Some serious confusion.

.
.
While driving to the store today, I saw what I believed to be a libertarian car. On it were a number of stickers, no names though, regarding the usual topics. Included were down with the Fed, limit government, and get out of Iraq. Right below the end the war sticker was a government limit sticker and then... "Help Iran!". Well, okay I thought. But, being that we shouldn't even be in Iraq according to this man, how are we going to help Iran? Twitter? Ah, okay. If I am stepping on toes do not wear sandals. And, yes, it does make me angry to see this.

Bear in mind, I have a good 60 to 70 percent share of libertarian views. And, if they somehow gain power, I would at least be curious to see some of the views we do not share applied. I would gladly go for some of that change in hope. The Fed, phase it out? Regulation I am already generally against. Term limits, a tighter control of access to corporations, a change in how the government makes laws, lots of things I can see.

The big difference is probably Iraq, perhaps even Afghanistan? I supported both, and strongly. And, I do not think a politician, of any pedigree, in office at the time could have resisted the call to arms. I think President Bush was quiet, for a time, upon hearing the news because he knew what it meant and he did not want it to be so. He knew he had zero choice. So, that he even went on to Iraq surprised me. I am guessing generals, admirals, and to some small extent (and not through the leadership but through the practical real channels) the State Department took the lead on that.

I get confused by this. The people of Iraq, many of them, were honestly repressed. I would say it was the majority who were repressed by the minority. Plus, we had several reasons, very good ones, to go even if the real case was weakly presented. That is not the case in Iran. The majority rules and it was that same majority which just (historically speaking) had a revolution. That revolt lead to this government. So, are we supposed to blindly support some new and really unknown revolt as Jimmy Carter supported the last (by sitting on his hands regarding an ally in trouble)?

Something I am not sure about is whether the anger in the streets would be the same if their votes had actually been counted, would they still be rioting? Even though they seem to realize the mullahs picked both candidates? Do they not realize their vote means nothing? If the key to the social disruption is that one mullah chosen politician was unfairly elected over another mullah chosen politician, I think they are just rioting for the fun of it. I cannot take them seriously.

Let them find a leader, let that leader, or better group of leaders, lay out a plan, and then I might consider getting behind it, if only in spirit. Barring that, it is just something to watch on t.v., if I still watched the news. What, honestly, is in it for me? It does not have to be monetarily connected. If it is for freedom, democratic republicanism, fair courts, justice, and uniform laws, sure. If not, then it is just another radical on radical kill fest. And that is only good for entertainment, not a loose brotherhood or kinship.

Do I feel bad for those who are dying? Only those who are truly innocent. And, one way or another, the only innocents there, that I can see, are the children. The rest either support the mullahs directly or indirectly, or they are out in the streets pushing for hope and change and paying a price for it. What hope? What change? Of course they are not going to say. As I have said, if it is away from islam then it is most likely toward communism, if it is not away from islam then it is just toward another brand of radical islam based on a two syllable difference in their dread book of the dead. Or, a half a dozen of one, six of the other. Population control in the normal way. Let it be.