Bobert, I understand that you don't like Ahmadinejad.... ;-) That's fine with me.

But....you refer to him as "a tin-horn dictator". Huh? On what basis? He is an elected politician, Bobert. They have multi-party elections in Iran at scheduled intervals. In simply glibly referring to him as a "dictator" when he does not fit that definition, you are unwittingly echoing propaganda for people who would very much like to have a war with Iran.

Sort of like going on about Saddam's "WMDs" back in 2003. It sounds really scary, but it's not accurate in the sense of communicating anything with a factual basis.

If the theocrats in Iran had appointed Ahmadinejad to his position for life, then he'd be a dictator, but he has to face elections and win them, and the last election there was hotly contested. He might well have lost it. If he had, you'd probably be calling the guy who replaced him "a tinhorn dictator". ;-) See what I mean?

There were allegations of election fraud by the losers of that Iranian election. Uh-huh. Well, there are also allegations of election fraud in Afghanistan's last election....and there undoubtedly was some election fraud there.

But we don't call Karzai "a tinhorn dictator", do we? We claim they have a democracy now, because they have multi-party elections...like in Iran.

And there are often allegations of election fraud in the USA too...and I bet it happens. But we don't call the American president "a tinhorn dictator".

Do you see how words are used to create sweeping impressions of good and evil about nations? Iranians are routinely demonized in the western press by the selective use of trigger words like "dictator", Bobert. That's propaganda. It is intended to get people onside for supporting another war.