IRAN AND THE "INTRUDERS"
Red-blooded Americans are incensed about the Iranian detention of the three Americans who crossed over into Iran while exploring. It is a distressing tale and the young people seem very appealing. The Basin does not know who's right and who's wrong on that one but we have noticed something interesting.
The more angry and outraged an American is about this situation, the more adamant he or she is about the U.S. aggressively protecting its borders and doing so in the most punitive possible manner. So they are for the U.S. locking up border violators and otherwise punishing them but they are against Iran, an equally sovereign nation, doing the same kind of policing of its borders.
With due credit to Jerry Seinfeld...."Not that there's anything wrong with that...."
posted by UMRBlog @ 07:27
6 comments
6 Comments:
"The more angry and outraged an American is about this situation, the more adamant he or she is about the U.S. aggressively protecting its borders"
Is that a real study, or your biased perspective?
Do you really think Iran offers the same freedoms as the USA?
Some 20 million known illegals are in the US, and the only debate is whether or not they should get free health care, courtesy of US.
Iran is an "equally sovereign nation"? How are you scoring "equally"?
You may want to step back from the edge ABC ... if you haven't already ventured into total cognitive dissonance.
Anon,
It's my impression from talking to sundry folk. Could be wrong. Could be all the Anti-Fence Crowd and the amnesty bleeding hearts are more stirred up that the xenophobes. Do you have an impression or do you just want to pimp mine?
Don't recall writing anything about freedoms or civil liberties in Iran. I happen to think the real government of Iran is a bunch manipulative pricks.
Oh, so there's no debate in the marketplace of ideas about how our borders should be policed and about how transgressors should be punished? Funny, I guess I was hallucinating. Joe Arpaio is probably actually Tinker Bell too.
Now you've bitten one off, though. 'Splain to me how Iran's sovereignty is one iota different from ours, or Canada's or Switzerland's. Actually, if memory serves, we are a signatory on Iran's boundaries in a Treaty so, if anything, we are more bound by Iran's borders than they are by ours.
You may want to look up "cognitive dissonance". It doesn't mean conclusions or comparisons with which you disagree or even statements which are objectively incorrect. It's nice you spelled it correctly, though.
TYFCB
I haven't read anything about outrage on how Iran treats border jumping aliens, but I think those that wish we respected our own borders would understand that borders mean something, especially in a place like Iran.
I see no one that thinks Iran should have open borders, while ours should be "aggressively protected" with the "most punitive measures possible", as you state others adamantly insist on.
That is your "cognitive dissonance" ... you perceive a few Americans that wandered into Iran being held as captives and bargaining chips, the same as 20 million illegal aliens living and working mostly freely in the US, with "rights" to health care, public education, and government representation, not to mention the "right" to have "jackpot babies".
(I know, they illegals are not supposed to vote, but they get counted in the census, and represented accordingly).
Yes, I meant cognitive dissonance, not that you rationally disagree, but that you make an absurd comparison that I judged to be supported by your emotional attachment to a political belief, not logic or mistakes of fact.
Sure a few like Joe try to oppose the open borders and enforce our laws, but they are in the minority by far, and our FedGov is against them. Sanctuary city San Fran is more the norm, where murderous aliens are protected ... and you don't even want to venture into parts of L.A.
You strained the gnat but swallowed the camel ...
On the sovereignty issue ... we are less sovereign if we have open borders. Obama's one attempt at a bill as a senator was to increase our duties to the UN. His current actions at Copenhagen was to submit US to some promise to support other nations. He has supported the idea of a global currency. ... and there is more ... he even campaigned in Europe.
But true, I didn't follow up on the sovereign issue ... but I just meant to ask why you thought that was the issue. We know Iran and other less free places have tight borders and more harsh treatment of aliens ... if anyone is less sovereign ... it is US.
But maybe you are right and I am wrong .. and you are hallucinating as you stated. But I'm still betting on cognitive dissonance. :)
If you're gonna run that many laps, pay your entry fee and get into the Boston Marathon.
I never compared the three kids to "20 Million" illegals. I was viewing the reaction to the detention of one group in contrast to the desire to police the other. You read that sentiment differently. That has nothing to do with cognitive dissonance. If you see the world differently, that is "cognitive difference."
TYFCB
I just thought I needed to spell it out for you. You made a rather broad based "attack" that I saw as completely unfounded.
"The more angry and outraged an American is about this situation, the more adamant he or she is about the U.S. aggressively protecting its borders and doing so in the most punitive possible manner."
You said "we" are upset at Iran doing "the same kind of policing". I logged some of the many differences in what "we" are actually upset about. Your "claim" that "we people" hold a self conflicting view made no sense to me.
So I was just suggesting that perhaps it is you that has the conflict, and you adjusted the data accordingly.
That is part of cognitive dissonance ... distorting reality to fit your belief, rather than dealing with the discomfort of the "truth".
and Happy New Year ... really. :)
Step one is we read public opinion on this differently. That's simple. Hardly enough to base a year's worth of psychobabble.
Happy New Year to you, too.
TYFCB
Post a Comment
<< Home