallet.” That explains the British dude I just gunned down on my front lawn. Seriously, a polo mallet? Welcome to America, Harry. “An Iranian young lady I had in a class last semester was quick to make a distinction between what Iran wants and what the nutcake who currently runs the government over there wants. Do we assume he speaks on behalf of Iran? Does GWB speak on behalf of the USA? Yes and no, I’d suggest.” But again, we have a choice. If, in 2008, we all collectively want something much different from GWB, we can pick from any number of candidates, none of whom are going to call for the destruction of Israel (except maybe Ron Paul). Any president is going to speak for 40-60% of America at any given time, but we do have common goals that donot include the genocide of a race, which would be a bold intiative, to say the least. Wouldn’t a covert operation consist of working with a proponent of the people to create instability? The article cites propoganda, but do we need propoganda against Ahmadinjed, when his people don’t support him anyway?And why the hell are people leaking CIA secrets? How is this beneficial to our country? Eventually, we are going to have a president that you folks all agree with. Is this a precedent that you want to establish, wherein the CIA must test all secret activities against the weight of public opinion? Referendum by default? On national security matters? Awesome.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted May 28, 2007 at 12:25 am


Let’s put it this way kevin: I don’t trust gw bush – and I don’t need to elaborate to you my reasons for not trusting him. If Ahmadinjed needs to be ‘dealt with,’ I would much rather see some one else do it – preferably, by diplomatic means other than sabre-rattling. Fair enough?



report abuse
 

Don

posted May 28, 2007 at 3:13 pm


Here’s another way to put it: Ahmadinejad WANTS us to respond to his belligerence in kind. It would vindicate him and verify everything he has been saying about us. That’s the main reason why we should resist the temptation to “deal” with him. I agree with neuro_nurse: a diplomatic approach is far preferable. Chances are Ahmadinejad isn’t the one who’s *really* in charge anyway: diplomacy could help us figure out who we really need to be dealing with. Peace,



report abuse
 

Annie (UK)

posted May 28, 2007 at 4:29 pm


Have a great weekend everyone and God Bless our Military Personnel and their Families where ever they serve for the cause of Peace around the world. moderatelad | 05.25.07 – 4:43 pm | #”The cause of Peace” ?? Do Americans really believe this rhetoric. UK military people I have spoken to talk of witnessing extreme American abuse towards Iraqui detainees and civilian families which hardly advances peace in the Arab world. We all know that the American military only go in when it is in the US self-interest, even during the two World Wars when their allies were under threat of annihilation.



report abuse
 

canucklehead

posted May 28, 2007 at 10:29 pm


there you go again, Annie, bringing a d*mn international perspective :)



report abuse
 

Don

posted May 29, 2007 at 12:22 am


Yeah, canucklehead. Well, if truth be told, as a US citizen I don’t understand the seemingly obvious contradiction of the idea of *military* personnel fighting a war of our government’s choice in Iraq and yet at the same time serving for the cause of *peace*. I wonder how many Americans really DO believe this kind of rhetoric. I’m certainly not one of them.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted May 29, 2007 at 5:09 am


Annie (UK) | 05.28.07 – 10:34 am | #We all know that the American military only go in when it is in the US self-interest, even during the two World Wars when their allies were under threat of annihilation. So you are saying that we should not have come to the aid of the UK during WWII? We should have just let Hitler cross the channel and take over the British Isles. What ‘self-interest’ did the US have in coming to your aid? You have nothing that we want or could use that we do not already have here. I believe that we came to the aid of a friend – sorry that you don’t see it that way and I think that could change before the next war.You have just made it on my Chamberlain List. Not grab a piece of paper and go to the window. Open it up and stick you head out and wave the paper and say – ‘Peace in our time’ 3 times.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted May 29, 2007 at 5:33 am


“Let’s put it this way kevin: I don’t trust gw bush ” That’s about what this all boils down to, isn’t it? “Here’s another way to put it: Ahmadinejad WANTS us to respond to his belligerence in kind.” How do you know this? How do you know that his threats are empty? Why are you willing to take that chance? At any rate, if I take your argument at face value, then responding in kind would be provocative threats to wipe Iran off the map, not covert operations. “I agree with neuro_nurse: a diplomatic approach is far preferable. ” Who disagrees with this statement? The question is whether diplomacy is possible. “diplomacy could help us figure out who we really need to be dealing with.” The people we really need to be dealing with see Ahmadinejad as the public relations wing of their leadership. Suffice to say, they wouldn’t mind seeing Israel wiped off the map. “”The cause of Peace” ?? Do Americans really believe this rhetoric. ” Yes we do. We give our military personnel the benefit of the doubt. Frankly I doubt you have sat down and talked with a bunch of UK military folk who talked about how they abused (or witnessed abuse of) military detainees and civilians. If they did witness this abuse, I hope you encouraged all of your military friends to report their comrades for the abuse. That is the best solution to the rampant illegal behavior of our troops. I know a number of military personnel who have fought in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and here precisely the opposite of what you describe.”even during the two World Wars when their allies were under threat of annihilation.” Well, this whole issue is whether Iran has threatened Israel with annihilation. But maybe your military friends have a different take.



report abuse
 

Don

posted May 29, 2007 at 1:13 pm


“How do you know this? How do you know that his threats are empty?” Once again, you put words in my mouth. I NEVER said Ahmadindejad’s threats were EMPTY. I only said his threats are aimed primarily at an unsupportive domestic audience. I’m sure he would try to wipe Israel off the map if he could. But that doesn’t discount the immediate aim of his rhetoric. A covert action against the Iranian gov’t would be an unmitigated disaster. We’ve already succeeded in further destabilizing the region by invading Iraq and opening the Pandora’s box of sectarian violence there. An unstable Iran would only make matters worse. In addition, any destabilization effort would provoke the Iranian people to support their government despite its current popularity. Do we really want another round of “death to America” chants? Iran could have been an ally in the war against Islamist terrorism. They offered to help us with eliminating the Taliban in Afghanistan (whom they didn’t like), but we rejected their help. Too bad; if we had worked with them at that time, the political situation there might be different(i.e., Ahmadinejad might never have come to power and more moderate forces might be in control in Iran). Let’s work through diplomatic channels to resolve our differences. Only after total failure of serious diplomacy should other options be considered. “‘The cause of Peace’?? Do Americans really believe this rhetoric. “Yes we do. We give our military personnel the benefit of the doubt.” It has little to do with supporting or not supporting our military. It has everything to do with the ridiculous notion that our troops are in Iraq to serve the cause of peace. Most of the troops are doing an honorable job, given the situation they face and the heretofore incompetent management of the affair. But invading Iraq did not serve the cause of peace; rather, it exacerbated and widened hostilities, both toward the US and in the Middle East itself. Later,



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted May 29, 2007 at 2:50 pm


to all – I am not prophet but…I believe that Iran will have the nuclear bomb in short order because the UN is inept and Kennedy, Peloci and Feinstein with crucify any one that would dare to do anything to make sure that they do not get the bomb. So the world will become a little smaller and a little less safer. Thank you Nancy. Be safe today because tomorrow we don’t know about – yet. .



report abuse
 

Annie (UK)

posted May 29, 2007 at 3:01 pm


“So you are saying that we should not have come to the aid of the UK during WWII? We should have just let Hitler cross the channel and take over the British Isles. What ‘self-interest’ did the US have in coming to your aid? You have nothing that we want or could use that we do not already have here.” My point was that the US’s foreign policy is dictated by political and economic self-interest and free market capitalism, not as a means to advance the cause of peace or even democracy. I don’t dispute that war is sometimes the lesser of 2 evils but let’s at least be honest about why nations get involved in armed conflicts.The US came to our aid militarily in 1941 after Pearl Harbour not during the Battle of Britain in 1940 when the threat to the UK was at its height. My father joined up in 1939 and was evacuated from the beaches after Dunkirk; we are not a pacifist family but we don’t romanticise the reasons nations go to war either. Quite obviously you didn’t come in to take anything Europe had materially but for political reasons. Sadly “Peace” for half of Europe was to be left under Soviet oppression for 2 generations and Middle Eastern countries were treated little better than Colonies of the West.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted May 29, 2007 at 3:40 pm


Annie (UK) | 05.29.07 – 9:06 am | #So I guess the ability to deal with the European Countries that had done business with the US for decades might have played into the decision. Stopping the tyrant in Germany was part of the desicion as it seemed to be that the counrties over there were doing a poor job keeping him in check.So – the US is wrong because we did not join the war effort early enough during WWII and now we are wrong because we seem to have to be the ones that go in too early. Europe allowed Hitler to break the treaty that ended WWI which allowed him to rearm and wage war. The UN and Clinton Adm Saddam to do the same – now we are dealing with North Korea and Iran (again thank you Billy) So – we are wrong if we are premptive and we are wrong if we act as a reaction to something.You can’t have it both ways.I prefer to be proactive rather than reactive. I personally believe that Nancy Peloci thinks the same way. But only if it is a Dem that is being proactive. If it is a Rep in charge she will demand that they should be reactive so that she can blast them for not containing the issue. Have a great day – .



report abuse
 

God's Politics Moderator

posted May 29, 2007 at 7:44 pm


“Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” (Ephesians 4:29) This message thread has been visited by a God’s Politics Blog moderator for the purpose of removing inappropriate posts. Click here for a detailed explanation of the Beliefnet Rules of Conduct: http://www.beliefnet.com/about/rules.asp which includes: Help us keep the conversation civil and respectful by reporting inappropriate posts to: community@staff.beliefnet.com 5



report abuse
 

Carl Copas

posted May 29, 2007 at 9:01 pm


For an interesting take on the longterm consequences of U.S. covert ops, see Chalmers Johnson, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire. Johnson is no Chamberlain nor is he a lefty peacenik. He was a hardline cold warrior for decades, while he served, among other things, as a consultant on international affairs for the U.S. government. Annie, not all American citizens are militaristic ultranationalists. Many of us are sick with fear of where Bush’s policies are leading the country. But we are, as you might gather from some of the posts on this list, fighting a long and hard uphill battle. Peace in Christ.



report abuse
 

Don

posted May 30, 2007 at 12:58 pm


“5 God’s Politics Moderator” Canucklehead, this hit from Beliefnet has a 5 on it. Five minutes for (verbal) fighting? Don



report abuse
 

Sarasotakid

posted May 31, 2007 at 3:57 am


Why wouldn’t we want to destabilize the Iranian government? Um, because the last time we tried that with it’s neighbor (Iraq), it didn’t go so well, maybe?



report abuse
 

Sarasotakid

posted May 31, 2007 at 3:59 am


Annie, not all American citizens are militaristic ultranationalists. Many of us are sick with fear of where Bush’s policies are leading the country. But we are, as you might gather from some of the posts on this list, fighting a long and hard uphill battle. Carl Copas Annie, count this “gringo” in with what Carl said.



report abuse
 

Sarasotakid

posted May 31, 2007 at 4:01 am


we are not a pacifist family but we don’t romanticise the reasons nations go to war either. Annie It’s pretty obvious you didn’t study history from US history books, either, which is good thing.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted May 31, 2007 at 2:40 pm


Does anyone believe that if the UN and Clinton had done their job dealing with the Mideast and Iraq that we would not be in the situation that we are today? The last 3 plus years of the Clinton Adm they hardly gave Iraq or most of the challenges of the Mideast a passing glance which allowed them to resupply, thanks to the French and others. Reorganize thanks to the Russians and others. Now we are dealing with it and we might never know what was or wasn’t not done because of what Sandy was stuffing in his BVD’s.The world truned a blind eye to Germany and Hitler was allowed to rearm and presto – WWII. The UN was so focused on issues that they knew they can deal with and ignoring the difficult one and with Koffi busy assisting his son making money with Saddam – presto, someone had to deal with the situation.Sanctions from the UN are like a guard dog with no teeth, pointless and anoying. Have a great day – .



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted May 31, 2007 at 7:29 pm


Do you really want to call what we are doing dealing w/ the problem. Cmon man you are smarter than that. We are making things worse and are not really dealing w/ much at all. p



report abuse
 

StevoC

posted June 11, 2007 at 3:19 am


Iran has more to fear from Israel – & the USA -then they do from it.
Both the United States with hundreds of thousands of nuclear weapons and Israel with at least hundreds can wipe Iran off the map – murdering thousands of innocent Iranian children, women & men inthe process. Along with perhaps a few who have been guilty of using violent rhetoric which they are unable and, realistically, probably unwilling to folowo through on.
Here’s a thought – remember the Bay of Pigs? Remember Viet Nam? Remember the invasion and occupationof Iraq which shouldn’t be too hard because its happening right now?
Oh and recall too that about the only thing Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden had in common (apart from both almost certainly being deceased – there’s no doubt about Saddam and its most probable if unconfirmed with OBL) is thatbothwereinitially funded,trained ansd supported by the US – specifically theCIAand neo-conservatve or rather neo-imperialist “thinkers”
Think about those experiences and quite a few others – unwelcomed US interference in Allende’s Chile resulting in Pinocets right0-wing military dictatorship, in Iran, in Latin America and Afrcia generally ..
Theres a lesson from all these & its pretty simple – LEAVE OTHER NATIONS ALONE!
Work diplomatically sure, but don’t go invading them, occupying them or even launching coups in them. Let their peopeldecide their nations futures justas you’d like todecide your own. Or Do unto others.
Would you approve Iran taking covert action to control America? Would you approve of them bombing, bullying and threatening you? No? Then do not do it to them.
Iranians too are your neighbours in the Christian sense. They tooare human beings. Like you most would disagree withtheirleadershipalthough nlike you many face a lot more trouble if they say so.
Finally,remeber one more thing -tthat clausde Amercia forced into Japan’s post-War constitution about “never again threatening to attack other nations and renouncing forever the use of military force except in strict self-defence.” Now that is agodo idea for ALL nations toadopt -imagine if tehydid. Imagine if the US set a positive example by renouncing violence amd signing a non-aggression pact withevery nationontheplanet asking them todo likewise -then sticking to it.
Peace. Salaam. Shalom.
Shalom, Salaam. Peace.
Amen.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting God's Politics. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:14:07am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Why I Work for Immigration Reform (by Patty Kupfer)
When I tell people that I work on immigration reform, they usually laugh or say, "way to pick an easy topic." Everyday it feels like there is more fear, more hate. Raids are picking up in Nevada, California, and New York. A number of senators who supported comprehensive reform only a few months ago

posted 12:30:52pm Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Audio: Jim Wallis on "Value Voters" on The Tavis Smiley Show
Last week Jim was on The Tavis Smiley Show and talked about how the changing political landscape will affect the upcoming '08 election. Jim and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, debated and discussed both the impact of "value voters" on the election and what those values entail. + Down

posted 10:11:56am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Verse of the Day: 'peace to the far and the near'
I have seen their ways, but I will heal them; I will lead them and repay them with comfort, creating for their mourners the fruit of the lips. Peace, peace, to the far and the near, says the Lord; and I will heal them. But the wicked are like the tossing sea that cannot keep still; its waters toss u

posted 9:35:01am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Daily News Digest (by Duane Shank)
the latest news on Mideast, Iran, Romney-Religious right, Blog action day, Turkey, SCHIP, Iran, Aids-Africa, India, Budget, Brownback-slavery apology, Canada, and selected op-eds. Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail » Blog action day. Thousands of bloggers unite in blitz of green

posted 9:31:25am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.