Iran - what is the truth

Something is really bothering me just now about all the talk about bombing Iran.
Can anyone shed some light on what the real plan is regarding the Iraq/Iran/Afghan action?
If the US bomb Iran, where are the troops and support going to come from?
Is this maybe an easy way out of Iraq - by attacking Iran?
Oil is the main goal here or something else?
I know a few members here are ex-military, maybe they can enlighten me to what is going on?
G

 

Sadly Grumbles the real truth about the Iran issue is a subject many are scared to confront. You see once Israel is mentioned the anti-semitic card is brought out and it works beautifully every time because it does bring silence and ends the discussion.
Look at who is behind pushing for war with Iran? Look at all those in the American circle of war hawks who are either duel Israeli/Americans.
Check out how powerful AIPAC is. And i am far from anti semitic, i am talking about Israel Gov hardliners. Iran is a powerful country no denying it. Iran can wield a lot influence in the Middle East. Iran does have a leader that dances tom the tune of the West that is a big no no in the globalists minds of today. You see Grumbles the Middle East wars and the future war talks are always instigated on lies. The Governments would never get their support if the real reasons for their geo political ambitions were told to the masses. Remember fear is the biggest tool they have. Keep the fear up and the masses will give up liberty for the offer of protection?
As for the American military side the real honourable Generals and JCS are all against the war hawks in Washington. They have been fighting an internal war for a while to expose the Bush plans for further Middle east wars.

What is real scary is the Minot airbase mystery with those nukes. We were all told that it was a mistake. Believe me and all truthful military men will tell you that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get access to nukes without going through so many procedures. Infact fort knox would be easier to rob than to accidently load nukes on a plane especially under the wings?
Also Barksdale airbase were they were took is the loading base for the Middle east actions?
yes crazy and scary as it seems another pearl harbour was probably in the making but brave airmen and higher ups blew the whistle and how thankful we all should be? Oh and 6 airmen related to Minot airbase and the missing loose nukes are dead. Some loose ends being sorted out. And the best of it all for Bush and the gang is that a post like mine and all the articles posted on the web close to what i have said are laughed at and ignored by many calling articles and my post as either crazy,lies,paranoid,deranged,unthinkable and so on. Without the readers ever stopping to give it some thought and most of all checking out for themselves by research. 1 hour of your time and google will not hurt.
Iran is no real threat to anyone. They have not invaded any country for over 200 years or more. Ahmadinejad did not say he wanted Israel destroyed or wiped from the map, but then the government controlled media and the government themselves know that saying Ahmadinejad said he wants to destroy Israel itself holds a lot and i mean a lot of weight towards getting support for a war with Iran?
Oh i have no doubt that many will say Ahmadinejad did say what the papers and the Gov told us all, but sadly the real first casualty of war is the truth?

Again Google is your best friend if you honestly want to find out what is going on and what things were really said.

A snippet
THE ACTUAL QUOTE:

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".

American foreign policy has essentially been to expand the sphere of American dominance at whatever cost is necessary. Today we have China/India and a resurging Russia. China is growing at a rate of 9 to 10% per year, their need for resources is huge and growing, the whole world map of energy resources and military might is changing fast. The reliance of resources does and always will play a huge part in our future wars sadly.

I have only touched on the subject Grumbles, it is a long long debatable subject that would take many pages to break through massive amount of globalist/bankers/world leaders paranoia and greed for control of all that makes one powerful.

 

G, I don't have any answers for this "Iran Threat" It seems that the reason is their nuclear program could be used towards making weapons. But, many of our intelligence gathering people have told the President that the program was halted FIVE years ago! I read about nuclear weapons being planned to be used there by the U.S., about some Middle East countries siding with Bush on this, and that there are no countries in Europe denouncing these actions yet.
It is madness to me, sending our kids to Iraq and dying after the regime there was toppled and that was for the same reason we are rattling sabers at Iran, weapons that were rumored to be there but weren't. Yes, after we were already there, there should have been a short period of occupation to help them get on their feet. But now it is to long and doing no good.
There will always be fighting in the Middle East, we can't stop it.
I don't understand why we are trying to be the world's police.

 

Thanks to Scouser and Musksnipe for trying to explain what it is all about

 

An interesting poiny but I must speak up at this point...
What you've said (or more, the way you've said it) is very misleading.

Ahmadinejad did indeed say he wanted something wiping out. He wants "the regime occupying Jerusalem" to "vanish from the page of time". The issue you get then is various...
Without the regime (why is that word always used in such a negative way?) in place - what happens to the country? What happens to the military that defends the people living within it? To state that it's "only" about the regime is either disingenuous or naive.


Anyway to the original post... where would troops come from to cover war with Iran? I think the answer to this question is somewhat simple; Conscription.

The USA signed smart border agreements with Canada to prevent draft dodgers running there as they did in the Vietnam era. Myths about immunity from the draft for certain people have been cleared up. If they run out of willing soldiers (and they probably will) - then unwilling ones will be sent.
I'm not aware of any law preventing the conscription of British citizens into the amred forces.

If you're of draftable age - my advice is to learn to speak Arabic langauges - it might come in useful if you end up out there. Couldn't hurt.

Maybe start learning the lyrics to And The Band Played Waltzing Matilda too - many people will end up singing that tune at some point.


Personally I'm hoping and praying that there will be some major changes afoot that will avoid all the unnecessary bloodshed that certina groups seem absolutely intent on causing.

 

My personal belief all this Middle East :crap is just to raise the oil prices so that the Bush family and gang can live comfortably after being ousted from the White House.
OPPS, did I really say that? rolleyes

 

LOL were you reading my mind again Musky LOL

 

What's your excuse going to be when Bush is out of office and the price doesn't drop one bit?

 

Conscription to invade Iran would be a joke they haven't got enough jails to keep all the people that wouldn't go,I dont think there will ever be conscription again unless ofcourse there is some huge event that we can blame on Iran that all the sheep will swallow.

Iran is about oil and gas and them not playing ball as has been said,the poor country is just starting to get back on its feet after decades of abuse from the UK and US,its makes me laugh after all Iran has been through we expect it to instantly be up to par with out own culture and social graces.

Let Iran have nukes they are useless,its quite simple if you nuke someone you get nuked back,if a bomb detonated in Israel even if there were no proof Iran was behind it Israel would wipe them of the map.

North Korea is exactly the same situation as Iran,except wait a minute they probably already have nukes why arn't we worried about them they hate America with a passion?Its simple theres nothing we want in North Korea we just bung them oil and take their word for it that they have suspended their nuclear ambitions,Iran at least has done everything by the book.

 

http://www.union.unimelb.edu.au/rwl/images/syriana.jpg

Anyone interested in this thread should check out this film. It is adopted from the book, "See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism" (LOL - see the film, or read the book)

Came out long before I ever heard talks of invading Iran on CNN. I thought this was memorable:

 

I'm not going to weigh in on either Iran or Iraq (most of you already know my opinions on the subject), but for those who have forgotten we were attacked by Afghanistan. It is the only righteous war going IMO. Seems like people are forgetting that little fact already.

The Taliban are our enemy, if they come back we come back. Simple enough.

It is not one war, but two. Keep them separate.

 

I don't have an excuse for going into a no-win war.... The prices are of oil continue to rise as this war continues. They will never drop to the point where they should. Once this upward spiral started there was no way to stop it.
I have been through one no-win useless war for profit myself and sure don't want to see our young men getting killed for the profit of others.
(at least they're getting the respect due them and not being spit on)

 

I didnt take alot of time to read all the blah, blah, blah but ( and I am probably simplistic in my response ) but DUH of course its about oil. America ia currently enslaved to Middle East oil. Dont like the current war? Quit driving or operating any equipment that uses Middle East oil. Need an ambulance? Too bad no fuel. Need a fire engine? Too bad no fuel. Face it we as Americans are spoiled, lazy, and fat. We deride the current administration for its Warmongering ways and then EXPECT gasoline to be available. We cant have it both ways. Unless ofcourse we could over rule the tree hugging, root smootchers and drill for oil on American soil. Also by the way being the proud uncle of a wounded Iraqi Freedom Marine I can assure you that the people of the middle East do view this as a religious war ( Islam vss. Christian ie Ismael vss Israel ) whether we do or not.

 

I don't care where the people were from. We found Americans fighting for the Taliban. I do care about a government/country that gives it's blessing for the 911 attack, and helped expedite it.

We did not need to attack Iraq for oil, there really is enough to go around, at least for the moment, and Afghanistan doesn't have any. There were other agendas at work as far as the Iraq war is concerned. Like I said, two separate wars. Bush has tried with some success to link them.

 

Don't get me wrong. I firmly believe that any enemy of the U.S.A. needs to be shown the way out the door. Those that have attacked ARE our enemies and those that have given those enemies refuge, become our enemies, also. I just don't believe in a long term, occupational war. We have the resources (non-nuclear) to take out scum-bags without occupying a country or involving our whole military. The Israelis have shown how to do this several times and succeeded. Why is it that our intelligence sources, can't pinpoint where these enemies are and our military take surgical action?
This may sound crass, but a few civilian casualties are much better than many of our young men dying. Did those %&$#*&*'s that flew those airliners into the Trade Center care that there was no military there?

 

Actually the best defense with Afghanistan is to arrange it where the Taliban can't take power again. It would hurt them the most. Given where the country is going I'm not sure we would have the political will to go in again if the Taliban managed to regain control. While there have been problems they aren't the problem, Iraq is. Don't get the two confused, most Afghanis were happy to have us take the Taliban out, and have a real chance of setting up a government. You'll notice their government is working hard to get on it's feet, unlike Iraq.

 

I wonder what the middle east would be like if we ( and the world ) was not dependent on their oil? Now dont get me wrong Im not a warmonger but I do believe there are issues that cant be settled any other way. Im sure Ill be hung out to dry for making such a statement but I think it might be best to get our boots off the ground and just level the whole "sandlot". Im also of the belief that the oil from Iraq should be free while were still there.

 

Not quite sure what makes you think that you have the right rolleyes

I agree with at least some of what Major Attitude posted; and everything that Steve_East9 also mentioned

Fix up your own backyard before attempting to 'remodel' your neighbours to suit your own needs

History is a harsh judge

 

http://www.idrewthis.org/comics/idt20040223daydream.gif

*sigh*

What shocks me most is the resistance/fear of the alternatives.

I mean, the electric car predates the internal combustion engine. Two technologies held it back: rectifiers and transistors.

We have made HUGE advancements in BOTH. Every power supply unit has a rectifier, and processors now use transistors only 45nm long!

And yet, the perception seems to be that green technologies are impractical.

As a geek, I say: BULL:crap!!!!

I've seen a full-electric UPS DELIVERY VAN! That surely has greater weight and distance requirements than the average vehicle.

Of course the technology isn't going to be released at its prime, but if we concentrated our efforts, we can refine it. Just imagine if we had been developing it since its inception in the early 1800s! Where could we be today?

Investing so much in fossil fuel technology at this point is akin to going backwards into the future.

 

Remember the air engines on here a while back. There are alternatives...

 

Air engines are an energy medium not a fuel source you can't charge your air engine up from a compressor that also runs on air,you have to run your compressor on electricity that is run for the most part ATM by oil,the only viable energy alternative we have ATM is nuclear fission and beyond that fusion,also you cant make things out of pure energy or get bulk raw chemicals as you can from the petrochemical industry.

Not being able to drive anywhere would pale into insignificance when people couldn't afford to feed their families due to lack of petrochemical fertilizer's.

 

The truth? nobody knows. So leave iran alone and make peace with them.

 

Thats akin to ignorance is bliss.

We dont know the truth, so all must be well in the world.

 

yep.

http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2006/09/five_years_late.php (not where I saw this quote originally, but the only link I could find)

 

That same exact arguement applies to electric vehicles. The thing is, the articles in question were talking about a major decrease in power used. And electricity can come from other sources (not the norm, but still true). Here in Texas wind farms are springing up like crazy. Solar could still be extrememly viable if they could tweak the efficiencies up just a little.

There is no one big answer, just a bunch of small ones that hopefully will add up.

 

I agree the electric car is the way of future and big oil and car companies are holding them up,the first prototype electric cars could go for 100 miles on one charge and that was with the older type batteries the new lithium polymer have twice as much storage one hundred mile charge costs 90 cents at current electricity prices BUT electricity price is heavily dependent on the price fossil fuels,renewable energy sources make up a very small portion of our energy source's around the 10-15% mark depending where you live but they're not the answer,in the UK we are proposing 20 new fission power plants in readiness for he coming fuel shortages its sounds frightening to me but thats the best we've got,fission is the cleanest most abundant fuel source we have ATM,then they break and everybody dies

Go fusion "waves Mr fusion flag"

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay...346&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

 

Preach on Brother Rikky!

 

Without the oil of the middle east, the Superpowers cease to exist. There would be no imperial China/US/Russia possible. Practically the entire world ecomomy and infrastructure is based upon oil/methane products from plastics to medicine. There will be no nuking of the middle east by rational governments, and all efforts must be made to prevent the "crazies" from ever using nukes in the middle east. Remember, that religious fervor, be it Christian/Jew/Muslim attracts the most unstable minds to it's flock. The membership of fanatical groups occasionally topple governments and seize the military assets of the previous regime. If Iran ( which currently has a rational regime) should develop nuclear weapons, and because they cultivate religious fervor to maintain their regime, we run the risk that they will be toppled by their own crazies. Any posturing, by the US/Europe that looks like bullying of Iran, is undeniably bullying of Iran. That is the least of their worries. Their largest fear, should be the same as the rest of the world; that a psychopathic/fervent regime could take control of a state as large as Iran. And if a fervent Iran has nuclear assets to play with ... it's all scary conjecture from there. Remember, most of these fervent fanatics believe the 72 virgin story, as fervently as our 5 year old children believe in Santa Claus. So, if they wreck the world, and die in the process, it's just win-win for them. It's the rational survivors who will have to carry on, clean up the destruction and try to put the pieces back together.

 

Any country that believes that no other country should possess nuclear weapons, should consider 'getting rid of' their own stockpiles first.

Do as I say, not as I do - does not earn a lot of respect

I'm not keen on anyone possessing such genocidal technology regardless of which particular religion they follow or where they live.
I would feel much safer if religion and politics were totally separate institutions

 

There is a flaw in that reasoning though, who is going to be last to have nukes? The real sad fact is MAD works. Disarming completely is a sure way to start a war, it's been proved more than once. Not everyone is reasonable, there is always someone willing to raise a ruckus, or worse.

If we actually develop a civilian space program it only gets worse. A popular theme of SciFi over the years is to illustrate how a simple projectile falling from high orbit or beyond is pretty much equivalent to a nuke, with none of the fallout issues (and all the nuclear winter problems).

The simple truth is, WMD gets easier as technology progresses. It is something we just have to live with and try to solve. Personally I suspect nukes will find peaceful use in space eventually, they might even save our butts when the next near Earth orbit asteroid comes a calling.

As to the middle east issue, if we could devalue oil to a lower level (it will always be worth something) it might reduce some of the spare cash these guys have. Not likely, but its a hope. Personally I think oils days are numbered, but it is going to take a while. With cheap energy anything can be synthesized.

 

Thank you all for your interesting points of view regarding Iran - it is wonderful to see such a variety of answers
G

 

OK I didnt think anyone would agree with me. I am in the field as Steve but I wonder if his thoughts could ever be reality. The poor, homeless, and destitute of this nation are good for scoring political points but in the end they bring no profit to those in power. The reality is if a politician can make a dollar now or assure they can make more money in the future thats where they focus their energy. The truth is many politicians make alot of money from the petrol. industry not from the homeless. We mention the millions (billions ) of dollars we spend on the war everyday but that only represents one source of hemorrhage in our country. It costs 14 billion dollars just to get the space shuttle from hanger to launch pad, and for what, pretty pix from space? Our local hospital charges patients 700 dollars for one unit of blood that was donated? If the patient cant pay guess who does. You and I. Entitlements are a huge source of hemorrhage. As Americans we are guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness not free food, free health care, and free shelter. Im with Paul, "If a man will not work, neither shall he eat"

 

True - many people, including politicians, misuse the less fortunate in our community to fluff up their own feathers and do the "look at me" dance routine

I totally don't agree with this statement. I guess if you view the world from a narrow viewpoint of financial profit, then yes. But if that is all we view one another as - dollar signs - then we might as well give up now. Every community has people at all levels both finanically, educationally, morally, ethically, etc. Everyone has something to give to their community, even if it is simply by their unfortunate circumstances they give others the opportunity to shine the light of caring and kindness into people's lives. Even politicians need emotional power, not just financial.

Oh you are so going to wish you hadn't gone there.....LOL

Again, I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement. I'm sure you have in your corner of the world, as I do in mine, many homeless and hungry people on the streets. Open your eyes to the services around you in your community for those less fortunate than us. There are some amazing organizations made up of individuals just like you and me who are ensuring this is a reality in 21st century America! People CAN guarantee a free meal, a free place that is dry to rest their heads - free basic medical care to health issues. It happens every day for hundreds in my town alone. Again, maybe as the priviledged we should personally be taking a responsibility to make sure this is a guarantee in everyone's life. We can all help - maybe not financially with generous donations, but even just a couple of hours a week serving a meal. Seriously, if we cannot guarantee these basic commodities to homeless, we can't turn and blame a politician or other governmental leader. We all have a responsibility to look after our community. To throw the gauntlet back to the government is denial of the accountability we all should take as a society.

You have so taken this quote out of context from the Bible (2 Thesselonians 3). Paul wasn't talking about physical work/physical eating. He was talking about being idle as disciples in Christ. He was discouraging those who had become busybodies with gossiping under the guise of spreading the word of the Bible, but really just interfering in others business and spreading tales. The work was that of spreading the truth of Jesus Christ, and the eating was the digesting of the word of the Bible and internalising all the goodness and nutrition that comes spiritually from following the example given by Jesus. If it was simply about physical work and physical eating then Jesus would never have fed the 5000 on the mountain. I'm sure some of those people didn't do physical labor, but he still fed them, through the very same human kindness that should come from us in feeding freely the homeless we have in our communities today. Only difference is that the "mountain" of homeless is bigger now and the "mountain" of richer is bigger. In effect, therefore, you would think the problem should be smaller.....but like Paul was warning...we have fallen away to idle chat and less work in human kindness. Maybe it is us who shouldn't be eating.....

I realise this is somewhat of a tangent in the topic, but I had to address your comments

 

I for one, am very glad you did, Lev. That was a beautiful post. Thank you!

 

Touche Lev. You make a good point on Pauls point and I stand corrected. I should have known better seeing as I have a ThB. I think my desire in making those statements come from frustration. Politicians spend 10000 dollars on flowers? What gives? Want to see waste, look at the available grants that the feds offer. Some are good and legitimate others are pure madness. I still dont agree with the amount of money we spend on space travel, sorry. Maybe you could enlighten me by directing me to a web site that details what breakthroughs have been made by NASA? Im open to learning. I do believe help starts at home also. I have been a vol. firefighter for 20 years and have seen a steady decrease in volunteers because of all the regulations the government has began placing on volunteers. Let me continue to ramble. I understand that some entitlments are needed but being in medicine you would not believe the amount of people I deal with that abuse the system. Does this fact stop me from trying to help, no. Does it frustrate me, yes.

 

Frustrations can be a very positive thing if we channel the energy created by them to do something about the very problem that frustrates us. If left unchannelled it can become very negative energy that causes despair. I just leave that thought with you for free

As to federal grants, I don't need to look. I spent countless hours daily making grant applications to the feds to provide services to the very populations we have been discussing. I feel your frustration, and spend equally countless hours involved in approaching the legislature to change things in order to allow us to address many of the problems you correctly identify

Space travel is not my forte. However, I do find it fascinating. There are a couple of members here who are highly invovled in this (hence my humorous comment), and I'm sure one of them will be along shortly to help fulfill your curiosity. They can do it far more factual justice than I ever can.

 

On entitlements and abuse thereof... That is a frustrating situation...
I'm somewhat in line with your original use of Paul's comment about work. However I also think that those who can't work, and those others who genuinely need help - should be helped. However finding a way to provide for people like that, and avoid freeloaders abusing the system is a tough job. Maybe impossible.

 

My use of Paul's comment isn't MY thinking. It is the meaning of that verse of the Bible. Everything else is man's thinking and not what it was about. That's why we have the Bible, because a lot of the time we are so way of whack and judgemental of others situations.

However the system I refer to is that provided for the homeless. I'm not talking about the couch potatoes here who choose to sit at home and draw a benefit check for no other reason other than they cannot be bothered to get up. I'm talking about those who find themself on the street with nothing but the clothes on their back, not certain where their next meal is coming from, holes in their shoes despite the 3 inches of rain that fell that day. Those who are prepared to stand on a street corner all day in freezing temperatures just to raise enough cash for a beer and a burger - enough to make life bearable that day. Seriously, if we are going to begrudge people like this a little generosity in our relative affluence then something has gone seriously wrong. For whatever reason these people do not have work, but I would never call the extremes they go to to ensure survival idleness. These are people who lead such a desperate battle in life for mere survival that we cannot possibly imagine, and for what? So they get to do it all again the next day? YES! Because they still have HOPE. And those of us who have a little spare time or spare cash are that hope. So next time we drive by, let's not look the other way. You don't like giving cash incase it goes to drink or drugs? Neither do I. But you have three dollars spare and ten minutes? Go via the drive thru and buy them a burger You ARE the hope that these people live for, daily.

 

No dispute from me there Lev... I know what Paul was saying and agree with you on that point. My comment was directed at cur1611 and saying that in part I agree with what he used it to say... That those who won't put the effort in shouldn't hold their hand out either.
(Contrast "won't put the effort in" with "can't")

I'm right with you on what you say about people finding themselves on the street - some are there entirely through their own fault, others are not - either way they (usually) need help. Agreed on the point about booze and drugs - I'll buy food, coffee and the likes for them and sit and eat with them if I'm welcome. Other things they sometimes need that people don't immediately think of are sanitary products like toothpaste, toothbrush, dental floss and the obvious requisites for women. Some areas have charities or council initiatives that provide these things, other's don't in which case they really need them.

It's quite shocking how many homeless get an "outcast" mentality - so often they are moved on from cafés and the likes that they start feel like they can't go in - if faced with that bring them in and sit and eat with them - makes a huge difference. Again, nothing I'm saying should give the impression that I don't think we should help the needy – far from it – I'm just not so sure that they can be helped while avoiding giving to the freeloaders.

 

I realized that it was directed at cur1611, but just wanted to emphasise my point while I was ona roll

On the subject of toiletries - great very valid point you make. If anyone travels a lot and ends up in hotel rooms, take the free samples given every day. Take them home with you and when you get back, donate them to your local shelter. They will be most welcome! Every little helps.

 

Oh I never thought of that - good idea.
I always wonder if that counts as stealing - haha. I'm pretty sure it doesn't though - towels, yea - but not toiletries I don't think.

Oh - and check your PMs.

 

Correct me if anyone thinks otherwise, but I don't think it is stealing as they put those out for you to use up and not return. The towels, gowns etc they put for you to use while you are there, but not to use up (as in take them away with you). You've paid for the disposable stuff in the price of the room. You haven't paid for gown, towels, slippers etc.

 

That's the conclusion I came to.
Someone I asked (not hotel staff, a friend) thought maybe they were put there for you to use if needed so if not used they weren't yours.

 

What happened to the "WAR ISSUES' thread?
Looks like thread hijackers have been here. LOL
Move along you guys.
http://bestsmileys.com/army/5.gif

 

It went something along the lines of...

Iran, naughty-america, not-actually-world-police, clean-up-own-back-yard, (back yard = benefits, homelessness and the likes)

 

and after that it really derailed

 

Actually, I disagree.

"Clean-up-own-backyard" included a discussion around what exactly that meant and how we as individuals can go about helping this, and not expect it to just be a governmental thing that removes society from partial responsibility.

 

@ Lev, your discussion was off topic and had nothing to do with the war in Iran ..... as is this but then you should know that.