<p>well, self preservation is one thing, slaughtering innoncent people to “preserve” your own life if something quite different</p>
<p>what did those mom’s in Iraq who died at my governments hand ever do to threaten me? nothing</p>
<p>selfpreservation? hogwash…this war is nothing of the sort, or it was nothing of the sort</p>
<p>what did Iran ever do to you sjmom, what where they ever going to do to you? If self presevation was the goal, we shold have gone after Sauid Arabia, after all, the killer were from there</p>
<p>I would fight for my country in a war that was real, this war, which is no chaos, was a mistkate, and I think most of us know it by now</p>
<p>yesterday, I was listening to several solidiers who have come back…they said the don’t remember doing much rebuilding, that it was chaos when they got there and chaos when they left, and their biggest job was just to stay in one piece</p>
<p>it was heartbreaking hearing the frustration from these good men and women who were fighting for us, and seeing that it was ust getting worse, that their friends are coming home brain damaged, in body bags, with missing limbs, with strange ailments and for what?</p>
<p>self presevation? don’t think so…for a country that has a population that says they value life, don’t see much valuing going on lately</p>
I have no idea what Iran is ever going to do to me or to my country. Hopefully, nothing. But I’m also not worried about the US nuking Iran – it’s just not going to happen. If it does, I’ll eat my words.</p>
<p>I was really just responding to your words in post #75. You say that you would “fight for your country” in a time of war. But only a war you agree with, right? Can you define those circumstances? </p>
For goodness sake, if they are worried about OSHA type of safety issues, some good things are happening. But I’ll bet you’ll never hear about it on CNN.</p>
<p>“200,000 hostile troops onthe Iranian border? US troops? I just heard (on Public Radio, no less) we had 150,000 in all of Iraq.”</p>
<p>There is a little country on the other side called “Afghanistan”.</p>
<p>By the time I got to the Iran-America Society (where I taught “English”, among other things, and the nominal head was a choral music expert from Chico State), it was being used as a center, among other things, for CIA counterintelligence. People came and went, their checks paid into numbered bank accounts (as was mine), with duties “unspecified”. Some of us cut ribbons on public showers (a major source of contention if one knows one’s Iranian history); others worked closely with… no, I won’t go there.</p>
<p>Stay the course. (The workers will now how to safely build buildings so these same workers can blow them up on their own time. ;))</p>
<p>So, in July of 2004 there were about 18,000 troops in Afghanistan. Are you saying they’ve ramped up an additional 182,000 troops without anyone noticing? Any links to support that? </p>
<p>We should send them all to Iraq and fix that problem, then.</p>
<p>So 168,000 hostile American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, not counting U.S. military bases or naval vessels within striking distance of Iraq, or troops from the coalition of the very small (I hear Slovenia is being replaced by Pitcairn Island.)</p>
<p>So, mini, you’ve lost this round. Your original argument implied that there was an ADDITIONAL 200,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan along the border with Iran, ready to invade at a moment’s notice. </p>
<p>It’s clear that the current troop levels of 150,000 in Iraq and 18,000 in Afghanistan have their hands full. They are clearly not prepared to invade Iran, and in fact seem to be challenged in their current locations. One argument that’s been made about Iran is that the US is stretched thin as it is. So, actually, this might be a strategic time for Iran to pursue their nuclear agenda – we’re tied up elsewhere.</p>
<p>Libya is choosing not to make trouble. That’s a smart choice, but if it changes its mind in the next few months, we’ll be hard pressed to do much about it.</p>
<p>You know, you can’t all have it every which way. </p>
<p>On the one hand, some people complain that the US is too aggressive, ready to nuke or invade any number of countries with little or no notice. The US wants to “go it alone” and ignore the UN when it comes to the middle east.</p>
<p>But the liberals WANT us to go it alone – via two-party talks – in North Korea, but not the middle east. So what’s good enough for the middle east isn’t good enough for NK?</p>
<p>Mini claims there are an additional 200,000 troops lined up at the border, ready to invade Iran. Only when it’s pointed out that there are only 168,000 troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq at the moment does he concede the point. But even that entails criticism of the US.</p>
<p>Yet others talk about how we don’t have enough troops to handle the conflicts we’re currently engaged with – the draft will soon be coming to take all of our sons to Iraq, so look out.</p>
<p>Does anyone see the inconsistencies here? Either we’re hopeless and inept, OR we’re aggressive and ready to invade Iran, Syria, North Korea, Canada or whatever. It seems to me that people ought to pick an argument and stick with it – it would be more believable.</p>
<p>Aren’t you being a little disingenuous, sjmom? It is entirely possible to be both aggressive and inept. The Bush Administration has demonstrated that 10 times over. It has been quick to invade, quick to destroy, but unwilling to commit the resources necessary to finish the conflict and to re-establish peace. The fact that we are not particularly good at maintaining an actual empire, though, is not very comforting to people whose countries we have bombed, occupied, turned upside down, and left to rot.</p>
<p>As for Korea, I think “liberals” see the Bush insistence on formal 5-party talks as an avoidance strategy, since North Korea seems to oppose it. Wanting the US to consult with its allies and act through international organizations does not mean that the US should insist that every ally have a formal place in every negotiation.</p>
<p>Just wanted some feedback on what everyone’s opinion is on the USS Stark and the USS Vincennes. How do you feel the US handled these episodes and what do you think the Iranian people should feel about them. If the roles were reversed would you feel the same way.</p>
<p>The Iranians care about the USS Stark because I am not sure how much they had to do with an Iraqi plane shooting it. As for the USS Vincennes it was an accident. The Iranians being fed propoganda lies by their government were probably ****ed off, had they known the truth their reactions would have been a bit different, I think.</p>
<p>golani89- do you think the US was wrong to issue an initial report that absolved the captain of the Vincennes and that he was awarded a medal for distinguished service- Do you think that this initial report was propoganda fed to US citizens by our government? Is it possible that an Iranian could doubt the US explanation. The Stark incident in which we blamed Iran for the shooting which was clearly an Iraqi weapon- do you think we would accept the Iraqi explanation of the mistake so quickly now?</p>
<p>Yes I think the US was right in the Vincennes situation. It could have been handled better, but in general it was not really wrong. The captain operated according to protocal. ANd ofcourse the Iranian would doubt the US explanation because he is constantly fed lies by his government and religious leaders that America is out to kill them, just like they think the Jews control the world, drinking blood, etc</p>
<p>I am currently reading Confronting Iran and on page 117 the author writes -The report argued that the airliner had not responded to warnings and had been descending towards the Vincennes which was performing its duties in International waters. The author goes on to say these details were incorrect. The misleading or plain false report taken together with the Stark incident convinced even skeptics of the Islamic Republic that the US was the Great Satan.
When our government tells half truths we are not well served</p>
<p>the flight path was well known- the plane was ascending- the pilot followed warnings issued by other US ships conveyed to him on civilian wavelengths- the pilot could not receive communication on military wavelength
The incident may have been a tragic accident- my point is can you see why the Iranians could be outraged and feel differently. The US has made some very bad decisions when it comes to Iran dating back 60 years. In my opinion the US if having taken a different course could have had Iran as an ally-and we would have had our desired thriving democracy in the Middle east. I am very concerned with the current situation in Iran but do not feel all the blame should be directed at Iran- the US had its hands in creating the mess</p>