Colorado Right, you clearly have a nuanced and educated understanding of Iran, clearly you understand the situation without bias or relying on stereotypes.

However, it is not your acute and well-researched view on Iran and the Persian people that I argue with, but with your interpretation of my clip. You are wrong if you think I'm saying this is Bush's fault, and you are wrong if you think I am making excuses for Ahmadinejad.

I am merely observing that Bush has been tricked into aiding his enemy. Consider the sequence of events: doesn't it look like Bush is doing exactly what Ahmadinejad wants and needs? And isn't it too bad that our diplomacy is so easily manipulated? Wouldn't it be bett...

Colorado Right, you clearly have a nuanced and educated understanding of Iran, clearly you understand the situation without bias or relying on stereotypes.

However, it is not your acute and well-researched view on Iran and the Persian people that I argue with, but with your interpretation of my clip. You are wrong if you think I'm saying this is Bush's fault, and you are wrong if you think I am making excuses for Ahmadinejad.

I am merely observing that Bush has been tricked into aiding his enemy. Consider the sequence of events: doesn't it look like Bush is doing exactly what Ahmadinejad wants and needs? And isn't it too bad that our diplomacy is so easily manipulated? Wouldn't it be better if we could show up Ahmadinejad for the buffoon that he is, rather than making him into a revolutionary hero? Come to think of it, why haven't we done that? Do you have any suggestions?

And actually, this seems to be a chronic problem with US-Iranian policy. For instance, I'm sure it was with the purest of benevolent intentions that Eisenhower overthrew democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq and nothing at all to do with the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. But nevertheless, the autocratic Dictator-cum-Monarch, Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, who we used to replace the democratically elected government was so brutal and so culturally offensive to Iranians that they instead turned to the Ayatollah Ruhullah Khomeni to defend their national identity.

Of course, the despotic Pahlavis would never have come to power were it not for Britain's ham-handed attempt at colonial administration, which weakend the Qajar Dynasty to the point where Reza Khan could seize power in a military coup.

So, you are wrong, I'm not saying this is Bush's fault. I'm saying, as they say in Iran, "This is the work of the cross-eyed British."

Bush plays no where near as great a role in history, he's just the latest pawn in the game.

But it occurs to me you may not have even read the clip or my comment, Colorado right, because your comment seems to have nothing to do with what it says.

I said that Ahmadinejad needs Bush, and that in some ways, to fulfill his (and yours?) dream of invading Iran, Bush also needs Ahmadinejad.

No where did I say that the Iranians weren't a blood thirsty race who relishes the death of their own children. Surely, you are right, they are.

No where did I say they had no nuclear weapons program (although the US intelligence community did) because clearly, you are right, no evidence is the best evidence of conspiracy, and that means they must be developing nuclear weapons secretly.

No where di...

But it occurs to me you may not have even read the clip or my comment, Colorado right, because your comment seems to have nothing to do with what it says.

I said that Ahmadinejad needs Bush, and that in some ways, to fulfill his (and yours?) dream of invading Iran, Bush also needs Ahmadinejad.

No where did I say that the Iranians weren't a blood thirsty race who relishes the death of their own children. Surely, you are right, they are.

No where did I say they had no nuclear weapons program (although the US intelligence community did) because clearly, you are right, no evidence is the best evidence of conspiracy, and that means they must be developing nuclear weapons secretly.

No where did I say that Iranians were anything other than crazed villans bent on kidnapping, murder and mayhem, because of course, you are right. There are no people in Iran leading normal lives or doing normal jobs, I know for a fact that there are no grocers or accountants in Iran. They are all full-time terrorists in the glass-eyed thrall of Osama Bin Laden. (He was their religious leader, right?)

Nowhere did I say that the Iranians were capable of reason, because, you are right, clearly they have shown us that they are unfeeling and deranged psychotics. Where most people desire food, shelter and sex, Iranians only desire murder and mayhem, and hate us because we are good and free. After all, Iranians hate freedom most of all. An Iranian is only happy when he is oppressed.

And finally, nowhere did I say that this was Bush's fault. You are right, Bush's legacy shall long be trumpeted as one who cultivated a lasting affection and deep respect for America in the hearts of every Muslim in the Middle East.

In fact, you understand the situation so well, why aren't you running for President?

Yes, I grovel before your condescending liberal orthodoxy. Your brilliant and haughty response has changed my life and dropped the scales from my eyes.

But in following this reasoning that Ahmadinacrazy needs Chimpy McHitler so that he won't be criticized internally; isn't it illegal for people to criticize him at all? Don't they parade men down the street with toilet wash bottles in their mouths because they have "western" haircuts? Seems as if I saw that very image last year. Or arresting women for showing too much hair from the edge of their scarf?

And by this reasoning didn't Chamberlain defeat Adolf Hitler by giving away the freedom of people in Czechoslovakia and claiming "peace ...

Yes, I grovel before your condescending liberal orthodoxy. Your brilliant and haughty response has changed my life and dropped the scales from my eyes.

But in following this reasoning that Ahmadinacrazy needs Chimpy McHitler so that he won't be criticized internally; isn't it illegal for people to criticize him at all? Don't they parade men down the street with toilet wash bottles in their mouths because they have "western" haircuts? Seems as if I saw that very image last year. Or arresting women for showing too much hair from the edge of their scarf?

And by this reasoning didn't Chamberlain defeat Adolf Hitler by giving away the freedom of people in Czechoslovakia and claiming "peace in our time"? That whole World War II thing was clearly just a provocation of the Germans by the mean and nasty Churchill.

And it is so nice to know that nowhere ever have totalitarian regimes been defeated by standing up to them and defeating them. Perhaps joining hands and singing Kumbaya will beat those mean nasties.

So yes - I believe that the peaceful Iranians need 5000 uranium centrifuges in order to build a peaceful atomic electric plant which they wouldn't even think of using as a source for nuclear bomb material. And I now know that Osama Obama (thanks for that tip) took over for Khomeini but he had nothing to do with Iran funding Hezbollah or arming Syria or working with North Korea on making long range missiles so that peaceful payloads of flowers can be sent to all the Jews in Israel.

And I also know that if we ever do have a President who acts as squishy as you seem to be proposing, we will end up with hostages again. Something like that happened with the peanut farmer as I recall.

Allow me to elaborate on my challenge:

Let's compare you to a terrorist.

You believe that you are right, and they are wrong.
They believe they are right and that you are wrong.

You believe that they evil.
They believe that you are evil.

You believe that they are murderous and criminal.
They believe that you are murderous and criminal.

You believe that their culture is unacceptable.
They believe that your culture is unacceptable.

You believe that the only way to win is by killing them.
They believe that the only way to win is by killing you.

You believe that God is on your side. (I presume.)
They believe that God is on their side.

You are not interested in challenging your preconcepti...

Allow me to elaborate on my challenge:

Let's compare you to a terrorist.

You believe that you are right, and they are wrong.
They believe they are right and that you are wrong.

You believe that they evil.
They believe that you are evil.

You believe that they are murderous and criminal.
They believe that you are murderous and criminal.

You believe that their culture is unacceptable.
They believe that your culture is unacceptable.

You believe that the only way to win is by killing them.
They believe that the only way to win is by killing you.

You believe that God is on your side. (I presume.)
They believe that God is on their side.

You are not interested in challenging your preconceptions.
They are not interested in challenging their preconceptions.

They think of the rest of the world as a dangerous and uncivilized place.
You think of the rest of the world as a dangerous and uncivilized place.

They think that liberal modernity is corrosive to our society.
You think that liberal modernity is corrosive to our society.

They mindlessly follow the propaganda of authority without question, and scorn others who do not.
You mindlessly follow whatever the GOP says, and scorn me for questioning it.

They think of themselves as the pinnacle of civilization.
You think of yourself as the pinnacle of civilization.

They believe that killing women and children is a justifiable cost for winning the war.
You believe that killing women and children is a justifiable cost for winning the war.

The list goes on and on. When I hear the way you talk, you talk just like every terrorist I've interviewed. You just change the names of the Gods and enemies.

Do I think you'll commit an act of terrorism? Probably not. You have the US military to do that for you. But the way your mind works is frighteningly similar. The way you see the world is almost exactly the same.

But I have to ask you this:

Karl Popper says that the difference between Science and Pseudoscience is that true scientific thinking can be proved or disproved by a robust criterion of falsifiability.

For instance, Freud's psycho-analysis is pseudo science. It says everyone has an Oedipal complex, and wants to sleep with their mother, even though we often repress that feeling. Logically if someone says: Oh yeah, I do! Then that would be proof that Freud is right. But if I stand up and say: No, I don't! Then Freud sees that as proof that I am repressing it, and therefore also proof of his theory. Thus no mater what the results of investigation, either answer will confirm Freud's ideas.

On ...

But I have to ask you this:

Karl Popper says that the difference between Science and Pseudoscience is that true scientific thinking can be proved or disproved by a robust criterion of falsifiability.

For instance, Freud's psycho-analysis is pseudo science. It says everyone has an Oedipal complex, and wants to sleep with their mother, even though we often repress that feeling. Logically if someone says: Oh yeah, I do! Then that would be proof that Freud is right. But if I stand up and say: No, I don't! Then Freud sees that as proof that I am repressing it, and therefore also proof of his theory. Thus no mater what the results of investigation, either answer will confirm Freud's ideas.

On the other hand, Einstein's Theory of Relativity is scientific, because it says, among other things, if my theory is correct, then space will be distorted by gravity, and light will bend around the moon in a total eclipse. If the light doesn't bend, then I'm wrong. We checked out the next eclipse, the light bent, so he was confirmed, but if it hadn't it would have proven him wrong.

Popper extends this argument to refute Marx's paranoid interpretation of History, and it can be very useful in parsing fact from propaganda, and politics from reality.

So my question is for you: What is your robust criterion of falsafiablity.

Previously, I'm sure you were gungho to bomb Iran because we knew they were developing nuclear weapons. Now the NIE says they are not developing nuclear weapons, but you are still convinced they are, and still want to bomb them.

Can you imagine any possible evidence that could surface to prove to you that Iraq is not developing nuclear weapons, and there by avert your desire to invade?

Or is it that your extreemly foolish desire to start another war that we can't win is an "idee fixee" for you, that cannot be changed, no matter what the circumstances? If so, don't you think that is kind of risky rigidity, from a purely military strategic point of view?

I.
Ahmadinejad doesn't need Bush to take the heat off him, because he is in absolute control of Iran, and criticizing him will immediately be dealt with by torture and police recriminations.

1.
Apparently you didn't read the article. It explains that previously Ahmadinejad was protected by the Ayatollah, but now he's not. So the situation has changed since the last time you tuned into CNN.

You seem to process information in a very "Stephen Colbert" sort of way: I don't need to read things, I know with my gut!

2.
Ironically, Iran is the only voting democracy in the Middle East. They actually have elections, and they are actually in play.

Ahmadinejad defeated moderate Khatami on a platfo...

I.
Ahmadinejad doesn't need Bush to take the heat off him, because he is in absolute control of Iran, and criticizing him will immediately be dealt with by torture and police recriminations.

1.
Apparently you didn't read the article. It explains that previously Ahmadinejad was protected by the Ayatollah, but now he's not. So the situation has changed since the last time you tuned into CNN.

You seem to process information in a very "Stephen Colbert" sort of way: I don't need to read things, I know with my gut!

2.
Ironically, Iran is the only voting democracy in the Middle East. They actually have elections, and they are actually in play.

Ahmadinejad defeated moderate Khatami on a platform of standing up for Iran internationally, and reforming corruption. This resonated with the Iranian people's desire for international relevance and an improved economy. He's been able to deliver the first, but not the second.

He's coming up for reelection soon, and will probably lose unless he can manufacture a major crisis. Watch the movie Wag the Dog. You didn't think America was the only country that knew how to play dirty with politics, did you?

Ahmadinejad's position is especially tenuous because the other authorities, the Islamic clerics, aren't elected, so they don't care if he wins or loses. If he loses their protection, his career is over, so he's got to pull off something big. Fortunately, he's got a sleazy bag of dirty tricks right out of Karl Rove's wet dreams.

3.
A dictator rules either through fear or love. Love is good but fickle, and certainly scarce when the economy is in decline. Fear is morally questionable, but nice and dependable.

Ahmadinejad has basically run out of love, so he's looking for some fear. He tells the Iranians to fear the Americans, who are jingoistic imperialists who can't stand Iranian sovereignty, and will not rest until the colonize the Middle East. Now this would be absurd, except for that we consistently seem to have people like you

II.
Not invading Iran now would be like Appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s.

1.
I take personal umbrage on this point, being as my family had to flee Slovakia in the 1930s as Nazis began murdering opponents openly in the streets. Since I've talked to people who were in Slovakia in 1939, and who are in Iran today, I can safely say you don't understand either situation.

2.
The reason appeasment didn't work is because we had already empowered Hitler through isolating Germany and crippling it with economic sanctions. This allowed for the rise of extremism in the vacum of moderating international influences. (Wow, does this sound like something we're doing to any country today?)

The way to stop...

II.
Not invading Iran now would be like Appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s.

1.
I take personal umbrage on this point, being as my family had to flee Slovakia in the 1930s as Nazis began murdering opponents openly in the streets. Since I've talked to people who were in Slovakia in 1939, and who are in Iran today, I can safely say you don't understand either situation.

2.
The reason appeasment didn't work is because we had already empowered Hitler through isolating Germany and crippling it with economic sanctions. This allowed for the rise of extremism in the vacum of moderating international influences. (Wow, does this sound like something we're doing to any country today?)

The way to stop WWII would have been to adopt a more humane and realistic solution to the end of WWII, rather than the bizarre and vindictive Treaty of Versailles. Note, we got it right the second time. If we'd had the Marshall Plan in 1919, there would have been no Third Reich.

3.
Iran is not Czechoslovakia. We would be invading a nation of proud and nationalistic people, not defending a country over-run by their neighbors. If we attack Iran, we will be seen as the aggressors, and the Iranians will unite against us.

The Iranians have a long memory. They still hold a grudge against the last westerner who conquered them, Alexander the Great, 3,000 years ago.

They call him Du Al Karnain, the horned one, and every year on the Martyrs Festival they whip themselves and cry out, lamenting their defeat. These people are way more bad ass than arm-chair action-heroes like you, Colorado Right.

III.
Acting Squeamishly, as I propose, will result in hostages being taken.

1.
Although I'm sure you are already a scholar of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and resultant Hostage Crises, I'll explain them for the other clippers who might not be familiar with them...

2.
The Iranian Revolution was a response against the perceived erosion of traditional Persian values by the Pahlavi dictatorship, as well as the brutality with which he enforced his social engineering. The students rising up actually expected America to support them, since our own revolution was the inspiration for theirs, and our talk of freedom and democracy let them dare to dream of an Iran ruled by the Iranian people.

They w...

III.
Acting Squeamishly, as I propose, will result in hostages being taken.

1.
Although I'm sure you are already a scholar of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and resultant Hostage Crises, I'll explain them for the other clippers who might not be familiar with them...

2.
The Iranian Revolution was a response against the perceived erosion of traditional Persian values by the Pahlavi dictatorship, as well as the brutality with which he enforced his social engineering. The students rising up actually expected America to support them, since our own revolution was the inspiration for theirs, and our talk of freedom and democracy let them dare to dream of an Iran ruled by the Iranian people.

They were bitterly disillusioned when we did not stand by our values, they lashed out at us. The reason they took hostages was because they wanted to inspire an American revolution against Carter, who they viewed as a dictator who betrayed American values. They were very confused when American people took their criticism of our government personally.

3.
Finally, the first hostage crisis, in the Embassy (The Peanut Farmer Crisis) was actually on the brink of being resolved through Carter's diplomacy, however Regan privately contacted Iran and promised to give them a better deal if they held the hostages until after the election to sabotage Carter. (Way to go, Gipper!)

There is very reasonable speculation that Regan's people also tipped off the revolutionaries about the Seal Team being sent in to rescue the hostages, resulting in the scandalous failure and the death of American soldiers.

3.
Not that being macho changed anything. They took hostages on Regan's watch too. (Pan Am) His very honorable solution was to buy them off with guns. Ergo, the Iran Contra scandal. (If that's a little too complex for you, you can just try playing the video game Contra.)

Ah, Kmcolo, you're the Lee Strasberg of Clipmarks.

But, it does raise an interesting point that I might want to respond to serriously. (partly because, even in gest, it is propsed more logically than anything CR has to say...)

At a certain point, reasoning becomes futile. (as in the case of Appeasement) However, that depends on what your reasoning is, and how you use it.

For instance, a person who is good at talking need not hit back the deranged lunatic. I personally have never had to hit someone to end a fight, I've always been able to talk people down - even one tense moment with Central Asian terrorists. If you think carefully about what you say, you can calm almost anyone.

Secondly,...

Ah, Kmcolo, you're the Lee Strasberg of Clipmarks.

But, it does raise an interesting point that I might want to respond to serriously. (partly because, even in gest, it is propsed more logically than anything CR has to say...)

At a certain point, reasoning becomes futile. (as in the case of Appeasement) However, that depends on what your reasoning is, and how you use it.

For instance, a person who is good at talking need not hit back the deranged lunatic. I personally have never had to hit someone to end a fight, I've always been able to talk people down - even one tense moment with Central Asian terrorists. If you think carefully about what you say, you can calm almost anyone.

Secondly, though, the analogy doesn't quite fit with Iran. Iran has not "hit" us since the 1980s. They simply offend us with their politics, and sympathize with our enemies.

So if I attacked someone because they were an asshole, even though they hadn't attacked me yet, merely on the basis that they eventually would, who would be seen as the deranged lunatic? Them? Or me? (Imagine me in the bar, punching out some guy, then screaming that I only did it because I knew he was looking at me funny, and he was planning on something!)

Finally, it can be useful to fight fire with fire, but that would not involve invading or bombing Iran, since they haven't invaded or bombed us. If we're going to fight fire with fire we need to turn Ahmadinejad's political tricks back on him. He wants to make himself seem like a hero fighting for Iran against a gigantic enemy.

If we tell the Iranian people we are their friends, and want to help their economy, but that its Ahmadinejad who is spoiling for war, that'll take the wind out of his sails. If we remove the threat of war, the people will see how pathetic Ahmadinejad is, and he's history.

Actually, this is one of the really alarming things - Ahmadinejad's strategy works not just in Iran, but abroad as well. The more bellicose Bush becomes, it will drive otherwise reasonable people to support Ahmadinejad, a man who deserves no support.

Moderate leaders in Iran have consistently been snubbed by the US, and treated as terrorists. As a result, their reforms have failed and they have been replaced by increasingly radical leaders who come closer and closer to fulfilling our expectations.

Following Iran's electoral politics is heartbreaking. (Almost as heart breaking as the fact that most Americans don't realize Iran has electoral politics.)

Ahmadinejad is significantly more dang...

Actually, this is one of the really alarming things - Ahmadinejad's strategy works not just in Iran, but abroad as well. The more bellicose Bush becomes, it will drive otherwise reasonable people to support Ahmadinejad, a man who deserves no support.

Moderate leaders in Iran have consistently been snubbed by the US, and treated as terrorists. As a result, their reforms have failed and they have been replaced by increasingly radical leaders who come closer and closer to fulfilling our expectations.

Following Iran's electoral politics is heartbreaking. (Almost as heart breaking as the fact that most Americans don't realize Iran has electoral politics.)

Ahmadinejad is significantly more dangerous that Khatami. I actually really liked Khatami, and I think he would have made more progress if American had opened up and started supporting a humanistic moderate.

In looking at Iranian politics, The governments of Iran have become increasingly extreme and increasingly isolated (the two correspond) since the coup of 1921, and the fall of the Qajar Dynasty, and it has been tumbling downhill at break-neck speed after the overthrow of Mohammad Mossodeq in 1953. Each step America takes to "stand up" to Iran as Colorado Right would have us do, drives Iran farther and farther into despotism. And it drives more and more reasonable people to support a militarist demagogue.

If only Columbia University had shown so much support for Khatami, then maybe we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with.

Totally Ouyanglong, Bush fell into his trap . Ahmadinejad is a trash talker, he tries to make outrageous claims at every turn and the more he talks, the more people will someday believe him. The best way is to ignore him and switch subject on him as soon as possible, when he gets out of line. As for Bush he has until next year then we can all of us kiss his ass good bye . We need their educated people as much as they need a platform to stand on to file their compliants. It's business, let's deal it that way so we can all live for tomorrow.

Quote"keep your friends close and your enemies closer"

Like your name, never look at your name closely before. It looks like some Jedi"s knight at first...

Totally Ouyanglong, Bush fell into his trap . Ahmadinejad is a trash talker, he tries to make outrageous claims at every turn and the more he talks, the more people will someday believe him. The best way is to ignore him and switch subject on him as soon as possible, when he gets out of line. As for Bush he has until next year then we can all of us kiss his ass good bye . We need their educated people as much as they need a platform to stand on to file their compliants. It's business, let's deal it that way so we can all live for tomorrow.

Quote"keep your friends close and your enemies closer"

Like your name, never look at your name closely before. It looks like some Jedi"s knight at first. I knew this place in Sarawak, Malaysia, Ho Yang Lung they serve the best Laksa in the World. Don't know if it is still around.Thanks for the informative piece.

dakotayii, "trash talker" raises an interesting point:

If strategy is all about knowing what your opponent is planning, then shouldn't we be asking the very important question: why is Ahmadinejad doing this?

I mean, up until the NIE went public, Ahmadinejad seemed to be very serriously leading the world to believe that he was developing Nuclear Weapons. And in fact, goaded the US by refusing to surrender documents as threats of force mounted.

Why would he do this?

Back to the tired Hitler analogy that Colorado Right brought in, consider the build up for WWII. Much of the German military technology was covertly developed, and Hitler took pains to conceal German military strength until it ...

dakotayii, "trash talker" raises an interesting point:

If strategy is all about knowing what your opponent is planning, then shouldn't we be asking the very important question: why is Ahmadinejad doing this?

I mean, up until the NIE went public, Ahmadinejad seemed to be very serriously leading the world to believe that he was developing Nuclear Weapons. And in fact, goaded the US by refusing to surrender documents as threats of force mounted.

Why would he do this?

Back to the tired Hitler analogy that Colorado Right brought in, consider the build up for WWII. Much of the German military technology was covertly developed, and Hitler took pains to conceal German military strength until it came time for him to use it. This makes sense. Hitler was planning a surprise attack, and didn't want anyone to anticipate his threat.

Ahmadinejad is doing the opposite. He's antagonizing America, and trying to make us think he's a bigger threat than he is.

We should all ask ourselves: why is he doing this? What is it that he wants? Are we giving it to him?

If Ahmadinejad wants us to threaten Iran, wouldn't the logical thing to do be to deny him what he wants so badly?

I'm not speaking as a liberal or conservative here, but objectively looking at the situation strategically, it is not to our advantage to play the game by Ahmadinejad's rules. On the flip side, what does Bush achieve for America through his chest pounding?

I see no benefit for America in our current foreign policy. If Colorado Right is correct (and according to quantum physics, there is some universe where he might be...) then we should stop talking and invade them now. On the other hand, if anyone finds the case I've made above reasonable, then we should seriously consider an about face on our Iran policy.

The first thing I would do, is immediately put a lot of very public support behind Khatami, and using him as a good will ambassador, organize a sweet foreign aid package.