Iranian war

Says your PR man?

The only real history when it comes to mans doings - is those of the actions. People lie about their motives, and countries (and their politicians) have even more reason to lie about their motives, and more ability to paint false motives as 'history' - so you can't call motives history (well you can, but such does 'history' a great injustice).

And that great dilemma about how often (every countries) politicians lie about why they (their country) invades another country, leaves people with only one way to tell if the politicians are lying or not : look and see if the actions match the words. And in the case of the U.S., over and over again, the words do not match (the action, suffering, benefit).

The history of U.S' invasions have overwhelmingly been about looking after the U.S. at the expense of other peoples suffering.

You unfortunately, are just like every other gullible patriot who fell for their leaders nonsense about the need to invade another country. Your gullibility is arguably worse, because your country has a very clear history of invading other countries and making them suffer, for it's own benefit.

Says the historical record.

That is incorrect. Motives are very much a part of history. And your untrue statements about our motives are contrary to history.

Thanks for speaking the truth.

Uh uh. Other than the great corruption shown by it's 'policing' (and this has already been pointed out), why does it ignore so much 'crime' in Africa...oh wait...the answer is very clear because it matches the the pattern found in which countries it invades (those that benefit the U.S. to invade)....there is no benefit in it for the U.S to invade African states.

So again, if it's a police officer, it's quite corrupt.

Being a police officer is just an image it painted of itself in order to lend 'legality' to it's invasions

bur Iraq showed that if the court is not on it's side, it will ignore the court

It's a slogan people could chant without thinking, to 'make it sound good'.

There is nothing truthful in denying that the US prevented Communism from taking over the world.

Some people don't like what I see as the truth.

Unfortunately, many are so bought into their view of things that no matter how many examples you show - that illustrate the same things, the ideologue makes excuses for each and every one, never looking at the whole, nor how the individual excuses don't match the whole (whole here can mean a whole country, or part of a country that is openly different - and considers itself a whole, or a whole series of events, or ideologies and whole but separated branches of the parent ideology etc)

Keep up the good work please, it is important that we speak the truth even if the whole world is against us.

Our reach and resources are not infinite. We have enough trouble protecting the civilized world. Civilizing the savages in Africa would be quite an effort.

And I can just imagine the whining and caterwauling that we would face if we actually tried to civilize those savages.

The fact that we don't act to prevent every single crime on the planet does not make it fair to deny those cases where we do act as a force for good.

What court?

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter.

We had a need to smash something Islamic after 9/11.

The trouble is sometimes you are wrong about what is true.

No there will be no war with Iran unless they start it. Wars are risky and expensive and we cannot afford to spend the money or the troops.

Written by the politicians who told the story? Or from quotes of the politicians who told the story. Oh yes, that is very reliable.

Go through the history of U.S. invasions. In each of them, write down:
- who invaded who
- whether or not the invaded country suffered, and how much
- who benefited, and how

After you have done that for each U.S. invasion of other countries, then we can talk about whether or not my version, that the U.S. invaded other countries for it's own benefit, is correct or not.

All you have is propaganda, which you can only believe by ignoring the base actions and results of your countries invasions.

And you have no evidence whatsoever that it would have taken over the world...just supposition. So the statement 'Communism would have taken over the world' is not truth. It is supposition. And hysterical supposition at that.

Right, so only countries that benefit america to invade.

Uh huh. Invade countries that benefit the U.S. to invade, and make those people suffer. Avoid countries that don't benefit the U.S. to invade. And now, call yourself good. Call yourself a police officer. Wow...aren't I good? If the judge disagrees, well I'll just bully the judge, and if that doesn't work, I'll ignore the judge. I'll prop up mob bosses. I'll removes mayors. Man am I a GREAT police officer

seriously?

Quote:

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter.

Every police officer must be answerable to a higher power / court.

You cannot call yourself a police officer while bullying and ignoring the court...well you can, but it's because you are a pretend police officer (in fact a mobster) who does what they like, then tries to legitimise it.

Afghanistan? Which appears to actually have had ties to 9-11? (though not as much as Saudi Arabia likely had - but SA was the U.S' main ally in the Gulf, so it wouldn't benefit the U.S. to invade SA...oh wait, there it is again...only invade if there is benefit in it).

Or that wasn't enough for bloodthirsty Americans? The police officer wanted something more substantial, even if had nothing to do with 9-11? So the police officer lied, and invaded a country to satisfy it's bloodlust?

Oh yes, a wonderful, wonderful police officer.

What you are doing though, is quite different. You are asking me to believe words that do not match the actions, the consquences of those actions, nor the pattern of actions, nor the pattern of the consequences of those actions. There is no truth to be found in words that do not match the actions...ever.

By the way - if you think about it - you know that I am quite capable of arguing what you are arguing for you - how america is good, well meaning etc. I look at multiple sides of each argument in all it's permutations. And at the end of the day, my question to myself is 'what matches the actions', and if it is ongoing in nature 'what matches the pattern'. The U.S. is good sounds great, and in many ways it's true. But in other ways it is not true. The U.S. looks after it's patch, and doesn't particularly care if non allies suffer. Here in Australia, my own government is the same (East Timor, and West Papua in case)...even while I know most Australians are good, well meaning people.

There is little doubt that we would win an air and or naval war with Iran, but I am not so sure about a land war. The population of Iran is about one hundred million we out number them better than three to one. But it is not about how much potential a nation has but about how much of that potential can be employed against the enemy. I think about the best we could do is 250,000 combat troops and that would be calling up the reserves. I suspect that Iran could mass ten times that number. I don’t know if they could support that many, but they might fool us. I don’t think Trump is willing to take the risk.