Argo (2012 Film) and Foreign Policy

I just watched Argo and I must say I really enjoyed it and highly recommend it. The intro in the beginning of the film reminded me of a less-detailed version of a video I've posted before. I've written about my take on this somewhat extensively before (see Histroy, Dictators, Blowback). And a question I try to provoke at the beginning of the article is: is history written only by the victors? Here's the video I'm talking about:


Watching the film and nowadays with the NSA's scandals of watching over the internet, I now wonder if blogging could affect visas across imaginary lines of governments. I'm pretty sure writing in favor of Snowden or Ron Paul are now red flags for the NSA watchmen (see also Snowden is a Ron Paul supporter). Similar to the last part of the video above, Ron Paul speaks of non-interventionist and free trade as sound foreign policy:


We must take note that the US was once allies and sent foreign aid to the Talibans to help fight the Soviets. We must remember foreign aid being sent to Sadam to help fight Iran. The same goes with Mubarak, Gaddafi, etc. and history warns strongly against this kind of foreign policy and its blowback.
It is not about being pro or anti any government. It is not a pro or anti US position. It is not a pro or anti Iran position. It is the position of peace that is now being labeled either as unpatriotic or naive.

And just think about what's going on now in Egypt. It seems to be just something we read about in the newspaper or online or watch on TV, many don't even care or know what's going on. And with Syria, has US not learned from history or is it really just inevitable, as they say, for history to repeat itself? There is hope that sense was passed on to Ron Paul's son Sen. Rand Paul as he speaks against sending "foreign aid" and weapons to Syria:

This kind of US foreign policy has been prevalent regardless of democratic or republican administration. It is not even a partisan issue anymore. Sometimes I wonder why these kinds of foreign policies are more acceptable when democrats are in power.
Does agreeing with positions on welfare and economic policies make their foreign policy positions more acceptable? Obama won in 2008 running as the peace candidate and yet we seem to have forgotten that. So did W. Bush who ran with the platform of a non-interventionist foreign policy.
Gov. Chris Christie recently dared Sen. Rand to talk to families of the victims of 9/11 and see if he will still have the same positions. Sen. Rand responds quite sensibly: if Christie cares so much about families of 9/11 victims then why does he agree on sending arms to Talibans in Syria (see video above for his explanation)? 
So we see how it is not an issue of alliance with nations or a political partisan issue. I absolutely condemn all the violence that happened in Iran as portrayed in the film Argo but we must also ask ourselves what causes these kinds of violence and if US interventionist policy is truly keeping the world a safer place.

---

See Also:
1. My Two Cents on Spratly Islands Conflict
2. Libya Civil War and When Governments Have no Constraints 
3. The Hunger Games - Fiction or Reality?