Well, there is one thing I don't understand. Why should we who are faced with such blackness give a damn whether the American policy towards India is "hypocrtical" in the complex world of democracy? WHO CARES?
The fact is that now America is on OUR side and would be supporting a regime change from these bastards to soemthing that is based on democratic and humanistic values and that would act as a firts core to let freedoma nd democracy crystalize gradually in our land, that is if our people would stop worrying about nonsense like internatioanl hypocracy in political details and start taking advantage of teh situiation and build up enough impetus for the change to come!
How is that? Because Arash more crazy than Women being beaten or rotten corpses being forced on the best technical university in Iran is people liek you who are faced with this everyday and still worry about American hypocracy visavis India.
This one is many orders of magnitude more jaw dropping.

in answer to AIS, I am one student just like you, I live here in US probably just like you and hear these stories about beaten students in Iran and the crulity that is going on there. Yes,I know people are scared to talk about freedom.I lived there, I went to the school there and saw how easy they can change your future and play with your life if you don't do what they want. But I don't want some supernatural country come and tell me what I can or can't do with what I have in my country!! you are telling me America is on "OUR" side,whose side are you talking about? Iran doesn't need to get rid of one dictator and bestows to another!!! U.S doesn't help anyone if it doesn't bring him more benefits!! When Arash talks about beaten women, it is Iranians and Iran that he refers to,what change in the attitude can America bring to YOUR SIDE that doesn't includes violence and killing billions of innocents?Isn't this the result of what you want from the change of the regime?

A Good Post. Thank you Arash.
I agree with Goli that unlike what AIS emphasizes [:The fact is that now America is on OUR side ], has no guarantee. Just look at the recent record of US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and its longtime crave to capture Iran. Would it greet us with chocolates if it ever, just ever, happen to get everything in its hands PEACEfully. I just doubt.
Let`s look more clearly at our situation:
At one hand we have our own government that, as Arash says, we cannot even tolerate hearing its News broadcasting. We see it lose our face in International World and get more and more sick and isolated.
On the other hand, there is the tempting democracy promised by the US. The US who threatens our government and backs us!
What do we do?
We are segmented. Some of us, that count the most, are 'seeing blinds'. They don`t care what happens or what decisions are taken, what is rejected. They never question and are stuffed, like a toy in the hands of the government.
Some are optimists. They look for an outsider to step in and help us in this trap! The full accomplishment of this sort seems an improbable possibility.
The rest, like Arash`s article, feel down by seeing that human values, conventions and ideas are trampled upon. They wonder what can save them and seek out for peace and order hopelessly. Most of such people hold no-important official jobs, they however prefer living unknown, such are many University Professors.
In my thoughts, when I dream of what the present Iran needs, I set it forth as this: People, people and people. They need Education. They should learn that they have Rights that should claim them from the oppressor. They should be taught that religion is worthy of respect if it motivates its adherents to live honest and moral lives, to be kind, respectful, and to contribute something to the betterment of society at large, not if it brings about some stone-headed fanatics. As long as people are being fooled and are lost, they cannot bring for themselves democracy of any kind, even if it is ready.

Thanks AIS, Goli and Monika for your comments.

I can understand AIS's rationale. His position is that of a pragmatist; that if America's policy, regardless of how hypocritical it might be, is in the same direction as one's wish, i.e. ridding Iran of islamist hardliners, then one should not be so consumed with the question of how hyporcritical or genuinely humane their approach is.

Assuming that I have understood his position correctly, then I should say I object to that line of thinking, at least in this particular instance, based on two basic, and incidentally pragmatic, premisses:

1) A campaign, a war, a revolution, or other endeavors of the sort, no matter how noble their cause might be, cannot be successful if it fails in PR.

The term "battle for the hearts and minds", as coined by the Bush administration itself during the second Iraq war, shows the importance of the public relations side of the issue. America's way of approaching issues, which I guess is called by some as the "go get'em", "no nonesence" approach, fails in PR miserably. That, I think, has been one of the most basic problems of the American foreign policy. They are not ashamed to rub people's faces into the fact that they are a superpower, which sometimes even gives them a false sense of security, or sometimes even paranoia.

I as an Iranian, assuming that I strive for ridding Iran of its current problems, cannot have a bully like America as my ally. I am no Akbar Ganji, but even if I were, would I dare call America to be on my side? Well, not this America. If America really did care about democracy in Iran, the least it could do was to not feed into the populist apparatus of the Islamic regime.

2) Regardless of whether America is moving in the direction of ridding Iran of Mullahs, I think one should see a few steps beyond that stage where the Mullahs are actually gone. Have you ever asked yourself if the Iranian society, as a whole, and I mean the whole 70+ million of them, are in fact ready for a democracy? Well, trim Ahmadinejad's votes as much as you like, you would still end up with a rather big number. The same number that needs to be educated not bombarded, or else you will have the same result you got in Palestine with Hammas.

These arguments aside, I would really like to know your answer to a hypothetical question, if you don't mind. Let's assume you, being the informed individual that you are, are taken back in time to the early 1980's. Then, we still had a very hardcore version of the Islamic regime, and we had some force whose direction was in the same direction as you and I wanted, i.e. ridding Iran of Mullas. The name of that force was Saddam. Would you still prescribe the same approach as you do now? That since Saddam wants the same thing that we want, then he is on our side and we therefore shouldn't care so much about what a ruthless villain he is?

"Iran doesn't need to get rid of one dictator and bestows to another!!! "

Why not? That's what you did in 1979. Pretty sure you did it a few other times in your long and glorious history as well! Weren't a few Shah's put on the peacock throne by Assassin's?

Iran has a couple millenia of experience with authoritarian rule. What Iran lacks experience in, is democracy. Don't be so quick to call the world's oldest (and greatest) democracy names when you've done such a pathetic job of providing good governance in your own country.

You've got an opportunity. What you do with it, is up to you. I suspect Iranians will blow it. Again. But that won't be MY country's fault. Just like it's not MY country's fault that the Iraqis are blowing it.

Not everyone blows it. Some people do create successful industrialzied democracies, given the chance.

But most people? Nah. They fuck it up.

Arash,

This whole cliche of America as bully and all that is really becoming outdated. how about putting some sense in your words?
Look, it's simple. battle of hearts and minds has nothing to do with diplomatic complexities regarding India. Are you blind? India is a de facto nuclear power. Its vote is important in the security council and is a majore international player now. What do you want America to do? Act like a retarded fool just to present itself as non-hypocritical in the eyes of a bunch of idiots to persuade them to show some grace from their high moral stances and maybe show enough kindness towardsthese poor Americans and accept their help? I have a better idea. How about you just wake up to reality and stop writing such nonsense?

Saddam wanted to annex Khuzestan to Iraq and he was a brutal dictator. the fact that you even compare that with the present situation shows how far in off side you stand. I can only feel sorry.

And one more thing. I am sick and tired of all this crap about how bad the situation in Iraq is. I can understand a bunch of Western leftist sissys honestly seeing the world that way but the like sof us? Iraq is in the path of becoming a democracy. The Iraqi case is a success. Sure America as done many mistakes but that is always the case. Hoe mnay such mistakes do you think took place during WWII or the cold war? Com eon! Wake up?
Iraq would sooner or later have been a bloiod bath the likes of which the world had not seen in years without the US presence there. You comapre the situation now with what? The idelaized dream or with eth only possible alternative in reality, civil war and ethnic cleansing? Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. I see a lot of violence. Because that's wherer the most important battles of the war against Islamism are being fought outright. But I see no catastrophe. Quite teh opposite.

Goli,

I leave you to ponder more on "billions dead" and "supernatural countries".

AIS,
Just go count the number of offensive words you have used in your last comment. If you don't have anything to say you don't have to rant and shout and call me names. Believe me it is easy to find very harsh words to call you when reading your rantings. It's just that FToI is not about ranting and calling names. I write here because I hope I would get some sensible civilized feedback from someone who can control himself/herself at least for 2 minutes when typing a comment. If you have an uncontrollable compulsion to throw up foul language, then please go find another post, or better still another site to unload yourself. I see enough ranting screaming Baseejis here everyday.

Creig,
I live in your country becaz I like a lot about it, but I don't like lots of things about it either. The fact that what happened in 1979 shows the strength of Iranians and I am proud of such a reveloution. They were looking for a better life, that was a result of them wanting something so strongly. Even though lots of powerful countries were oppoosed their need. U.S won't ever help any country unless it will bring him its benefits. You know that,I know that and it is natural. In life, especially in politics world noone give a damn to others when they have their own problems. But I still don't want U.S has anything to do with Iran's possible next reveloution. Because Iran is NOT an Iraq, Iranians have enough brains that they can control and govern their country. Still why do think U.S don't go to the war with Iran as easy as he started Iraq's war or Afghanestan War? I guess he should have enough reasons by now? Just like what Arash said Iranian can change their government whenevr they are ready and right now by looking at the recent presedential candidate, unfortuantely they are still not ready!!

Goli,

Still why do think U.S don't go to the war with Iran as easy as he started Iraq's war or Afghanestan War?

I think the US *will* go to war with Iran. I've been saying so for about a year now. I think it's just a matter of time. I think the only thing that can avert it is an internal regime change, which is what the Bush admin has been hoping for, these last few years. I'd like to see that happen as well, but I'm not optimistic about it, and I never have been. For many reasons, which I won't get into here.

As for your other comments, I think you misunderstand what the US will or won't do. The US is not such a bad friend and ally as you make it out to be. The US has gone against it's own interests to help allies in the past, and will again, I'm sure. America is really not that Machiavellian. Some of the Europeans nations are, but not the US so much. Thankfully.

Arash,

The only thing I can find to have said to you is "wake up to reality and stop writing such nonsense" and "how far in off side you stand. I can only feel sorry."
The rest is not addressed to you but to this imaginary third person mentally handicapped average person out there whose reaction towards Amrican offcials' words you are worried about, those who are not as smart as you to understand its context... I just put in words what you assumed. If yopu find that insulting maybe you shoudl review your assumptions.
As for the tone it is deliberately chosen to be the same as yours in your article. read yours again, and see all the "idiots" and "imbeciles" you have put there. You don't like the tone, don't use it. Afterall I am not the one who is complaining.
And it is deliberate because I want to challenge the practice that as long as you say such words to certain "people" like Bush , the Americans, The monarchists, the zionists, wetsern capitalism...it seems to be alright and even more intelligently written, otherwise it would become rantings. Sorry, I don't buy that and indeed i am tired of seeing it all the time.
Simpel as that. You don't like it, don't read my comments.

damn the typos!

(..bad boy! bad boy! impolite again)

["Just go count the number of offensive words you have used in your last comment. If you don't have anything to say you don't have to rant and shout and call me names."]

I actually counted them. (YEAH! I was bored)
And Arash, short of rhetorically asking if you were blind, AIS didn't call you anything...

AIS did ask if you wish America ["act like a retarded fool"] for pleasing ["bunch of idiots"] BUT that was a general description for its opposers and not a direct insult to you.

I do agree, however, that he was a bit blunt in his criticism by saying ["How about you just wake up to reality and stop writing such nonsense"]
(I myself was even blunter in my comments elsewhere)
And you had every right to be insulted.
But after all, he is allowed.. This is freedom of speech, the very thing FToI so persistently aspires for.

Heh.. AIS.. we were writing almost at the same time, you just beat me by 10 minutes

Dear Ben, AIS, and all other potential readers,
The harsh words I used in my post should be seen in context:
1) The category of the post is "Satire". One might call my satirical style distasteful, and that's fine.

2) The words that I used to refer to individuals were not directed towards you or any of the readers of FToI. Not even in a collective way, such as a nation, race, etc. It is directed at people/governments whose behavior, performance and positions I find greatly substandard (to put it mildly) especially when the caliber of their responsibilities is taken into consideration. If I see a common man on the street calling for a country to be wiped off the map, I might not call him an "idiot", maybe not even jokingly. But if the president of a country makes such a statement, I will definitely call him an "idiot" and I think the word should not even be taken as a means of insult, but as an accurate means to describe his state of mind. The same goes for a UN ambassador whose job is to represent his country in such a way that facilitates the formation of coalitions in support of, and not oppositions against, his country's position.

Arash,

I kow it was satire. you had a point, I disagreed and expressed it in th same way. As I said I am not the one who is complaining.
But th fact that you are supports what I said. Some "targets" seem legitimate. Others are taboo, and this sucks. sorry.

Ben,

indeed. Funny how these things happen all the time. I appreciate what you said anyway. :)

Arash,
I actually didn't comment on your article so let me say this:
1) Scenes approach was interesting, I liked it and in my view it was tasteful.
2) I very much support your complaints about the ambassador. Not only for the same reasons but also because he represents the spirit of mind in the Bush regime which in my opinion is one of the worst the U.S. has ever had.
"They simply ain't gonna do no homework"
The list of major strategic and world security mess ups they are responsible for includes Iraq, Palestinians-Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Russia Pakistan, Egypt and the states of the Arab Peninsula.
I can elaborate on each if you wish. Does FToI have a foreign authors program? ;P

Here are just a few, very few -tip of the iceberg examples with minimal details:
A) Mess up with Iraq: Too many warnings, they gave Saddam too much time, which was enough for him to transport all of his WMD to Syria. Then when no "smoking gun" was found leftists had a "case". Between us (shhh) we all know that not only Saddam had WMDs, HE USED THEM.
Now he uses WMBs: Weapons of Mass Bullshit in his trail, turning it into a one man show that is more suitable to a comedy channel.

B) Mess up with Syria-Lebanon: So many murders by Syrian intelligence in Lebanon, obvious leads/witnesses that talk! Assads head was practically served on a silver plate. Of course the international proceedings against him are frozen ATM -Major U.S screw up.

C) Mess up with Palestinians-Israel: The U.S. knows Palestinians were educated for hate for years. Hamas being elected was not a surprise. Why do they keep insisting democracy is suitable for everyone. The U.S. must recognize that some nations are not capable of it due to brainwash.
Fact: Hitler was elected democratically.
Conclusion: Democracy isn't fool proof.

After the Israeli disengagement the U.S. also insisted to open a road between Gaza and the West Bank (despite Israeli protest) that would be free of Israeli observers.
As a result Israel experienced an increase in terror attacks after terrorists from Gaza moved to the West Bank.
U.S. also said nothing when almost 2 months ago Jordan allowed Hamas to reopen it's offices in Amman.
The U.S allowed the Palestinians and Egypt to open a free and uncontrolled border.
As a result many al-Qaeda terrorists are as we speak building a new base inside Gaza.

One might ask why I expect the U.S. to be the almost sole responsible for these. The answer is that in order to stay the only superpower the U.S. has to play its role and be active. There are many more examples. But in conclusion I can say that between doing everything and doing nothing, The worse a superpower can do is trying to stand in both these squares. Wavering indecisive U.S. will lose its grip and before it knows, someone else will take the wheel of earth.
The damage the Bush administration has caused the U.S. and the world is incredible.

So you see Arash, an ambassador with split personality and lack of confidence which easily stumbles at the cheap tricks a leftist BBC host can pull out of his sleeve, this ambassador is just the introduction.
I hope I didn't turn your day even darker or alternatively, coat your stick with even more gold.

I disagree.
The real damage has been done by earlier administration and these are the results. The Bush administration has had to confront Terrorism, UN and EU corruption and the severe internal opposition from the beginning and all of this coupled with an outdated but well secured mentality in American political system, especially the state department. All the results you mentioned are somewhere between everything and nothing because the rest of the western political system should immense inertia agains the dramatic change of policy that was needed to confront it and that the Bush administration and all its neocons did adopt. they still have to work within a democratic and burocratic system and when one side is not willing to play as the democrats and the EU has done things get this way.
I do not deny the blunders, but compared withe the real correctness of their policy vision these are secondary.
The real damage to world was done by Carter administration and hsi way of handling the revolution and hostage taking. Continued with the senior Bush horrible handling of Iraq after the first Persian Gulf war and reached its peak with Clinton. The 8 years of Clinton were such a catastrophe. For teh first time an American president did not have to face the cold war and this is his legacy. Afghanistan left to Taliban and terrorists, appeasemnt with Iran and PLO, allowing India and Pakistan to go nuclear and North Koreans get the Nuke and leaving Saddam to play with nuclear watch dogs and build up the WMDs you believe exited in the first place. The damage is also inthe mindset of the democratic party whose best pawn are people like Michael Moor and Howard Dean!

With all the mistakes and opposition the Bush administartion had by and large moved in the right direction for a change and if the Iran case is taken on seriously islamism could be defeated after all.

As for Bolton I don't see the big deal. The only thing he needed to do in such an interview is to give a neutral answer so it wouldn't be blown up by the media again. That is what he did and is quite enough.

oh yes, as for hamas power and the new base fro terrorism the American role is secondary at best. The need for democratization in teh middle east is urgent and the US as always has had to balance its position regarding the palestinians. I don't approve of it but that is the role the US plays anyway sometimes more skillfully and sometimes less.
But the hamas election in Gaza is the direct consequence of Israeli disengagement plan and something like this was what everyone expected to happen afterwards one way or the other and it is not hard to see that Israel made the move with full knowledge of its consequences... and I also belive it was the right move for Israel in teh long run.
So lets keep everything in its context, shall we?

And in context we keep.
["The real damage..........and Howard Dean!"]
I agree with that above. As a matter of fact I didn't regard the specific actions of other administrations on the chronological timeline. My point was the strategic opportunities this current Bush administration has so bluntly missed in their own period.
You think Carter was even worse? Quite possible you're correct. I think this one is.

I don't see the U.S role as secondary at all regarding the Hamas victory because of its pressure toward democracy in this region, however, I fully agree the disengagement was a prize to terror and was a crucial parameter in their success. I shoud've said that too in my previous comment.
My point of view deriving from the U.S. part in the world as a cop dictates that their responsibility was magnified with every involvement they had in this region.
And they had plenty.
Also from this point of view which you can agree with or not, I put sole responsibility for the new Al-Qaeda terror base on the U.S. for pulling out her Soldiers from that border, for not pressuring Egypt to seal it. And for not presenting the Palestinian institution with obligation to fight terror in exchange for supplies.

You think Carter was even worse? Quite possible you're correct. I think this one is.

Carter was the worst US President iun my lifetime. I was born in 1963. Nobody else is even close. He meant well, though... which is more than I can say for some other Presidents. But good intentions are no excuse for bad decisions, and ineffective leadership.

I'll have to allot a bit more time to comment on the original post and the following exchange in the comments started by AIS, but before then I have this to say about Ben's objection to the US policy to push for democracy in the Middle East: This is by far one of the most successful foreign policies of this administration and very much needed. In fact it was about 10 years overdue and the US only woke up to this reality after 9-11. As to your example of Hamas rising to power through election or Hitler, it does not follow from these that democracy is not suitable for certain people. The only thing that follows is that democracy is not just elections. Elections are means, one of the best among alternatives, to implement the basic idea of democracy, which is avoiding "arbitrary power." But they need to be complemented with other "checks and balances." Any successful democracy proves this point. Perhaps the US has pushed too much for elections, and now we have to live with the consequences, but the essense of the policy of democratization is correct.

Craig:

I understand your general idea that other nations are not responsible per se for another one's failures, but apart from its ethical aspects the issue of responsiblity has little relevance in an analysis of the history of efforts and movements toward democracy and freedom in a country like Iran. What's important practically is the influence or causal effects of other nations' policies. Iran had a constitutional revolution about a 100 years ago that introduced the parliament into the monarchy, and if you read the history of that era (many English accounts are readily available) I'm sure you'd be struck by a sense of surprise with how advanced and progressive those men and women who participated in that movement actually were, and how little influence the sort of religious extremism that now reigns in Iran had at the time. Unfortunately that is now gone and the religious fanatics have grown very strong. On the international level, this has to do with the cold war dynamics for the most part of the past 100 years. The US had chosen to counter communism with religion, since the alternative--the intellectuals--were mostly contaminated with the leftist agenda. The continuation of the democratic forces and ideas that brought about the constitutional revolution was pushed aside in this cold war era. If the US is not to blame, we must at least recognize that she had a role in it. I think this is understood by this administration in their change of policy to supporting democratization of the region. Personally, I hold the Soviet Union and the communist parties morally and intellectually as well as practically responsible--if such a thing is meaningful in international relations--for the failure of the democrtic movement of Iran. In the cold war conflict the US was at least on the side of democracy and freedom and despite her mistakes and mess-ups I take that as a great service to human kind. I only hope that the democratic movement in Iran, which has recently taken a serious blow by seeing its hopes go up in smokes with the failure of the so-called reform project, is not once again wiped out in the course of international compomises on issues like the nuclear activities of the Islamic Republic.

Babak,
Thank you for regarding this issue, I appreciate your opinions and have some thoughts over your response.

["Ben's objection to the US policy to push for democracy in the Middle East: This is by far one of the most successful foreign policies of this administration and very much needed."]
My only objection was to the idea that every nation of people can be democratic.
I firmly believe, out of my common sense and experience from what I've seen, that brainwashed people are not capable of sustaining democracy; Thus, I can't see the logic behind the U.S. attempt to push for democracy without preparing the ground for it first.
What's the point in making half job which has no foundations and will collapse shortly after you're gone? You might as well save your energy and do nothing because in these situations, a half completed task can make things worse.

["As to your example of Hamas rising to power through election or Hitler, it does not follow from these that democracy is not suitable for certain people. The only thing that follows is that democracy is not just elections."]
Of course, but elections represent the main theme of democracy.
Regarding the Hitler example: That was brought up to show that in a country that was already democratic, bad things can happen in the name of democracy especially since votes in a democracy can be volatiled and liquidated. A fickle public opinion can produce strange and unexpected results.
And my conclusion was that democracy isn't foolproof. Do you disagree with this particular conclusion? Do you think that democracy is foolproof?
Well, if you can't show me that democracy IS foolproof then how can you say that "it does not follow from these that democracy is not suitable for certain people."? -I don't see the need to distinguish elections. Iran had elections as well.

Regarding the Hamas example: The context was nation that wasn't already democratic And was under heavy brainwash (The main reason for why they're not democratic. Not even now).
I don't see how "it does not follow from these that democracy is not suitable for certain people."
How do you think "Sharia" brainwashed Palestinians are able of freedom? How do you see them breaking out of their box of thinking they were educated for, and strive for democratic elections themselves? Where is the basis in their society for it?

["Perhaps the US has pushed too much for elections, and now we have to live with the consequences"]
Indeed.. I agree.
Furthermore, now that you've brought it up, I think the U.S. must create a special two phase program for democracy incompetent nations:
Phase A: Educate them to be free in the democratic sense of the word.
Phase B: Only then, when they are ready, give them democratic elections.

["but the essense of the policy of democratization is correct."]
And that is why I don't rule out democracy in general. I only stated that some nations aren't capable of it due to brainwash.
If everyone involved in the Iranian regime decide to resign politics today and there will be democratic elections in Iran tomorrow the brainwashed civilians would just vote for the next dictator in duty.

Babak,

I definitely agree with you on the role of elections and its relation to the real idea behind democracy.
I also agree with your point about the rise of religious fundamentalism, the cold war influence and the part the left played in suffocating the democratic momentum gained during and after the constitutional revolution... and in the present time through this sham "reform" nonsense.

I just want to add an idea of mine. Communism especially andf the left in general by itself had a big role in awakening Islamic fanaticism and in shaping Islamism. I mean directly by its ideals and reactions and its fundamental hatred of capitalism and liberalism. I look at many essential features of modern Islamism and I see a new language for the now old communism. Actually a more consistent and powerful one, exactly teh same that Ntaional-Socialism was compared to hypocritical socialism. It is not widely known but the impact of Marx and communist anti-semtism in identifying money worship with the Jews was one of the most important bases of Nazi and now Islamic anti-semitism. (that nazis and commis hated each other is no surprise either. It is the nature of false and inconsistent ideologies to be nullifying each other. Only the truth is fully consistent and only the approach of open societies can strive towards it.)

The infulence it had on the fathers of Islamism like Shariati and Motahari, Qutb and Khomeini is undeniable.
Look at the main allies of the "Islamic" republic of Iran. they were mostly communists, like Cuba, North Korea, China, Venezuela....
And it all makes perfect sense.

It`s intersting how things are so related to each other. I liked the connection you made with Communism and its influences. I find these comments so worthy because in them I find many answers that I find hard to question.
Also, I learn that in Politics one should not hold a special side and strong views. You need to look at things from different angels. Especially when it is spoken and talked over, you can relate things to each other. Well, my own side is that I repudiate every agency and never justify anyone. Maybe it is the same skepticism that Milan Kundera puts forward in his 'The Joke'; he concludes that one must blame history, not humans, for the crimes. The joke then no longer belongs to him; it is history's joke , and how can man escape history?

& Happy New Year to all Iranians.

And a happy new year to you!

And a happy new year to you!

Monika,

yes indeed there are all these relations that makes the whole thing complicated but fascinating. I agree with you about keeping one's skepticism and indepence of mind. Totally. All I am saying is that right actions should be supported as well as those who take risks to do them all the time, especially when there is so much opposition against it.

Craig,

I'm sure you much more about the internal politics in the US, but from the point of view of an outsider like me Clinton is also a tough competition. :)
But seriously I agree with you about Carter. He is probably the one American that bares the most responsibilty for the mess the world is in today. By supporting Khomeini and his gang at the end, but most of all by his reaction to the hostage taking. It is hard for me to say this, given the fact that those animals who climbed the walls of the US embassy and took the hostages were Iranian, as were the iranian "public" back then suffering, by their own admission now, of acute group lunacy at the time, but it is the truth. Carter should have considered the hostages as casualties of war, taken the act as what it was: attack and capture of American soil, declared war and toppled the regime by force. then the war with Saddam, all the terrorism, boost of islamist mentality, 9/11,... all of this would have benn averted. Look at Israelis reaction to Munich hostage taking. That was the responsible and rational reaction. What Carter completely lacked and the US many times has failed to exert.

Ben,

as you said, there is no way such a thing can be done in the world today. But I wonder if all of that is necessary. I don't see the siginificance of say a Swiss formed constitution? :)
The internal dynamics of a society is more powerful than you think if it is set in the right course. What is needed is a set of minimal laws and constitutions. Then let the ssyetm evolve, faletr and gradually find its way. It will take much longer that way but it is possible. The main thing is the initial conditio nad implementation of that minimal set of rules that in such cases needs force, mostly from outside.but it is at least feasible in this imperfect world of ours.
As I said, in general I agree with the need for some special treatment and intermediary phase. I already mentioned my opinion about Iran in the same lines here

Thanks for the links , especially about Al Qaida in palestinian territories.

o and happy Purim and Pesach to you, ron, JFTDMaster and other Jewish and Israeli friends here. :)

Thank you AIS, and a happy Norouz to all of you :)

AIS,
It's not that "theres no such way it can be done" because it's impossible. It really is possible.
But it can't be done only due to the sheer human factor of the equation on behalf of the general progressed nations of the world which are as I mentioned: selfish and apathetic.
We have to keep that in mind. Because it will worth the waiting if by a miracle world public opinion changes.
My suggestion that a neutral country such as switzerland become involved in the creation of constitution, set of laws, legislative and educational systems derives from hoping to cause as fewer interests conflicts as possible and put these fields out of the hands of the militarily involved countries that with all good intentions can be tempted into doing impure actions due to excess power and beneficial interests.
Also, a militarily involved country that participates in these fields above might give opposers a good case against the whole program.
Thats why I think the presence of a mature neutral country is essential.

Regarding the power you associate with the internal dynamics of a society:
That is true for example if it happens in Iran.
But Palestinians aren't as competent as the Iranian people. It's not even the same league. Palestinians aren't even able to a fracture of what an average nation can achieve.
Because of that, in my suggestion, I meant to practically spoon feed them untill they grow up.
Alot of the Palestinian incompetence is a temporary result of internal power strugles, conflicts castrate minds of their public and young due to brainwash and more.
They can excel beyond this incompetence with time I think, but the many casualties that will be on the way isn't an acceptable burden. Not that anyone cares.

BTW, are you familior with the background of the Purim holiday?
It is relevant to our time.
The story is about the Persian minister called Haman who wanted to "wipe the Jews of the map". He didn't succeed and thats the reason for the holiday.
With the irony god and faith play on us, this Haman could be the very ancestor of mister Ahmadinejad. Don't you think?
This fact that Iran produced such evil again is a testimony for wretchedness.
Sad, very sad.

Remember Ben, Haman was hanged along with his 10 sons...

Perhaps Ahmadinejad descends from one of his bastard children who got away...

It would make a great book anyways!

Remember Ben, Haman was hanged along with his 10 sons...

Perhaps Ahmadinejad descends from one of his bastard children who got away...

It would make a great book anyways!

Of course Ron.. and all those that want to kill us are bastards so your theory makes perfect sense.
dots connected?

Ben,

I knwo it is inrinciple possible, but in practice given the self inetersts of its inhabitanats it is not going to happen. so it is impossible and one has to look instead at solutions that are feasable in this world of ours.

About Purim. hmm... Haman was according to the Bible a descendent of Agag. that makes him an Amalekite and not a Persian. maybe you should read a bit first before making such bold remarks?

As for Wretchedness. . Ahmadinezhad as his likes are a minority who came to power through very complex inetractions 27 years ago and have been waging a war eversince against anything Iranian in the culture.
To say that Iran has produced such a thing is nonsense. The likes of him exist everywhere. This wretchedness is shared by all people and all cultures and all nations, including the Jews.

After all most of this holocaust denial Ahmadinezhad is using now is based on what a Jewish revisionist started ti say in teh first place.
So what?
There is even a possibility that Reinhard Heydrich, the Nazi murderer of Jews and the chair at Wansee Conference where the "Final Solution" (Endlösungder Judenfrage) was devised, had partly Jewish ancestry. see here .

Again, So what? even if this is true?

Sorry, but this kind of talk is utter nonsense.

AIS,
["I knwo it is inrinciple possible, but..........world of ours."]
Well then you should see that sometimes there is no solution.
We've been experiencing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict violence for years with many attampts of quieting it down. No results.
Can you think of anything better? I see the 2 phase solution in the way I described it (or with changes that don't mutate it too much) and this is the only solution I see. Sure I aknowledged it can't be down these days, but this doesn't mean that there necessarily exists another one.

["About Purim. hmm... Haman was according to the Bible a descendent of Agag. that makes him an Amalekite and not a Persian. maybe you should read a bit first before making such bold remarks"]
Bold remarks? Correct remarks! Haman was a Persian minister, in the Persian empire. Where do you see me EVER regarding his ancestry? maybe you should read my posts a bit first before making such bold remarks.

["As for Wretchedness..........cultures and all nations, including the Jews"]
You are taking words out of their rightful context because the wretchedness I was talking about was the intention to wipe Jews of the map (please read my post again.. you seem to require that) and you relate that wretchedness with "including the Jews".
Yes Iran has fallen to this wretchedness twice and Germany once -as far as it reached government.
There are many people in the world that want to wipe each other. But you attribute that to Jews over Jews and thats just not correct.
Even the Neturei Karta which are far fetched related to that don't want to wipe Jews, they follow their own interpretation of the bible that encourage them to oppose the existence of a Jewish state as long as the "Messiah" hasn't appeared.

["After all most of this holocaust denial Ahmadinezhad is using now is based on what a Jewish revisionist started ti say in teh first place."]
1) Zeev Jabutinsky and the founders of the Likud party and Israeli right wing were "Jewish revisionists" and theres no one further from Holocaust Denial than they are.
2) Revisionism of history is not a Jewish school.
Get back to me if you can count the Jews among them on more than one hand.
They were certainly not the first ones to start holocaust denial. And aren't the source for the holocaust denial claims.

It begs the question why you refered to them as the source for Ahmadinehjeds ideas.

And about the Nazi, yes it is possible.
It is possible that most of nonjewish Europeans and Americans are related to Jews by grandfather/uncle of grandfather or any other far family connection since Jews assimilate all the time in every nation they lived. It's a religion and not anything else.
You can convert to it or from it or be originated from it and become one of the holocaust deniers.

Iranian Student... you sound familiar, are you a gal or a guy?

Off the topic really...but I have been curious whether govt. agents monitor websites like this for subversive activity. I really don't know the scope of govt. snooping in Iran, or whether they even care or not.