- As for the following.... If I was as certain about _anything_ > in > > foreign policy as you are about _everything_, Dr. > > Brin, I'd be...a really poor political scientist.
Absurd. Email exchanges are polemical, not deliberative. Moreover, criticism of failed policies demand lower burdens of proof than recommendations. When I recommended considering an Iranian alliance, I NEVER predicted with certainty that it would happen. Instead, I did exactly as you recommend and weighed the pros and cons of TRYING. As it happened, nobody in the intelligence community could come up with a downside set of repercussions worse than "They might turn us down and we'd be embarrassed." Embarrassed for trying to be nice and offering an olive branch? I can live with that. It would at MINIMUM make us look noble and grownup. The Upside POTENTIAL (and that is all I called it) was the utter demolition of THREE enemy conspiracies. The Iranian Mullahs, Saddam, and the worst of all, the Saudi Wahhabists who have openly declared their aim to make us choke on the oil that we buy from them. > > The > > first lesson taught to _very serious student of > > politics is that we are limited in what we know > and> > what we can predict. Basic causality is often > > impossible to determine, even in retrospect. Um... duh? ;-) I> can,> > for example, lay out multiple equally-convincing> and > > explanations for the First World War, only the > most> > important event of the 20th century. If, _even in> > retrospect_ it is impossible to determine > something> > as> > basic as "why did the countries of Europe fight> this> > massive conflict" Except that momentum + stupidity made it inevitable? I find your certainty about the> > _future_ impact of hypothetical actions> implausible,> > at best. Yes, I agree. It is implausible that I was certain to the degree that you - in your need to diminish my position, seem so eager to portray me. Thanks, I could not have said it better myself. > > > > A very incomplete list of the problems with your> > belief would be: > > 1. What if the government didn't _want_ to give up > > power and used its secret police to preserve its > > position - what then? Um... I dunno.... ask the Shah. He did that SOOOOOOO effectively against the same people. > > 2. If it were so easy to overthrow the Iranian > > government, why hasn't the (popular) opposition > done> > it already? You put words in my mouth. I never said it was easy. I said we would HELP the democrats by STOPPING providing the Mullahs with a reflexive bogeyman. > > 3. Why do you think that an apology by the US is > the > > most important thing in the world for Iranians? Ummmmmm.... because it is the one and ONLY thing they have demanded from us, both officially and unofficially for 25 years? > > What > > evidence we have suggests that the average Iranian > > _already has_ a very favorable opinion of the US, > > and > > (in fact) might even have supported the invasion > of > > Iraq (Saddam Hussein was not beloved in Iran). Every bloody opinion poll taken by outside experts in the last ten years! And this underplays it because there is some fear of the islamists. Look it up. > What> > plausible reason is there that an apology from the > > President (for what, exactly?) would somehow cause > > these people, who presumably have other concerns > in> > their lives, to overthrow their government? The apology is what they have asked for... knowing they would not get it. Yet at times SMART republicans have existed. Like Henry Kissinger and even Richard Nixon... (a giant compared to these pygmies) ... not to mention the towering Barry Goldwater. Nixon to China was the greatest act of geopolitical jiu jitsu in our lifetimes. It was even worthy of George Marshall himself. But these morons know only sumo... and with detailed instructions from their Saudi coaches. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
