America is performing its familiar role of propping up a dictator

I see - if somebody said something like "Vietnam war was bad" and "war in Afghanistan is no better" it is enough for some readers here to be content. But one could have more high demands, esp. fro supposed "leftist" znet. I have not comment on such insight by Fisk because he is right there. But a bit of right could not (at least for me) silence criticism about what was wrong. If one is happy with "left-imperialist" POV, so be it. But some people know better.

Now, about my humble person. Yes, I was "scandalized" if  one wants to put it such, but only because I am fed up with Fisk and others repeating imperialist prop while the same imperialism is REALLY threating to turn Iran into another Iraq. Of course, some people, including Fisk, do not care much about it, but I do. Still cannot see how it nullifys my arguments.

By the way, my ARGUMENTS were NOT answered by Corbett and Peters. They choose insted teach me what should I disscuss in my comments, thank you very much.

Not one of your comments refers to Afganstan.  I imagine that if someone debated with you - there would be no chance to stick to a specific subject/event.  I repeat again - this article is about the similarities of the occupation of Afghanistan and that of vietnam in relation to the US's role.  Why do you have no mention of this?

Best

(Btw - Riad, I think the site you were looking for is www.Match.com)

Like Peter Devin, I can't seem to reconcile the comments written here by Alla Nikonov with what I read in Fisk's commentary. I also find the "scandalized" tone of the comments rather misplaced.

I'll concede that Fisk uses hyperbole ("everyone" thinks Ahmadinejad is a dicator, etc.). It's not my favorite choice of style by far, but that's his way of writing. One does oneself a real disservice by taking this figure of speech literally!

My own preference would be if people focused their critique on the main points of the article instead of all these side issues.

Fisk's analogy between the current state of affairs in Afghanistan and the early stages of the Vietnam war seems plausible to me.

My maind criticism, is more fundamental, namely that his piece is rather depressing. I'm more interested in articles highlighting potential solutions than repeating how everything is rotten -- however true and necessary this may be. The former is more conducive to action, the latter to depressive apathy.

This is just to express my great admire to all Mm. Nikonov comments. I think Alla is a female name. As i could not find any information helping to communicate with you, i am leaving my email address in a hope that you will use it.

iahooraa@yahoo.com

"Fisk CANNOT be imperialist", because he is NOT one. As if being against SOME moments of imperilaism means being antiimperilaist. it menas being more clever imperilalist, it is all. Fisk was in Iran. So what? Does speak Farsi? Or has he, as a majority of imperialist media rely on pro-imperialist English-speaking people? Fisk was in Lebanon and wrote a rubbish about it, supporting Hariri.

And if iran is NOT important for this article, WHY brought it at all, while saying such thigs about "the whole world" and "dictator".

Now, when Chomski supports Zionism and anti-communism - I would not repeat mantra about him being such and such - I simply call him Zionist and anti-communist which, incidently,( just like with Fisk) is PRO imperialist and pro-capitalist.

In short, agrument based on supposed reputation of a person, NOT by one's real words and deeds, is not an agrument.

I read through these comments and I am in utter disbelief.  Alla and Andre you have picked on the least significant parts of this TIMELY article, in it Fisk is talking about the current illegal war in Afghanistan and its comparison to the American invasion of Vietnam.  Alla Nikonov - to pick of his quote about Iranian views on Ahmadinejadand ignoring the focus of the piece is totally disingenuous and simply shows you as someone trying to prove their own distorted view of others.  Stating that Fisk is 'firmly rooted in Western Imperialism' is frankly absurd.  He already stated in this very piece that the US was propping up a Dictator in Vietnam, that it was an occupation and that Washington was a central part in fraudulent thus illegal elections - how does this support Western Imperialism?  Anyone with a clue about international politics and mainstream Western media know what Fisk is saying is the diametric opposite.  He is clearly not portraying the Vietnam adventure as the US were only participating, to say so simply ignores the two previous paragraphs and all of Fisk's previous work.

Andre Guimond - Fisk was in Iran throughout the disputed elections process and was reporting widely from there, you should read some of his work, he is not and never has been ‘embedded' and is often the only western journalist who reports from the Middle East at street level.  I think this gives him some credibility in making judgements about the mood of Iran.  In addition this is an newspaper article, not an essay  - do you think he has enough space to discuss the specifics of power in Iran when writing about Afghanistan?

Nikonov - how on Earth can you read Fisk and believe that he is supporting Western Imperialism, every stroke of his pen is steeped in anti-imperial wit and scorn.  He is presuming that you - the reader are read enough to keep up with his humour and sarcasm.  His piece is a commentary on how bad the mainstream press is in both the US and Britain - can you really not see this?  I am truly amazed, soon I will be expecting to see you write Noam Chomsky is a pro capitalist agent for the rich.

Best

Andre, I suppose you have not heard of this poll http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/sep09/IranUS_Sep09_graph3.jpg?

more see here http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/639.php?nid=&id=&pnt=639&lb=

If you have another data, please, share it here

Now, I am sure Fisk knows about Pentagon papers no less than you :), the problem is NOT his ignorance, but his imperialist mindset

Mr. Fisk,

Could you please provide the evidence for the claims of "everyone outside Iran (and a lot inside) [regarding Ahmadinejad] as a dictator"? Evidence aside, I also find this a highly problematic formulation as he wouldn't, or couldn't, be a "dictator" if the Supreme Council didn't want him to be - thus perhaps making the Supreme Council the more powerful body in Iran, no? What I'm trying to get at as that locating the source of authoritarian power (and, presumably, most of the countries' problems) in Ahmadinejad, rather than identifying the problem as the system of control imposed by the entire governing body, is reductive and, frankly, too easy. The people of Iran deserve more thought than that.

Otherwise, I agree that the "mission" (how is it "ours," by the way? Did we as Canadians, Americans or Brits vote on it and come to an agreement?) is going to end in utter disaster - but only if it keeps going this way, if we don't demand a stop to it and all wars, demand reparations for the Afghan people, demand that we listen to Afghanis and do as they ask (as is "our" moral and legal obligation as an occupying power). I would also add that it started and continues as a disaster, it doesn't just have the potential to end that way.

And, as Alla noted below, portraying the US as "participating in" the Vietnam war - not starting, not provoking, not planning, but "participating!" - and the Vietnam war as a "civil war," as if it was already happening with no American involvement whatsoever and the US just popped in and participated, is disgustingly dishonest and a gross reinterpretation of the history of American imperialism and aggression. Perhaps you should revisit the Pentagon Papers, sir, or countless other works that address the facts.

Alla Nikonov,

I would ask the same question of your claim: if it is true that only about 10% of Iranians do not see Ahmadinejad as a "legit prez," could you please provide support for that claim?

Yes, I see, it is only Marxist-Lenininst who could call spade a spade, right? others could not and have to pretend that USA imperialist propaganda is truth, and everyone who is not serves those colonial powers is  a "dictator" and that colonial wars are but  "folly" of otherwise democratic America, because colonialism is sure "contrary to its own interests"- just ask Natives. 

Unfortunately, being a "Marxist-Leninist"  I also could not help  finding such pretentions being  NOT funny at all, and mostly pathetic, or simply sinister. 

Nice work. Your Marxist-Leninist imitation is always very funny.

"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad whom everyone outside Iran (and a lot inside) regard as a dictator"

"Inside" only about 10(!)% do not see him as a legit prez, sorry, and outside - WHO the hell Fisk thinks he is to say such rubbish! Everyone, sure, if only worth to count are imperilaists and their lackeys, and some leftist supporters of imperilaist plots, but of course, the UK journalist from the typical imperialist paper knows better.

Now, being such a journalist, he could say things like "US forces were participating in a civil war in Vietnam" while really USA was waging a colonial war then, supporting their puppets. It is NOT called a civil war, it is called an anti-colonial one.

Of course, being such, Fisk also could say that supporting their puppets is bad politics for imperialism - while really it is logical to do so, and was done more or less successfully for long time. Only the person which could not see that there is a life outside  of imperilaism (including in Iran) could write such pathetic articles and, no doubt, imaging oneself being very progressive, while his progreesivism is firmly rooted in Western imperialism, which he could reject  no more than fish could reject water it sweem in. Fisk is one the best of his trade, which only indicate the abismal quality of so-called "free media".