--- Davd Brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Absurd. Email exchanges are polemical, not > deliberative. Moreover, criticism of failed > policies > demand lower burdens of proof than recommendations.
Well, Dr. Brin, they're polemical if you want them to be. I think this is the messenger, not the medium, though. I certainly consider my discussions with Dan M. or JDG to be deliberative. Maybe if you talked to me, not at me, it might _be_ deliberative. > > When I recommended considering an Iranian alliance, > I > NEVER predicted with certainty that it would happen. Well, you'd better be pretty certain before you say that people who decided not to do it are morons and/or corrupt. Maybe they thought (as I think) that it's a really bad idea. > 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? Try submitting that to International Security, Dr. Brin. I'd be interested to see what Sean Lynn-Jones writes in his response. He's a polite guy. > > > 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. The Shah was considerably less ruthless than the people who succeeded him. He exiled Khomeini instead of killing him. Khomeini (and his successors) aren't that restrained. An obvious parallel would be Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe became filled with democracies under Gorbachev, a person unwilling to use force (much - ask a Lithuanian about how restrained Gorbachev was some time) to maintain his power. Does this suggest to you that Stalin would have acted the same way? > > > 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. Except we don't seem to have done that. As I have said, and you have agreed, we are quite popular in Iran among the average people. Not much of a bogeyman, then. Now, I'm not old enough to personally remember Reagan's Evil Empire speech. But I've read enough about the response to it - a response that sounds an awful lot like yours, from people who called him a moron for saying it. But, you know, I _am_ old enough to remember what Soviet dissidents have been saying about that speech - how happy it made them. How they passed the text of Reagan's speeches around while they were imprisoned in Siberia. Did so while the same people (quite often the _very_ same people) attacked Reagan for having the guts to stand up to the Soviets. It didn't drive the Russians into the arms of the Communists. Very much the opposite, actually. > > > > 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? Well, they've also demanded that we stop supporting Israel and remove ourselves from the Middle East. Oh yes, they've also threatened Israel with nuclear destruction. It's not a demand on us, but it's something I like to keep in mind when I think about who we're dealing with in Iran. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
