For 20 years, Steamboat resident Rob Douglas was a Washington, D.C. private detective specializing in homicide, political corruption and terrorism. Since 1998, Douglas has been a commentator on local, state and national politics in Washington, D.C., Maryland and Colorado. To reach Rob Douglas, email rdouglas@SteamboatToday.com.

For 20 years, Steamboat resident Rob Douglas was a Washington, D.C. private detective specializing in homicide, political corruption and terrorism. Since 1998, Douglas has been a commentator on local, state and national politics in Washington, D.C., Maryland and Colorado. To reach Rob Douglas, email rdouglas@SteamboatToday.com.

Rob Douglas: Social media and the 'Angel of Iran'

Advertisement

Rob Douglas

Rob Douglas' column appears Fridays in the Steamboat Today. He can be reached at rdouglas@SteamboatToday.com.

Find more columns by Douglas here.

— I planned to spend as much time as possible outdoors last weekend. Instead, I remained inside watching TV and surfing the Web.

Revolution does that to me.

In this case, the pro-democracy Iranian Revolution - fueled by outrage about the sham re-election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as dictated by Iran's "supreme leader" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei - captured my attention.

All Americans should support the revolution. The outcome will impact events here and abroad for decades to come. Specifically, the revolution may determine whether Iran remains an autocratic theocracy pursuing nuclear weapons and the annihilation of Israel while promoting terrorism or, just possibly, starts on the path toward the creation of a democratic republic open to detente in the Middle East.

Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Iran has sponsored terrorism around the world by providing funding, training and logistical support to terrorist organizations including Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The U.S. State Department, along with the Council on Foreign Relations and other organizations that monitor terrorism, has labeled Iran the most active state sponsor of terrorism.

Just how active and deadly is Iran's Islamic theocracy?

In addition to slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians, Iranian-backed terrorists killed 241 U.S. servicemen in the 1983 truck bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon; kidnapped and murdered U.S. Marine Col. William Higgins in 1988; detonated the truck bomb that killed 19 U.S. servicemen at their residence in Saudi Arabia in 1996; and supplied bombs used to kill our military men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What will it take for this fledgling revolution to spread its wings in flight toward true democracy and the possibility of a small but important step toward peace in the Middle East?

What can each of us do to assist those Iranians protesting to have their votes count in an effort to bring about a change that could lessen the likelihood of future generations of Americans fighting and dying in the Middle East?

For one, we can bear witness to the brutality and repression of the Islamic theocracy that currently dominates the Iranian people and raise our voices in support of the pro-democracy movement as did the "Angel of Iran" - Neda Agha Soltan - the young woman who is now the symbol of the revolution.

Neda was shot in the chest and killed by Iranian security forces as she stood in solidarity with those protesting the fraudulent election near Tehran's Freedom Square last Saturday. The video of her murder - broadcast around the world on YouTube - is chilling. The plea in Neda's haunting eyes as she looks directly into the camera during the last moments of her life forever burns the soul of any viewer.

As reported by The Telegraph newspaper, Neda's boyfriend said she had gone to the pro-democracy rally because, "She couldn't stand the injustice of it all. All she wanted was the proper vote of the people to be counted. She wanted to show with her presence that 'I'm here. I also voted. And my vote wasn't counted.' It was a very peaceful act of protest, without any violence. She gave a big lesson to everyone even though she was very young. She only ever said that she wanted one thing, she wanted democracy and freedom for the people of Iran."

But how can we, half a world away, bear witness and make our presence known within Iran and, in so doing, raise our voices in unison with Neda's cry for freedom?

Certainly, Americans can stand with the pro-democracy forces within Iran indirectly through the timid voices of our elected representatives. Or, far more directly and powerfully, we can stand in solidarity and encourage those seeking freedom within Iran through social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and YouTube.

For the first time in history, the unique power and freedom of the social media has transformed communication into and out of an ongoing conflict. In fact, social media sites have been so successful that governments and traditional media have resorted to using social media to gather and dispense real-time information because traditional means of information collection and broadcasting have been suppressed. Consequently, there is no doubt the new social media has emboldened the pro-democracy forces within Iran and will continue to do so no matter the immediate outcome.

So, in these critical days of the new Iranian Revolution - a revolution that will not end and will result sooner or later in a truly democratic government - we should all stand in solidarity with the Angel of Iran and raise our voices in ways never before possible in support of those seeking freedom.

To reach Rob Douglas, e-mail Rob.Douglas@Comcast.net

Comments

MrTaiChi 5 years, 5 months ago

A wonderful sentiment...

One has to ask, however, what will become of the hard line Islamists in Iran after the revolution. Remember, these were the people who, during the Shah's governance, threw a fire bomb into a movie theater incinerating dozens of people because such entertainment was un-Islamic western decadence.

If the educated, the middle class, and the merchant class are able to wrest power from the Islamists, there will be an immediate bloodbath, followed by a simmering series of atrocities. There will be no peace in Iran. Experts agree that peaceful opposition to an utterly ruthless police state is futile. Mohandas Gandhi would have been a smear under a boot had he employed his tactics in Nazi Germany or Mao's China.

Crane Brinton (?) was a political theorist who broke true revolutions down into phases, ultimately resulting in a phase called "thermador" in which the original actors fail in governing because revolutionaries make terrible bureaucrats, and the culture evolves into pragmatic moderation. It is more realistic to hope for this outcome from the original Iranian Revolution than for a new revolution.

Pity the poor people who have to live under an Islamic Republic, and work to prevent the spread of Islamism, as it is a regression compelled by a religion that celebrates the death of innocents, by redefining who is innocent.

0

seeuski 5 years, 5 months ago

This has been building for years. I was freinds with an Iranian business owner in McLean, VA just after 9/11 and we spent alot of time discussing the issues in the Middle East. He expressed to me that it was the wish of the Iranian people for the US to topple Saddam Hussein first and then help do the same to the regime in Iran. These people wanted their freedom back and eventhough he was a Muslim he hated life under Sharia rule. The atrocities perpetuated against the public is not new to this recent event but has been taking place out of site if the media and the worlds eyes for years. Stoning and public hanging of young girls and women is commonplace along with the confinement of anyone that poses a threat to open thought as was recently shown by the jailing of the Iranian American journalist, Roxana Saberi. These recent events are disturbing and we as Americans should hope for the voice that matters to speak for us all in the strongest of terms. It is a shame that Barrack Obama took a wait and see attitude and is tempering his statements so as not to upset the Mullahs. This was the same response he had towards the Russian incursion into Georgia last Summer. I saw an Iranian interviewed on CNN say that the protesters in Iran are hoping for the support of the USA and the West. It's unfortunate that Obama double crossed these people by giving them hope in his speach to the Islamic world in Egypt but then cowering in his statements last weekend when he said he didn't want to meddle. I'm sure those protesters felt comforted by that as they were beaten by pipes and shot in the streets.

0

seeuski 5 years, 5 months ago

I agree that the US in the 1953 Coup was involved in bad politics. The players like the Dulles brothers were involved in many actions in the ME that were treacherous, waki has the story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

I think though that recent history proves best how to deal with this type of situation and the uprising, with great vocal support from then President Reagan, that freed Europe from Communism in the 80's is an example of what is required. As far as there being a hint at US involvement, that is a policy choice that the President has to make. Do you strongly support the masses or sit back and let this moment in history escape without standing for freedom. I guess you have to beleive that the existing Regime will come to the negotiating table and change their stated positions on the destruction of Israel along with the developement of nuclear bombs which they will surely not do. Our best chance is Regime change, without that, war may be inevitable as Israel may be forced to act. I pray for the freedom of the people and Regime change.

0

JLM 5 years, 5 months ago

The American President should be the world's champion for freedom and self determination by all people. It takes guts and the President must be willing to be steadfast. It is not a role to be played, it is a man's character to be plumbed. Some have it and some don't. Roosevelt had it. Truman had it. Eisenhower had it. Reagan had it. Bush had it. Obama does not have it.

Disaster, death and future travail follows whenever the American President fails to champion freedom or engages in half measures. Worse, the problem does not go away.

It is even worse to give a head fake --- pretend to champion freedom, get folks to act in pursuit of their freedom and leave them swinging in the breeze thereafter.

One only has to look at the aftermath of our half hearted involvement with the Kurds after the first Iraq War, the Cubans left hanging at the Bay of Pigs, the unsatisfactory outcome of the Korean War, the Vietnamese abandoned at the end of the war, the Hungarians encouraged to revolt and then left to be slaughtered by the Russians and the Chinese allowed to be cornered on Taiwan.

Compare that to the successful outcome of the Berlin Airlift in which President Truman resolved to defeat the Russians' attempt to steal Berlin --- the capital of our defeated Nazi enemy; or, the Marshall Plan which prevented western Europe form drifting toward Communism; or, the defeat of the Communists in Greece; or, the public call by Ronald Reagan to Gorbachev to dismantle the Berlin Wall. It takes a President with a bit of grit to stand up to and defeat tyrants.

It is reported that Truman picked up the phone and said --- get me the General who managed the effort to fly the Hump during the War and tell him to go supply Berlin. 4000 tons per day for over a year! That's decisiveness.

Iran is not some wayward college fraternity whose pranks have gotten out of control. This is the greatest exporter of terror in the world, the manufacturer of the most horrific copper shape charge IEDs which horribly disfigure and kill our soldiers on a daily basis and whose underlying power is a bunch of wacky clerics who adhere to barbaric policies. And these guys are pursuing the development of nuclear weapons!

So, yes, this is one that Obama should stick his neck out a bit on for the sake of America and the world. His naive view that his personal charm will unclench the fist of the Iranian tyrant is just silly. He overstates his capacity for charm.

Sic Semper Tyrannis!

0

knee_dropper 5 years, 5 months ago

I have to agree with MrTai in that the best hope is for change from within the Iranian government. The theocracy has too much support from the majority of the Iranians for a revolution to be successful. The supreme leader has the final say so in all of Iran's external affairs, not the elected president; he also still has support of the vast majority of Iranians. The more the west is perceived as meddling in Iran's internal affairs, the more Ahmadinejad can try to project their problems on to us. Do we really want to encourage an uprising, ala George H.W. after the first gulf war, and allow the rebels to be slaughtered by the revolutionary guard, or do we invade to back them and occupy another chunk of the gulf?

0

JLM 5 years, 5 months ago

Two hours after the polls were closed in Iran, the winner was announced. Hell, that's even faster than MSNBC announced that Obama had won! LOL

Why does anyone think that the "other" guy was any good? Don't you realize that the Ayatollahs decided who got on the damn ballot in the first place?

The controversy about the election is all baloney. Whoever won was going to be the Ayatollahs' boy under any circumstances. ACORN could take lessons from these Ayatollahs. They don't rig the electorate, they rig the ballot!

The Iranian people are a good, well-educated people yearning for freedom and their leaders are crackpot tyrants.

The riots and the despotic government's response are very, very, very real.

I'm OK w/ these guys having nuclear weapons. How about you? Sure, I think they will behave themselves. And maybe the Holocaust did not really happen? Hey, they could be right, right? They're not crazy, they're.................................................................eccentric! Yeah, that's the ticket!

For Obama to denounce them would not require much of a leap of faith. Then again, he attended his church for 20 years and never noticed his pastor was a crackpot racist. So, go figure! LOL

0

honestabe 5 years, 5 months ago

JLM, nice rant. so are you suggesting we invade iran now? why not years ago, is Iran a new issue? Or do we just loudly yell, "AXIS OF EVIL" and the problem is solved? Do you have any answers, or just chose to look away like our presidents have done for the last decade (or 3), while they have developed nuclear technologies? I believe Obama has denounced the repression in Iran, what do you suggest he do next?

0

Fred Duckels 5 years, 5 months ago

The people of Iran are trying to break out of bondage, they are willing to sacrifice any security that they have to seek freedom. In our country, most value security, and are dependant upon the gevernment to provide this at the expense of freedom. In return our gov wants us to give up arms and eventually all our freedom. Notice that the Iranians do not have weapons to further the cause. They are looking to break out of bondage and we are gleefully heading into that trap. This is all predictable under the theory that capitalism will only last for about 200 years. Start under bondage and the lure of security will eventually return us to this cesspool. This is especially evident today in this country and it is sad.

0

playa46 5 years, 5 months ago

JLM- Welcome to the 21st Century.

"The American President should be the world's champion for freedom and self determination by all people. It takes guts and the President must be willing to be steadfast. It is not a role to be played, it is a man's character to be plumbed. Some have it and some don't. Roosevelt had it. Truman had it. Eisenhower had it. Reagan had it. Bush had it. Obama does not have it."

Your whole post is just another rant why you believe that O has no reason to be el presidente. You started by listing off names of presidents (good for you!!!!) and gave us a speech about how we won WWII and ways we fought communism.

Your first paragraph states that even Bush has the guts to be C&C, yet Obama does not have them because he won't fight Iran, you're basically saying that we are in a mess because of O.

Please, Bush forced us into a "war against terrorism" which caused us to loose more than we gained. Now we are trillions of dollars in debt and everyone hates us, what do you think will happen in Iran? Only more conflict, only more reason to hate us. You could argue that many presidents before Bush, (including Bush Sr.) sucked us into this great mess. So sorry, but Obama did not create any problems, and forcing us to go to Iran is more of a problem than a solution. If you think he doesn't have any guts, too bad, you're stuck with him till 2012.

As for the rest of your post, there is plenty of history between your examples and the mess we are in now. Circumstances have changed, we are in different types of conflicts now. We have learned from our mistakes, and the world will never be perfect.

0

JLM 5 years, 5 months ago

While our naive President lives out his narcissistic delusions that he will simply sit down w/ the maniacs who run Iran and talk them down off the ledge, let's peak at some facts.

We have been at war w/ Iran for years, perhaps since 1979 when the Ayatollahs came to power.

Iran is the largest state sponsored supporter --- read banker and trainer --- of international terrorism including direct and complete financial support and military training for Hezbollah (which they founded by the way); financial support of the Palestinian Authority and thereby support of Hamas; training and support of terrorist organizations in both Iraq (including that charmer Muqtada el Sadr and his assorted henchmen) and Afghanistan who are in active combat with American forces on a daily basis; importation of the most horrific maiming copper flux shape charge IEDs which are routinely used in Iraq on a daily basis; and the establishment of the Revolutionary Guards (a terrorist group in their own right) as a training tool for every Shiite terrorist organization in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pretty impressive body of work in such a small place like the Middle East, no?

Contrary to the public perception that Mo (that's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to his friends, not one of the Three Stooges) is in charge, in actuality Ayatollah Ali Khameini is the Commander in Chief of the Iranian military and the police --- nice combination, no? Mo is a reasonable chap in comparison to Ali K.

Obama, always a fellow to follow the appropriate protocol of dealing with foreign leaders whether curtsying to Queens or bowing to faux Saudi Kings, calls Ayatollah Ali K --- the "Supreme Leader" --- this is not a joke. He should be calling him the "sh!thead who runs Iran"!

In the midst of all this chaos, Iran has called for the extinction of Israel --- a conversational gambit which falls on understandably unreceptive ears in the Tel Aviv zip code. Those pesky Jews still believe in the Holocaust! Go figure!

Iran, on the other hand, has consistently made good on its intentions for some considerable time with Hezbollah dominating Lebanon to the north of Israel and Hamas/Palestine Authority creating its own unique brand of mischief in the Gaza Strip. What's a Jew have to do to make friends with these chaps?

This further complicates our lives as we have vowed to defend Israel as well as the nasty habit that the Jews have developed of bombing nuclear reactors owned by neighboring despots (e.g. Iraq and Syria). We have seen this movie before and we know the plot. This is for real.

Now, the Iranians want to develop nuclear weapons (under the guise of a nuclear power plant being built in concert with the Russians by the way) and the impotent United Nations is in full dudgeon denouncing the intentions of the wicked Iranians who are all the while whizzing on the world's collective leg.

0

JLM 5 years, 5 months ago

BTW, the Iranians possess and have used WMDs with reckless abandon in their own Iraq v Iran war. These guys have a meaningful stockpile of WMDs right now and they want to add the nuclear option.

What we are talking about is being "effective" by which I mean changing the outcomes rather than accepting the outcomes.

So, yes, Obama is going to have to do something and he better do it now. The UN has crossed Iran off the Christmas card list and apparently the White House will not be having the Ayatollahs over for dogs and burgers next week. This is not what I am suggesting by being "effective".

Obama is going to have to strain that Ivy League noodle -- or consult w/ ACORN -- and come up with something that will work or there is a very high likelihood that our ongoing war with Iran will flame up in grand fashion.

Those Jews are going to bomb the Iranians --- count on it. This will irk the Supreme Leader.

0

JLM 5 years, 5 months ago

Playa, nice post but you are going to have to work on the reading comprehension a bit --- the particular slice of history I was referring to had nothing to do w/ WWII. That was that big shindig in the early 1940s w/ the Japs and Krauts --- not really what I was talking about.

I was not suggesting that we go to war w/ Iran but rather that we might prevent going to war if the American President were to plainly say what the entire world already knows --- America has no beef w/ the Iranian people and supports their legitimate yearnings for freedom and recognizes that Ali K and Mo are repressive, murderous despots who often use the wrong fork when eating shellfish.

The American President needs to stand up publicly and state the obvious --- the Middle East is a tinderbox because Iran's despotic leadership is engaged in evil enterprises and programs which seek to destroy Israel and freedom loving people. Iran's leaders are nuts. Nuts cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. [Reread the preceding two sentences substituting "North Korea" for "Iran".]

This problem will not be solved by vegetable gardens, NCAA brackets, date night, playing a lot of golf, going to eat burgers with Brian Williams and Joe Biden, witticisms or being "cool".

John F Kennedy was pretty damn cool and he was the best golfer to ever live in the WH but when it came time to deal with the Cuban Missile crisis he hitched up his pants and got the job done.

Is Obama getting the job done by not criticizing these Iranian spawns of the Devil? I, for one, think not.

BTW, George W Bush got it exactly, perfectly, absolutely right when he called NK, Iran and Iraq the "Axis of Evil". Review recent history and see if you don't agree.

0

playa46 5 years, 5 months ago

See JLM, this is where you neglect to read my posts.

"John F Kennedy was pretty damn cool and he was the best golfer to ever live in the WH but when it came time to deal with the Cuban Missile crisis he hitched up his pants and got the job done.

Is Obama getting the job done by not criticizing these Iranian spawns of the Devil? I, for one, think not.

BTW, George W Bush got it exactly, perfectly, absolutely right when he called NK, Iran and Iraq the "Axis of Evil". Review recent history and see if you don't agree."

All of that is based off, what, your thinking? You call on Obama by saying that: "the entire world already knows America has no beef w/ the Iranian people and supports their legitimate yearnings for freedom and recognizes that Ali K and Mo are repressive, murderous despots who often use the wrong fork when eating shellfish.

The American President needs to stand up publicly and state the obvious the Middle East is a tinderbox because Iran's despotic leadership is engaged in evil enterprises and programs which seek to destroy Israel and freedom loving people. Iran's leaders are nuts. Nuts cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons."

It's great that you have your own opinions and thoughts about what should happen for America, but so does the rest of the world. One man does not control the fate of America, that's called a dictatorship.

You want to call Iran, Korea and Iraq an "axis of evil", fine, you have all the right to do that. Just remember, the more you poke at a snake, you may live to regret it one day. (Old Chinese Proverb).

It's good that you want to promote freedom to those in need of it, but at what cost? We now stand in more than a trillion dollar debt here, can we really afford to send more troops over the seas? I am pretty sure three wars at one time is a new record of the U.S.

At the same time in Iran, that gives people more of a reason to hate us. I'm pretty sure you understand that we cannot kill every terrorist in the world. And giving propaganda to those who are angry for how they ended up works well.

"This problem will not be solved by vegetable gardens, NCAA brackets, date night, playing a lot of golf, going to eat burgers with Brian Williams and Joe Biden, witticisms or being "cool"."

And as for that, we all know this problem won't be solved like that.

0

Robert Huron 5 years, 5 months ago

Mr. JLM forgets to mention in his many rants that the US was responsible for removing the democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953 and replacing him with the Shah. This was to get Iranian oil and in return he would buy military hardware from our defense industry. The Shah was as vicious as Sadam if not worse. When I was in Iran in the 1970's you could see that his days were numbered. This is what caused the Islamic revolution. Thanks to our intervention a democratic country became what it is today. Any chance of change will have to come from the Iranian people and if Obama gets involved old wounds of the past will ruin any chance of success. Starting a third war in Iran as Republicans want is just plain counter productive and stupit. They would be better off taking a vacation in Argentina to cool off.

0

trump_suit 5 years, 5 months ago

Fred, By my count our "Capitalistic Society" is now 233 years old and counting. Not too bad for a double centarian and althought we have had a bout of the flu here for the last year or so, I think our country is actually going to make it for another year or two at least.

JLM, by all accounts the Bush decision to invade Iraq will stand out as one of the worst presidential decisions in History and you want to compound it by taking on Iran also??????

Count me out of this one, and call me a bleeding heart liberal. Going to war in Iraq was a huge mistake for this country. The only decision that might be worse would be expanding that mistake of a war into Iran. Not even the dissidents and revolutionaries want us there.

Please get off your Bush soapbox and go bird hunting with Dick Cheney.

0

honestabe 5 years, 5 months ago

i dont think JLM wants war with iran, he would only complain about Obama's action if so. He just wants Obama to SHOUT louder, " AXIS OF EVIL" to scare the big meany(s).

0

MrTaiChi 5 years, 5 months ago

In review of the above comments, I see the repeated pattern of criticism of JLM,s historical observations wholesale, whithout refuting his facts. What I am hearing him say is that the President has to be more presidential. There have been, as JLM pointed out a disquieting series of behaviors on the President's part that indicate that he doesn't fully understand the role of President in foreign policy. While some of you on the left looked forward eagerly to the new "soft" foreign policy of the Obama/Clinton axis, as the administration's style has unfolded, it appears that he thinks his radiant smile and charm can overcome the will of opponents. The above commentators have referred to how the Iranians view America based on our history with them of the past sixty years. It is equally important to ask how they view our president now. If they view him as a weak, affable, naive, buffoon, they may make miscalculations about America's willingness to defend its vital interests, and we can blunder into war. War with Iran would see the people in the streets now, tying bombs to themselves and charging American soldiers. It would be an utter disaster. The Persians are a proud people with a sense of denied entitlements. Cyrus the Great was the first liberator of the Jews from the Babylonians. They were the greatest world power for a long time and feel deep in their souls that the west, (the Greek-Macedonians) stole that status from them. Combine that with the paranoia of Shia Islam, and a culture in which historical events of fifteen hundred years ago are as recent as yeaterday's new to us, and you begin to understand that there are some historical forces that you can't change but have to hope to influence and wait. We have to accept our limited capacity to affect events in Iran. It is dangerous, however, for the President to invite miscalculations about what we'll do because his ego allows him to think that charm offensives will overcome people disposed to call barbarity, justice.

0

honestabe 5 years, 5 months ago

So the solution is.......

Have obama yell louder, but do nothing? how do we know he isnt already planning and executing a covert strategy/covert ops in the country? Maybe we can just naysay our way out of this mess created in the past decade or so.

Some of us prefer the charm offensive to the various inept offenses that were offered/used by Bush.

0

seeuski 5 years, 5 months ago

The same old anti war rhetoric as before. The removal of Saddam Hussein was justified and has saved thousands, maybe millions of lives. By eliminating Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorists worldwide George W. Bush will eventually receive the credit he is due. Once time passes and the Liberal Progressive movement no longer controls the media the truth will prevail. As far as the 1953 Iranian situation, it was the British who were the lead in that coup and they pressured the US for help with the promise of oil revenues which the British controlled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Ira... There are two sides within Iran as to what leadership should look like. The conservative Shia run or the Democratic freedom of Western style Government. I think our President should stand for freedom and voice that from the start. The atrocities are continuing in Iran as we speak and we will never know exactly how many innocent people are eliminated this time by the regime. In 1979 it was estimated at a couple million.

0

honestabe 5 years, 5 months ago

i also assume that by not eliminating Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, and not doing anything re: N. Korea and their nuclear programs, George W. will also recieve due credit.

i doubt anyone can present proof that Iraq was more of a state sponsor of terrorism than Iran. By weakening Iraq and law and order there, we (bush and crew) have made iran stronger and more of an imposing threat.

0

seeuski 5 years, 5 months ago

What? http://www.husseinandterror.com/

The only law that was in Iraq was Hussein's death pits and his torture rooms. Could you imagine if a tyrant like that was running the US and torturing and killing people like you? If there was a super power like the US that stood by and let it go on would you still say these things? I don't think the Iraqis agree with you on this one, having Saddam back would not be on the list of most Iraqis.

And so, Bush had it right then if I am to understand you, The axis of evil was true.Of course he got bashed for that. And yes Iran is and has been a state sponsor, Hamas and Hezbollah etc.

What has changed since Obama took office? N. Korea shooting missiles at us and threatening our destruction, Iran in turmoil and their leaders threatening Israels destruction and thumbing their noses at Obamas soft talk overtures. And now Honduras in turmoil. The Wait and Seer in Chief is in normal mode.

0

Robert Huron 5 years, 5 months ago

When Pres. Bush decided to invade Iraq it was to preclude a mushroom cloud from happening over the US as he stated in his State of the Union message in 2003. Unfortunately this was all false and the CIA had told Bush not to use this in his message because there was no evidence Sadam had purchased nuclear material from Africa. After the invasion which was grossly mismanaged it was learned that WMD's did not exist so the goal was changed to make Iraq a secure, unified and democratic country. When this was accomplished then we would declare victory and go home but not before.(Stay the Course) Last year Pres. Bush signed the agreement of withdrawal which is under way. One tillion dollars and 35,000 casulties later all Bush has accomplished besides killing 100,000 Iraqis was to totally destablize the MidEast and make Iran a power to deal with which it was not till our invasion. Iraq is not unified, it is not secure and not democratic in any sense and in fact is governed by a Shiite regime who is in the process of aligning itself more and more with Shiite Iran. This is what will happen after all our troops leave next year. On top of that Afganistan is a total mess and now Republicans want to attack Iran. Having been in a war I can attest that it is not fun. It is easy to be a hawk as long as someone else has to do the fighting and dying. As hawks like Dick Cheney and Mitt Romney said "they and their children had better things to do with their lives than serve in the military." If you want a detail analysis of what the invasion of Iraq has done or not done read "Unintended Consequences" by Amb. Peter Gailbrith at the Steamboat library.

0

seeuski 5 years, 4 months ago

The fantasy world that you and others like to use in describing Iraq prewar is silly. The information regarding Saddam's attempts at getting Yellow cake for nuclear desires is available and you exclude the huge amount of it that went to Canada fro Iraq. Iran has been a threat since 1979, don't forget the Hezbollah bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon. Anyway, this will be a useless conversation with an anti war activist who uses the Liberal talking points. I think the link above is enough but I will leave this one for you also.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_mylroie.htm

I don't know about you but I would not want Hussein to have remained in power in order to test the left wing theories about him being a pussycat. I still say that without Hussein we are safer and the lack of terrorist actions against the USA and Israel, who Saddam is proven to have funded terrorism against, are proof in itself that terrorist groups lost their sugardady.

Thanks G.W. Bush.

Oh yea, and your boy Obama is taking the credit now for Iraq and the success we have had there. Great balls of fire! And one more thing, you mentioned the amount of dead we caused, well I say we saved many more from being butchered in Iraq and around the World by eliminating him as a State sponsor for Terrorists. The rate he was killing? No doubt!!

0

seeuski 5 years, 4 months ago

Niger connection.

"In February 1999, Zahawie left his Vatican office for a few days and paid an official visit to Niger, a country known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore. It was from Niger that Iraq had originally acquired uranium in 1981, as confirmed in the Duelfer Report. In order to take the Joseph Wilson view of this Baathist ambassadorial initiative, you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein's long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious. Italian intelligence (which first noticed the Zahawie trip from Rome) found it difficult to take this view and alerted French intelligence."

Full story: http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/

Had Bush not taken action and we were attacked again you guys would again blame him for not protecting the US. There would be no way for Bush to do right by the left in any case.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.