{OT} why we cannot leave iraq

Cut-and-run politicians want us to abandon Iraq now that things are
getting a bit dicey. This article underscores why we must stay and
ensure the government has some ability to control the secterian
violence and withstand foreign influence. Once that is established I
am willing to accept whichever way the people of Iraq want to head.
--------------------------------------------

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060913/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq_2[/url]

[excerpts]

Annan said many leaders believed the United States should stay until
Iraq improves, while others, such as Iran, said the United States
should leave immediately. That means that the United States has found
itself in the difficult position where "it cannot stay and it cannot
leave."

Iran offered to help the United States leave but did not go into
details, Annan said. He would not give his own thoughts on whether he
believed the United States should leave Iraq yet.

--
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere,
diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." ~ Groucho
Marx

badgolferman wrote:[color=blue]
> Cut-and-run politicians want us to abandon Iraq now that things are
> getting a bit dicey. This article underscores why we must stay and
> ensure the government has some ability to control the secterian
> violence and withstand foreign influence. Once that is established I
> am willing to accept whichever way the people of Iraq want to head.
> --------------------------------------------
>
> [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060913/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq_2[/url]
>
> [excerpts]
>
> Annan said many leaders believed the United States should stay until
> Iraq improves, while others, such as Iran, said the United States
> should leave immediately. That means that the United States has found
> itself in the difficult position where "it cannot stay and it cannot
> leave."
>
> Iran offered to help the United States leave but did not go into
> details, Annan said. He would not give his own thoughts on whether he
> believed the United States should leave Iraq yet.
>[/color]
The problem is not that it is "getting a little dicey", it's that this
President and his henchmen have no ideas about how to improve things in
Iraq or Afghanistan.

On 13 Sep 2006 16:42:54 GMT, "badgolferman"
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Cut-and-run politicians want us to abandon Iraq now that things are
>getting a bit dicey. This article underscores why we must stay and
>ensure the government has some ability to control the secterian
>violence and withstand foreign influence. Once that is established I
>am willing to accept whichever way the people of Iraq want to head.
>--------------------------------------------
>
>[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060913/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq_2[/url]
>
>[excerpts]
>
>Annan said many leaders believed the United States should stay until
>Iraq improves, while others, such as Iran, said the United States
>should leave immediately. That means that the United States has found
>itself in the difficult position where "it cannot stay and it cannot
>leave."
>
>Iran offered to help the United States leave but did not go into
>details, Annan said. He would not give his own thoughts on whether he
>believed the United States should leave Iraq yet.
>[/color]


[color=blue]
>"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere,
>diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." ~ Groucho
>Marx[/color]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Seems *exactly* what out current admin has done!
Good quote :-o

....

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0er68uy54ugh001@news.readfreenews.net...

We can't leave because it's now worse off than when we invaded it.

And prospects for improvement are dim. Google "devlin marine intelligence
anbar province"

Here's one of the hits:

[url]http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/09/11/officer_in_iraq_calls_anbar_situation_dire/[/url]

If I were Bush, I'd re-read that 18-page letter Ahmedinejad sent him and
think about whatever's in it in a new light. Iraq is some 60% Shi'ite
Muslim. Iran is some 97% Shi'ite Muslim. If Bush could swing a deal that
wasn't terminally painful to get Iran's politicians and clergy to discourage
sectarian violence against the Sunnis, he'd be wise to do it.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

In article <4508a5b8$0$19697$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
"DH" <dh@stargate.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xn0er68uy54ugh001@news.readfreenews.net...
>
> We can't leave because it's now worse off than when we invaded it.
>
> And prospects for improvement are dim. Google "devlin marine intelligence
> anbar province"
>
> Here's one of the hits:
>
> [url]http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/09/11/officer_in_ira[/url]
> q_calls_anbar_situation_dire/
>
> If I were Bush, I'd re-read that 18-page letter Ahmedinejad sent him and
> think about whatever's in it in a new light. Iraq is some 60% Shi'ite
> Muslim. Iran is some 97% Shi'ite Muslim. If Bush could swing a deal that
> wasn't terminally painful to get Iran's politicians and clergy to discourage
> sectarian violence against the Sunnis, he'd be wise to do it.[/color]

"classified assesment"??

This stuff is so much fun. If it's a classified assesment, how did it
get pasted all over the internet?
--

DH, 9/13/2006, 9:39:21 PM,
<4508a5b8$0$19697$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xn0er68uy54ugh001@news.readfreenews.net...
>
> We can't leave because it's now worse off than when we invaded it.
>
> And prospects for improvement are dim. Google "devlin marine
> intelligence anbar province"
>
> Here's one of the hits:
>
> [url]http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/09/11/office[/url]
> r_in_iraq_calls_anbar_situation_dire/
>
> If I were Bush, I'd re-read that 18-page letter Ahmedinejad sent him
> and think about whatever's in it in a new light. Iraq is some 60%
> Shi'ite Muslim. Iran is some 97% Shi'ite Muslim. If Bush could
> swing a deal that wasn't terminally painful to get Iran's politicians
> and clergy to discourage sectarian violence against the Sunnis, he'd
> be wise to do it.[/color]

Your ideals are admirable but you cannot negotiate with people who have
shown over and over again they do not respect any deals they have made
in the past. To do as you suggest will merely open more doors for the
radicalists to spread their influence. Iran's political advisors are
so savvy that any deal made with them will end up working to their
advantage. Besides, how can you expect rational negotiations with a
leader who publicly announces the Holocaust as a myth? Even if he
privately believed that by expressing it publicly he has lost all
credibility. And that doesn't even take into consideration all the
other outrageous claims Mr. Ahmadinejad has made in his short tenure as
President. I'm sorry, but I cannot trust the mullahs and their agenda;
they have brought nothing but misery and death to millions of people
since they have come into power.

--
"A zebra does not change its spots." ~ Al Gore

Interesting article in yesterday Raleigh News and Observer. Turns out that
the reason why generals aren't asking for more troops is that they have been
told that their mission is only to train Iraqi forces and NOT to put down
insurgency. So basically Bush is sacrificing Iraqi lives, thousands per
months, to avoid putting the necessary number of troops in Iraq to put down
the insurgency. He doesn't have the guts to reinstitute the draft and put
the 300000 to 400000 troops we need to win. Sounds like Bush's own
Vietnam. If we aren't going to win it, then get the hell out.



"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0er68uy54ugh001@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> Cut-and-run politicians want us to abandon Iraq now that things are
> getting a bit dicey. This article underscores why we must stay and
> ensure the government has some ability to control the secterian
> violence and withstand foreign influence. Once that is established I
> am willing to accept whichever way the people of Iraq want to head.
> --------------------------------------------
>
> [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060913/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq_2[/url]
>
> [excerpts]
>
> Annan said many leaders believed the United States should stay until
> Iraq improves, while others, such as Iran, said the United States
> should leave immediately. That means that the United States has found
> itself in the difficult position where "it cannot stay and it cannot
> leave."
>
> Iran offered to help the United States leave but did not go into
> details, Annan said. He would not give his own thoughts on whether he
> believed the United States should leave Iraq yet.
>
> --
> "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere,
> diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." ~ Groucho
> Marx[/color]

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0er7frg18a93000@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> DH, 9/13/2006, 9:39:21 PM,
> <4508a5b8$0$19697$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:xn0er68uy54ugh001@news.readfreenews.net...
>>
>> We can't leave because it's now worse off than when we invaded it.
>>
>> And prospects for improvement are dim. Google "devlin marine
>> intelligence anbar province"
>>
>> Here's one of the hits:
>>
>> [url]http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/09/11/office[/url]
>> r_in_iraq_calls_anbar_situation_dire/
>>
>> If I were Bush, I'd re-read that 18-page letter Ahmedinejad sent him
>> and think about whatever's in it in a new light. Iraq is some 60%
>> Shi'ite Muslim. Iran is some 97% Shi'ite Muslim. If Bush could
>> swing a deal that wasn't terminally painful to get Iran's politicians
>> and clergy to discourage sectarian violence against the Sunnis, he'd
>> be wise to do it.[/color]
>
> Your ideals are admirable but you cannot negotiate with people who have
> shown over and over again they do not respect any deals they have made
> in the past.[/color]

I'm unaware of any deals that they've abrogated. They may have chosen not
to honor deals made by the Shah.
[color=blue]
> To do as you suggest will merely open more doors for the
> radicalists to spread their influence. Iran's political advisors are
> so savvy that any deal made with them will end up working to their
> advantage.[/color]

Our political advisors aren't as smart? Well, I imagine Karl Rove doesn't
know Iran like he knows Alabama. And that's part of the problem, the whole
Bush team thinks they can make over the Arab and Muslim world but they don't
know the first thing about it.
[color=blue]
> Besides, how can you expect rational negotiations with a
> leader who publicly announces the Holocaust as a myth? Even if he
> privately believed that by expressing it publicly he has lost all
> credibility.[/color]

If he privately believed it, wouldn't it by hypocritical to pretend
otherwise? I think it's mostly Muslim posturing. Bush should find a way to
steal his thunder. There are a couple of problems, though, with this...
First, most modern Germans know NOTHING about this. It doesn't get taught
in school. Second, there is a noisy minority here and in Europe that are
also Holocaust deniers. They get tolerated to some degree. It should be a
matter of public policy to enforce "truth" in history. Truth is good. We
don't have any way of dealing with that, partly because the Administration
has zero respect for academics. Finally, they've got the oil and we want
it. Their power is directly related to our inability to curb our appetite
for oil.
[color=blue]
> And that doesn't even take into consideration all the
> other outrageous claims Mr. Ahmadinejad has made in his short tenure as
> President. I'm sorry, but I cannot trust the mullahs and their agenda;
> they have brought nothing but misery and death to millions of people
> since they have come into power.[/color]

Which millions are those? We KNOW about the 130,000 Iraqi civilians who've
died for whom we are directly responsible. Iran hasn't gone to war with
anybody that I'm aware of.
[color=blue]
> "A zebra does not change its spots." ~ Al Gore[/color]



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

DH, 9/14/2006, 9:44:06 AM,
<45094f98$0$19743$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > If I were Bush, I'd re-read that 18-page letter Ahmedinejad sent
> > > him and think about whatever's in it in a new light. Iraq is
> > > some 60% Shi'ite Muslim. Iran is some 97% Shi'ite Muslim. If
> > > Bush could swing a deal that wasn't terminally painful to get
> > > Iran's politicians and clergy to discourage sectarian violence
> > > against the Sunnis, he'd be wise to do it.[/color]
> >
> > Your ideals are admirable but you cannot negotiate with people who
> > have shown over and over again they do not respect any deals they
> > have made in the past.[/color]
>
> I'm unaware of any deals that they've abrogated. They may have
> chosen not to honor deals made by the Shah.[/color]

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act for one. That does throw other regimes
into the mix also.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > To do as you suggest will merely open more doors for the
> > radicalists to spread their influence. Iran's political advisors
> > are so savvy that any deal made with them will end up working to
> > their advantage.[/color]
>
> Our political advisors aren't as smart? Well, I imagine Karl Rove
> doesn't know Iran like he knows Alabama. And that's part of the
> problem, the whole Bush team thinks they can make over the Arab and
> Muslim world but they don't know the first thing about it.[/color]

You've proved my point already. Besides, those people have been at
this kind of game for millenia and we are mere newcomers when it comes
to manipulating the political scene.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Besides, how can you expect rational negotiations with a
> > leader who publicly announces the Holocaust as a myth? Even if he
> > privately believed that by expressing it publicly he has lost all
> > credibility.[/color]
>
> If he privately believed it, wouldn't it by hypocritical to pretend
> otherwise? I think it's mostly Muslim posturing.[/color]

It may be posturing, but I doubt it. He has said it more than once.
He has also thrown gatherings to promote the idea more. He truly is a
dangerous man.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > And that doesn't even take into consideration all the
> > other outrageous claims Mr. Ahmadinejad has made in his short
> > tenure as President. I'm sorry, but I cannot trust the mullahs and
> > their agenda; they have brought nothing but misery and death to
> > millions of people since they have come into power.[/color]
>
> Which millions are those? We KNOW about the 130,000 Iraqi civilians
> who've died for whom we are directly responsible. Iran hasn't gone
> to war with anybody that I'm aware of.[/color]

1. Iran/Iraq war. Granted they were attacked, but the waves of human
bodies including children they sent to the front lines to act as
shields devastated a couple of generations.
2. Countless of their own citizens from the time they came in power in
order to squash any uprisings. This is a terroristic regime ever since
they came into power in 1978. Mostly terrorizing their own people.

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0er7jmt6eh7j002@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> DH, 9/14/2006, 9:44:06 AM,
> <45094f98$0$19743$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > > If I were Bush, I'd re-read that 18-page letter Ahmedinejad sent
>> > > him and think about whatever's in it in a new light. Iraq is
>> > > some 60% Shi'ite Muslim. Iran is some 97% Shi'ite Muslim. If
>> > > Bush could swing a deal that wasn't terminally painful to get
>> > > Iran's politicians and clergy to discourage sectarian violence
>> > > against the Sunnis, he'd be wise to do it.
>> >
>> > Your ideals are admirable but you cannot negotiate with people who
>> > have shown over and over again they do not respect any deals they
>> > have made in the past.[/color]
>>
>> I'm unaware of any deals that they've abrogated. They may have
>> chosen not to honor deals made by the Shah.[/color]
>
> Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act for one. That does throw other regimes
> into the mix also.[/color]

They haven't necessarily broken that pact, at least not in any truly
significant way. Yet. They're enriching their own U235/8 mix but, so far,
only to 5% U235. Clearly, this IS a potentially dangerous path but, at
present, they don't have a bomb. It's more likely a Pakistani weapon - or a
Pakistani weapons designer - is going to help terrorists obtain a bomb.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > To do as you suggest will merely open more doors for the
>> > radicalists to spread their influence. Iran's political advisors
>> > are so savvy that any deal made with them will end up working to
>> > their advantage.[/color]
>>
>> Our political advisors aren't as smart? Well, I imagine Karl Rove
>> doesn't know Iran like he knows Alabama. And that's part of the
>> problem, the whole Bush team thinks they can make over the Arab and
>> Muslim world but they don't know the first thing about it.[/color]
>
> You've proved my point already. Besides, those people have been at
> this kind of game for millenia and we are mere newcomers when it comes
> to manipulating the political scene.[/color]

I don't see how, unless your point was that the Bush team is incompetent (it
would be unlike you to argue that). The problem with negotiating with Iran
is that the Bush team is ignorant and talent and knowledge are not as highly
valued as loyalty and familiarity and opposition to gay marriage.

To say we can't field the same quality of negotiator or strategic planner is
to say we're pretty stupid, indeed.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > Besides, how can you expect rational negotiations with a
>> > leader who publicly announces the Holocaust as a myth? Even if he
>> > privately believed that by expressing it publicly he has lost all
>> > credibility.[/color]
>>
>> If he privately believed it, wouldn't it by hypocritical to pretend
>> otherwise? I think it's mostly Muslim posturing.[/color]
>
> It may be posturing, but I doubt it. He has said it more than once.
> He has also thrown gatherings to promote the idea more. He truly is a
> dangerous man.[/color]

His #1 goal is to be a leader of the Islamic world. That colors his
rhetoric. As I said, WE have such people in our midst. It would be easier
to shoot down Ahmedinejad on this if we were all on the same page.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > And that doesn't even take into consideration all the
>> > other outrageous claims Mr. Ahmadinejad has made in his short
>> > tenure as President. I'm sorry, but I cannot trust the mullahs and
>> > their agenda; they have brought nothing but misery and death to
>> > millions of people since they have come into power.[/color]
>>
>> Which millions are those? We KNOW about the 130,000 Iraqi civilians
>> who've died for whom we are directly responsible. Iran hasn't gone
>> to war with anybody that I'm aware of.[/color]
>
> 1. Iran/Iraq war. Granted they were attacked[/color]

Umm... yeah, they were ATTACKED. This isn't the Iranians bringing misery
and death to people, this goes back to Hussein but we enabled that bit of
adventurism on his part.
[color=blue]
> but the waves of human
> bodies including children they sent to the front lines to act as
> shields devastated a couple of generations.[/color]

They were supposed to surrender?
[color=blue]
> 2. Countless of their own citizens from the time they came in power in
> order to squash any uprisings. This is a terroristic regime ever since
> they came into power in 1978. Mostly terrorizing their own people.[/color]

Have you got a source for this? None of my Iranian friends has ever
mentioned this and it's not something I've seen in the papers. The level of
oppression doesn't appear to meet, let alone exceed, that of the Shah's
regime. If you said they don't have the same level of freedom that we
enjoy, yes, I'd have to agree with you there, but the level of vioilent
oppression is, as far as I know, quite low.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

DH, 9/14/2006, 2:41:04 PM,
<45099587$0$19745$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > 2. Countless of their own citizens from the time they came in
> > power in order to squash any uprisings. This is a terroristic
> > regime ever since they came into power in 1978. Mostly terrorizing
> > their own people.[/color]
>
> Have you got a source for this? None of my Iranian friends has ever
> mentioned this and it's not something I've seen in the papers. The
> level of oppression doesn't appear to meet, let alone exceed, that of
> the Shah's regime. If you said they don't have the same level of
> freedom that we enjoy, yes, I'd have to agree with you there, but the
> level of vioilent oppression is, as far as I know, quite low.[/color]

In the past I have mentioned living in the Middle East for 7-8 years at
one time. That was Iran during the Shah's time. I was there from
1971-1979. When the mullahs took over they executed thousands of
people almost immediately. These people included government officials
of all levels, suspected government officials, Baha'i people, people
they had grudges against, anyone that was accused of being a spy and so
forth. In many cases their family members were thrown into prisons or
executed also just to ensure there would be no reprisals. I know this
because every night they would broadcast the executions and show the
bullet-ridden bodies on TV to drive home their message. We were not
able to leave until August 1979, just a few months before the hostage
crisis began. I still have friends back there that we keep in contact
with who have lived through the past 27 years of constant horror and
repression. Your friends may or may not have lived through those times
so it is conceivable they don't know the difference. I'll bet if you
have them call home and talk to their parents and such they will
confirm what I tell you.

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0er7ra5gr4zy003@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> DH, 9/14/2006, 2:41:04 PM,
> <45099587$0$19745$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > 2. Countless of their own citizens from the time they came in
>> > power in order to squash any uprisings. This is a terroristic
>> > regime ever since they came into power in 1978. Mostly terrorizing
>> > their own people.[/color]
>>
>> Have you got a source for this? None of my Iranian friends has ever
>> mentioned this and it's not something I've seen in the papers. The
>> level of oppression doesn't appear to meet, let alone exceed, that of
>> the Shah's regime. If you said they don't have the same level of
>> freedom that we enjoy, yes, I'd have to agree with you there, but the
>> level of vioilent oppression is, as far as I know, quite low.[/color]
>
> In the past I have mentioned living in the Middle East for 7-8 years at
> one time. That was Iran during the Shah's time. I was there from
> 1971-1979.[/color]

I was there in the late '70's.

Did you live in Tehran? What street or neighborhood?
[color=blue]
> When the mullahs took over they executed thousands of
> people almost immediately. These people included government officials
> of all levels, suspected government officials, Baha'i people,[/color]

I hadn't thought about the Ba'hais in this context, lately. I do dimly
recall there was some talk of explicit oppression of them after '79. Some
consider them apostates and I don't know if there are formal civil penalties
but, as you probably know, in Islam the penalty for apostasy is death.
[color=blue]
> people
> they had grudges against, anyone that was accused of being a spy and so
> forth. In many cases their family members were thrown into prisons or
> executed also just to ensure there would be no reprisals. I know this
> because every night they would broadcast the executions and show the
> bullet-ridden bodies on TV to drive home their message. We were not
> able to leave until August 1979, just a few months before the hostage
> crisis began.[/color]

That's more the result of fighting a revolution than anything else, I don't
think you could characterize that as systematic oppression by the new
regime.
[color=blue]
> I still have friends back there that we keep in contact
> with who have lived through the past 27 years of constant horror and
> repression. Your friends may or may not have lived through those times
> so it is conceivable they don't know the difference. I'll bet if you
> have them call home and talk to their parents and such they will
> confirm what I tell you.[/color]

I'll look into this. I'm not in contact with anyone in Iran but I have
friends who are.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

In article <45099587$0$19745$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
"DH" <dh@stargate.com> wrote:

[color=blue]
>They're enriching their own U235/8 mix but, so far,
> only to 5% U235.[/color]

What does the above mean?
--

In article <xn0er7ra5gr4zy003@news.readfreenews.net>,
"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> DH, 9/14/2006, 2:41:04 PM,
> <45099587$0$19745$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > 2. Countless of their own citizens from the time they came in
> > > power in order to squash any uprisings. This is a terroristic
> > > regime ever since they came into power in 1978. Mostly terrorizing
> > > their own people.[/color]
> >
> > Have you got a source for this? None of my Iranian friends has ever
> > mentioned this and it's not something I've seen in the papers. The
> > level of oppression doesn't appear to meet, let alone exceed, that of
> > the Shah's regime. If you said they don't have the same level of
> > freedom that we enjoy, yes, I'd have to agree with you there, but the
> > level of vioilent oppression is, as far as I know, quite low.[/color]
>
> In the past I have mentioned living in the Middle East for 7-8 years at
> one time. That was Iran during the Shah's time. I was there from
> 1971-1979. When the mullahs took over they executed thousands of
> people almost immediately. These people included government officials
> of all levels, suspected government officials, Baha'i people, people
> they had grudges against, anyone that was accused of being a spy and so
> forth. In many cases their family members were thrown into prisons or
> executed also just to ensure there would be no reprisals. I know this
> because every night they would broadcast the executions and show the
> bullet-ridden bodies on TV to drive home their message. We were not
> able to leave until August 1979, just a few months before the hostage
> crisis began. I still have friends back there that we keep in contact
> with who have lived through the past 27 years of constant horror and
> repression. Your friends may or may not have lived through those times
> so it is conceivable they don't know the difference. I'll bet if you
> have them call home and talk to their parents and such they will
> confirm what I tell you.[/color]

You mean to say they were as ruthless as Joe Stalin?
--

DH, 9/14/2006,4:48:39 PM, wrote:
[color=blue]
> I was there in the late '70's.
>
> Did you live in Tehran? What street or neighborhood?[/color]

Tehran. We lived right across from the Peace Corps.

You are one of the rare liberals that a person can have a decent
conversation without it becoming a shouting match or insults being
hurled around. I enjoy your posts although I don't usually agree with
your viewpoint.