LGF actually said, she's received unmixed acclaim throughout the blogosphere as a moderate muslim and champion of human rights, which impression is contradicted by her view on Iraq.

This is perfectly consistent if you believe that the US putting an end to 30 years of open and frequent state torture and murder in support of a true "cult of personality" is a step forward in human rights for Iraqis. And, by the way, many Iraqis before the war and now believe that the war was necessary and good, and see themselves as starting a new life now.

If you believe that, as the LGF author does, then it's difficult to reconcile the moderate, human-rights inspired image that Ebadi has been given with her actual remarks. Your proposition that the only explanation is that most conservatives like mass murder is a slander, fails Occam's razor, and reflects your basic inability to understand even what a person with a differing view is saying. It's so absurd that I've a mind to suggest that you move to Georgia and run for the seat once held by Cynthia McKinney. (Unless you're not black, of course.)

Of course many conservatives like mass murder-- they supported Pinochet, the Gautamalan military dictatorship, Mobutu in Zaire, Suharto in Indonesia, the installation of the Shah in Iran, and numerous other dictatorships. See here.

Yes, some leftists supported Soviet-supported bloody dictatorships as well. I denounce such leftists quite often.

But I doubt you'll condemn the rightwingers who supported murderous dictatorships over the last fifty years.

But, I will. I don't think we have any business supporting bloody dictatorships and torturers anywhere except if it is a vital national security interest. I.e., not because United Fruit needs to make more money, but I could see sending money and support to the Afghans when they were up against a Soviet invasion, even if I didn't like everything they were doing.

In this world, sadly, there must be a calculus of suffering. Many Iraqis died in our blitzkrieg invasion. But, it was at least hundreds of times fewer than would have died in such an invasion if we weren't using the very latest technology of force, and it was many times fewer than had already died at Saddam's hands. I have to look at this man who has used gas weapons on civilians and soldiers, in war and in peace, and ask what he would do with atomic or biological weapons? The answer, together with the knowledge that he sought them out, goes into the calculus of suffering and out comes, he must be stopped.

Now, as far as condemning the people who supported the dictators, I'd have to know who, and what they knew at the time. I don't blame even the early EuroAmerican supporters of Stalin, before the real truth became known. I blame the ones who kept the faith even when the dead in their millions were decades in their graves.

So just to be clear, you denounce Eisenhower's intervention in Iran and Guatamala and Zaire? And agree that Jeanne Kirkpatrick is a moral degenerate for her defense of rightwing dictatorships?

I can't say that because I not very familiar with those cases. I can say that I do not approve the way Hawaii was brought into statehood, or that I think the creation of Panama was a disgrace. I would denounce anyone who took those actions today. By the standards of the time, they weren't considered as objectionable, but I think they should have been.

Let me serve one to you: would you support military intervention to depose Castro and create democracy in Cuba?

I don't generally support military intervention unless the population of the country CLEARLY supports such help. Otherwise, the history is that such intervention leads to more dictatorship, not democracy. Europe in World War II and Haiti and Kosovo in the 1990s are practically the only exceptions to my general anti-intervention stance-- because in all those cases elected leaders of those respective populations had been displaced by military means.

I'm not a fan of Cuba but there is no evidence of widespread support for US military intervention and quite a bit otherwise. The best thing for Cuban democracy would be to end the embargo and encourage more interaction with the US-- encouraging dissidents to organize their own challenge to Castro.

BTW I did sign this anti-Castro petition just recently.

I'm glad to hear that you don't support Castro.

On the subject of normalizing relations and hoping for the best, here's a nice Vaclav Havel link via Instapundit:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10890-2003Oct10.html

The issue isn't "hoping for the best"-- it's recognizing that the Cuban embargo has been a failure. Castro is now the longest lasting dictator in the world.

When a policy has failed, you try something else.

The embargo has failed, largely because it has been used by Castro to excuse his own failures and justify repression. Any honest observer of Cuba will recognize both Castro's repression and his undeniable basic popularity with much of the population, largely because he used the US and the embargo as a handy demon.

Sanctions are sometimes useful in pressuring repressive regimes, but not always-- at times they reinforce their power.

Ebadi is an Iranian Human Rights activist. Given our nation's deplorable support for the Shah, is it any surprise that she doesn't want the US intervening in Iraq militarily? That she's skeptical of our commitment to Democracy in Iraq? Maybe you're right that our invasion of Iraq will improve Iraq's human rights in the long-term, but we need to prove it to people like Ebadi. So let's prove it.

Second, her statements need to be seen in the context of arguing for human rights improvement in Iran. A US invasion of Iran would be a disaster. Our reception by the Iranians would be far less friendly than that of the Iraqis. THe chances that we would be able to construct a new democratic system in Iran are low. They may have to work out their own Democratic system on their own, and they seem to be making halting progress towards it. The one thing that would destroy the Democracy and Reform movements in Iran and unite the people behind the hard line Theocrats is a US invasion. Ebadi's words are an important part of positioning Human Rights in the Iranian political debate. She's presenting human rights as a an outgrowth of Islam and human freedom, not a justification for US invasion. She needs to stand against US invasion of Muslim nations for Human Rights abuses because otherwise she would undermine the entire Human Rights movement in Iran.

link