But first, a small history lesson on the mid-east.
In 1951, Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, along with the Iranian parliament, decided to nationalize the oil fields. At the time, Iran was a democracy. In 1953, the US CIA and British MI6 worked together to overthrow Mosaddegh, and installed Reza Pahlavi, whom we knew as the Shah of Iran, as a dictator. The US continued to support or sell arms to him for over 25 years, after he returned 80% of Iran's oil reserves to the US and Britain.
By 1979, Iran revolted against the Shah, who left for cancer treatment in October, leading to the Iran hostage crisis, often cited as a reason that Carter lost the election. Understandably, the new Iranian government is not friendly to the US.
In 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, but the war did not go well. So, both the US and Britain aided Iraq, which is a bit ironic since Reagan also secretly aided Iran. Saddam Hussein seemed like a good ally, until 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. An expansionist Iraq was an even bigger problems, so the US put troops in Saudi Arabia with king Fahd 's approval and financial support, but that was not received well by many citizens. The troops were finally withdrawn in 2003.
The 9/11 attackers listed support of Israel, U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, and sanctions against Iraq as their motives. Many would say that pointing this out is blaming or justifying terrorism on the US. I find that charge comical, since the common reason offered is that they hate us for our religion and freedoms. Which makes more sense, that they attack us because our citizens go to church, vote, and watch MTV, or because our government supports the killing of their people and interferes with their governments? How is one justification and the other not?
Maybe he's a homophobe who voted to repeal DADT.
My challenge, open to supporters of ALL other major candidates, since they all want to challenge Iran, either directly or through sanctions: how do you justify candidates that support thieves and murderers?