>>>>>>>>As for the Iranian civilian airline, that was obviously a terrible and costly mistake for the lives of innocent people. I won't attempt to downplay it, nor should anyone downplay events like Lockerbie, which was NOT an accident and "may" have had Iranian involvement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But horrible mistakes, however tragic, don't necessarily lead countries to war. If that were true, we would have bombed Israel after the U.S.S. LIberty incident in 1967.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But regardless, the Iranian civilian airline incident does not pre-date critical incidents of open Iranian aggression against the United States, such as the U.S. Hostage situation or the suicide bombings that killed over 240 American Marines.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As for your last line, that so-called "conclusion" about the roots of Iranian hostility towards the U.S. has been proven countless times to be historically absurd. Even governments in Europe find this particular "blame America first" theory to be false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm not saying "Blame America " Kevin I am saying that foreign policy has its results. If (as you would like) the US attacked Iran where do you think that would end up in 10 years time. A peaceful middle east ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If we hit them hard enough, yes. Or at least a very warm, quiet middle east.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are things improving w/o the US or Israel stopping Iran?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please - your foreign policy expertise regarding a solution is requested.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>How about stopping Israel building settlements in the west bank and pulling troops out of Afghanistan for starters. Reducing military spending and concentrating armed forces on protecting homeland rather than spurious overseas interests. BTW I include the UK in this I'm not just saying its a US problem.
>>>>
>>>>Whatever the merits of those actions, it would have no effect whatsoever on Iran. Reducing military spending would be counter-productive (though spending it more thoughtfully would be a good idea)
>>>>
>>>>For the record, I don't think the US or Britain attacking Iran would accomplish anything other than the negative consequences you and Walter mention. At some point Israel's crippling the nuclear program if possible would depend on information none of us have ( but the Israelis might)
>>>>
>>>>But helping those in Iran who would like to see democratic government in whatever way we can that is not counter-productive - I could see that. You can't change a government with bombs - at least not with any certainty you are going to like the result. But you can effect personal changes in a more targeted way.
>>>
>>>I assume you meant personnel there.
>>>
>>>I have said before that we'd get better results by dropping consumer goods than bombs. Fridge freezers with a three year service contract then in 2013 you've got them where you want them. Addicted to the good life.
>>
>>We'd have to actually drop the goods and not the money. It's known that in Pakistan alone, the US gave over $15 billion in aid (4.5 billion to non military programs) from 2002-2008 and over $100 million euros from Europe has not done anything for the educational system there and it hasn't even seen the $ other than a couple of "show the media" schools.
>>
>>http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/pakistan901/aid.html
>>
>>BTW, in interviews with children of Pakistan, what is taught the children regarding the UK and the US even today is downright scary.
>
>The money we have given Pakistan has been completely pissed away. The idea was they would help us capture terrorists hiding there. They have done very little of that. IMO we would be better off cutting off their aid and going in to do the job ourselves. If they don't like it, tough.

"going in" "taking them out" "surgical strike" nice language that rarely is matched by reality. And the "if they don't like it, tough" should actually read "and if they don't like it we've stored up a whole load of problems for ourselves for the next 20 years"