FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Iran attacks Diego Garcia.
Iran attacks Diego Garcia.
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, not West Ham's Argentinan full back but the British territory in the Indian Ocean which is over 2000 km from Iran. For reference its about 2700 km from Iran to Dorking. Should we be worried about incoming fire from the Mad Mullahs, and is this one more reason to disarm the fanatics once and for all ?" Couldn’t possibly be related to Starmer’s u-turn, definitely not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"indiscriminate targeting by Iran seems to be rationalised as defence against the attacks by Israel and the US. I think it has shone a light on the risk Iran brings ot world peace. Imagine if they did have nuclear. " Iran had said many times they did not have missiles with over 2k range so as with their nuclear programme it is lie upon lie about their threat. Britain has played no part in offensive bombing of Iran but like the Gulf States and Asian owned shipping it has been a target of offensive Iranian attack. I'm sure International Law says that's not playing fair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"indiscriminate targeting by Iran seems to be rationalised as defence against the attacks by Israel and the US. I think it has shone a light on the risk Iran brings ot world peace. Imagine if they did have nuclear. " The missiles really are small beer The economic damage caused by thus conflict is immeasurable. In the uk alone 34 million motorists paying more for fuel, 27 million households paying more for energy, from credit cards to business loans and variable mortgages, borrowing costs are rising. Markets predicting base rates of 4.5%, that’s 20% more. Cost of borrowing and transportation of essential goods and services on the rise | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"indiscriminate targeting by Iran seems to be rationalised as defence against the attacks by Israel and the US. I think it has shone a light on the risk Iran brings ot world peace. Imagine if they did have nuclear. Iran had said many times they did not have missiles with over 2k range so as with their nuclear programme it is lie upon lie about their threat. Britain has played no part in offensive bombing of Iran but like the Gulf States and Asian owned shipping it has been a target of offensive Iranian attack. I'm sure International Law says that's not playing fair." It's just the international poker game, where everyone sat at the table is cheating. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For reference its about 2700 km from Iran to Dorking." Fact check: You might mean miles. It's little over 4000 kilometers from Iran to London. Iran would struggle to get a full payload to London, but could do it with loose accuracy and a reduced payload. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For reference its about 2700 km from Iran to Dorking. Fact check: You might mean miles. It's little over 4000 kilometers from Iran to London. Iran would struggle to get a full payload to London, but could do it with loose accuracy and a reduced payload." Apologies TM, as always you're right and I'm wrong! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"indiscriminate targeting by Iran seems to be rationalised as defence against the attacks by Israel and the US." A peculiar sickness of "the West" is that, whenever they sniff an underdog, they begin rationalising all sorts of things ("resistance by any means is justified"?). This is a natural response of anyone who likes to see fair play, but ultimately helps nobody. Many would like nothing better than to see developed nations fighting with one hand tied behind their back against smaller terrorist states, presumably out of a sense of fairness. This simply produces no real outcome, forever wars and empowers actors like Russia. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think it has shone a light on the risk Iran brings ot world peace. Imagine if they did have nuclear. " Why would they launch a nuke? Why would anyone? What reaction is it going to get? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think it has shone a light on the risk Iran brings ot world peace. Imagine if they did have nuclear. Why would they launch a nuke? Why would anyone? What reaction is it going to get? " Because it is a fanatical theoretical state. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"indiscriminate targeting by Iran seems to be rationalised as defence against the attacks by Israel and the US. A peculiar sickness of "the West" is that, whenever they sniff an underdog, they begin rationalising all sorts of things ("resistance by any means is justified"?). This is a natural response of anyone who likes to see fair play, but ultimately helps nobody. Many would like nothing better than to see developed nations fighting with one hand tied behind their back against smaller terrorist states, presumably out of a sense of fairness. This simply produces no real outcome, forever wars and empowers actors like Russia."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think it has shone a light on the risk Iran brings ot world peace. Imagine if they did have nuclear. Why would they launch a nuke? Why would anyone? What reaction is it going to get? " Six months ago, people would've asked with the same incredulity about attacking UAE, Qatar and Bahrain... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think it has shone a light on the risk Iran brings ot world peace. Imagine if they did have nuclear. Why would they launch a nuke? Why would anyone? What reaction is it going to get? " Would you have thought Iran would have targeted the civilian targets in their neighbouring countries, before they did just that as a hostile reaction? Will you declare a pacifist stance at some point, maybe? It will be a tough sell. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think it has shone a light on the risk Iran brings ot world peace. Imagine if they did have nuclear. Why would they launch a nuke? Why would anyone? What reaction is it going to get? Would you have thought Iran would have targeted the civilian targets in their neighbouring countries, before they did just that as a hostile reaction? Will you declare a pacifist stance at some point, maybe? It will be a tough sell." I asked a question which you appear not to have answered. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think it has shone a light on the risk Iran brings ot world peace. Imagine if they did have nuclear. Why would they launch a nuke? Why would anyone? What reaction is it going to get? Because it is a fanatical theoretical state." So they want their own state to be obliterated moments after they launch this theoretical nuke? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, not West Ham's Argentinan full back but the British territory in the Indian Ocean which is over 2000 km from Iran. For reference its about 2700 km from Iran to Dorking. Should we be worried about incoming fire from the Mad Mullahs, and is this one more reason to disarm the fanatics once and for all ?" Yes let's disarm the U.S. Who illegally invaded a sovereign country back by the cowardly English. You seem a fanatic to me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Will you declare a pacifist stance at some point, maybe? It will be a tough sell." You don’t have to sell pacifism to anyone. You are one or you aren’t - it’s an ideology, not dissimilar to any other political stance, belief or opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think it has shone a light on the risk Iran brings ot world peace. Imagine if they did have nuclear. Why would they launch a nuke? Why would anyone? What reaction is it going to get? Because it is a fanatical theoretical state. So they want their own state to be obliterated moments after they launch this theoretical nuke?" The religious leadership quite possibly, not most Iranians. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, not West Ham's Argentinan full back but the British territory in the Indian Ocean which is over 2000 km from Iran. For reference its about 2700 km from Iran to Dorking. Should we be worried about incoming fire from the Mad Mullahs, and is this one more reason to disarm the fanatics once and for all ? Yes let's disarm the U.S. Who illegally invaded a sovereign country back by the cowardly English. You seem a fanatic to me" Why are the English cowardly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think it has shone a light on the risk Iran brings ot world peace. Imagine if they did have nuclear. Why would they launch a nuke? Why would anyone? What reaction is it going to get? Because it is a fanatical theoretical state. So they want their own state to be obliterated moments after they launch this theoretical nuke? The religious leadership quite possibly, not most Iranians." What’s the benefit of any nation launching a nuke? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think it has shone a light on the risk Iran brings ot world peace. Imagine if they did have nuclear. Why would they launch a nuke? Why would anyone? What reaction is it going to get? Because it is a fanatical theoretical state. So they want their own state to be obliterated moments after they launch this theoretical nuke? The religious leadership quite possibly, not most Iranians. What’s the benefit of any nation launching a nuke? " There is no benefit but your question presupposes that nations always act rationally. Which we know is not true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I asked a question which you appear not to have answered." You are asking why people who believe that they are divinely touched, incapable of wrongdoing and believe in martyrdom for themselves and huge swathes of their countrymen... Might do something that you do not consider rational. Hmm... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I asked a question which you appear not to have answered. You are asking why people who believe that they are divinely touched, incapable of wrongdoing and believe in martyrdom for themselves and huge swathes of their countrymen... Might do something that you do not consider rational. Hmm..." You just described a tiny number of extremists, did you not? Have you any evidence that anyone in the Iranian regime feels that way? Or are you assuming?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I asked a question which you appear not to have answered. You are asking why people who believe that they are divinely touched, incapable of wrongdoing and believe in martyrdom for themselves and huge swathes of their countrymen... Might do something that you do not consider rational. Hmm... You just described a tiny number of extremists, did you not? Have you any evidence that anyone in the Iranian regime feels that way? Or are you assuming??" " I asked a question which you appear not to have answered. You are asking why people who believe that they are divinely touched, incapable of wrongdoing and believe in martyrdom for themselves and huge swathes of their countrymen... Might do something that you do not consider rational. Hmm..." To put it into pain English terms: Iran would happily use nukes to destroy anyone they didn't like as a final act if they were about to fall (the regime). This means that nobody would ever be able to compromise the regime to the extent that they would use nukes. This means that the regime would, for the sake of anyone in range, need to be protected and could never be assailed. This means that, by attaining nuclear capability, they would be unassailable... *unless said assailants eye willing to see Iran use end-of-regime nukes. Being that Iran is a belligerent nation, not above extortion, proxy wars and wants to obliterate Israel, then they would be an unstable actor. Should Israel, Saudi Arabia Lebanon, Syria or any other country want to attack the Iranian regime, that puts anyone else in range at risk of actually being nuked. As evidenced by their recent lashing out at their erstwhile benign neighbours. They will go for soft (even innocent) targets to put pressure onto their real adversaries. And would certainly do so in a final act of retribution. You reference a tiny number of extremists. You clearly do not know Iran and the IRGC. It doesn't take many to actually launch said nukes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I Iran would happily use nukes to destroy anyone they didn't like as a final act if they were about to fall (the regime)." Your whole response is based upon this - which is in fact pure guesswork. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I Iran would happily use nukes to destroy anyone they didn't like as a final act if they were about to fall (the regime). Your whole response is based upon this - which is in fact pure guesswork. " Change "happily" to "potentially". That would be accurate, and in itself be cause for alarm. Or enough ambiguity for people to sleepwalk into an untenable situation. "Guilty beyond shadow of a doubt" doesn't apply in existential geopolitics. That's how countries are caught with their pants down. It's what allowed Hitler to get the jump on Europe. But, as a History Buff, you'd know that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems quite odd that a whole load of countries, the UK included, are being randomly attacked by Iran with no thought for any civilian casualties, but all of them are just sitting back and taking it. At some point presumably the Gulf states, UK and Europe are going to have to man up and fight back. It’s not like the Saudis have been shy of using military power in Yemen. I appreciate the UK military isn’t up to much and Starmer is petrified of losing the Muslim vote." Maybe it’s because the war was started on incredibly shaky legal terms by the west and nobody wants to get into a protracted Middle Eastern conflict, especially as Trump increasingly looks for an off-ramp. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I Iran would happily use nukes to destroy anyone they didn't like as a final act if they were about to fall (the regime). Your whole response is based upon this - which is in fact pure guesswork. Change "happily" to "potentially". That would be accurate, and in itself be cause for alarm. Or enough ambiguity for people to sleepwalk into an untenable situation. "Guilty beyond shadow of a doubt" doesn't apply in existential geopolitics. That's how countries are caught with their pants down. It's what allowed Hitler to get the jump on Europe. But, as a History Buff, you'd know that." Potentially is indeed a better term, but potentially any nuclear power would launch if they were facing destruction, would they not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I asked a question which you appear not to have answered. You are asking why people who believe that they are divinely touched, incapable of wrongdoing and believe in martyrdom for themselves and huge swathes of their countrymen... Might do something that you do not consider rational. Hmm..." you seem to have forgotten which profile you're using to reply to people again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" "Guilty beyond shadow of a doubt" doesn't apply in existential geopolitics. That's how countries are caught with their pants down. It's what allowed Hitler to get the jump on Europe. But, as a History Buff, you'd know that." As a history buff, I’d know you just presented a gross oversimplification, yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OMG can you imagine the panic if an Iranian missile landed in North London? Starmer would soon be on the phone to Trump begging for help if his dinner party got interrupted." As long as they don't fall short and land in South London! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" you seem to have forgotten which profile you're using to reply to people again." You're amusing. We'll keep you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Potentially is indeed a better term, but potentially any nuclear power would launch if they were facing destruction, would they not? " Then to answer your question, another question would need to be answered - perhaps you can? Why is Iran pursuing nuclear weapons? What will they do with them when they get them - what motivates them to divert so much effort and resource into this enterprise? What use does Iran see for nuclear weapons? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ... Iran had said many times they did not have missiles with over 2k range so as with their nuclear programme it is lie upon lie about their threat. Britain has played no part in offensive bombing of Iran but like the Gulf States and Asian owned shipping it has been a target of offensive Iranian attack. I'm sure International Law says that's not playing fair." Would that be the law which states: All's fair in love and war? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" "Guilty beyond shadow of a doubt" doesn't apply in existential geopolitics. That's how countries are caught with their pants down. It's what allowed Hitler to get the jump on Europe. But, as a History Buff, you'd know that. As a history buff, I’d know you just presented a gross oversimplification, yes. " Correct. You seem not to like nuance or complex answers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Potentially is indeed a better term, but potentially any nuclear power would launch if they were facing destruction, would they not? Then to answer your question, another question would need to be answered - perhaps you can? Why is Iran pursuing nuclear weapons? What will they do with them when they get them - what motivates them to divert so much effort and resource into this enterprise? What use does Iran see for nuclear weapons?" Within the last few hours Iranian missiles have hit a town and city in Israel. One target only eight miles from a nuclear facility. Despite Trumps claims of neutralising Iran’s capabilities , It’s only a matter of time before a more severe hit. If they had nuclear now all of Israel would be snuff | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I Iran would happily use nukes to destroy anyone they didn't like as a final act if they were about to fall (the regime). Your whole response is based upon this - which is in fact pure guesswork. " Well all projections of future behaviour involve a lot of guesswork, but depriving Iran of a nuclear bomb at least removes some very bad options. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OMG can you imagine the panic if an Iranian missile landed in North London? Starmer would soon be on the phone to Trump begging for help if his dinner party got interrupted. As long as they don't fall short and land in South London!" Would anyone really miss Bexley?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems quite odd that a whole load of countries, the UK included, are being randomly attacked by Iran with no thought for any civilian casualties, but all of them are just sitting back and taking it. At some point presumably the Gulf states, UK and Europe are going to have to man up and fight back. It’s not like the Saudis have been shy of using military power in Yemen. I appreciate the UK military isn’t up to much and Starmer is petrified of losing the Muslim vote." Starmer is mobilising the Islington Fusillers as we speak. 💪 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" “Iran would happily use nukes to destroy anyone they didn't like as a final act if they were about to fall (the regime)." You may be attributing Israel’s Samson directive to Iran." The other day, you were spouting nonsense news only attributable to anti-Israel online sources. Which says something about how and where you get your news. What's your angle on all this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Potentially is indeed a better term, but potentially any nuclear power would launch if they were facing destruction, would they not? Then to answer your question, another question would need to be answered - perhaps you can? Why is Iran pursuing nuclear weapons? What will they do with them when they get them - what motivates them to divert so much effort and resource into this enterprise? What use does Iran see for nuclear weapons? Within the last few hours Iranian missiles have hit a town and city in Israel. One target only eight miles from a nuclear facility. Despite Trumps claims of neutralising Iran’s capabilities , It’s only a matter of time before a more severe hit. If they had nuclear now all of Israel would be snuff " And within 30 mins of that, Iran would be a crater, correct? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I Iran would happily use nukes to destroy anyone they didn't like as a final act if they were about to fall (the regime). Your whole response is based upon this - which is in fact pure guesswork. Well all projections of future behaviour involve a lot of guesswork, but depriving Iran of a nuclear bomb at least removes some very bad options." I’d argue that depriving everyone of nuclear weapons is the ideal outcome, right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If they had nuclear now all of Israel would be snuff And within 30 mins of that, Iran would be a crater, correct? " Yes. Some happy martyrs and a whole lot of innocents snuffed out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If they had nuclear now all of Israel would be snuff And within 30 mins of that, Iran would be a crater, correct? Yes. Some happy martyrs and a whole lot of innocents snuffed out." Second time you’ve made the claim that those involved in the upper echelons of Iran’s leadership/military command are ‘martyrs’ Can I ask you for evidence? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When I raised it the other day, nobody was able to intellectually engage with me asking why Iran shouldn’t have nukes beyond a very primitive ‘Iran Bad’.. I’d argue that depriving everyone of nuclear weapons is the ideal outcome, right?... Why does nuclear access boil down to western exceptionalism?" You've kind of answered your own question. Nobody wants anyone else to have nukes. For the same reason that you don't want anyone to have nukes, most countries don't want other countries to have them. If there were a way to remove all nuclear weapons from the world and endure that they never appear again, that would be great. But that's not the world we live in. You discuss Western exceptionalism. Of the countries who possess nuclear weapons, most are not Western. India, China, Pakistan, Russia, North Korea, Vs US/UK/France. Of the countries who don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, there's no East/West split. Should Thailand or Greece want nuclear weapons, the objections would be about equivalent. The reason for not wanting Iran to have nuclear weapons is that they are a particularly belligerent state who openly calls for the USA and Israel to be obliterated and, to boot, they are religious extremists who behave irrationally and will punish the innocent as leverage to obtain money or political concessions. So it's not surprising that nations who are allies of, or at least friendly with, any of their enemies, including those who would potentially be affected (such as the Gulf countries), would be averse to Iran having nuclear weapons. So that's not really a matter of Western exceptionalism. And yes, if Greece or Turkey wanted nuclear weapons, there would be objections, but not the same horror at the thought as Iran. For the reasons given above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When I raised it the other day, nobody was able to intellectually engage with me asking why Iran shouldn’t have nukes beyond a very primitive ‘Iran Bad’.. I’d argue that depriving everyone of nuclear weapons is the ideal outcome, right?... Why does nuclear access boil down to western exceptionalism? You've kind of answered your own question. Nobody wants anyone else to have nukes. For the same reason that you don't want anyone to have nukes, most countries don't want other countries to have them. If there were a way to remove all nuclear weapons from the world and endure that they never appear again, that would be great. But that's not the world we live in. You discuss Western exceptionalism. Of the countries who possess nuclear weapons, most are not Western. India, China, Pakistan, Russia, North Korea, Vs US/UK/France. Of the countries who don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, there's no East/West split. Should Thailand or Greece want nuclear weapons, the objections would be about equivalent. The reason for not wanting Iran to have nuclear weapons is that they are a particularly belligerent state who openly calls for the USA and Israel to be obliterated and, to boot, they are religious extremists who behave irrationally and will punish the innocent as leverage to obtain money or political concessions. So it's not surprising that nations who are allies of, or at least friendly with, any of their enemies, including those who would potentially be affected (such as the Gulf countries), would be averse to Iran having nuclear weapons. So that's not really a matter of Western exceptionalism. And yes, if Greece or Turkey wanted nuclear weapons, there would be objections, but not the same horror at the thought as Iran. For the reasons given above." It is western exceptionalism, because the west dictates who is or isn’t allowed nukes based upon how the west views the nation who wants them. Nations are sovereign, are they not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If they had nuclear now all of Israel would be snuff And within 30 mins of that, Iran would be a crater, correct? Yes. Some happy martyrs and a whole lot of innocents snuffed out. Second time you’ve made the claim that those involved in the upper echelons of Iran’s leadership/military command are ‘martyrs’ Can I ask you for evidence?" Yes. IRGC communications: Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, Commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force: "I wished I were dead and I would not witness such an accident. We have prepared ourselves for martyrdom and sacrificing our lives for the people for a lifetime." Major General Qasem Soleimani, Commander of the IRGC Quds Force: "Brothers and sisters! Know that the Islamic Republic is a sanctuary. If this sanctuary is preserved, other sanctuaries will be preserved. If the enemy destroys this sanctuary, no sanctuary—neither the sanctuaries of Ibrahim nor Muhammad—will remain... I am a candidate for martyrdom; I have sought it in plains and mountains. God, accept me." Major General Abdolrahim Mousavi, Commander-in-Chief of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army (Artesh): "The Army and the Armed Forces, under the command of the Supreme Leader, are ready to sacrifice their lives and embrace martyrdom to defend the independence, territorial integrity, and the sacred system of the Islamic Republic against any foreign aggression." Brigadier General Hossein Salami, Deputy Commander of the IRGC: "We are planning to break America, Israel, and their partners and allies. Our ground forces should cleanse the planet from the filth of their existence... We have a plan. We are organized and motivated. We have faith. We have martyrdom." If you want more, check out the RNN (Resistance News Network - Hezbollah news) channel on Telegram. It's a very, very good view into the belligerent Shia mindset. Everything is martyrdom, and they double add a mouthpiece for the Iranian regime. At least fifty times per day, you'll find statements from IRGC/Iranian regime and Hezbollah on martyrdom. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It is western exceptionalism, because the west dictates who is or isn’t allowed nukes based upon how the west views the nation who wants them. " The most powerful countries control the less powerful countries. This includes Russia, China and others. What do you think would happen if Taiwan had nuclear aspirations? Look at what Russia did when it felt Ukraine became a threat. You've got a Western bee in your bonnet, perhaps. " Nations are sovereign, are they not? " Until they piss off other, more powerful, nations (in whatever hemisphere). That's life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If they had nuclear now all of Israel would be snuff And within 30 mins of that, Iran would be a crater, correct? Yes. Some happy martyrs and a whole lot of innocents snuffed out. Second time you’ve made the claim that those involved in the upper echelons of Iran’s leadership/military command are ‘martyrs’ Can I ask you for evidence? Yes. IRGC communications: Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, Commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force: "I wished I were dead and I would not witness such an accident. We have prepared ourselves for martyrdom and sacrificing our lives for the people for a lifetime." Major General Qasem Soleimani, Commander of the IRGC Quds Force: "Brothers and sisters! Know that the Islamic Republic is a sanctuary. If this sanctuary is preserved, other sanctuaries will be preserved. If the enemy destroys this sanctuary, no sanctuary—neither the sanctuaries of Ibrahim nor Muhammad—will remain... I am a candidate for martyrdom; I have sought it in plains and mountains. God, accept me." Major General Abdolrahim Mousavi, Commander-in-Chief of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army (Artesh): "The Army and the Armed Forces, under the command of the Supreme Leader, are ready to sacrifice their lives and embrace martyrdom to defend the independence, territorial integrity, and the sacred system of the Islamic Republic against any foreign aggression." Brigadier General Hossein Salami, Deputy Commander of the IRGC: "We are planning to break America, Israel, and their partners and allies. Our ground forces should cleanse the planet from the filth of their existence... We have a plan. We are organized and motivated. We have faith. We have martyrdom." If you want more, check out the RNN (Resistance News Network - Hezbollah news) channel on Telegram. It's a very, very good view into the belligerent Shia mindset. Everything is martyrdom, and they double add a mouthpiece for the Iranian regime. At least fifty times per day, you'll find statements from IRGC/Iranian regime and Hezbollah on martyrdom." That’s a very fair response - I was aware that Iran refers to its war dead as martyrs - which is meaningless as their military is conscripted. As such, any claims that the military as a whole are willing to sacrifice their lives are horse-shit. However any high ranking official referring to themselves as a martyr is a valid point. And I still don’t believe they’d launch a nuke - because it’s utterly illogical. It doesn’t just kill them, it destroys their bloodline, their homeland, and ultimately their ideology (as much of the world would ultimately be ruined within hours of the first nuke). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It is western exceptionalism, because the west dictates who is or isn’t allowed nukes based upon how the west views the nation who wants them. The most powerful countries control the less powerful countries. This includes Russia, China and others. What do you think would happen if Taiwan had nuclear aspirations? Look at what Russia did when it felt Ukraine became a threat. You've got a Western bee in your bonnet, perhaps. Nations are sovereign, are they not? Until they piss off other, more powerful, nations (in whatever hemisphere). That's life." That is indeed life - but is it right? That’s the crux of the argument. And no, I don’t have a bee in my bonnet, this is an intellectual discussion about morality and power. Iran are the topic here but it could be any nation. If Ireland suddenly became a nuclear superpower - I suspect they’d be allowed in the club. What about Cuba? What about Colombia? What about Ukraine regaining nukes (that would be an interesting debate indeed) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To take Iranian threat of bombing the UK as futile would ve huge mistake. They don't need to launch a long range missile at UK as they know we're on gaurd. However they can launch from a commercial jet or use a commercial or private jet to do the job. The most likely method would be a huge possible nuclear bomb in the back of a juggernaut lorry. It can be delivered to a precise target without detection. No one at present is checking such vehicles currently which are buzzing around the country or Europe. " Where are Iran getting this huge nuclear bomb from? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Where are Iran getting this huge nuclear bomb from? " The threat to Europe is almost certainly overblown at this point. They're much more likely to spend anything nuclear that they can glean on Israel. But, in theory, it would be a dirty bomb. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Where are Iran getting this huge nuclear bomb from? The threat to Europe is almost certainly overblown at this point. They're much more likely to spend anything nuclear that they can glean on Israel. But, in theory, it would be a dirty bomb." I would argue that the largest nuclear threat in the world at this precise moment sits in the Oval Office (and I think that threat is very low - even the orange buffoon isn’t that thick, and has advisors who’d soon get it stopped) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To take Iranian threat of bombing the UK as futile would ve huge mistake. They don't need to launch a long range missile at UK as they know we're on gaurd. However they can launch from a commercial jet or use a commercial or private jet to do the job. The most likely method would be a huge possible nuclear bomb in the back of a juggernaut lorry. It can be delivered to a precise target without detection. No one at present is checking such vehicles currently which are buzzing around the country or Europe. Where are Iran getting this huge nuclear bomb from? " Top two contenders Russia and Belarus, next North Korea and China. Or they steal one our own war heads. Or they've had one stored hidden in the UK from a while back. The post cold war USSR lost a dozen or so Suitcase/breif case weapons in UKraine. some may have been sold to Iran over the years. The point is not where they got a weapon is when are they going to use it. The clock is ticking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The point is not where they got a weapon is when are they going to use it. The clock is ticking. " Iran have had more nuclear inspections than some other nations in the NPT, by the way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surly this must be a figment of our imagination, as Trump said that all the missiles been totally obliterated 100%. But thinking about it, we all know how shit Trump is when it comes to percentages. "And up until now. Iran's missiles, could only travel 2,000 km's max. Now they can travel double the distance? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surly this must be a figment of our imagination, as Trump said that all the missiles been totally obliterated 100%. But thinking about it, we all know how shit Trump is when it comes to percentages.
And up until now. Iran's missiles, could only travel 2,000 km's max. Now they can travel double the distance?"Has anybody considered the possibility that Diego Garcia could be a US/Israeli false flag? Seems right on cue to me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surly this must be a figment of our imagination, as Trump said that all the missiles been totally obliterated 100%. But thinking about it, we all know how shit Trump is when it comes to percentages.
And up until now. Iran's missiles, could only travel 2,000 km's max. Now they can travel double the distance?
Has anybody considered the possibility that Diego Garcia could be a US/Israeli false flag?
Seems right on cue to me."Missiles are tracked nowadays and point of origin is known. Iran claimed responsibility for it. So you're suggesting a collaboration between Israel, Iran, UK and the US. If that's happening, then this whole thing is theatre... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, I’m not sure I buy the suggestion that the Iranians obtaining a nuke would stop the world keeping Iran in check, else The West wouldn’t currently be fighting a conventional war of attrition against Russia in Ukraine would they?" The West isn't fighting in Ukraine, are they? If Russia didn't have nuclear weapons, then the West would be doing to Russia what they're doing to Iran. Or, more likely, Russia would've given up at the mere threat of that. So clearly, nuclear weapons have enabled Russia to prosecute this war by keeping other nations out of it, for the threat of retribution. Putin has played his "mad actor" perfectly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surly this must be a figment of our imagination, as Trump said that all the missiles been totally obliterated 100%. But thinking about it, we all know how shit Trump is when it comes to percentages.
And up until now. Iran's missiles, could only travel 2,000 km's max. Now they can travel double the distance?
Has anybody considered the possibility that Diego Garcia could be a US/Israeli false flag?
Seems right on cue to me.
Missiles are tracked nowadays and point of origin is known. Iran claimed responsibility for it.
So you're suggesting a collaboration between Israel, Iran, UK and the US.
If that's happening, then this whole thing is theatre..."Ah I heard the Iranians denied it. “A senior Iranian official told Al Jazeera on Sunday that Iran was not responsible for and was not behind missile attacks on the Diego Garcia military base in the Indian Ocean. The denial came after the Wall Street Journal reported Friday that two intermediate-range ballistic missiles had been fired toward the base, with neither striking it.” For the record, I wouldn’t trust any western intelligence after Iraq. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, I’m not sure I buy the suggestion that the Iranians obtaining a nuke would stop the world keeping Iran in check, else The West wouldn’t currently be fighting a conventional war of attrition against Russia in Ukraine would they? The West isn't fighting in Ukraine, are they? If Russia didn't have nuclear weapons, then the West would be doing to Russia what they're doing to Iran. Or, more likely, Russia would've given up at the mere threat of that. So clearly, nuclear weapons have enabled Russia to prosecute this war by keeping other nations out of it, for the threat of retribution. Putin has played his "mad actor" perfectly." The West aren’t fighting in Ukraine? I think we are splitting hairs. The West are certainly fighting in Ukraine remotely. Providing weapons, training, intelligence, enabling some strikes into Russia itself (& maybe) some limited special forces involvement. But we can agree to disagree on what constitutes ‘fighting’. Yes, nuclear weapons have insured Russia against being pummelled as Iran is being pummelled. But they haven’t insured it from facing a conventional challenge to its expansionism beyond its own borders. That is keeping (or at least attempting to keep) Russia ‘in check’ despite them having the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surly this must be a figment of our imagination, as Trump said that all the missiles been totally obliterated 100%. But thinking about it, we all know how shit Trump is when it comes to percentages.
And up until now. Iran's missiles, could only travel 2,000 km's max. Now they can travel double the distance?
Has anybody considered the possibility that Diego Garcia could be a US/Israeli false flag?
Seems right on cue to me."Definitely the Jews. They are behind everything, even the attacks on themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surly this must be a figment of our imagination, as Trump said that all the missiles been totally obliterated 100%. But thinking about it, we all know how shit Trump is when it comes to percentages.
And up until now. Iran's missiles, could only travel 2,000 km's max. Now they can travel double the distance?
Has anybody considered the possibility that Diego Garcia could be a US/Israeli false flag?
Seems right on cue to me.
Definitely the Jews. They are behind everything, even the attacks on themselves. "Well in this instance they would be actually, because Netanyahu is the one along with Trump who kicked off this latest ‘episode’ thus inviting Iranian missile retaliation. Didn’t see any Iranian missiles flying towards Israel before Feb 28th, did you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Didn’t see any Iranian missiles flying towards Israel before Feb 28th, did you?" Yes. Just fired by Houthis and Hezbollah... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Didn’t see any Iranian missiles flying towards Israel before Feb 28th, did you? Yes. Just fired by Houthis and Hezbollah..." Pretty quiet since last years war? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ah I heard the Iranians denied it. “A senior Iranian official told Al Jazeera on Sunday that Iran was not responsible for and was not behind missile attacks on the Diego Garcia military base in the Indian Ocean. The denial came after the Wall Street Journal reported Friday that two intermediate-range ballistic missiles had been fired toward the base, with neither striking it.”" To be honest, there are two problems at the moment. One is that the right and left hand don't know what each other are doing. This is by design: the Iranian system is designed to survive a decapitation attack by delegating complete control down the chain - all the way to the bottom. So you'll notice a whole lot of this going on over the past week. The political echelon will promise that they're not attacking Turkey, Qatari infrastructure, whatever... And two hours later, they'll attack it. This is the downside of the delegated autonomy strategy. The other is that what state TV says is often at odds with the military, for propaganda purposes. So if it were true that it was a false flag, the Iranians wouldn't necessarily know either way! That said, it would be absolutely known by any state or military in the area. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surly this must be a figment of our imagination, as Trump said that all the missiles been totally obliterated 100%. But thinking about it, we all know how shit Trump is when it comes to percentages.
And up until now. Iran's missiles, could only travel 2,000 km's max. Now they can travel double the distance?
Has anybody considered the possibility that Diego Garcia could be a US/Israeli false flag?
Seems right on cue to me.
Definitely the Jews. They are behind everything, even the attacks on themselves.
Well in this instance they would be actually, because Netanyahu is the one along with Trump who kicked off this latest ‘episode’ thus inviting Iranian missile retaliation.
Didn’t see any Iranian missiles flying towards Israel before Feb 28th, did you?"What an extraordinary claim. Iran has been attacking Israel since the 1980s. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So if it were true that it was a false flag, the Iranians wouldn't necessarily know either way! That said, it would be absolutely known by any state or military in the area." And shared especially by those states opposed to Israel and America.. Israel arent that daft.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ah I heard the Iranians denied it. “A senior Iranian official told Al Jazeera on Sunday that Iran was not responsible for and was not behind missile attacks on the Diego Garcia military base in the Indian Ocean. The denial came after the Wall Street Journal reported Friday that two intermediate-range ballistic missiles had been fired toward the base, with neither striking it.” To be honest, there are two problems at the moment. One is that the right and left hand don't know what each other are doing. This is by design: the Iranian system is designed to survive a decapitation attack by delegating complete control down the chain - all the way to the bottom. So you'll notice a whole lot of this going on over the past week. The political echelon will promise that they're not attacking Turkey, Qatari infrastructure, whatever... And two hours later, they'll attack it. This is the downside of the delegated autonomy strategy. The other is that what state TV says is often at odds with the military, for propaganda purposes. So if it were true that it was a false flag, the Iranians wouldn't necessarily know either way! That said, it would be absolutely known by any state or military in the area." “the right and left hand don't know what each other are doing” Looking at Trump’s ‘strategy’, I feel it isn’t only the Iranians who have these shortcomings to be fair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surly this must be a figment of our imagination, as Trump said that all the missiles been totally obliterated 100%. But thinking about it, we all know how shit Trump is when it comes to percentages.
And up until now. Iran's missiles, could only travel 2,000 km's max. Now they can travel double the distance?
Has anybody considered the possibility that Diego Garcia could be a US/Israeli false flag?
Seems right on cue to me.
Definitely the Jews. They are behind everything, even the attacks on themselves.
Well in this instance they would be actually, because Netanyahu is the one along with Trump who kicked off this latest ‘episode’ thus inviting Iranian missile retaliation.
Didn’t see any Iranian missiles flying towards Israel before Feb 28th, did you?
What an extraordinary claim. Iran has been attacking Israel since the 1980s."Yes & as I pointed out the other day, hatred of Israel didn’t materialise out of thin air, if we are getting historical. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surly this must be a figment of our imagination, as Trump said that all the missiles been totally obliterated 100%. But thinking about it, we all know how shit Trump is when it comes to percentages.
And up until now. Iran's missiles, could only travel 2,000 km's max. Now they can travel double the distance?
Has anybody considered the possibility that Diego Garcia could be a US/Israeli false flag?
Seems right on cue to me.
Definitely the Jews. They are behind everything, even the attacks on themselves.
Well in this instance they would be actually, because Netanyahu is the one along with Trump who kicked off this latest ‘episode’ thus inviting Iranian missile retaliation.
Didn’t see any Iranian missiles flying towards Israel before Feb 28th, did you?
What an extraordinary claim. Iran has been attacking Israel since the 1980s.
Yes & as I pointed out the other day, hatred of Israel didn’t materialise out of thin air, if we are getting historical."I understand  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surly this must be a figment of our imagination, as Trump said that all the missiles been totally obliterated 100%. But thinking about it, we all know how shit Trump is when it comes to percentages.
And up until now. Iran's missiles, could only travel 2,000 km's max. Now they can travel double the distance?
Has anybody considered the possibility that Diego Garcia could be a US/Israeli false flag?
Seems right on cue to me.
Definitely the Jews. They are behind everything, even the attacks on themselves.
Well in this instance they would be actually, because Netanyahu is the one along with Trump who kicked off this latest ‘episode’ thus inviting Iranian missile retaliation.
Didn’t see any Iranian missiles flying towards Israel before Feb 28th, did you?"you haven't seen iranian missiles flying towards Israel before February? Really .what do you think hamas and hezbolah have been fiting at israel for decades fireworks? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surly this must be a figment of our imagination, as Trump said that all the missiles been totally obliterated 100%. But thinking about it, we all know how shit Trump is when it comes to percentages.
And up until now. Iran's missiles, could only travel 2,000 km's max. Now they can travel double the distance?
Has anybody considered the possibility that Diego Garcia could be a US/Israeli false flag?
Seems right on cue to me.
Definitely the Jews. They are behind everything, even the attacks on themselves.
Well in this instance they would be actually, because Netanyahu is the one along with Trump who kicked off this latest ‘episode’ thus inviting Iranian missile retaliation.
Didn’t see any Iranian missiles flying towards Israel before Feb 28th, did you?you haven't seen iranian missiles flying towards Israel before February? Really .what do you think hamas and hezbolah have been fiting at israel for decades fireworks?"Fireworks? Well tbf, they haven’t had much more of an effect than fireworks would have considering what has come the other way over the years… Like I’ve said, look at the causes of the resentment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump says it’s won and nearly over while also sending more troops. Ground invasion is on the way. " The problem for the US electorate is if they wanted to disengage, AIPAC have the Reps & Dems sewn up. More & more of them are realising this though, and US public opinion on Israel is headed downwards. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surly this must be a figment of our imagination, as Trump said that all the missiles been totally obliterated 100%. But thinking about it, we all know how shit Trump is when it comes to percentages.
And up until now. Iran's missiles, could only travel 2,000 km's max. Now they can travel double the distance?
Has anybody considered the possibility that Diego Garcia could be a US/Israeli false flag?
Seems right on cue to me.
Definitely the Jews. They are behind everything, even the attacks on themselves.
Well in this instance they would be actually, because Netanyahu is the one along with Trump who kicked off this latest ‘episode’ thus inviting Iranian missile retaliation.
Didn’t see any Iranian missiles flying towards Israel before Feb 28th, did you?you haven't seen iranian missiles flying towards Israel before February? Really .what do you think hamas and hezbolah have been fiting at israel for decades fireworks?
Fireworks? Well tbf, they haven’t had much more of an effect than fireworks would have considering what has come the other way over the years…
Like I’ve said, look at the causes of the resentment."Do you think that should only be valid one way? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surly this must be a figment of our imagination, as Trump said that all the missiles been totally obliterated 100%. But thinking about it, we all know how shit Trump is when it comes to percentages.
And up until now. Iran's missiles, could only travel 2,000 km's max. Now they can travel double the distance?
Has anybody considered the possibility that Diego Garcia could be a US/Israeli false flag?
Seems right on cue to me.
Definitely the Jews. They are behind everything, even the attacks on themselves.
Well in this instance they would be actually, because Netanyahu is the one along with Trump who kicked off this latest ‘episode’ thus inviting Iranian missile retaliation.
Didn’t see any Iranian missiles flying towards Israel before Feb 28th, did you?you haven't seen iranian missiles flying towards Israel before February? Really .what do you think hamas and hezbolah have been fiting at israel for decades fireworks?
Fireworks? Well tbf, they haven’t had much more of an effect than fireworks would have considering what has come the other way over the years…
Like I’ve said, look at the causes of the resentment.
Do you think that should only be valid one way? "After many decades of these conflicts, shouldn’t people be a bit beyond ‘they started it’? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surly this must be a figment of our imagination, as Trump said that all the missiles been totally obliterated 100%. But thinking about it, we all know how shit Trump is when it comes to percentages.
And up until now. Iran's missiles, could only travel 2,000 km's max. Now they can travel double the distance?
Has anybody considered the possibility that Diego Garcia could be a US/Israeli false flag?
Seems right on cue to me.
Definitely the Jews. They are behind everything, even the attacks on themselves.
Well in this instance they would be actually, because Netanyahu is the one along with Trump who kicked off this latest ‘episode’ thus inviting Iranian missile retaliation.
Didn’t see any Iranian missiles flying towards Israel before Feb 28th, did you?you haven't seen iranian missiles flying towards Israel before February? Really .what do you think hamas and hezbolah have been fiting at israel for decades fireworks?
Fireworks? Well tbf, they haven’t had much more of an effect than fireworks would have considering what has come the other way over the years…
Like I’ve said, look at the causes of the resentment.
Do you think that should only be valid one way? "No, but the Arabs were shafted by the UN in the first instance after the Brits washed their hands of it which really got the ball rolling & it’s been rolling ever since. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"- something they may have in common with the maddest of the Iranian mullahs ironically." This is the most prescient thing in this thread. Extreme Ideologies on all sides, whether one is ‘better’ than the other being determined solely by which bit of earth you were by chance born upon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surly this must be a figment of our imagination, as Trump said that all the missiles been totally obliterated 100%. But thinking about it, we all know how shit Trump is when it comes to percentages.
And up until now. Iran's missiles, could only travel 2,000 km's max. Now they can travel double the distance?
Has anybody considered the possibility that Diego Garcia could be a US/Israeli false flag?
Seems right on cue to me."One BBC news report said it happened a day or two after it all kicked off. The other channel said it happened on either last Fri or Sat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump with his latest 24 hour ultimatum will look like an idiot or he will follow through his threat and destroy power plants. Iran in response will attack the energy infrastructure of the gulf states. Power, oil and desalination plants. This can easily set back the whole region back many, many years. It takes years to build infrastructure. Grim outlook for the world economy. This unnecessary war turns more and more into a lose lose situation for everybody… …and Trump & Netanyahu started it. Old men who aren’t for this world much longer so neither of them seem to give much of a feck - something they may have in common with the maddest of the Iranian mullahs ironically." As discussed further up in this thread, Iran's regime has proven to be the threat they were thought to be. I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. There must be a point of enough is enough, European attitudes of negotiation at all costs, plays into the hands of the regime as they continue to progress their agenda unchecked. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. " Who has supported the Iranian regime? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. Who has supported the Iranian regime? " Hamas, Hezbollah and Russia which is also the chief supplier of arms and weaponry to Iran. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. Who has supported the Iranian regime? Hamas, Hezbollah and Russia which is also the chief supplier of arms and weaponry to Iran." Any of those on this forum, then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. Who has supported the Iranian regime? " 🙊 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. Who has supported the Iranian regime? 🙊" What’s up? Don’t have an answer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think it has shone a light on the risk Iran brings ot world peace. Imagine if they did have nuclear. Why would they launch a nuke? Why would anyone? What reaction is it going to get? Because it is a fanatical theoretical state. So they want their own state to be obliterated moments after they launch this theoretical nuke? The religious leadership quite possibly, not most Iranians. What’s the benefit of any nation launching a nuke? There is no benefit but your question presupposes that nations always act rationally. Which we know is not true." Absolutely correct The US has an irrational fat freak on an ego trip | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems Iran fired two missiles at Diego Garcia, one failed and the US shot down the other, as the UK has zero defences against such attacks. Naturally the Govt has not thanked our allies for their help. "“Thanks for intercepting that missile that you caused to be launched” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems Iran fired two missiles at Diego Garcia, one failed and the US shot down the other, as the UK has zero defences against such attacks. Naturally the Govt has not thanked our allies for their help.
“Thanks for intercepting that missile that you caused to be launched”"Suicidal empathy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump with his latest 24 hour ultimatum will look like an idiot or he will follow through his threat and destroy power plants. Iran in response will attack the energy infrastructure of the gulf states. Power, oil and desalination plants. This can easily set back the whole region back many, many years. It takes years to build infrastructure. Grim outlook for the world economy. This unnecessary war turns more and more into a lose lose situation for everybody… …and Trump & Netanyahu started it. Old men who aren’t for this world much longer so neither of them seem to give much of a feck - something they may have in common with the maddest of the Iranian mullahs ironically. As discussed further up in this thread, Iran's regime has proven to be the threat they were thought to be. I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. There must be a point of enough is enough, European attitudes of negotiation at all costs, plays into the hands of the regime as they continue to progress their agenda unchecked. " I don’t think the time to go to war with them was just yet. The talks were ongoing were they not? Trump said he decimated their nuclear sites last year - so was he lying? Johnathan Powell said a deal ‘was within reach’. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems Iran fired two missiles at Diego Garcia, one failed and the US shot down the other, as the UK has zero defences against such attacks. Naturally the Govt has not thanked our allies for their help.
“Thanks for intercepting that missile that you caused to be launched”
Suicidal empathy."Or perhaps just don’t blindly accept following the USA into illegal wars. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. Who has supported the Iranian regime? 🙊 What’s up? Don’t have an answer? " I was under the impression that, on Fab, if you don't answer within 3 minutes you get blocked! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. Who has supported the Iranian regime? 🙊 What’s up? Don’t have an answer? I was under the impression that, on Fab, if you don't answer within 3 minutes you get blocked!" That explains a lot ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When the US led alliance invaded Iraq we discovered the threat from that country had been greatly exaggerated or fabricated. With Iran we have discovered the opposite, that the threat and willingness to use force is much greater than the regime's apologists have been saying. Either we confront that threat now or in the future when it will be greater still, including the ability to attack Europe directly." Have they discovered the nuclear weapons that have been weeks away from completion for about 20 years? Did they change the regime? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When the US led alliance invaded Iraq we discovered the threat from that country had been greatly exaggerated or fabricated. With Iran we have discovered the opposite, that the threat and willingness to use force is much greater than the regime's apologists have been saying. Either we confront that threat now or in the future when it will be greater still, including the ability to attack Europe directly. Have they discovered the nuclear weapons that have been weeks away from completion for about 20 years? Did they change the regime? " I have not read anything from you on this subject other than, US and Israel have broken International law or how wrong the US are. I could easily have missed some of your posts, forgive me if I have, however I would very interested to understand any proposal or thoughts you have on Iran that would resolve the issues and threats from them? Or maybe you feel Iran is not an actual threat to the West? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When the US led alliance invaded Iraq we discovered the threat from that country had been greatly exaggerated or fabricated. With Iran we have discovered the opposite, that the threat and willingness to use force is much greater than the regime's apologists have been saying. Either we confront that threat now or in the future when it will be greater still, including the ability to attack Europe directly. Have they discovered the nuclear weapons that have been weeks away from completion for about 20 years? Did they change the regime? I have not read anything from you on this subject other than, US and Israel have broken International law or how wrong the US are. I could easily have missed some of your posts, forgive me if I have, however I would very interested to understand any proposal or thoughts you have on Iran that would resolve the issues and threats from them? Or maybe you feel Iran is not an actual threat to the West?" I feel that whilst talks were ongoing, talks should have continued. That seems like an eminently sensible approach, does it not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump with his latest 24 hour ultimatum will look like an idiot or he will follow through his threat and destroy power plants. Iran in response will attack the energy infrastructure of the gulf states. Power, oil and desalination plants. This can easily set back the whole region back many, many years. It takes years to build infrastructure. Grim outlook for the world economy. This unnecessary war turns more and more into a lose lose situation for everybody… …and Trump & Netanyahu started it. Old men who aren’t for this world much longer so neither of them seem to give much of a feck - something they may have in common with the maddest of the Iranian mullahs ironically. As discussed further up in this thread, Iran's regime has proven to be the threat they were thought to be. I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. There must be a point of enough is enough, European attitudes of negotiation at all costs, plays into the hands of the regime as they continue to progress their agenda unchecked. I don’t think the time to go to war with them was just yet. The talks were ongoing were they not? Trump said he decimated their nuclear sites last year - so was he lying? Johnathan Powell said a deal ‘was within reach’. " That is a view which seems to be shared by many European leaders, but it lacks assertiveness which in turn simply burns time and that outcome would always favour Iran more than the west. In 2008 France and Germany blocked Ukraine joining Nato in the hope of not upsetting the Russians, look how that ended up coming back to bite us all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump with his latest 24 hour ultimatum will look like an idiot or he will follow through his threat and destroy power plants. Iran in response will attack the energy infrastructure of the gulf states. Power, oil and desalination plants. This can easily set back the whole region back many, many years. It takes years to build infrastructure. Grim outlook for the world economy. This unnecessary war turns more and more into a lose lose situation for everybody… …and Trump & Netanyahu started it. Old men who aren’t for this world much longer so neither of them seem to give much of a feck - something they may have in common with the maddest of the Iranian mullahs ironically. As discussed further up in this thread, Iran's regime has proven to be the threat they were thought to be. I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. There must be a point of enough is enough, European attitudes of negotiation at all costs, plays into the hands of the regime as they continue to progress their agenda unchecked. I don’t think the time to go to war with them was just yet. The talks were ongoing were they not? Trump said he decimated their nuclear sites last year - so was he lying? Johnathan Powell said a deal ‘was within reach’. That is a view which seems to be shared by many European leaders, but it lacks assertiveness which in turn simply burns time and that outcome would always favour Iran more than the west. In 2008 France and Germany blocked Ukraine joining Nato in the hope of not upsetting the Russians, look how that ended up coming back to bite us all." And yet reports in late February said that talks were progressing well, and Iran were making concessions, remember? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When the US led alliance invaded Iraq we discovered the threat from that country had been greatly exaggerated or fabricated. With Iran we have discovered the opposite, that the threat and willingness to use force is much greater than the regime's apologists have been saying. Either we confront that threat now or in the future when it will be greater still, including the ability to attack Europe directly." Islamic country with nuclear capabilities is a no go. Ukraine will be very grateful for the cessation/reduction of Iranian drones falling on their cities. (WSJ says 57,000 supplied to Russia) Global economic damage is vast, $2trn energy market alone with 20%+ increases. When Trump starts hitting Iran’s energy network this week will be interesting where this goes next | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When the US led alliance invaded Iraq we discovered the threat from that country had been greatly exaggerated or fabricated. With Iran we have discovered the opposite, that the threat and willingness to use force is much greater than the regime's apologists have been saying. Either we confront that threat now or in the future when it will be greater still, including the ability to attack Europe directly. Have they discovered the nuclear weapons that have been weeks away from completion for about 20 years? Did they change the regime? I have not read anything from you on this subject other than, US and Israel have broken International law or how wrong the US are. I could easily have missed some of your posts, forgive me if I have, however I would very interested to understand any proposal or thoughts you have on Iran that would resolve the issues and threats from them? Or maybe you feel Iran is not an actual threat to the West? I feel that whilst talks were ongoing, talks should have continued. That seems like an eminently sensible approach, does it not? " Is it sensible if real progress is not being made, the key is real not perceived. I guess the question would be, do you believe there is ever a time to stop talks and take action? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump with his latest 24 hour ultimatum will look like an idiot or he will follow through his threat and destroy power plants. Iran in response will attack the energy infrastructure of the gulf states. Power, oil and desalination plants. This can easily set back the whole region back many, many years. It takes years to build infrastructure. Grim outlook for the world economy. This unnecessary war turns more and more into a lose lose situation for everybody… …and Trump & Netanyahu started it. Old men who aren’t for this world much longer so neither of them seem to give much of a feck - something they may have in common with the maddest of the Iranian mullahs ironically. As discussed further up in this thread, Iran's regime has proven to be the threat they were thought to be. I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. There must be a point of enough is enough, European attitudes of negotiation at all costs, plays into the hands of the regime as they continue to progress their agenda unchecked. I don’t think the time to go to war with them was just yet. The talks were ongoing were they not? Trump said he decimated their nuclear sites last year - so was he lying? Johnathan Powell said a deal ‘was within reach’. That is a view which seems to be shared by many European leaders, but it lacks assertiveness which in turn simply burns time and that outcome would always favour Iran more than the west. In 2008 France and Germany blocked Ukraine joining Nato in the hope of not upsetting the Russians, look how that ended up coming back to bite us all. And yet reports in late February said that talks were progressing well, and Iran were making concessions, remember?" Diplomacy can be very confusing if being used as a tool. We wont really know if they were or were not. Can we can assume they weren't as the action that followed seems to indicate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When the US led alliance invaded Iraq we discovered the threat from that country had been greatly exaggerated or fabricated. With Iran we have discovered the opposite, that the threat and willingness to use force is much greater than the regime's apologists have been saying. Either we confront that threat now or in the future when it will be greater still, including the ability to attack Europe directly. Have they discovered the nuclear weapons that have been weeks away from completion for about 20 years? Did they change the regime? I have not read anything from you on this subject other than, US and Israel have broken International law or how wrong the US are. I could easily have missed some of your posts, forgive me if I have, however I would very interested to understand any proposal or thoughts you have on Iran that would resolve the issues and threats from them? Or maybe you feel Iran is not an actual threat to the West? I feel that whilst talks were ongoing, talks should have continued. That seems like an eminently sensible approach, does it not? Is it sensible if real progress is not being made, the key is real not perceived. I guess the question would be, do you believe there is ever a time to stop talks and take action? " How ca ‘real progress’ be made if you stop talks before the progress is still in the discussion phase? An ‘taking action’ should be dependent upon international law. Otherwise the nation taking the action is no different from any other rogue nation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump with his latest 24 hour ultimatum will look like an idiot or he will follow through his threat and destroy power plants. Iran in response will attack the energy infrastructure of the gulf states. Power, oil and desalination plants. This can easily set back the whole region back many, many years. It takes years to build infrastructure. Grim outlook for the world economy. This unnecessary war turns more and more into a lose lose situation for everybody… …and Trump & Netanyahu started it. Old men who aren’t for this world much longer so neither of them seem to give much of a feck - something they may have in common with the maddest of the Iranian mullahs ironically. As discussed further up in this thread, Iran's regime has proven to be the threat they were thought to be. I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. There must be a point of enough is enough, European attitudes of negotiation at all costs, plays into the hands of the regime as they continue to progress their agenda unchecked. I don’t think the time to go to war with them was just yet. The talks were ongoing were they not? Trump said he decimated their nuclear sites last year - so was he lying? Johnathan Powell said a deal ‘was within reach’. That is a view which seems to be shared by many European leaders, but it lacks assertiveness which in turn simply burns time and that outcome would always favour Iran more than the west. In 2008 France and Germany blocked Ukraine joining Nato in the hope of not upsetting the Russians, look how that ended up coming back to bite us all. And yet reports in late February said that talks were progressing well, and Iran were making concessions, remember? Diplomacy can be very confusing if being used as a tool. We wont really know if they were or were not. Can we can assume they weren't as the action that followed seems to indicate. " The action that followed was started by an aggressor in the USA and Israel. Now Iran’s attack on sovereign neighbours are illegal, and should cease - but they have the right to defend themselves against aggressors (in this case Israel and the USA) whether we agree with their regime or not Do you believe that nations have the right to defend themselves whether you agree with their regime or not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"36 hours left for Iran to acknowledge Trumps demands If not Iranian civilians will wake up Tuesday with no electricity. " I'm thinking this is one of Trump's bully boy tactics. He knows Europe will be affected far more than the US if the straights of Hormuz continue to be blocked and he wants European countries to force it open but they are not agreeing to do so. If he does go ahead and bomb then Iran will destroy all neighbouring countries infrastructure. We could all be waking up to no electricity | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump with his latest 24 hour ultimatum will look like an idiot or he will follow through his threat and destroy power plants. Iran in response will attack the energy infrastructure of the gulf states. Power, oil and desalination plants. This can easily set back the whole region back many, many years. It takes years to build infrastructure. Grim outlook for the world economy. This unnecessary war turns more and more into a lose lose situation for everybody… …and Trump & Netanyahu started it. Old men who aren’t for this world much longer so neither of them seem to give much of a feck - something they may have in common with the maddest of the Iranian mullahs ironically. As discussed further up in this thread, Iran's regime has proven to be the threat they were thought to be. I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. There must be a point of enough is enough, European attitudes of negotiation at all costs, plays into the hands of the regime as they continue to progress their agenda unchecked. I don’t think the time to go to war with them was just yet. The talks were ongoing were they not? Trump said he decimated their nuclear sites last year - so was he lying? Johnathan Powell said a deal ‘was within reach’. That is a view which seems to be shared by many European leaders, but it lacks assertiveness which in turn simply burns time and that outcome would always favour Iran more than the west. In 2008 France and Germany blocked Ukraine joining Nato in the hope of not upsetting the Russians, look how that ended up coming back to bite us all. And yet reports in late February said that talks were progressing well, and Iran were making concessions, remember? Diplomacy can be very confusing if being used as a tool. We wont really know if they were or were not. Can we can assume they weren't as the action that followed seems to indicate. The action that followed was started by an aggressor in the USA and Israel. Now Iran’s attack on sovereign neighbours are illegal, and should cease - but they have the right to defend themselves against aggressors (in this case Israel and the USA) whether we agree with their regime or not Do you believe that nations have the right to defend themselves whether you agree with their regime or not?" The fact of defending from an attack is not in question. The question is when is the time right to withdraw from talks and take direct action. Is the answer never in your opinion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump with his latest 24 hour ultimatum will look like an idiot or he will follow through his threat and destroy power plants. Iran in response will attack the energy infrastructure of the gulf states. Power, oil and desalination plants. This can easily set back the whole region back many, many years. It takes years to build infrastructure. Grim outlook for the world economy. This unnecessary war turns more and more into a lose lose situation for everybody… …and Trump & Netanyahu started it. Old men who aren’t for this world much longer so neither of them seem to give much of a feck - something they may have in common with the maddest of the Iranian mullahs ironically. As discussed further up in this thread, Iran's regime has proven to be the threat they were thought to be. I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. There must be a point of enough is enough, European attitudes of negotiation at all costs, plays into the hands of the regime as they continue to progress their agenda unchecked. I don’t think the time to go to war with them was just yet. The talks were ongoing were they not? Trump said he decimated their nuclear sites last year - so was he lying? Johnathan Powell said a deal ‘was within reach’. That is a view which seems to be shared by many European leaders, but it lacks assertiveness which in turn simply burns time and that outcome would always favour Iran more than the west. In 2008 France and Germany blocked Ukraine joining Nato in the hope of not upsetting the Russians, look how that ended up coming back to bite us all. And yet reports in late February said that talks were progressing well, and Iran were making concessions, remember? Diplomacy can be very confusing if being used as a tool. We wont really know if they were or were not. Can we can assume they weren't as the action that followed seems to indicate. The action that followed was started by an aggressor in the USA and Israel. Now Iran’s attack on sovereign neighbours are illegal, and should cease - but they have the right to defend themselves against aggressors (in this case Israel and the USA) whether we agree with their regime or not Do you believe that nations have the right to defend themselves whether you agree with their regime or not? The fact of defending from an attack is not in question. The question is when is the time right to withdraw from talks and take direct action. Is the answer never in your opinion? " I’ve already answered that question. Taking action without said action being accepted and approved under international law? Yes. Never. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump with his latest 24 hour ultimatum will look like an idiot or he will follow through his threat and destroy power plants. Iran in response will attack the energy infrastructure of the gulf states. Power, oil and desalination plants. This can easily set back the whole region back many, many years. It takes years to build infrastructure. Grim outlook for the world economy. This unnecessary war turns more and more into a lose lose situation for everybody… …and Trump & Netanyahu started it. Old men who aren’t for this world much longer so neither of them seem to give much of a feck - something they may have in common with the maddest of the Iranian mullahs ironically. As discussed further up in this thread, Iran's regime has proven to be the threat they were thought to be. I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. There must be a point of enough is enough, European attitudes of negotiation at all costs, plays into the hands of the regime as they continue to progress their agenda unchecked. I don’t think the time to go to war with them was just yet. The talks were ongoing were they not? Trump said he decimated their nuclear sites last year - so was he lying? Johnathan Powell said a deal ‘was within reach’. That is a view which seems to be shared by many European leaders, but it lacks assertiveness which in turn simply burns time and that outcome would always favour Iran more than the west. In 2008 France and Germany blocked Ukraine joining Nato in the hope of not upsetting the Russians, look how that ended up coming back to bite us all. And yet reports in late February said that talks were progressing well, and Iran were making concessions, remember? Diplomacy can be very confusing if being used as a tool. We wont really know if they were or were not. Can we can assume they weren't as the action that followed seems to indicate. " If I recall correctly one of the main sticking points in the negotiating was that both Israel and the US wanted the Iranian missile program included in any deal. Iran refused point blank and would not budge. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump with his latest 24 hour ultimatum will look like an idiot or he will follow through his threat and destroy power plants. Iran in response will attack the energy infrastructure of the gulf states. Power, oil and desalination plants. This can easily set back the whole region back many, many years. It takes years to build infrastructure. Grim outlook for the world economy. This unnecessary war turns more and more into a lose lose situation for everybody… …and Trump & Netanyahu started it. Old men who aren’t for this world much longer so neither of them seem to give much of a feck - something they may have in common with the maddest of the Iranian mullahs ironically. As discussed further up in this thread, Iran's regime has proven to be the threat they were thought to be. I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. There must be a point of enough is enough, European attitudes of negotiation at all costs, plays into the hands of the regime as they continue to progress their agenda unchecked. I don’t think the time to go to war with them was just yet. The talks were ongoing were they not? Trump said he decimated their nuclear sites last year - so was he lying? Johnathan Powell said a deal ‘was within reach’. That is a view which seems to be shared by many European leaders, but it lacks assertiveness which in turn simply burns time and that outcome would always favour Iran more than the west. In 2008 France and Germany blocked Ukraine joining Nato in the hope of not upsetting the Russians, look how that ended up coming back to bite us all. And yet reports in late February said that talks were progressing well, and Iran were making concessions, remember? Diplomacy can be very confusing if being used as a tool. We wont really know if they were or were not. Can we can assume they weren't as the action that followed seems to indicate. If I recall correctly one of the main sticking points in the negotiating was that both Israel and the US wanted the Iranian missile program included in any deal. Iran refused point blank and would not budge. " Nobody actually knows what the sticking points were, everything released was very vague. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"36 hours left for Iran to acknowledge Trumps demands If not Iranian civilians will wake up Tuesday with no electricity. I'm thinking this is one of Trump's bully boy tactics. He knows Europe will be affected far more than the US if the straights of Hormuz continue to be blocked and he wants European countries to force it open but they are not agreeing to do so. If he does go ahead and bomb then Iran will destroy all neighbouring countries infrastructure. We could all be waking up to no electricity " Apparently there’s another strike carrier on route and two more warships. The g ford carrier can enable 90 more warplanes. Looks like Trump is well prepared if Iran doesn’t agree to his terms. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"36 hours left for Iran to acknowledge Trumps demands If not Iranian civilians will wake up Tuesday with no electricity. I'm thinking this is one of Trump's bully boy tactics. He knows Europe will be affected far more than the US if the straights of Hormuz continue to be blocked and he wants European countries to force it open but they are not agreeing to do so. If he does go ahead and bomb then Iran will destroy all neighbouring countries infrastructure. We could all be waking up to no electricity Apparently there’s another strike carrier on route and two more warships. The g ford carrier can enable 90 more warplanes. Looks like Trump is well prepared if Iran doesn’t agree to his terms. " It’s a front before land invasion, I suspect. Somewhere in the region of 5k marines en-route or in the area now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When the US led alliance invaded Iraq we discovered the threat from that country had been greatly exaggerated or fabricated. With Iran we have discovered the opposite, that the threat and willingness to use force is much greater than the regime's apologists have been saying. Either we confront that threat now or in the future when it will be greater still, including the ability to attack Europe directly." You better ask him to attack China and Russia who will probably give Iran whatever missiles they want, making peace is harder than dropping billions of dollars worth of bombs, anyway, Trump said he obliterated all the Iranian missiles last week so Iran may not be lieing when they said they didn't fire them 🤷♂️ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"36 hours left for Iran to acknowledge Trumps demands If not Iranian civilians will wake up Tuesday with no electricity. I'm thinking this is one of Trump's bully boy tactics. He knows Europe will be affected far more than the US if the straights of Hormuz continue to be blocked and he wants European countries to force it open but they are not agreeing to do so. If he does go ahead and bomb then Iran will destroy all neighbouring countries infrastructure. We could all be waking up to no electricity Apparently there’s another strike carrier on route and two more warships. The g ford carrier can enable 90 more warplanes. Looks like Trump is well prepared if Iran doesn’t agree to his terms. " Assuming the Ford can fix its toilets and burnt out laundry room. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When the US led alliance invaded Iraq we discovered the threat from that country had been greatly exaggerated or fabricated. With Iran we have discovered the opposite, that the threat and willingness to use force is much greater than the regime's apologists have been saying. Either we confront that threat now or in the future when it will be greater still, including the ability to attack Europe directly. You better ask him to attack China and Russia who will probably give Iran whatever missiles they want, making peace is harder than dropping billions of dollars worth of bombs, anyway, Trump said he obliterated all the Iranian missiles last week so Iran may not be lieing when they said they didn't fire them 🤷♂️" So Russia and China are Escalating this conflict? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. Who has supported the Iranian regime? Hamas, Hezbollah and Russia which is also the chief supplier of arms and weaponry to Iran. Any of those on this forum, then? " None, but you know how it works with some on here.. If you are critical of the Americans even with their recent disastrous history in the region its seen by some that your in favour of the butchers of the regime.. Its not logic, its emotive gas lighting.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When the US led alliance invaded Iraq we discovered the threat from that country had been greatly exaggerated or fabricated. With Iran we have discovered the opposite, that the threat and willingness to use force is much greater than the regime's apologists have been saying. Either we confront that threat now or in the future when it will be greater still, including the ability to attack Europe directly. You better ask him to attack China and Russia who will probably give Iran whatever missiles they want, making peace is harder than dropping billions of dollars worth of bombs, anyway, Trump said he obliterated all the Iranian missiles last week so Iran may not be lieing when they said they didn't fire them 🤷♂️ So Russia and China are Escalating this conflict?" Well Putin has told Trump that he would stop giving the Iranians targeting intel on American assets if he would bend the knee and cut off Ukraine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When the US led alliance invaded Iraq we discovered the threat from that country had been greatly exaggerated or fabricated. With Iran we have discovered the opposite, that the threat and willingness to use force is much greater than the regime's apologists have been saying. Either we confront that threat now or in the future when it will be greater still, including the ability to attack Europe directly. You better ask him to attack China and Russia who will probably give Iran whatever missiles they want, making peace is harder than dropping billions of dollars worth of bombs, anyway, Trump said he obliterated all the Iranian missiles last week so Iran may not be lieing when they said they didn't fire them 🤷♂️ So Russia and China are Escalating this conflict?" escalating ? Trumpet bombed the fuck out of one of their "friendly" countries. What would be so different to the UK etc helping arm Ukraine ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, not West Ham's Argentinan full back but the British territory in the Indian Ocean which is over 2000 km from Iran. For reference its about 2700 km from Iran to Dorking. Should we be worried about incoming fire from the Mad Mullahs, and is this one more reason to disarm the fanatics once and for all ?" Not possible, the mango monkey obliterated all Iran's weapons weeks ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, not West Ham's Argentinan full back but the British territory in the Indian Ocean which is over 2000 km from Iran. For reference its about 2700 km from Iran to Dorking. Should we be worried about incoming fire from the Mad Mullahs, and is this one more reason to disarm the fanatics once and for all ? Not possible, the mango monkey obliterated all Iran's weapons weeks ago." Yup..
The only war where it was still going on weeks after it was declared won..
Or was that George Bush jnr..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the plus side the UK has already voluntarily dismantled its energy production and industry, so there is probably very little left for Iran to hurl missiles at. Unless they want to target half empty shopping centres, Council offices, job centres full of demoralised twenty year old men, and vape and Turkish barber shops. " 
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump with his latest 24 hour ultimatum will look like an idiot or he will follow through his threat and destroy power plants. Iran in response will attack the energy infrastructure of the gulf states. Power, oil and desalination plants. This can easily set back the whole region back many, many years. It takes years to build infrastructure. Grim outlook for the world economy. This unnecessary war turns more and more into a lose lose situation for everybody… …and Trump & Netanyahu started it. Old men who aren’t for this world much longer so neither of them seem to give much of a feck - something they may have in common with the maddest of the Iranian mullahs ironically. As discussed further up in this thread, Iran's regime has proven to be the threat they were thought to be. I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. There must be a point of enough is enough, European attitudes of negotiation at all costs, plays into the hands of the regime as they continue to progress their agenda unchecked. I don’t think the time to go to war with them was just yet. The talks were ongoing were they not? Trump said he decimated their nuclear sites last year - so was he lying? Johnathan Powell said a deal ‘was within reach’. That is a view which seems to be shared by many European leaders, but it lacks assertiveness which in turn simply burns time and that outcome would always favour Iran more than the west. In 2008 France and Germany blocked Ukraine joining Nato in the hope of not upsetting the Russians, look how that ended up coming back to bite us all. And yet reports in late February said that talks were progressing well, and Iran were making concessions, remember? Diplomacy can be very confusing if being used as a tool. We wont really know if they were or were not. Can we can assume they weren't as the action that followed seems to indicate. If I recall correctly one of the main sticking points in the negotiating was that both Israel and the US wanted the Iranian missile program included in any deal. Iran refused point blank and would not budge. Nobody actually knows what the sticking points were, everything released was very vague. " Which highlights why your view of keeping the talks going as they were going well, had a hole in it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump with his latest 24 hour ultimatum will look like an idiot or he will follow through his threat and destroy power plants. Iran in response will attack the energy infrastructure of the gulf states. Power, oil and desalination plants. This can easily set back the whole region back many, many years. It takes years to build infrastructure. Grim outlook for the world economy. This unnecessary war turns more and more into a lose lose situation for everybody… …and Trump & Netanyahu started it. Old men who aren’t for this world much longer so neither of them seem to give much of a feck - something they may have in common with the maddest of the Iranian mullahs ironically. As discussed further up in this thread, Iran's regime has proven to be the threat they were thought to be. I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. There must be a point of enough is enough, European attitudes of negotiation at all costs, plays into the hands of the regime as they continue to progress their agenda unchecked. I don’t think the time to go to war with them was just yet. The talks were ongoing were they not? Trump said he decimated their nuclear sites last year - so was he lying? Johnathan Powell said a deal ‘was within reach’. That is a view which seems to be shared by many European leaders, but it lacks assertiveness which in turn simply burns time and that outcome would always favour Iran more than the west. In 2008 France and Germany blocked Ukraine joining Nato in the hope of not upsetting the Russians, look how that ended up coming back to bite us all. And yet reports in late February said that talks were progressing well, and Iran were making concessions, remember? Diplomacy can be very confusing if being used as a tool. We wont really know if they were or were not. Can we can assume they weren't as the action that followed seems to indicate. If I recall correctly one of the main sticking points in the negotiating was that both Israel and the US wanted the Iranian missile program included in any deal. Iran refused point blank and would not budge. Nobody actually knows what the sticking points were, everything released was very vague. Which highlights why your view of keeping the talks going as they were going well, had a hole in it. " Even if they're not going 'well', which is always a one sided view depending on how they stall or are ended they are surely better than the current mess? Because whilst it was the frankly nonsensical ramblings of Trump earlier in the war about how he wanted a say in choosing the next leader etc, its now pretty much accepted that the war will not result in regime change in the foreseeable future.. The prospects and consequence of actually destroying irans power generation infrastructure and their oil infrastructure are simply not something that should be contemplated .. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump with his latest 24 hour ultimatum will look like an idiot or he will follow through his threat and destroy power plants. Iran in response will attack the energy infrastructure of the gulf states. Power, oil and desalination plants. This can easily set back the whole region back many, many years. It takes years to build infrastructure. Grim outlook for the world economy. This unnecessary war turns more and more into a lose lose situation for everybody… …and Trump & Netanyahu started it. Old men who aren’t for this world much longer so neither of them seem to give much of a feck - something they may have in common with the maddest of the Iranian mullahs ironically. As discussed further up in this thread, Iran's regime has proven to be the threat they were thought to be. I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. There must be a point of enough is enough, European attitudes of negotiation at all costs, plays into the hands of the regime as they continue to progress their agenda unchecked. I don’t think the time to go to war with them was just yet. The talks were ongoing were they not? Trump said he decimated their nuclear sites last year - so was he lying? Johnathan Powell said a deal ‘was within reach’. That is a view which seems to be shared by many European leaders, but it lacks assertiveness which in turn simply burns time and that outcome would always favour Iran more than the west. In 2008 France and Germany blocked Ukraine joining Nato in the hope of not upsetting the Russians, look how that ended up coming back to bite us all. And yet reports in late February said that talks were progressing well, and Iran were making concessions, remember? Diplomacy can be very confusing if being used as a tool. We wont really know if they were or were not. Can we can assume they weren't as the action that followed seems to indicate. If I recall correctly one of the main sticking points in the negotiating was that both Israel and the US wanted the Iranian missile program included in any deal. Iran refused point blank and would not budge. Nobody actually knows what the sticking points were, everything released was very vague. Which highlights why your view of keeping the talks going as they were going well, had a hole in it. Even if they're not going 'well', which is always a one sided view depending on how they stall or are ended they are surely better than the current mess? Because whilst it was the frankly nonsensical ramblings of Trump earlier in the war about how he wanted a say in choosing the next leader etc, its now pretty much accepted that the war will not result in regime change in the foreseeable future.. The prospects and consequence of actually destroying irans power generation infrastructure and their oil infrastructure are simply not something that should be contemplated .. " My comment is reference to when is the time right to stop "talking" and take direct action. If the talks stalled and were not making progress as I mentioned there mut be a point in time that action is required. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well Putin has told Trump that he would stop giving the Iranians targeting intel on American assets if he would bend the knee and cut off Ukraine." Is this real and verified, or conjecture? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump with his latest 24 hour ultimatum will look like an idiot or he will follow through his threat and destroy power plants. Iran in response will attack the energy infrastructure of the gulf states. Power, oil and desalination plants. This can easily set back the whole region back many, many years. It takes years to build infrastructure. Grim outlook for the world economy. This unnecessary war turns more and more into a lose lose situation for everybody… …and Trump & Netanyahu started it. Old men who aren’t for this world much longer so neither of them seem to give much of a feck - something they may have in common with the maddest of the Iranian mullahs ironically. As discussed further up in this thread, Iran's regime has proven to be the threat they were thought to be. I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. There must be a point of enough is enough, European attitudes of negotiation at all costs, plays into the hands of the regime as they continue to progress their agenda unchecked. I don’t think the time to go to war with them was just yet. The talks were ongoing were they not? Trump said he decimated their nuclear sites last year - so was he lying? Johnathan Powell said a deal ‘was within reach’. That is a view which seems to be shared by many European leaders, but it lacks assertiveness which in turn simply burns time and that outcome would always favour Iran more than the west. In 2008 France and Germany blocked Ukraine joining Nato in the hope of not upsetting the Russians, look how that ended up coming back to bite us all. And yet reports in late February said that talks were progressing well, and Iran were making concessions, remember? Diplomacy can be very confusing if being used as a tool. We wont really know if they were or were not. Can we can assume they weren't as the action that followed seems to indicate. If I recall correctly one of the main sticking points in the negotiating was that both Israel and the US wanted the Iranian missile program included in any deal. Iran refused point blank and would not budge. Nobody actually knows what the sticking points were, everything released was very vague. Which highlights why your view of keeping the talks going as they were going well, had a hole in it. Even if they're not going 'well', which is always a one sided view depending on how they stall or are ended they are surely better than the current mess? Because whilst it was the frankly nonsensical ramblings of Trump earlier in the war about how he wanted a say in choosing the next leader etc, its now pretty much accepted that the war will not result in regime change in the foreseeable future.. The prospects and consequence of actually destroying irans power generation infrastructure and their oil infrastructure are simply not something that should be contemplated .. My comment is reference to when is the time right to stop "talking" and take direct action. If the talks stalled and were not making progress as I mentioned there mut be a point in time that action is required. " When the intelligence of the main partner isn't saying thr threat is yet at the stage of an imminent attack .. Then its not at the point where a leader puts his own citizens lives on the line.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump with his latest 24 hour ultimatum will look like an idiot or he will follow through his threat and destroy power plants. Iran in response will attack the energy infrastructure of the gulf states. Power, oil and desalination plants. This can easily set back the whole region back many, many years. It takes years to build infrastructure. Grim outlook for the world economy. This unnecessary war turns more and more into a lose lose situation for everybody… …and Trump & Netanyahu started it. Old men who aren’t for this world much longer so neither of them seem to give much of a feck - something they may have in common with the maddest of the Iranian mullahs ironically. As discussed further up in this thread, Iran's regime has proven to be the threat they were thought to be. I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. There must be a point of enough is enough, European attitudes of negotiation at all costs, plays into the hands of the regime as they continue to progress their agenda unchecked. I don’t think the time to go to war with them was just yet. The talks were ongoing were they not? Trump said he decimated their nuclear sites last year - so was he lying? Johnathan Powell said a deal ‘was within reach’. That is a view which seems to be shared by many European leaders, but it lacks assertiveness which in turn simply burns time and that outcome would always favour Iran more than the west. In 2008 France and Germany blocked Ukraine joining Nato in the hope of not upsetting the Russians, look how that ended up coming back to bite us all. And yet reports in late February said that talks were progressing well, and Iran were making concessions, remember? Diplomacy can be very confusing if being used as a tool. We wont really know if they were or were not. Can we can assume they weren't as the action that followed seems to indicate. If I recall correctly one of the main sticking points in the negotiating was that both Israel and the US wanted the Iranian missile program included in any deal. Iran refused point blank and would not budge. Nobody actually knows what the sticking points were, everything released was very vague. Which highlights why your view of keeping the talks going as they were going well, had a hole in it. " Am even if the talks go horrendously, which nobody claimed in this instance, you still don’t have the right to attack a sovereign nation. I’m not sure why you don’t seem to grasp that bit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, not West Ham's Argentinan full back but the British territory in the Indian Ocean which is over 2000 km from Iran. For reference its about 2700 km from Iran to Dorking. Should we be worried about incoming fire from the Mad Mullahs, and is this one more reason to disarm the fanatics once and for all ? Not possible, the mango monkey obliterated all Iran's weapons weeks ago." Weeks ago? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the plus side the UK has already voluntarily dismantled its energy production and industry, so there is probably very little left for Iran to hurl missiles at. Unless they want to target half empty shopping centres, Council offices, job centres full of demoralised twenty year old men, and vape and Turkish barber shops. " Good point, well made. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump with his latest 24 hour ultimatum will look like an idiot or he will follow through his threat and destroy power plants. Iran in response will attack the energy infrastructure of the gulf states. Power, oil and desalination plants. This can easily set back the whole region back many, many years. It takes years to build infrastructure. Grim outlook for the world economy. This unnecessary war turns more and more into a lose lose situation for everybody… …and Trump & Netanyahu started it. Old men who aren’t for this world much longer so neither of them seem to give much of a feck - something they may have in common with the maddest of the Iranian mullahs ironically. As discussed further up in this thread, Iran's regime has proven to be the threat they were thought to be. I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. There must be a point of enough is enough, European attitudes of negotiation at all costs, plays into the hands of the regime as they continue to progress their agenda unchecked. I don’t think the time to go to war with them was just yet. The talks were ongoing were they not? Trump said he decimated their nuclear sites last year - so was he lying? Johnathan Powell said a deal ‘was within reach’. That is a view which seems to be shared by many European leaders, but it lacks assertiveness which in turn simply burns time and that outcome would always favour Iran more than the west. In 2008 France and Germany blocked Ukraine joining Nato in the hope of not upsetting the Russians, look how that ended up coming back to bite us all. And yet reports in late February said that talks were progressing well, and Iran were making concessions, remember? Diplomacy can be very confusing if being used as a tool. We wont really know if they were or were not. Can we can assume they weren't as the action that followed seems to indicate. If I recall correctly one of the main sticking points in the negotiating was that both Israel and the US wanted the Iranian missile program included in any deal. Iran refused point blank and would not budge. Nobody actually knows what the sticking points were, everything released was very vague. Which highlights why your view of keeping the talks going as they were going well, had a hole in it. Am even if the talks go horrendously, which nobody claimed in this instance, you still don’t have the right to attack a sovereign nation. I’m not sure why you don’t seem to grasp that bit." This a perfect point for the reality to come into play. It has happened, the talking stopped, and no amount of assumption on whether the act was legal or not matters. The line was crossed and action was taken. It is this point that I feel you may be struggling with, a reaction to events has unfolded and this is not the first time nor will it be the last. I feel Iran have been sailing close to the line for many years and have gone unchecked, that is until a POTUS arrived that doesn't get tied up with diplomatic quagmires that offer no solutions. Many find his abrasive manner frightening, worrying or unthinkable, this is mainly due to many years of indecision from leaders around us, if they had been stronger more direct we might not be talking about this today. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". The line was crossed and action was taken. It is this point that I feel you may be struggling with, a reaction to events has unfolded and this is not the first time nor will it be the last. " Yo keep talking about crossing a line - What line was crossed between Trump ending talks and US/Israeli attacks commencing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Many find his abrasive manner frightening, worrying or unthinkable, this is mainly due to many years of indecision from leaders around us, if they had been stronger more direct we might not be talking about this today. " Obama struck a deal in 2016 which increased monitoring in Iran, removed uranium, destroyed centrifuges and would place heavy sanctions on Iran if the attempted to renege on the agreement. Which President undid that deal which essentially guaranteed Iran would never have a nuclear weapon? I’ll give you 3 guesses. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, not West Ham's Argentinan full back but the British territory in the Indian Ocean which is over 2000 km from Iran. For reference its about 2700 km from Iran to Dorking. Should we be worried about incoming fire from the Mad Mullahs, and is this one more reason to disarm the fanatics once and for all ? Not possible, the mango monkey obliterated all Iran's weapons weeks ago. Weeks ago?" That's what the fat fuck said, I assume you don't believe him either then 👍 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, not West Ham's Argentinan full back but the British territory in the Indian Ocean which is over 2000 km from Iran. For reference its about 2700 km from Iran to Dorking. Should we be worried about incoming fire from the Mad Mullahs, and is this one more reason to disarm the fanatics once and for all ? Not possible, the mango monkey obliterated all Iran's weapons weeks ago. Weeks ago? That's what the fat fuck said, I assume you don't believe him either then 👍" The action against Iran began 3 and a half weeks ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, not West Ham's Argentinan full back but the British territory in the Indian Ocean which is over 2000 km from Iran. For reference its about 2700 km from Iran to Dorking. Should we be worried about incoming fire from the Mad Mullahs, and is this one more reason to disarm the fanatics once and for all ? Not possible, the mango monkey obliterated all Iran's weapons weeks ago. Weeks ago? That's what the fat fuck said, I assume you don't believe him either then 👍 The action against Iran began 3 and a half weeks ago." What about the attacks last summer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, not West Ham's Argentinan full back but the British territory in the Indian Ocean which is over 2000 km from Iran. For reference its about 2700 km from Iran to Dorking. Should we be worried about incoming fire from the Mad Mullahs, and is this one more reason to disarm the fanatics once and for all ? Not possible, the mango monkey obliterated all Iran's weapons weeks ago. Weeks ago? That's what the fat fuck said, I assume you don't believe him either then 👍 The action against Iran began 3 and a half weeks ago. What about the attacks last summer? " The Iranian attacks? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, not West Ham's Argentinan full back but the British territory in the Indian Ocean which is over 2000 km from Iran. For reference its about 2700 km from Iran to Dorking. Should we be worried about incoming fire from the Mad Mullahs, and is this one more reason to disarm the fanatics once and for all ? Not possible, the mango monkey obliterated all Iran's weapons weeks ago. Weeks ago? That's what the fat fuck said, I assume you don't believe him either then 👍 The action against Iran began 3 and a half weeks ago. What about the attacks last summer? The Iranian attacks?" The ones that “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities. The bit in quotes is by someone you might be familiar with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, not West Ham's Argentinan full back but the British territory in the Indian Ocean which is over 2000 km from Iran. For reference its about 2700 km from Iran to Dorking. Should we be worried about incoming fire from the Mad Mullahs, and is this one more reason to disarm the fanatics once and for all ? Not possible, the mango monkey obliterated all Iran's weapons weeks ago. Weeks ago? That's what the fat fuck said, I assume you don't believe him either then 👍 The action against Iran began 3 and a half weeks ago. What about the attacks last summer? The Iranian attacks? The ones that “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities. The bit in quotes is by someone you might be familiar with. " You're confusing two different things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". The line was crossed and action was taken. It is this point that I feel you may be struggling with, a reaction to events has unfolded and this is not the first time nor will it be the last. Yo keep talking about crossing a line - What line was crossed between Trump ending talks and US/Israeli attacks commencing? " This is the last time I attempt to spell this out. You said ref talks breaking down "Nobody actually knows what the sticking points were, everything released was very vague". A line was crossed, it could be a timeline it could be anything, but it did and we know it did because military action followed. This is not hard to follow, it might be hard to understand though, when we are fed negotiation and talking wins the day every day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". The line was crossed and action was taken. It is this point that I feel you may be struggling with, a reaction to events has unfolded and this is not the first time nor will it be the last. Yo keep talking about crossing a line - What line was crossed between Trump ending talks and US/Israeli attacks commencing? This is the last time I attempt to spell this out. You said ref talks breaking down "Nobody actually knows what the sticking points were, everything released was very vague". A line was crossed, it could be a timeline it could be anything, but it did and we know it did because military action followed. This is not hard to follow, it might be hard to understand though, when we are fed negotiation and talking wins the day every day. " And you seem to think that military action *had* to follow. Which it clearly didn’t. Talks could have been extended. Or sanctions could have been put on Iran as they traditionally have been in the region. But no, you support big tough man Trump, who actually caused the instability by undoing Obama’s deal (against popular opinion worldwide, and indeed in the USA) So save your nonsense about ‘the last time I attempt to spell this out’ - you’re defending warmongering. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The point is not where they got a weapon is when are they going to use it. The clock is ticking. Iran have had more nuclear inspections than some other nations in the NPT, by the way. " The weapon/bombs don't necessarily have to be in Iran they have many countries supporting them, other places they can store. They're just waiting for the opportunity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". The line was crossed and action was taken. It is this point that I feel you may be struggling with, a reaction to events has unfolded and this is not the first time nor will it be the last. Yo keep talking about crossing a line - What line was crossed between Trump ending talks and US/Israeli attacks commencing? This is the last time I attempt to spell this out. You said ref talks breaking down "Nobody actually knows what the sticking points were, everything released was very vague". A line was crossed, it could be a timeline it could be anything, but it did and we know it did because military action followed. This is not hard to follow, it might be hard to understand though, when we are fed negotiation and talking wins the day every day. " How do we know a line was crossed. I wouldn’t call the Iranians not 100% agreeing to US/Israeli terms pending further talks ‘crossing a line’ personally. If anything Trump & Netanyahu crossed a line by attacking, pending further scheduled talks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The point is not where they got a weapon is when are they going to use it. The clock is ticking. Iran have had more nuclear inspections than some other nations in the NPT, by the way. The weapon/bombs don't necessarily have to be in Iran they have many countries supporting them, other places they can store. They're just waiting for the opportunity." You speak so confidently and with so little evidence to back it up. It’s as if you’re massively biased or something… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The point is not where they got a weapon is when are they going to use it. The clock is ticking. Iran have had more nuclear inspections than some other nations in the NPT, by the way. The weapon/bombs don't necessarily have to be in Iran they have many countries supporting them, other places they can store. They're just waiting for the opportunity." Using that paranoid rationale it sounds OK to bomb anyone anywhere just in case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". The line was crossed and action was taken. It is this point that I feel you may be struggling with, a reaction to events has unfolded and this is not the first time nor will it be the last. Yo keep talking about crossing a line - What line was crossed between Trump ending talks and US/Israeli attacks commencing? This is the last time I attempt to spell this out. You said ref talks breaking down "Nobody actually knows what the sticking points were, everything released was very vague". A line was crossed, it could be a timeline it could be anything, but it did and we know it did because military action followed. This is not hard to follow, it might be hard to understand though, when we are fed negotiation and talking wins the day every day. And you seem to think that military action *had* to follow. Which it clearly didn’t. Talks could have been extended. Or sanctions could have been put on Iran as they traditionally have been in the region. But no, you support big tough man Trump, who actually caused the instability by undoing Obama’s deal (against popular opinion worldwide, and indeed in the USA) So save your nonsense about ‘the last time I attempt to spell this out’ - you’re defending warmongering. " You have backed yourself into the corner with your argument again and still missing the point. Try to keep it on track, ie. I'm not supporting Trump, I'm supporting the US and Israeli decision to act against a totalitarian regime that has unbalanced global stability for decades. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The point is not where they got a weapon is when are they going to use it. The clock is ticking. Iran have had more nuclear inspections than some other nations in the NPT, by the way. The weapon/bombs don't necessarily have to be in Iran they have many countries supporting them, other places they can store. They're just waiting for the opportunity. You speak so confidently and with so little evidence to back it up. It’s as if you’re massively biased or something…" I love the “we don’t have it but someone has one for us” whataboutism is being used to justify…. Truth was that Iran were complying with the JCPOA according to every signee and inspection by the IAEA… the only people who hated the agreement was Israel | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump with his latest 24 hour ultimatum will look like an idiot or he will follow through his threat and destroy power plants. Iran in response will attack the energy infrastructure of the gulf states. Power, oil and desalination plants. This can easily set back the whole region back many, many years. It takes years to build infrastructure. Grim outlook for the world economy. This unnecessary war turns more and more into a lose lose situation for everybody… …and Trump & Netanyahu started it. Old men who aren’t for this world much longer so neither of them seem to give much of a feck - something they may have in common with the maddest of the Iranian mullahs ironically. As discussed further up in this thread, Iran's regime has proven to be the threat they were thought to be. I struggle to understand how anyone can be in "anyway" supportive towards a regime who has murdered 10's of thousands of their own people, who oppress, threaten, cause conflict and wars but hide behind proxies to shift blame. There must be a point of enough is enough, European attitudes of negotiation at all costs, plays into the hands of the regime as they continue to progress their agenda unchecked. I don’t think the time to go to war with them was just yet. The talks were ongoing were they not? Trump said he decimated their nuclear sites last year - so was he lying? Johnathan Powell said a deal ‘was within reach’. That is a view which seems to be shared by many European leaders, but it lacks assertiveness which in turn simply burns time and that outcome would always favour Iran more than the west. In 2008 France and Germany blocked Ukraine joining Nato in the hope of not upsetting the Russians, look how that ended up coming back to bite us all. And yet reports in late February said that talks were progressing well, and Iran were making concessions, remember? Diplomacy can be very confusing if being used as a tool. We wont really know if they were or were not. Can we can assume they weren't as the action that followed seems to indicate. If I recall correctly one of the main sticking points in the negotiating was that both Israel and the US wanted the Iranian missile program included in any deal. Iran refused point blank and would not budge. Nobody actually knows what the sticking points were, everything released was very vague. " I'm just going by reports from the likes of the BBC, Reuters and the guardian who all say the Iranian missile program was one of the sticking points as Iran refused it being included . Regarding how the talks were progressing, it was the Iranian spokesman who mostly said the talks were going well. I wish they could have found another way instead of war | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
