FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Iran end game
Iran end game
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another day, another Trump thread. Off the scale TDS." it seems you have stumbled into the politics forum, feel free to scroll past, insults aren't allowed here 🤷♂️ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another day, another Trump thread. Off the scale TDS. it seems you have stumbled into the politics forum, feel free to scroll past, insults aren't allowed here 🤷♂️" Given that your every post appears to involve calling the President of the United States a “fat freak” or “fat cunt” I somehow feel your concern about insults isn’t genuine. I’m sure there are plenty of people on this website who struggle with weight themselves, and who who may well find your fattist comments extremely diminishing, discriminatory, and humiliating. Maybe you should reconsider how you frame your opinions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't worry. Someone will make it all about Starmer any minute now" Diane Abbot will breathe another sigh of relief..  .. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yet another Trump thread, despite Trump not having done anything noteworthy since the last one." It is rather ironic that the OP so frequently quotes Forum rules while ignoring them himself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't worry. Someone will make it all about Starmer any minute now" It seems you just did. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another day, another Trump thread. Off the scale TDS. it seems you have stumbled into the politics forum, feel free to scroll past, insults aren't allowed here 🤷♂️ Given that your every post appears to involve calling the President of the United States a “fat freak” or “fat cunt” I somehow feel your concern about insults isn’t genuine. I’m sure there are plenty of people on this website who struggle with weight themselves, and who who may well find your fattist comments extremely diminishing, discriminatory, and humiliating. Maybe you should reconsider how you frame your opinions. " Well said. The frequent references to 'lunatics' and 'freaks' are also hardly kind towards people suffering with mental health issues, indeed those words are widely seen as completely inappropriate within the treatment of mental health concerns. It is inevitable and healthy that we have differences of opinions in a Politics Section but the normalisation of cruel and offensive language has been a negative development. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yet another Trump thread, despite Trump not having done anything noteworthy since the last one. It is rather ironic that the OP so frequently quotes Forum rules while ignoring them himself." It says forum user's shouldn't use profanities in relation to Trump? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely. We should not use hurty words to describe a world leader who absolutely buzzes on insulting and abusing anyone he feels like, friend or foe." Your logic then is that Trump's language is perfectly acceptable which I imagine is not the point you were hoping to make. The English language offers a huge range of adjectives to describe people in negative terms without resorting to crude words which could very easily be offensive and triggering to other Forum users. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely. We should not use hurty words to describe a world leader who absolutely buzzes on insulting and abusing anyone he feels like, friend or foe." Some i feel on here agree with his awful views, mocking the disabled, racism and how he talks about women are condemned by many decent people but not all.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't worry. Someone will make it all about Starmer any minute now" The problem for Starmer is more that nothing is about Starmer. Trump speaks and the world reacts, the markets shift. Starmer speaks and nobody hears a thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely. We should not use hurty words to describe a world leader who absolutely buzzes on insulting and abusing anyone he feels like, friend or foe. Some i feel on here agree with his awful views, mocking the disabled, racism and how he talks about women are condemned by many decent people but not all.." Again, your implication is that Trump's awful language justifies the use of similar words on here, which I know is not what you mean. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely. We should not use hurty words to describe a world leader who absolutely buzzes on insulting and abusing anyone he feels like, friend or foe. Some i feel on here agree with his awful views, mocking the disabled, racism and how he talks about women are condemned by many decent people but not all.. Again, your implication is that Trump's awful language justifies the use of similar words on here, which I know is not what you mean. " No i mean some on here agree with him.. Tbh if you dont like strong language just avoid the thread maybe? I know you've given similar advice to other's before when they have in your opinion diverted from the title of threads you've started.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely. We should not use hurty words to describe a world leader who absolutely buzzes on insulting and abusing anyone he feels like, friend or foe. Some i feel on here agree with his awful views, mocking the disabled, racism and how he talks about women are condemned by many decent people but not all.. Again, your implication is that Trump's awful language justifies the use of similar words on here, which I know is not what you mean. No i mean some on here agree with him.. Tbh if you dont like strong language just avoid the thread maybe? I know you've given similar advice to other's before when they have in your opinion diverted from the title of threads you've started.. " How is it possible to “avoid a thread”? As someone interested in politics I enjoy reading the politics forum. I open a thread that might be of interest and immediately see reference to “fat” people. One would have thought a swingers website of all places would be inclusive. It’s entirely possible to make a political point without making any reference at all to someone’s physical appearance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another day, another Trump thread. Off the scale TDS. it seems you have stumbled into the politics forum, feel free to scroll past, insults aren't allowed here 🤷♂️" Here is the OP introducing the subject of 'insults' and Forum rules so hardly a diversion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely. We should not use hurty words to describe a world leader who absolutely buzzes on insulting and abusing anyone he feels like, friend or foe. Some i feel on here agree with his awful views, mocking the disabled, racism and how he talks about women are condemned by many decent people but not all.. Again, your implication is that Trump's awful language justifies the use of similar words on here, which I know is not what you mean. No i mean some on here agree with him.. Tbh if you dont like strong language just avoid the thread maybe? I know you've given similar advice to other's before when they have in your opinion diverted from the title of threads you've started.. How is it possible to “avoid a thread”? As someone interested in politics I enjoy reading the politics forum. I open a thread that might be of interest and immediately see reference to “fat” people. One would have thought a swingers website of all places would be inclusive. It’s entirely possible to make a political point without making any reference at all to someone’s physical appearance." Well said. I'm sure many Forum users look at the Politics Section and quickly turn away when they see the type of language used. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely. We should not use hurty words to describe a world leader who absolutely buzzes on insulting and abusing anyone he feels like, friend or foe. Some i feel on here agree with his awful views, mocking the disabled, racism and how he talks about women are condemned by many decent people but not all.. Again, your implication is that Trump's awful language justifies the use of similar words on here, which I know is not what you mean. No i mean some on here agree with him.. Tbh if you dont like strong language just avoid the thread maybe? I know you've given similar advice to other's before when they have in your opinion diverted from the title of threads you've started.. How is it possible to “avoid a thread”? As someone interested in politics I enjoy reading the politics forum. I open a thread that might be of interest and immediately see reference to “fat” people. One would have thought a swingers website of all places would be inclusive. It’s entirely possible to make a political point without making any reference at all to someone’s physical appearance. Well said. I'm sure many Forum users look at the Politics Section and quickly turn away when they see the type of language used." Its probably a good thing.. If they cant handle a bit of industrial language and straight talking just imagine their angst when they read the sheer hypocrisy some spout.. And the blatant deflecting to minimise the absolutely correct criticism from their hero.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely. We should not use hurty words to describe a world leader who absolutely buzzes on insulting and abusing anyone he feels like, friend or foe. Some i feel on here agree with his awful views, mocking the disabled, racism and how he talks about women are condemned by many decent people but not all.. Again, your implication is that Trump's awful language justifies the use of similar words on here, which I know is not what you mean. No i mean some on here agree with him.. Tbh if you dont like strong language just avoid the thread maybe? I know you've given similar advice to other's before when they have in your opinion diverted from the title of threads you've started.. How is it possible to “avoid a thread”? As someone interested in politics I enjoy reading the politics forum. I open a thread that might be of interest and immediately see reference to “fat” people. One would have thought a swingers website of all places would be inclusive. It’s entirely possible to make a political point without making any reference at all to someone’s physical appearance. Well said. I'm sure many Forum users look at the Politics Section and quickly turn away when they see the type of language used. Its probably a good thing.. If they cant handle a bit of industrial language and straight talking just imagine their angst when they read the sheer hypocrisy some spout.. And the blatant deflecting to minimise the absolutely correct criticism from their hero.. "So the complete opposite of an inclusive and diverse environment then? If you don't agree with us, f off ! As many psychologists would observe, there is a thin line between love and hate and I'm sure much of the worst vitriol towards Trump comes from those who actually share his personal values. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't worry. Someone will make it all about Starmer any minute now The problem for Starmer is more that nothing is about Starmer. Trump speaks and the world reacts, the markets shift. Starmer speaks and nobody hears a thing." Still harking for the days of empire? We're actually witnessing the decline of American hegemony and the rise of the Chinese empire. The future is as Carney said middle powers that think similarly need to create trade and defence alliances. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I see the old ‘it’s only lefties who speak inappropriately’ trope is being given a run out yet again. Thank the lord we have all those righteous Alt Right wingers to show them the errors of their ways…" Ah, but when the Righties speak inappropriately it's just "telling it like it is" and sneering at snowflake lefies getting triggered by hurty words. The other way around and it becomes "the intolerance of the left". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely. We should not use hurty words to describe a world leader who absolutely buzzes on insulting and abusing anyone he feels like, friend or foe. Some i feel on here agree with his awful views, mocking the disabled, racism and how he talks about women are condemned by many decent people but not all.. Again, your implication is that Trump's awful language justifies the use of similar words on here, which I know is not what you mean. No i mean some on here agree with him.. Tbh if you dont like strong language just avoid the thread maybe? I know you've given similar advice to other's before when they have in your opinion diverted from the title of threads you've started.. How is it possible to “avoid a thread”? As someone interested in politics I enjoy reading the politics forum. I open a thread that might be of interest and immediately see reference to “fat” people. One would have thought a swingers website of all places would be inclusive. It’s entirely possible to make a political point without making any reference at all to someone’s physical appearance." Its simple, if you know you'll be triggered by it then scroll on by.. Its as easy as making a point about being offended by someone else's choice of language without also doing the same.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely. We should not use hurty words to describe a world leader who absolutely buzzes on insulting and abusing anyone he feels like, friend or foe." Surely we should be holding ourselves to higher standards than those which Trump follows. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely. We should not use hurty words to describe a world leader who absolutely buzzes on insulting and abusing anyone he feels like, friend or foe. Your logic then is that Trump's language is perfectly acceptable which I imagine is not the point you were hoping to make. The English language offers a huge range of adjectives to describe people in negative terms without resorting to crude words which could very easily be offensive and triggering to other Forum users. " How about "Trump can be likened to female genitalia",then? As I don’t watch television, I have no idea whether Trump is fat or not. However, as he is a wealthy American being overweight is highly probable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely. We should not use hurty words to describe a world leader who absolutely buzzes on insulting and abusing anyone he feels like, friend or foe. Some i feel on here agree with his awful views, mocking the disabled, racism and how he talks about women are condemned by many decent people but not all.. Again, your implication is that Trump's awful language justifies the use of similar words on here, which I know is not what you mean. No i mean some on here agree with him.. Tbh if you dont like strong language just avoid the thread maybe? I know you've given similar advice to other's before when they have in your opinion diverted from the title of threads you've started.. How is it possible to “avoid a thread”? As someone interested in politics I enjoy reading the politics forum. I open a thread that might be of interest and immediately see reference to “fat” people. One would have thought a swingers website of all places would be inclusive. It’s entirely possible to make a political point without making any reference at all to someone’s physical appearance. Well said. I'm sure many Forum users look at the Politics Section and quickly turn away when they see the type of language used. Its probably a good thing.. If they cant handle a bit of industrial language and straight talking just imagine their angst when they read the sheer hypocrisy some spout.. And the blatant deflecting to minimise the absolutely correct criticism from their hero..
So the complete opposite of an inclusive and diverse environment then? If you don't agree with us, f off !
As many psychologists would observe, there is a thin line between love and hate and I'm sure much of the worst vitriol towards Trump comes from those who actually share his personal values.
"You've gone off into making assumptions again about what you're perception is of others contributions..
'most' psychologists might also say those with that opinion are deluded..
If i sound like I'm making stuff up I'm only responding at the level you've digressed to..
  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely. We should not use hurty words to describe a world leader who absolutely buzzes on insulting and abusing anyone he feels like, friend or foe. Some i feel on here agree with his awful views, mocking the disabled, racism and how he talks about women are condemned by many decent people but not all.. Again, your implication is that Trump's awful language justifies the use of similar words on here, which I know is not what you mean. No i mean some on here agree with him.. Tbh if you dont like strong language just avoid the thread maybe? I know you've given similar advice to other's before when they have in your opinion diverted from the title of threads you've started.. How is it possible to “avoid a thread”? As someone interested in politics I enjoy reading the politics forum. I open a thread that might be of interest and immediately see reference to “fat” people. One would have thought a swingers website of all places would be inclusive. It’s entirely possible to make a political point without making any reference at all to someone’s physical appearance. Its simple, if you know you'll be triggered by it then scroll on by.. Its as easy as making a point about being offended by someone else's choice of language without also doing the same.." I’m struggling to see how one can “scroll on by” overt and unnecessary fattism. That seems to me to be like saying that a Jewish person working in an NHS hospital surrounded by anti semitic commentary should “just grow a pair and ignore it”. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Fat people stay out of the forums”. Next week it will be “Jews keep out”. Then “No Irish, blacks or dogs”. " Congratulations on combining a strawman with a slippery slope fallacy. Let's call it a slippery strawman | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely. We should not use hurty words to describe a world leader who absolutely buzzes on insulting and abusing anyone he feels like, friend or foe. Some i feel on here agree with his awful views, mocking the disabled, racism and how he talks about women are condemned by many decent people but not all.. Again, your implication is that Trump's awful language justifies the use of similar words on here, which I know is not what you mean. No i mean some on here agree with him.. Tbh if you dont like strong language just avoid the thread maybe? I know you've given similar advice to other's before when they have in your opinion diverted from the title of threads you've started.. How is it possible to “avoid a thread”? As someone interested in politics I enjoy reading the politics forum. I open a thread that might be of interest and immediately see reference to “fat” people. One would have thought a swingers website of all places would be inclusive. It’s entirely possible to make a political point without making any reference at all to someone’s physical appearance. Its simple, if you know you'll be triggered by it then scroll on by.. Its as easy as making a point about being offended by someone else's choice of language without also doing the same.. I’m struggling to see how one can “scroll on by” overt and unnecessary fattism. That seems to me to be like saying that a Jewish person working in an NHS hospital surrounded by anti semitic commentary should “just grow a pair and ignore it”. " Someone once said 'I may disagree with what you say..etc ' Using hypothetical imaginary situations literally adds nothing to the debate.. Its words on a screen, on a forum where the mods will address any breaking of the rules.. Its humerously ironic that in relation to words used about trump, the vocal racist, misogynistic hate spotting bastion of the 1st Amendment that people are stressed over.. Or is free speech only for those who seek themselves aligned with his ideas, not all of his language and views perhaps..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely. We should not use hurty words to describe a world leader who absolutely buzzes on insulting and abusing anyone he feels like, friend or foe. Some i feel on here agree with his awful views, mocking the disabled, racism and how he talks about women are condemned by many decent people but not all.. Again, your implication is that Trump's awful language justifies the use of similar words on here, which I know is not what you mean. No i mean some on here agree with him.. Tbh if you dont like strong language just avoid the thread maybe? I know you've given similar advice to other's before when they have in your opinion diverted from the title of threads you've started.. How is it possible to “avoid a thread”? As someone interested in politics I enjoy reading the politics forum. I open a thread that might be of interest and immediately see reference to “fat” people. One would have thought a swingers website of all places would be inclusive. It’s entirely possible to make a political point without making any reference at all to someone’s physical appearance. Its simple, if you know you'll be triggered by it then scroll on by.. Its as easy as making a point about being offended by someone else's choice of language without also doing the same.. I’m struggling to see how one can “scroll on by” overt and unnecessary fattism. That seems to me to be like saying that a Jewish person working in an NHS hospital surrounded by anti semitic commentary should “just grow a pair and ignore it”. Someone once said 'I may disagree with what you say..etc ' Using hypothetical imaginary situations literally adds nothing to the debate.. Its words on a screen, on a forum where the mods will address any breaking of the rules.. Its humerously ironic that in relation to words used about trump, the vocal racist, misogynistic hate spotting bastion of the 1st Amendment that people are stressed over.. Or is free speech only for those who seek themselves aligned with his ideas, not all of his language and views perhaps..?" You only have to look at how people had to worship Charlie Kirk upon his death but apparently he's allowed to be glad that Muller had died. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 Is it ok if someone calls Diane Abbott a fat freak? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Fat people stay out of the forums”. Next week it will be “Jews keep out”. Then “No Irish, blacks or dogs”. " Stay away or scroll past seem to be the only options. That's everyone on Fab told then ! To be fair I think this is mostly a generational issue. The language that was acceptable in the 60s or 70s is thankfully frowned upon by most younger people, but granted anonymity I guess old habits die hard. 🤷 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it ok if someone calls Diane Abbott a fat freak?" I'm sure that would be fine. After all, you wouldn't catch a left-wing thinker treating anyone differently just because of their gender, or race, or political affiliation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it ok if someone calls Diane Abbott a fat freak? I'm sure that would be fine. After all, you wouldn't catch a left-wing thinker treating anyone differently just because of their gender, or race, or political affiliation." Being fat is a choice though? Being black, Asian, gay, or a woman isn't! The locus of control for your ethnicity or race, gender or sexualiity isn't in your control. But being fat generally is | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely. We should not use hurty words to describe a world leader who absolutely buzzes on insulting and abusing anyone he feels like, friend or foe. Your logic then is that Trump's language is perfectly acceptable which I imagine is not the point you were hoping to make. The English language offers a huge range of adjectives to describe people in negative terms without resorting to crude words which could very easily be offensive and triggering to other Forum users. " I guess we should ban discussions about fucking, pussy licking and gang bangs then ? Someone could take offence 🤷♂️ If you don't care for the language or content of a post it's not compulsory to comment | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it ok if someone calls Diane Abbott a fat freak? I'm sure that would be fine. After all, you wouldn't catch a left-wing thinker treating anyone differently just because of their gender, or race, or political affiliation. Being fat is a choice though? Being black, Asian, gay, or a woman isn't! The locus of control for your ethnicity or race, gender or sexualiity isn't in your control. But being fat generally is " Oh dear, shockingly poorly informed. You really should educate yourself. Frankly I thought these kinds of opinion about obesity disappeared years ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Markets not liking it this morning. " They aren't, they can see clearer than the maga mob | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely. We should not use hurty words to describe a world leader who absolutely buzzes on insulting and abusing anyone he feels like, friend or foe. Your logic then is that Trump's language is perfectly acceptable which I imagine is not the point you were hoping to make. The English language offers a huge range of adjectives to describe people in negative terms without resorting to crude words which could very easily be offensive and triggering to other Forum users. I guess we should ban discussions about fucking, pussy licking and gang bangs then ? Someone could take offence 🤷♂️ If you don't care for the language or content of a post it's not compulsory to comment " Indeed, but I would hope all of us would want these Forums to be as inclusive as possible. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yet another Trump thread, despite Trump not having done anything noteworthy since the last one. It is rather ironic that the OP so frequently quotes Forum rules while ignoring them himself." Can you list the forum rules the OP has broken ? I've had a really good look and the only rules broken are those bitchin about other users posts and naming and shaming. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it ok if someone calls Diane Abbott a fat freak? I'm sure that would be fine. After all, you wouldn't catch a left-wing thinker treating anyone differently just because of their gender, or race, or political affiliation. Being fat is a choice though? Being black, Asian, gay, or a woman isn't! The locus of control for your ethnicity or race, gender or sexualiity isn't in your control. But being fat generally is Oh dear, shockingly poorly informed. You really should educate yourself. Frankly I thought these kinds of opinion about obesity disappeared years ago." No one is born fat and DNA won't show this person happend to love eating and hated exercise! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Iran has mobilised seven million fighters apparently When is the 3500 USMC going in ? " Its looking more and more like Vietnam  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Iran has mobilised seven million fighters apparently When is the 3500 USMC going in ? Its looking more and more like Vietnam "Three million Americans served in Vietnam. That's slightly more than 3500 I believe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Iran has mobilised seven million fighters apparently When is the 3500 USMC going in ? Its looking more and more like Vietnam
Three million Americans served in Vietnam. That's slightly more than 3500 I believe."How did that go for those Americans in Vietnam?.....someone has to stop Trump as this will result in mass casualties on both sides. Or will Taco play out again ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can’t see a ground invasion. USA made a cunts job of Iraq with 4k snuff USA military. Jingoistic Hegseth probably up for it though " Yeah I did think this, but they've now mobilised 10,000 troops to the area. It does have Vietnam vibes about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can’t see a ground invasion. USA made a cunts job of Iraq with 4k snuff USA military. Jingoistic Hegseth probably up for it though Yeah I did think this, but they've now mobilised 10,000 troops to the area. It does have Vietnam vibes about it." US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can’t see a ground invasion. USA made a cunts job of Iraq with 4k snuff USA military. Jingoistic Hegseth probably up for it though Yeah I did think this, but they've now mobilised 10,000 troops to the area. It does have Vietnam vibes about it. US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. " Indeed, history doesn't bode well for you here. Remind me how long was Iraq and Afghanistan? It has mission creep vibes with no clear ending or purpose as to why it was ever started, let alone the foresight or intelligence to know that it would inflict global economic harm! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month." An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Iran has mobilised seven million fighters apparently When is the 3500 USMC going in ? Its looking more and more like Vietnam
Three million Americans served in Vietnam. That's slightly more than 3500 I believe."Remind me, did they win ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can’t see a ground invasion. USA made a cunts job of Iraq with 4k snuff USA military. Jingoistic Hegseth probably up for it though Yeah I did think this, but they've now mobilised 10,000 troops to the area. It does have Vietnam vibes about it. US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. " A month ? I thought it was done and dusted in two weeks, t Iran was decimated, no army, no navy, no air force and all their weapons were destroyed. Remind me who said that ?? Mango prick was it ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can’t see a ground invasion. USA made a cunts job of Iraq with 4k snuff USA military. Jingoistic Hegseth probably up for it though Yeah I did think this, but they've now mobilised 10,000 troops to the area. It does have Vietnam vibes about it." Alice might even have to open a new restaurant! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can’t see a ground invasion. USA made a cunts job of Iraq with 4k snuff USA military. Jingoistic Hegseth probably up for it though Yeah I did think this, but they've now mobilised 10,000 troops to the area. It does have Vietnam vibes about it. Alice might even have to open a new restaurant!" Casablanca or Da Nial? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can’t see a ground invasion. USA made a cunts job of Iraq with 4k snuff USA military. Jingoistic Hegseth probably up for it though Yeah I did think this, but they've now mobilised 10,000 troops to the area. It does have Vietnam vibes about it. Alice might even have to open a new restaurant!" One for the kids there | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month." Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing." They're a busted flush!! For me it's not wishful thinking it's the mission creep vibe. He says that it's over they've won etc etc but all the while amassing people's children off the shore of Iran. He keeps moving the goal posts as to what they're actually doing! He's also been shown to be a complete liar even to the right wing media. We now live in a world where we doubt the word of America and Iran!! And tbh Iran have funnier videos | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing." Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. " Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. " To quote the late great Peter Cooke, 'I've learned from all my mistakes and I'm confident I could repeat them.' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one!" What is your reasoning for this conclusion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. To quote the late great Peter Cooke, 'I've learned from all my mistakes and I'm confident I could repeat them.'" Quoting an actor to give credibility is odd..
Then again trump has the similar planning skills as Baldrick..
Maybe trump does love the smell of napalm in the morning..
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. To quote the late great Peter Cooke, 'I've learned from all my mistakes and I'm confident I could repeat them.' Quoting an actor to give credibility is odd..
Then again trump has the similar planning skills as Baldrick..
Maybe trump does love the smell of napalm in the morning..
"Ermm..Peter Cook was a comedian and it was an obvious joke but ✈️🤦♂️ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? " Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. To quote the late great Peter Cooke, 'I've learned from all my mistakes and I'm confident I could repeat them.' Quoting an actor to give credibility is odd..
Then again trump has the similar planning skills as Baldrick..
Maybe trump does love the smell of napalm in the morning..
Ermm..Peter Cook was a comedian and it was an obvious joke but ✈️🤦♂️"Ah.. 
And a great actor..  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later." I understand the sentiment and comparison you are making but I see it being used everywhere without context. For example what is the US military objective in this conflict? Would you know if they achieved their objectives? The US military have been very quiet on this, so I feel most people are listening to Trump rambling on and assuming everything has been a failure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later. I understand the sentiment and comparison you are making but I see it being used everywhere without context. For example what is the US military objective in this conflict? Would you know if they achieved their objectives? The US military have been very quiet on this, so I feel most people are listening to Trump rambling on and assuming everything has been a failure." Exactly. That's why he doesn't have the populations support. He's not ruling a theocracy yet.... In a democracy you make the case for war, you state your objectives and reasoning. You can't honestly say this is going well and they planned for the closure of the strait of Hormuz? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. To quote the late great Peter Cooke, 'I've learned from all my mistakes and I'm confident I could repeat them.'" Grumpy trumpy follows that philosophy 😂😂 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later. I understand the sentiment and comparison you are making but I see it being used everywhere without context. For example what is the US military objective in this conflict? Would you know if they achieved their objectives? The US military have been very quiet on this, so I feel most people are listening to Trump rambling on and assuming everything has been a failure. Exactly. That's why he doesn't have the populations support. He's not ruling a theocracy yet.... In a democracy you make the case for war, you state your objectives and reasoning. You can't honestly say this is going well and they planned for the closure of the strait of Hormuz?" The strategy of the US military is not known. There will always be unknowns during a conflict, if there wasn't Ukraine would have been long finished. The point I'm making is, Trump rambles full stop. The US military are hitting Iran hard along with Israel, damage and weakness must be happening, we simply can't see it and to judge this on the words of Trump is not the smartest thing to do in my opinion. There is no comparison to Iraq or Vietnam, nothing at all like it today. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"[Removed by poster at 02/04/26 21:54:55]" Going well? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"[Removed by poster at 02/04/26 21:54:55] Going well?" Maybe address the post above and not try and score points. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later. I understand the sentiment and comparison you are making but I see it being used everywhere without context. For example what is the US military objective in this conflict? Would you know if they achieved their objectives? The US military have been very quiet on this, so I feel most people are listening to Trump rambling on and assuming everything has been a failure. Exactly. That's why he doesn't have the populations support. He's not ruling a theocracy yet.... In a democracy you make the case for war, you state your objectives and reasoning. You can't honestly say this is going well and they planned for the closure of the strait of Hormuz? The strategy of the US military is not known. There will always be unknowns during a conflict, if there wasn't Ukraine would have been long finished. The point I'm making is, Trump rambles full stop. The US military are hitting Iran hard along with Israel, damage and weakness must be happening, we simply can't see it and to judge this on the words of Trump is not the smartest thing to do in my opinion. There is no comparison to Iraq or Vietnam, nothing at all like it today. " I hear your sympathetic towards America and want to think the best of a deranged regime. But you have normalcy bias! These people in charge of America are insane! The people in charge of Iran have had 47 years to plan for this. So I'll say it another way, how's the petrol prices going? Do you think the decadent west will revolt against those prices before the Iranian people against the mullahs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later. I understand the sentiment and comparison you are making but I see it being used everywhere without context. For example what is the US military objective in this conflict? Would you know if they achieved their objectives? The US military have been very quiet on this, so I feel most people are listening to Trump rambling on and assuming everything has been a failure. Exactly. That's why he doesn't have the populations support. He's not ruling a theocracy yet.... In a democracy you make the case for war, you state your objectives and reasoning. You can't honestly say this is going well and they planned for the closure of the strait of Hormuz? The strategy of the US military is not known. There will always be unknowns during a conflict, if there wasn't Ukraine would have been long finished. The point I'm making is, Trump rambles full stop. The US military are hitting Iran hard along with Israel, damage and weakness must be happening, we simply can't see it and to judge this on the words of Trump is not the smartest thing to do in my opinion. There is no comparison to Iraq or Vietnam, nothing at all like it today. " Good to see some rational analysis amongst all the hysterical shrieking from the Armchair Corporals on this forum. War comes with uncertainty and risk. Very few people know the reality of what is happening on the ground. Probably nobody knows what the ultimate endgame is. One can only hope that the US/Israel prevail and the Iranian fanatics are put safely back in their box for the foreseeable future. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later. I understand the sentiment and comparison you are making but I see it being used everywhere without context. For example what is the US military objective in this conflict? Would you know if they achieved their objectives? The US military have been very quiet on this, so I feel most people are listening to Trump rambling on and assuming everything has been a failure. Exactly. That's why he doesn't have the populations support. He's not ruling a theocracy yet.... In a democracy you make the case for war, you state your objectives and reasoning. You can't honestly say this is going well and they planned for the closure of the strait of Hormuz? The strategy of the US military is not known. There will always be unknowns during a conflict, if there wasn't Ukraine would have been long finished. The point I'm making is, Trump rambles full stop. The US military are hitting Iran hard along with Israel, damage and weakness must be happening, we simply can't see it and to judge this on the words of Trump is not the smartest thing to do in my opinion. There is no comparison to Iraq or Vietnam, nothing at all like it today. I hear your sympathetic towards America and want to think the best of a deranged regime. But you have normalcy bias! These people in charge of America are insane! The people in charge of Iran have had 47 years to plan for this. So I'll say it another way, how's the petrol prices going? Do you think the decadent west will revolt against those prices before the Iranian people against the mullahs?" Your argument is based on fear of reprisal, if that is the world you want to create then it will be a world that is dominated by brute force. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later. I understand the sentiment and comparison you are making but I see it being used everywhere without context. For example what is the US military objective in this conflict? Would you know if they achieved their objectives? The US military have been very quiet on this, so I feel most people are listening to Trump rambling on and assuming everything has been a failure. Exactly. That's why he doesn't have the populations support. He's not ruling a theocracy yet.... In a democracy you make the case for war, you state your objectives and reasoning. You can't honestly say this is going well and they planned for the closure of the strait of Hormuz? The strategy of the US military is not known. There will always be unknowns during a conflict, if there wasn't Ukraine would have been long finished. The point I'm making is, Trump rambles full stop. The US military are hitting Iran hard along with Israel, damage and weakness must be happening, we simply can't see it and to judge this on the words of Trump is not the smartest thing to do in my opinion. There is no comparison to Iraq or Vietnam, nothing at all like it today. Good to see some rational analysis amongst all the hysterical shrieking from the Armchair Corporals on this forum. War comes with uncertainty and risk. Very few people know the reality of what is happening on the ground. Probably nobody knows what the ultimate endgame is. One can only hope that the US/Israel prevail and the Iranian fanatics are put safely back in their box for the foreseeable future." Says the guy with no son or daughter involved | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later. I understand the sentiment and comparison you are making but I see it being used everywhere without context. For example what is the US military objective in this conflict? Would you know if they achieved their objectives? The US military have been very quiet on this, so I feel most people are listening to Trump rambling on and assuming everything has been a failure. Exactly. That's why he doesn't have the populations support. He's not ruling a theocracy yet.... In a democracy you make the case for war, you state your objectives and reasoning. You can't honestly say this is going well and they planned for the closure of the strait of Hormuz? The strategy of the US military is not known. There will always be unknowns during a conflict, if there wasn't Ukraine would have been long finished. The point I'm making is, Trump rambles full stop. The US military are hitting Iran hard along with Israel, damage and weakness must be happening, we simply can't see it and to judge this on the words of Trump is not the smartest thing to do in my opinion. There is no comparison to Iraq or Vietnam, nothing at all like it today. I hear your sympathetic towards America and want to think the best of a deranged regime. But you have normalcy bias! These people in charge of America are insane! The people in charge of Iran have had 47 years to plan for this. So I'll say it another way, how's the petrol prices going? Do you think the decadent west will revolt against those prices before the Iranian people against the mullahs? Your argument is based on fear of reprisal, if that is the world you want to create then it will be a world that is dominated by brute force." Fear of reprisal? From your constituencies? Yeah, it's called democracy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later. I understand the sentiment and comparison you are making but I see it being used everywhere without context. For example what is the US military objective in this conflict? Would you know if they achieved their objectives? The US military have been very quiet on this, so I feel most people are listening to Trump rambling on and assuming everything has been a failure. Exactly. That's why he doesn't have the populations support. He's not ruling a theocracy yet.... In a democracy you make the case for war, you state your objectives and reasoning. You can't honestly say this is going well and they planned for the closure of the strait of Hormuz? The strategy of the US military is not known. There will always be unknowns during a conflict, if there wasn't Ukraine would have been long finished. The point I'm making is, Trump rambles full stop. The US military are hitting Iran hard along with Israel, damage and weakness must be happening, we simply can't see it and to judge this on the words of Trump is not the smartest thing to do in my opinion. There is no comparison to Iraq or Vietnam, nothing at all like it today. I hear your sympathetic towards America and want to think the best of a deranged regime. But you have normalcy bias! These people in charge of America are insane! The people in charge of Iran have had 47 years to plan for this. So I'll say it another way, how's the petrol prices going? Do you think the decadent west will revolt against those prices before the Iranian people against the mullahs? Your argument is based on fear of reprisal, if that is the world you want to create then it will be a world that is dominated by brute force. Fear of reprisal? From your constituencies? Yeah, it's called democracy " I'm expected to accept this as legitimate response after you said Iran have had 47 years to plan for this and how are petrol prices going. That is fear of reprisal or you are trying to create a scene that justifies your opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later. I understand the sentiment and comparison you are making but I see it being used everywhere without context. For example what is the US military objective in this conflict? Would you know if they achieved their objectives? The US military have been very quiet on this, so I feel most people are listening to Trump rambling on and assuming everything has been a failure. Exactly. That's why he doesn't have the populations support. He's not ruling a theocracy yet.... In a democracy you make the case for war, you state your objectives and reasoning. You can't honestly say this is going well and they planned for the closure of the strait of Hormuz? The strategy of the US military is not known. There will always be unknowns during a conflict, if there wasn't Ukraine would have been long finished. The point I'm making is, Trump rambles full stop. The US military are hitting Iran hard along with Israel, damage and weakness must be happening, we simply can't see it and to judge this on the words of Trump is not the smartest thing to do in my opinion. There is no comparison to Iraq or Vietnam, nothing at all like it today. I hear your sympathetic towards America and want to think the best of a deranged regime. But you have normalcy bias! These people in charge of America are insane! The people in charge of Iran have had 47 years to plan for this. So I'll say it another way, how's the petrol prices going? Do you think the decadent west will revolt against those prices before the Iranian people against the mullahs? Your argument is based on fear of reprisal, if that is the world you want to create then it will be a world that is dominated by brute force. Fear of reprisal? From your constituencies? Yeah, it's called democracy I'm expected to accept this as legitimate response after you said Iran have had 47 years to plan for this and how are petrol prices going. That is fear of reprisal or you are trying to create a scene that justifies your opinion. " What are you on about? It's obvious, Iran have planned for these attacks hence the Strait of Hormuz being closed. America have failed to see beyond their nose!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later. I understand the sentiment and comparison you are making but I see it being used everywhere without context. For example what is the US military objective in this conflict? Would you know if they achieved their objectives? The US military have been very quiet on this, so I feel most people are listening to Trump rambling on and assuming everything has been a failure. Exactly. That's why he doesn't have the populations support. He's not ruling a theocracy yet.... In a democracy you make the case for war, you state your objectives and reasoning. You can't honestly say this is going well and they planned for the closure of the strait of Hormuz? The strategy of the US military is not known. There will always be unknowns during a conflict, if there wasn't Ukraine would have been long finished. The point I'm making is, Trump rambles full stop. The US military are hitting Iran hard along with Israel, damage and weakness must be happening, we simply can't see it and to judge this on the words of Trump is not the smartest thing to do in my opinion. There is no comparison to Iraq or Vietnam, nothing at all like it today. I hear your sympathetic towards America and want to think the best of a deranged regime. But you have normalcy bias! These people in charge of America are insane! The people in charge of Iran have had 47 years to plan for this. So I'll say it another way, how's the petrol prices going? Do you think the decadent west will revolt against those prices before the Iranian people against the mullahs? Your argument is based on fear of reprisal, if that is the world you want to create then it will be a world that is dominated by brute force. Fear of reprisal? From your constituencies? Yeah, it's called democracy I'm expected to accept this as legitimate response after you said Iran have had 47 years to plan for this and how are petrol prices going. That is fear of reprisal or you are trying to create a scene that justifies your opinion. What are you on about? It's obvious, Iran have planned for these attacks hence the Strait of Hormuz being closed. America have failed to see beyond their nose!!! " Do you expect a nation under attack not to retaliate? Did you expect the US to underwrite every eventuality | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later. I understand the sentiment and comparison you are making but I see it being used everywhere without context. For example what is the US military objective in this conflict? Would you know if they achieved their objectives? The US military have been very quiet on this, so I feel most people are listening to Trump rambling on and assuming everything has been a failure. Exactly. That's why he doesn't have the populations support. He's not ruling a theocracy yet.... In a democracy you make the case for war, you state your objectives and reasoning. You can't honestly say this is going well and they planned for the closure of the strait of Hormuz? The strategy of the US military is not known. There will always be unknowns during a conflict, if there wasn't Ukraine would have been long finished. The point I'm making is, Trump rambles full stop. The US military are hitting Iran hard along with Israel, damage and weakness must be happening, we simply can't see it and to judge this on the words of Trump is not the smartest thing to do in my opinion. There is no comparison to Iraq or Vietnam, nothing at all like it today. I hear your sympathetic towards America and want to think the best of a deranged regime. But you have normalcy bias! These people in charge of America are insane! The people in charge of Iran have had 47 years to plan for this. So I'll say it another way, how's the petrol prices going? Do you think the decadent west will revolt against those prices before the Iranian people against the mullahs? Your argument is based on fear of reprisal, if that is the world you want to create then it will be a world that is dominated by brute force. Fear of reprisal? From your constituencies? Yeah, it's called democracy I'm expected to accept this as legitimate response after you said Iran have had 47 years to plan for this and how are petrol prices going. That is fear of reprisal or you are trying to create a scene that justifies your opinion. What are you on about? It's obvious, Iran have planned for these attacks hence the Strait of Hormuz being closed. America have failed to see beyond their nose!!! Do you expect a nation under attack not to retaliate? Did you expect the US to underwrite every eventuality " They didn't need to do it! When attacked, obviously Iran was going to defend. I'm pretty sure every analysis I've heard is that an attack on Iran means the closure of Hormuz!!! Your being silly if America didn't have that intelligence!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later. I understand the sentiment and comparison you are making but I see it being used everywhere without context. For example what is the US military objective in this conflict? Would you know if they achieved their objectives? The US military have been very quiet on this, so I feel most people are listening to Trump rambling on and assuming everything has been a failure. Exactly. That's why he doesn't have the populations support. He's not ruling a theocracy yet.... In a democracy you make the case for war, you state your objectives and reasoning. You can't honestly say this is going well and they planned for the closure of the strait of Hormuz? The strategy of the US military is not known. There will always be unknowns during a conflict, if there wasn't Ukraine would have been long finished. The point I'm making is, Trump rambles full stop. The US military are hitting Iran hard along with Israel, damage and weakness must be happening, we simply can't see it and to judge this on the words of Trump is not the smartest thing to do in my opinion. There is no comparison to Iraq or Vietnam, nothing at all like it today. I hear your sympathetic towards America and want to think the best of a deranged regime. But you have normalcy bias! These people in charge of America are insane! The people in charge of Iran have had 47 years to plan for this. So I'll say it another way, how's the petrol prices going? Do you think the decadent west will revolt against those prices before the Iranian people against the mullahs? Your argument is based on fear of reprisal, if that is the world you want to create then it will be a world that is dominated by brute force. Fear of reprisal? From your constituencies? Yeah, it's called democracy I'm expected to accept this as legitimate response after you said Iran have had 47 years to plan for this and how are petrol prices going. That is fear of reprisal or you are trying to create a scene that justifies your opinion. What are you on about? It's obvious, Iran have planned for these attacks hence the Strait of Hormuz being closed. America have failed to see beyond their nose!!! Do you expect a nation under attack not to retaliate? Did you expect the US to underwrite every eventuality They didn't need to do it! When attacked, obviously Iran was going to defend. I'm pretty sure every analysis I've heard is that an attack on Iran means the closure of Hormuz!!! Your being silly if America didn't have that intelligence!!" I refer you back to my original question, are you aware of the US military objectives? That is a rhetorical question, because you don't, however if there is short term pain for long term gain this episode will long be forgotten and no doubt so will Trump, because a safer and more stable global community seems a step too far for people to want to get behind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later. I understand the sentiment and comparison you are making but I see it being used everywhere without context. For example what is the US military objective in this conflict? Would you know if they achieved their objectives? The US military have been very quiet on this, so I feel most people are listening to Trump rambling on and assuming everything has been a failure. Exactly. That's why he doesn't have the populations support. He's not ruling a theocracy yet.... In a democracy you make the case for war, you state your objectives and reasoning. You can't honestly say this is going well and they planned for the closure of the strait of Hormuz? The strategy of the US military is not known. There will always be unknowns during a conflict, if there wasn't Ukraine would have been long finished. The point I'm making is, Trump rambles full stop. The US military are hitting Iran hard along with Israel, damage and weakness must be happening, we simply can't see it and to judge this on the words of Trump is not the smartest thing to do in my opinion. There is no comparison to Iraq or Vietnam, nothing at all like it today. I hear your sympathetic towards America and want to think the best of a deranged regime. But you have normalcy bias! These people in charge of America are insane! The people in charge of Iran have had 47 years to plan for this. So I'll say it another way, how's the petrol prices going? Do you think the decadent west will revolt against those prices before the Iranian people against the mullahs? Your argument is based on fear of reprisal, if that is the world you want to create then it will be a world that is dominated by brute force. Fear of reprisal? From your constituencies? Yeah, it's called democracy I'm expected to accept this as legitimate response after you said Iran have had 47 years to plan for this and how are petrol prices going. That is fear of reprisal or you are trying to create a scene that justifies your opinion. What are you on about? It's obvious, Iran have planned for these attacks hence the Strait of Hormuz being closed. America have failed to see beyond their nose!!! Do you expect a nation under attack not to retaliate? Did you expect the US to underwrite every eventuality They didn't need to do it! When attacked, obviously Iran was going to defend. I'm pretty sure every analysis I've heard is that an attack on Iran means the closure of Hormuz!!! Your being silly if America didn't have that intelligence!! I refer you back to my original question, are you aware of the US military objectives? That is a rhetorical question, because you don't, however if there is short term pain for long term gain this episode will long be forgotten and no doubt so will Trump, because a safer and more stable global community seems a step too far for people to want to get behind. " And I refer you back to my post saying who can weather the storm most? The gamble your taking is that the west will take it on the chin that , petrol, food, clothes and plastics will cost a lot more!! All while the politicians pretend the war is won???? Or do you an already suppressed population is used to hiding and not having much food or freedom? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"America have weakened their hand but strengthened Iran! Take your rose tinted eagle glasses off this is a humiliation for America. Britain was correct in stating out. After the war we have to negotiate a new world, until then, mango Mussolini and his fan boys will rage and come up with excuses. Non of which will be based in fact or truth " Whatever one thinks of the American/Israeli action, the idea Iran is 'strengthened' shows a detachment from reality and rather undermines some other fair points you make. If you walked back from anti American ranting I think you'd make more rational judgements. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"America have weakened their hand but strengthened Iran! Take your rose tinted eagle glasses off this is a humiliation for America. Britain was correct in stating out. After the war we have to negotiate a new world, until then, mango Mussolini and his fan boys will rage and come up with excuses. Non of which will be based in fact or truth Whatever one thinks of the American/Israeli action, the idea Iran is 'strengthened' shows a detachment from reality and rather undermines some other fair points you make. If you walked back from anti American ranting I think you'd make more rational judgements." Iran is forever strengthened. From now on we will have to either, have a treaty with Iran or pay Iran for passage of the Hormuz. Possibly step back from your west is best bias and see exactly what is going on! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later. I understand the sentiment and comparison you are making but I see it being used everywhere without context. For example what is the US military objective in this conflict? Would you know if they achieved their objectives? The US military have been very quiet on this, so I feel most people are listening to Trump rambling on and assuming everything has been a failure. Exactly. That's why he doesn't have the populations support. He's not ruling a theocracy yet.... In a democracy you make the case for war, you state your objectives and reasoning. You can't honestly say this is going well and they planned for the closure of the strait of Hormuz? The strategy of the US military is not known. There will always be unknowns during a conflict, if there wasn't Ukraine would have been long finished. The point I'm making is, Trump rambles full stop. The US military are hitting Iran hard along with Israel, damage and weakness must be happening, we simply can't see it and to judge this on the words of Trump is not the smartest thing to do in my opinion. There is no comparison to Iraq or Vietnam, nothing at all like it today. I hear your sympathetic towards America and want to think the best of a deranged regime. But you have normalcy bias! These people in charge of America are insane! The people in charge of Iran have had 47 years to plan for this. So I'll say it another way, how's the petrol prices going? Do you think the decadent west will revolt against those prices before the Iranian people against the mullahs? Your argument is based on fear of reprisal, if that is the world you want to create then it will be a world that is dominated by brute force. Fear of reprisal? From your constituencies? Yeah, it's called democracy I'm expected to accept this as legitimate response after you said Iran have had 47 years to plan for this and how are petrol prices going. That is fear of reprisal or you are trying to create a scene that justifies your opinion. What are you on about? It's obvious, Iran have planned for these attacks hence the Strait of Hormuz being closed. America have failed to see beyond their nose!!! Do you expect a nation under attack not to retaliate? Did you expect the US to underwrite every eventuality They didn't need to do it! When attacked, obviously Iran was going to defend. I'm pretty sure every analysis I've heard is that an attack on Iran means the closure of Hormuz!!! Your being silly if America didn't have that intelligence!! I refer you back to my original question, are you aware of the US military objectives? That is a rhetorical question, because you don't, however if there is short term pain for long term gain this episode will long be forgotten and no doubt so will Trump, because a safer and more stable global community seems a step too far for people to want to get behind. And I refer you back to my post saying who can weather the storm most? The gamble your taking is that the west will take it on the chin that , petrol, food, clothes and plastics will cost a lot more!! All while the politicians pretend the war is won???? Or do you an already suppressed population is used to hiding and not having much food or freedom?" We have gone full circle and ended back at the fear of reprisal. It is good to hear another view on this that wasn't based around expletives to describe Trump as the core value. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later. I understand the sentiment and comparison you are making but I see it being used everywhere without context. For example what is the US military objective in this conflict? Would you know if they achieved their objectives? The US military have been very quiet on this, so I feel most people are listening to Trump rambling on and assuming everything has been a failure. Exactly. That's why he doesn't have the populations support. He's not ruling a theocracy yet.... In a democracy you make the case for war, you state your objectives and reasoning. You can't honestly say this is going well and they planned for the closure of the strait of Hormuz? The strategy of the US military is not known. There will always be unknowns during a conflict, if there wasn't Ukraine would have been long finished. The point I'm making is, Trump rambles full stop. The US military are hitting Iran hard along with Israel, damage and weakness must be happening, we simply can't see it and to judge this on the words of Trump is not the smartest thing to do in my opinion. There is no comparison to Iraq or Vietnam, nothing at all like it today. I hear your sympathetic towards America and want to think the best of a deranged regime. But you have normalcy bias! These people in charge of America are insane! The people in charge of Iran have had 47 years to plan for this. So I'll say it another way, how's the petrol prices going? Do you think the decadent west will revolt against those prices before the Iranian people against the mullahs? Your argument is based on fear of reprisal, if that is the world you want to create then it will be a world that is dominated by brute force. Fear of reprisal? From your constituencies? Yeah, it's called democracy I'm expected to accept this as legitimate response after you said Iran have had 47 years to plan for this and how are petrol prices going. That is fear of reprisal or you are trying to create a scene that justifies your opinion. What are you on about? It's obvious, Iran have planned for these attacks hence the Strait of Hormuz being closed. America have failed to see beyond their nose!!! Do you expect a nation under attack not to retaliate? Did you expect the US to underwrite every eventuality They didn't need to do it! When attacked, obviously Iran was going to defend. I'm pretty sure every analysis I've heard is that an attack on Iran means the closure of Hormuz!!! Your being silly if America didn't have that intelligence!! I refer you back to my original question, are you aware of the US military objectives? That is a rhetorical question, because you don't, however if there is short term pain for long term gain this episode will long be forgotten and no doubt so will Trump, because a safer and more stable global community seems a step too far for people to want to get behind. And I refer you back to my post saying who can weather the storm most? The gamble your taking is that the west will take it on the chin that , petrol, food, clothes and plastics will cost a lot more!! All while the politicians pretend the war is won???? Or do you an already suppressed population is used to hiding and not having much food or freedom? We have gone full circle and ended back at the fear of reprisal. It is good to hear another view on this that wasn't based around expletives to describe Trump as the core value. "If the west want a war, they have to make that case to the people! In a democracy we won't put up with excuses about Iran when they chose this war | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later. I understand the sentiment and comparison you are making but I see it being used everywhere without context. For example what is the US military objective in this conflict? Would you know if they achieved their objectives? The US military have been very quiet on this, so I feel most people are listening to Trump rambling on and assuming everything has been a failure. Exactly. That's why he doesn't have the populations support. He's not ruling a theocracy yet.... In a democracy you make the case for war, you state your objectives and reasoning. You can't honestly say this is going well and they planned for the closure of the strait of Hormuz? The strategy of the US military is not known. There will always be unknowns during a conflict, if there wasn't Ukraine would have been long finished. The point I'm making is, Trump rambles full stop. The US military are hitting Iran hard along with Israel, damage and weakness must be happening, we simply can't see it and to judge this on the words of Trump is not the smartest thing to do in my opinion. There is no comparison to Iraq or Vietnam, nothing at all like it today. I hear your sympathetic towards America and want to think the best of a deranged regime. But you have normalcy bias! These people in charge of America are insane! The people in charge of Iran have had 47 years to plan for this. So I'll say it another way, how's the petrol prices going? Do you think the decadent west will revolt against those prices before the Iranian people against the mullahs? Your argument is based on fear of reprisal, if that is the world you want to create then it will be a world that is dominated by brute force. Fear of reprisal? From your constituencies? Yeah, it's called democracy I'm expected to accept this as legitimate response after you said Iran have had 47 years to plan for this and how are petrol prices going. That is fear of reprisal or you are trying to create a scene that justifies your opinion. What are you on about? It's obvious, Iran have planned for these attacks hence the Strait of Hormuz being closed. America have failed to see beyond their nose!!! Do you expect a nation under attack not to retaliate? Did you expect the US to underwrite every eventuality They didn't need to do it! When attacked, obviously Iran was going to defend. I'm pretty sure every analysis I've heard is that an attack on Iran means the closure of Hormuz!!! Your being silly if America didn't have that intelligence!! I refer you back to my original question, are you aware of the US military objectives? That is a rhetorical question, because you don't, however if there is short term pain for long term gain this episode will long be forgotten and no doubt so will Trump, because a safer and more stable global community seems a step too far for people to want to get behind. And I refer you back to my post saying who can weather the storm most? The gamble your taking is that the west will take it on the chin that , petrol, food, clothes and plastics will cost a lot more!! All while the politicians pretend the war is won???? Or do you an already suppressed population is used to hiding and not having much food or freedom? We have gone full circle and ended back at the fear of reprisal. It is good to hear another view on this that wasn't based around expletives to describe Trump as the core value.
If the west want a war, they have to make that case to the people!
In a democracy we won't put up with excuses about Iran when they chose this war "you have no choice, and you will put up with it, hence the fear of something you can't control. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later. I understand the sentiment and comparison you are making but I see it being used everywhere without context. For example what is the US military objective in this conflict? Would you know if they achieved their objectives? The US military have been very quiet on this, so I feel most people are listening to Trump rambling on and assuming everything has been a failure. Exactly. That's why he doesn't have the populations support. He's not ruling a theocracy yet.... In a democracy you make the case for war, you state your objectives and reasoning. You can't honestly say this is going well and they planned for the closure of the strait of Hormuz? The strategy of the US military is not known. There will always be unknowns during a conflict, if there wasn't Ukraine would have been long finished. The point I'm making is, Trump rambles full stop. The US military are hitting Iran hard along with Israel, damage and weakness must be happening, we simply can't see it and to judge this on the words of Trump is not the smartest thing to do in my opinion. There is no comparison to Iraq or Vietnam, nothing at all like it today. I hear your sympathetic towards America and want to think the best of a deranged regime. But you have normalcy bias! These people in charge of America are insane! The people in charge of Iran have had 47 years to plan for this. So I'll say it another way, how's the petrol prices going? Do you think the decadent west will revolt against those prices before the Iranian people against the mullahs? Your argument is based on fear of reprisal, if that is the world you want to create then it will be a world that is dominated by brute force. Fear of reprisal? From your constituencies? Yeah, it's called democracy I'm expected to accept this as legitimate response after you said Iran have had 47 years to plan for this and how are petrol prices going. That is fear of reprisal or you are trying to create a scene that justifies your opinion. What are you on about? It's obvious, Iran have planned for these attacks hence the Strait of Hormuz being closed. America have failed to see beyond their nose!!! Do you expect a nation under attack not to retaliate? Did you expect the US to underwrite every eventuality They didn't need to do it! When attacked, obviously Iran was going to defend. I'm pretty sure every analysis I've heard is that an attack on Iran means the closure of Hormuz!!! Your being silly if America didn't have that intelligence!! I refer you back to my original question, are you aware of the US military objectives? That is a rhetorical question, because you don't, however if there is short term pain for long term gain this episode will long be forgotten and no doubt so will Trump, because a safer and more stable global community seems a step too far for people to want to get behind. And I refer you back to my post saying who can weather the storm most? The gamble your taking is that the west will take it on the chin that , petrol, food, clothes and plastics will cost a lot more!! All while the politicians pretend the war is won???? Or do you an already suppressed population is used to hiding and not having much food or freedom? We have gone full circle and ended back at the fear of reprisal. It is good to hear another view on this that wasn't based around expletives to describe Trump as the core value.
If the west want a war, they have to make that case to the people!
In a democracy we won't put up with excuses about Iran when they chose this war
you have no choice, and you will put up with it, hence the fear of something you can't control."Except in a demon we do! Trump is already looking for an off ramp because it's so unpopular and he's looking at the midterms! You seem to want a democracy to be the same as the Iranians!! A democracy is reliant on reprisal!! People's opinion matters!. Where as the Iranians already suffer and starve. They'll weather this storm much better than a person who's used to traveling and eating out in a Western democracy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"America have weakened their hand but strengthened Iran! Take your rose tinted eagle glasses off this is a humiliation for America. Britain was correct in stating out. After the war we have to negotiate a new world, until then, mango Mussolini and his fan boys will rage and come up with excuses. Non of which will be based in fact or truth Whatever one thinks of the American/Israeli action, the idea Iran is 'strengthened' shows a detachment from reality and rather undermines some other fair points you make. If you walked back from anti American ranting I think you'd make more rational judgements. Iran is forever strengthened. From now on we will have to either, have a treaty with Iran or pay Iran for passage of the Hormuz. Possibly step back from your west is best bias and see exactly what is going on!" You are portraying Iran as acting from a position of strength, rather than a hugely damaged regime which is lashing out at its closest allies and the biggest customers for its oil. Why else do you think they are playing this card now ? Iran's desperate actions over the Strait will lead long term to more land pipelines to bypass it altogether and in the shorter term to international action to ensure it does not happen again - as proposed by Starmer to his credit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later. I understand the sentiment and comparison you are making but I see it being used everywhere without context. For example what is the US military objective in this conflict? Would you know if they achieved their objectives? The US military have been very quiet on this, so I feel most people are listening to Trump rambling on and assuming everything has been a failure. Exactly. That's why he doesn't have the populations support. He's not ruling a theocracy yet.... In a democracy you make the case for war, you state your objectives and reasoning. You can't honestly say this is going well and they planned for the closure of the strait of Hormuz? The strategy of the US military is not known. There will always be unknowns during a conflict, if there wasn't Ukraine would have been long finished. The point I'm making is, Trump rambles full stop. The US military are hitting Iran hard along with Israel, damage and weakness must be happening, we simply can't see it and to judge this on the words of Trump is not the smartest thing to do in my opinion. There is no comparison to Iraq or Vietnam, nothing at all like it today. I hear your sympathetic towards America and want to think the best of a deranged regime. But you have normalcy bias! These people in charge of America are insane! The people in charge of Iran have had 47 years to plan for this. So I'll say it another way, how's the petrol prices going? Do you think the decadent west will revolt against those prices before the Iranian people against the mullahs? Your argument is based on fear of reprisal, if that is the world you want to create then it will be a world that is dominated by brute force. Fear of reprisal? From your constituencies? Yeah, it's called democracy I'm expected to accept this as legitimate response after you said Iran have had 47 years to plan for this and how are petrol prices going. That is fear of reprisal or you are trying to create a scene that justifies your opinion. What are you on about? It's obvious, Iran have planned for these attacks hence the Strait of Hormuz being closed. America have failed to see beyond their nose!!! Do you expect a nation under attack not to retaliate? Did you expect the US to underwrite every eventuality They didn't need to do it! When attacked, obviously Iran was going to defend. I'm pretty sure every analysis I've heard is that an attack on Iran means the closure of Hormuz!!! Your being silly if America didn't have that intelligence!! I refer you back to my original question, are you aware of the US military objectives? That is a rhetorical question, because you don't, however if there is short term pain for long term gain this episode will long be forgotten and no doubt so will Trump, because a safer and more stable global community seems a step too far for people to want to get behind. And I refer you back to my post saying who can weather the storm most? The gamble your taking is that the west will take it on the chin that , petrol, food, clothes and plastics will cost a lot more!! All while the politicians pretend the war is won???? Or do you an already suppressed population is used to hiding and not having much food or freedom? We have gone full circle and ended back at the fear of reprisal. It is good to hear another view on this that wasn't based around expletives to describe Trump as the core value.
If the west want a war, they have to make that case to the people!
In a democracy we won't put up with excuses about Iran when they chose this war
you have no choice, and you will put up with it, hence the fear of something you can't control.
Except in a demon we do!
Trump is already looking for an off ramp because it's so unpopular and he's looking at the midterms!
You seem to want a democracy to be the same as the Iranians!!
A democracy is reliant on reprisal!! People's opinion matters!.
Where as the Iranians already suffer and starve. They'll weather this storm much better than a person who's used to traveling and eating out in a Western democracy "And the fear is shown again, can you not see any strength in the West, or do you feel that we are weakened entity that needs to keep our heads down? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"America have weakened their hand but strengthened Iran! Take your rose tinted eagle glasses off this is a humiliation for America. Britain was correct in stating out. After the war we have to negotiate a new world, until then, mango Mussolini and his fan boys will rage and come up with excuses. Non of which will be based in fact or truth Whatever one thinks of the American/Israeli action, the idea Iran is 'strengthened' shows a detachment from reality and rather undermines some other fair points you make. If you walked back from anti American ranting I think you'd make more rational judgements. Iran is forever strengthened. From now on we will have to either, have a treaty with Iran or pay Iran for passage of the Hormuz. Possibly step back from your west is best bias and see exactly what is going on! You are portraying Iran as acting from a position of strength, rather than a hugely damaged regime which is lashing out at its closest allies and the biggest customers for its oil. Why else do you think they are playing this card now ? Iran's desperate actions over the Strait will lead long term to more land pipelines to bypass it altogether and in the shorter term to international action to ensure it does not happen again - as proposed by Starmer to his credit." Sure, the land pipes that exist can't carry the quantity in ships, and building them would take years!! That also means we then depend ond Saudis, Iraq, Syria, etc imagine what can go wrong! Iran is in a position of strength it has the worlds economy in its ch0ke hold! It may be damaged, but it has planned for this!!! America hasn't! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later. I understand the sentiment and comparison you are making but I see it being used everywhere without context. For example what is the US military objective in this conflict? Would you know if they achieved their objectives? The US military have been very quiet on this, so I feel most people are listening to Trump rambling on and assuming everything has been a failure. Exactly. That's why he doesn't have the populations support. He's not ruling a theocracy yet.... In a democracy you make the case for war, you state your objectives and reasoning. You can't honestly say this is going well and they planned for the closure of the strait of Hormuz? The strategy of the US military is not known. There will always be unknowns during a conflict, if there wasn't Ukraine would have been long finished. The point I'm making is, Trump rambles full stop. The US military are hitting Iran hard along with Israel, damage and weakness must be happening, we simply can't see it and to judge this on the words of Trump is not the smartest thing to do in my opinion. There is no comparison to Iraq or Vietnam, nothing at all like it today. I hear your sympathetic towards America and want to think the best of a deranged regime. But you have normalcy bias! These people in charge of America are insane! The people in charge of Iran have had 47 years to plan for this. So I'll say it another way, how's the petrol prices going? Do you think the decadent west will revolt against those prices before the Iranian people against the mullahs? Your argument is based on fear of reprisal, if that is the world you want to create then it will be a world that is dominated by brute force. Fear of reprisal? From your constituencies? Yeah, it's called democracy I'm expected to accept this as legitimate response after you said Iran have had 47 years to plan for this and how are petrol prices going. That is fear of reprisal or you are trying to create a scene that justifies your opinion. What are you on about? It's obvious, Iran have planned for these attacks hence the Strait of Hormuz being closed. America have failed to see beyond their nose!!! Do you expect a nation under attack not to retaliate? Did you expect the US to underwrite every eventuality They didn't need to do it! When attacked, obviously Iran was going to defend. I'm pretty sure every analysis I've heard is that an attack on Iran means the closure of Hormuz!!! Your being silly if America didn't have that intelligence!! I refer you back to my original question, are you aware of the US military objectives? That is a rhetorical question, because you don't, however if there is short term pain for long term gain this episode will long be forgotten and no doubt so will Trump, because a safer and more stable global community seems a step too far for people to want to get behind. And I refer you back to my post saying who can weather the storm most? The gamble your taking is that the west will take it on the chin that , petrol, food, clothes and plastics will cost a lot more!! All while the politicians pretend the war is won???? Or do you an already suppressed population is used to hiding and not having much food or freedom? We have gone full circle and ended back at the fear of reprisal. It is good to hear another view on this that wasn't based around expletives to describe Trump as the core value.
If the west want a war, they have to make that case to the people!
In a democracy we won't put up with excuses about Iran when they chose this war
you have no choice, and you will put up with it, hence the fear of something you can't control.
Except in a demon we do!
Trump is already looking for an off ramp because it's so unpopular and he's looking at the midterms!
You seem to want a democracy to be the same as the Iranians!!
A democracy is reliant on reprisal!! People's opinion matters!.
Where as the Iranians already suffer and starve. They'll weather this storm much better than a person who's used to traveling and eating out in a Western democracy
And the fear is shown again, can you not see any strength in the West, or do you feel that we are weakened entity that needs to keep our heads down? "You seem to projecting something no other western leader is telling it's people. Are we "the west" at war with Iran? Do we have to alter our way of living? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later. I understand the sentiment and comparison you are making but I see it being used everywhere without context. For example what is the US military objective in this conflict? Would you know if they achieved their objectives? The US military have been very quiet on this, so I feel most people are listening to Trump rambling on and assuming everything has been a failure. Exactly. That's why he doesn't have the populations support. He's not ruling a theocracy yet.... In a democracy you make the case for war, you state your objectives and reasoning. You can't honestly say this is going well and they planned for the closure of the strait of Hormuz? The strategy of the US military is not known. There will always be unknowns during a conflict, if there wasn't Ukraine would have been long finished. The point I'm making is, Trump rambles full stop. The US military are hitting Iran hard along with Israel, damage and weakness must be happening, we simply can't see it and to judge this on the words of Trump is not the smartest thing to do in my opinion. There is no comparison to Iraq or Vietnam, nothing at all like it today. I hear your sympathetic towards America and want to think the best of a deranged regime. But you have normalcy bias! These people in charge of America are insane! The people in charge of Iran have had 47 years to plan for this. So I'll say it another way, how's the petrol prices going? Do you think the decadent west will revolt against those prices before the Iranian people against the mullahs? Your argument is based on fear of reprisal, if that is the world you want to create then it will be a world that is dominated by brute force. Fear of reprisal? From your constituencies? Yeah, it's called democracy I'm expected to accept this as legitimate response after you said Iran have had 47 years to plan for this and how are petrol prices going. That is fear of reprisal or you are trying to create a scene that justifies your opinion. What are you on about? It's obvious, Iran have planned for these attacks hence the Strait of Hormuz being closed. America have failed to see beyond their nose!!! Do you expect a nation under attack not to retaliate? Did you expect the US to underwrite every eventuality They didn't need to do it! When attacked, obviously Iran was going to defend. I'm pretty sure every analysis I've heard is that an attack on Iran means the closure of Hormuz!!! Your being silly if America didn't have that intelligence!! I refer you back to my original question, are you aware of the US military objectives? That is a rhetorical question, because you don't, however if there is short term pain for long term gain this episode will long be forgotten and no doubt so will Trump, because a safer and more stable global community seems a step too far for people to want to get behind. And I refer you back to my post saying who can weather the storm most? The gamble your taking is that the west will take it on the chin that , petrol, food, clothes and plastics will cost a lot more!! All while the politicians pretend the war is won???? Or do you an already suppressed population is used to hiding and not having much food or freedom? We have gone full circle and ended back at the fear of reprisal. It is good to hear another view on this that wasn't based around expletives to describe Trump as the core value.
If the west want a war, they have to make that case to the people!
In a democracy we won't put up with excuses about Iran when they chose this war
you have no choice, and you will put up with it, hence the fear of something you can't control.
Except in a demon we do!
Trump is already looking for an off ramp because it's so unpopular and he's looking at the midterms!
You seem to want a democracy to be the same as the Iranians!!
A democracy is reliant on reprisal!! People's opinion matters!.
Where as the Iranians already suffer and starve. They'll weather this storm much better than a person who's used to traveling and eating out in a Western democracy
And the fear is shown again, can you not see any strength in the West, or do you feel that we are weakened entity that needs to keep our heads down?
You seem to projecting something no other western leader is telling it's people.
Are we "the west" at war with Iran?
Do we have to alter our way of living?"You are arguing for the sake of argument, if you are saying Iran has had no influence on our way of living. I also notice you never answered the question, do you know the US military objective? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later. I understand the sentiment and comparison you are making but I see it being used everywhere without context. For example what is the US military objective in this conflict? Would you know if they achieved their objectives? The US military have been very quiet on this, so I feel most people are listening to Trump rambling on and assuming everything has been a failure. Exactly. That's why he doesn't have the populations support. He's not ruling a theocracy yet.... In a democracy you make the case for war, you state your objectives and reasoning. You can't honestly say this is going well and they planned for the closure of the strait of Hormuz? The strategy of the US military is not known. There will always be unknowns during a conflict, if there wasn't Ukraine would have been long finished. The point I'm making is, Trump rambles full stop. The US military are hitting Iran hard along with Israel, damage and weakness must be happening, we simply can't see it and to judge this on the words of Trump is not the smartest thing to do in my opinion. There is no comparison to Iraq or Vietnam, nothing at all like it today. I hear your sympathetic towards America and want to think the best of a deranged regime. But you have normalcy bias! These people in charge of America are insane! The people in charge of Iran have had 47 years to plan for this. So I'll say it another way, how's the petrol prices going? Do you think the decadent west will revolt against those prices before the Iranian people against the mullahs? Your argument is based on fear of reprisal, if that is the world you want to create then it will be a world that is dominated by brute force. Fear of reprisal? From your constituencies? Yeah, it's called democracy I'm expected to accept this as legitimate response after you said Iran have had 47 years to plan for this and how are petrol prices going. That is fear of reprisal or you are trying to create a scene that justifies your opinion. What are you on about? It's obvious, Iran have planned for these attacks hence the Strait of Hormuz being closed. America have failed to see beyond their nose!!! Do you expect a nation under attack not to retaliate? Did you expect the US to underwrite every eventuality They didn't need to do it! When attacked, obviously Iran was going to defend. I'm pretty sure every analysis I've heard is that an attack on Iran means the closure of Hormuz!!! Your being silly if America didn't have that intelligence!! I refer you back to my original question, are you aware of the US military objectives? That is a rhetorical question, because you don't, however if there is short term pain for long term gain this episode will long be forgotten and no doubt so will Trump, because a safer and more stable global community seems a step too far for people to want to get behind. And I refer you back to my post saying who can weather the storm most? The gamble your taking is that the west will take it on the chin that , petrol, food, clothes and plastics will cost a lot more!! All while the politicians pretend the war is won???? Or do you an already suppressed population is used to hiding and not having much food or freedom? We have gone full circle and ended back at the fear of reprisal. It is good to hear another view on this that wasn't based around expletives to describe Trump as the core value.
If the west want a war, they have to make that case to the people!
In a democracy we won't put up with excuses about Iran when they chose this war
you have no choice, and you will put up with it, hence the fear of something you can't control.
Except in a demon we do!
Trump is already looking for an off ramp because it's so unpopular and he's looking at the midterms!
You seem to want a democracy to be the same as the Iranians!!
A democracy is reliant on reprisal!! People's opinion matters!.
Where as the Iranians already suffer and starve. They'll weather this storm much better than a person who's used to traveling and eating out in a Western democracy
And the fear is shown again, can you not see any strength in the West, or do you feel that we are weakened entity that needs to keep our heads down?
You seem to projecting something no other western leader is telling it's people.
Are we "the west" at war with Iran?
Do we have to alter our way of living?
You are arguing for the sake of argument, if you are saying Iran has had no influence on our way of living.
I also notice you never answered the question, do you know the US military objective?"According to the words from trump, the military objective changes on a daily or weekly basis | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"US involvement in Vietnam lasted 23 years. The current Iran war has been going on a month. An 'involvement' of 23 years begins with the first month. Of course but that's just the same as saying any outcome is possible, which at this point it is. The US has been involved with dozens of military interventions and operations both short and long, successful and unsuccessful. The parallel with Vietnam seems to me to have an element of wishful thinking about it, wanting the US to be humiliated and suffer heavy casualties, which is disappointing. Comparisons need to be made with past foreign interventions, it doesn't mean its wishful thinking that the loss of lives is similar at all.. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something that has been done for hundreds of years and it's done to not make the same tragic errors again with the terrible consequences for those who serve and expect that the policy makers and leaders dont fuck it up once more.. Can I know introduce you to Keir Starmer learning from Tony Blair's disaster of middle east wars. Whatever else Keir has been or is he's called this right from day one! What is your reasoning for this conclusion? Whatever we think of Iran and the Ayatollahs, they were no more of a threat in recent as they have been for the past 47 years. In fact Jonathan Powell said the talks were going well and this is an unnecessary war. The strikes on Iran were illegal. Hence no use of our bases for an offensive. When Iran retaliated the way it did it was legal to allow defensive strikes. In fairness to Keir, he wrote a piece about the Iraq war and his legal reading of it at the time and he clearly sees a parallel. This is not Britains war. This war is not in the interest of anyone, a better way to go about regime change would be to arm and help the Iranian people in an uprising. No one is going to the street when bombs fall from America and the mullahs will slaughter you later. I understand the sentiment and comparison you are making but I see it being used everywhere without context. For example what is the US military objective in this conflict? Would you know if they achieved their objectives? The US military have been very quiet on this, so I feel most people are listening to Trump rambling on and assuming everything has been a failure. Exactly. That's why he doesn't have the populations support. He's not ruling a theocracy yet.... In a democracy you make the case for war, you state your objectives and reasoning. You can't honestly say this is going well and they planned for the closure of the strait of Hormuz? The strategy of the US military is not known. There will always be unknowns during a conflict, if there wasn't Ukraine would have been long finished. The point I'm making is, Trump rambles full stop. The US military are hitting Iran hard along with Israel, damage and weakness must be happening, we simply can't see it and to judge this on the words of Trump is not the smartest thing to do in my opinion. There is no comparison to Iraq or Vietnam, nothing at all like it today. I hear your sympathetic towards America and want to think the best of a deranged regime. But you have normalcy bias! These people in charge of America are insane! The people in charge of Iran have had 47 years to plan for this. So I'll say it another way, how's the petrol prices going? Do you think the decadent west will revolt against those prices before the Iranian people against the mullahs? Your argument is based on fear of reprisal, if that is the world you want to create then it will be a world that is dominated by brute force. Fear of reprisal? From your constituencies? Yeah, it's called democracy I'm expected to accept this as legitimate response after you said Iran have had 47 years to plan for this and how are petrol prices going. That is fear of reprisal or you are trying to create a scene that justifies your opinion. What are you on about? It's obvious, Iran have planned for these attacks hence the Strait of Hormuz being closed. America have failed to see beyond their nose!!! Do you expect a nation under attack not to retaliate? Did you expect the US to underwrite every eventuality They didn't need to do it! When attacked, obviously Iran was going to defend. I'm pretty sure every analysis I've heard is that an attack on Iran means the closure of Hormuz!!! Your being silly if America didn't have that intelligence!! I refer you back to my original question, are you aware of the US military objectives? That is a rhetorical question, because you don't, however if there is short term pain for long term gain this episode will long be forgotten and no doubt so will Trump, because a safer and more stable global community seems a step too far for people to want to get behind. And I refer you back to my post saying who can weather the storm most? The gamble your taking is that the west will take it on the chin that , petrol, food, clothes and plastics will cost a lot more!! All while the politicians pretend the war is won???? Or do you an already suppressed population is used to hiding and not having much food or freedom? We have gone full circle and ended back at the fear of reprisal. It is good to hear another view on this that wasn't based around expletives to describe Trump as the core value.
If the west want a war, they have to make that case to the people!
In a democracy we won't put up with excuses about Iran when they chose this war
you have no choice, and you will put up with it, hence the fear of something you can't control.
Except in a demon we do!
Trump is already looking for an off ramp because it's so unpopular and he's looking at the midterms!
You seem to want a democracy to be the same as the Iranians!!
A democracy is reliant on reprisal!! People's opinion matters!.
Where as the Iranians already suffer and starve. They'll weather this storm much better than a person who's used to traveling and eating out in a Western democracy
And the fear is shown again, can you not see any strength in the West, or do you feel that we are weakened entity that needs to keep our heads down?
You seem to projecting something no other western leader is telling it's people.
Are we "the west" at war with Iran?
Do we have to alter our way of living?
You are arguing for the sake of argument, if you are saying Iran has had no influence on our way of living.
I also notice you never answered the question, do you know the US military objective?
According to the words from trump, the military objective changes on a daily or weekly basis"I don't for one second think you believe everything Trump says, so isn't pointless to quote him as the truth? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"F35 reportedly shot down today. Donald Trump warned last night that the US military “hasn’t even started destroying what’s left in Iran”, as he threatened bridges would be targeted next, “then electric power plants”. US bombed a newly constructed bridge between the Iranian capital Tehran and the nearby city of Karaj. Iran’s state media says, eight people were killed and 95 others were wounded in the attack." So bombing civilian infrastructure then 👏 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You only bomb bridges to stop the enemy from getting an easy passage. Why they bombing infrastructure they might need?" It probably made sense yesterday to the geriatric cunt, tomorrow he'll say the Iranians did it themselves 🤷♂️ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You only bomb bridges to stop the enemy from getting an easy passage. Why they bombing infrastructure they might need? It probably made sense yesterday to the geriatric cunt, tomorrow he'll say the Iranians did it themselves 🤷♂️" And unfortunately we can't say this won't happen about America anymore | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You only bomb bridges to stop the enemy from getting an easy passage. Why they bombing infrastructure they might need? It probably made sense yesterday to the geriatric cunt, tomorrow he'll say the Iranians did it themselves 🤷♂️" Do you think Trump makes decisions to bomb bridges? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You only bomb bridges to stop the enemy from getting an easy passage. Why they bombing infrastructure they might need? It probably made sense yesterday to the geriatric cunt, tomorrow he'll say the Iranians did it themselves 🤷♂️ Do you think Trump makes decisions to bomb bridges?" That would be a bridge too far. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You only bomb bridges to stop the enemy from getting an easy passage. Why they bombing infrastructure they might need? It probably made sense yesterday to the geriatric cunt, tomorrow he'll say the Iranians did it themselves 🤷♂️ Do you think Trump makes decisions to bomb bridges? That would be a bridge too far." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You only bomb bridges to stop the enemy from getting an easy passage. Why they bombing infrastructure they might need? It probably made sense yesterday to the geriatric cunt, tomorrow he'll say the Iranians did it themselves 🤷♂️ Do you think Trump makes decisions to bomb bridges? That would be a bridge too far." I curse the legacy of that ruddy film. Newspapers, local and national, are incapable of running any article about any bridge anywhere, without the damned thing always being 'Too Far' as part of the relevant headline. Yawn. So highly original! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You only bomb bridges to stop the enemy from getting an easy passage. Why they bombing infrastructure they might need? It probably made sense yesterday to the geriatric cunt, tomorrow he'll say the Iranians did it themselves 🤷♂️ Do you think Trump makes decisions to bomb bridges? That would be a bridge too far. I curse the legacy of that ruddy film. Newspapers, local and national, are incapable of running any article about any bridge anywhere, without the damned thing always being 'Too Far' as part of the relevant headline. Yawn. So highly original!" Happy to Help | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You only bomb bridges to stop the enemy from getting an easy passage. Why they bombing infrastructure they might need? It probably made sense yesterday to the geriatric cunt, tomorrow he'll say the Iranians did it themselves 🤷♂️ Do you think Trump makes decisions to bomb bridges?" With this depth of analysis, the army had a choice on going to war with Iran? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You only bomb bridges to stop the enemy from getting an easy passage. Why they bombing infrastructure they might need? It probably made sense yesterday to the geriatric cunt, tomorrow he'll say the Iranians did it themselves 🤷♂️ Do you think Trump makes decisions to bomb bridges? With this depth of analysis, the army had a choice on going to war with Iran?" Do you ever answer a question? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You only bomb bridges to stop the enemy from getting an easy passage. Why they bombing infrastructure they might need? It probably made sense yesterday to the geriatric cunt, tomorrow he'll say the Iranians did it themselves 🤷♂️ Do you think Trump makes decisions to bomb bridges? With this depth of analysis, the army had a choice on going to war with Iran? Do you ever answer a question? " It depends..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You only bomb bridges to stop the enemy from getting an easy passage. Why they bombing infrastructure they might need? It probably made sense yesterday to the geriatric cunt, tomorrow he'll say the Iranians did it themselves 🤷♂️ Do you think Trump makes decisions to bomb bridges?" Possibly.. Normally no, that level of targeting would be down to the chiefs of staff etc but given trump has put himself on a pedestal by what hes said in relation to power plants, oil and other infrastructure the tone has not fully been set but the following up of some of what he has stated will have an influence.. Him saying we will destroy x and then y is destroyed leaves him open to more criticism from his detractors and the Iranians.. The latter are playing on his ego in how they are mocking and goading him personally so he will want his statements to carry weight.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You only bomb bridges to stop the enemy from getting an easy passage. Why they bombing infrastructure they might need? It probably made sense yesterday to the geriatric cunt, tomorrow he'll say the Iranians did it themselves 🤷♂️ Do you think Trump makes decisions to bomb bridges? Possibly.. Normally no, that level of targeting would be down to the chiefs of staff etc but given trump has put himself on a pedestal by what hes said in relation to power plants, oil and other infrastructure the tone has not fully been set but the following up of some of what he has stated will have an influence.. Him saying we will destroy x and then y is destroyed leaves him open to more criticism from his detractors and the Iranians.. The latter are playing on his ego in how they are mocking and goading him personally so he will want his statements to carry weight.. " I imagine Trump is being given briefs from the military top brass that he wants to hear, I would expect his grandiose statements to be fed by such briefs. What can also be overlooked is Trump makes a perfect deflection, wind him up and let him go, suddenly a window of opportunity appears as all eyes are on Trump's ramblings. It would be extremely foolish to write off the US military because of Trump's claims. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You only bomb bridges to stop the enemy from getting an easy passage. Why they bombing infrastructure they might need? It probably made sense yesterday to the geriatric cunt, tomorrow he'll say the Iranians did it themselves 🤷♂️ Do you think Trump makes decisions to bomb bridges? Possibly.. Normally no, that level of targeting would be down to the chiefs of staff etc but given trump has put himself on a pedestal by what hes said in relation to power plants, oil and other infrastructure the tone has not fully been set but the following up of some of what he has stated will have an influence.. Him saying we will destroy x and then y is destroyed leaves him open to more criticism from his detractors and the Iranians.. The latter are playing on his ego in how they are mocking and goading him personally so he will want his statements to carry weight.. I imagine Trump is being given briefs from the military top brass that he wants to hear, I would expect his grandiose statements to be fed by such briefs. What can also be overlooked is Trump makes a perfect deflection, wind him up and let him go, suddenly a window of opportunity appears as all eyes are on Trump's ramblings. It would be extremely foolish to write off the US military because of Trump's claims. " Not sure they are being written off, they are presently the biggest globally but perhaps their focus is being distracted by trumps often random threats in what will happen strategically.. The cull of some of the senior armed forces staff by trump via hegseth to change the ideology as its being described, less 'woke' etc will only mean more yes men and yes men scared for their careers at those levels usually means the aims down the chain at the sharp end lack clarity or change too often.. And now the very real possibility of a downed airman being captured which will go down badly given the history of Americans being held hostage in that country.. Politically it will only hurt trump so how does he react? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it ok if someone calls Diane Abbott a fat freak? I'm sure that would be fine. After all, you wouldn't catch a left-wing thinker treating anyone differently just because of their gender, or race, or political affiliation. Being fat is a choice though? Being black, Asian, gay, or a woman isn't! The locus of control for your ethnicity or race, gender or sexualiity isn't in your control. But being fat generally is Oh dear, shockingly poorly informed. You really should educate yourself. Frankly I thought these kinds of opinion about obesity disappeared years ago. No one is born fat and DNA won't show this person happend to love eating and hated exercise!" So you are saying that fat shaming is ok? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Europe, emboldened by necessity, could take charge of the Ukraine situation here and negotiate with Russia that the EU/UK -without US involvement- will take responsibility for Ukraine if Russia also pulls back. We'll also open trade with Russia and buy all their lovely oil and gas again, whilst also concurrently developing nuclear & renewables. We all grow together and the US can feck off. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Europe, emboldened by necessity, could take charge of the Ukraine situation here and negotiate with Russia that the EU/UK -without US involvement- will take responsibility for Ukraine if Russia also pulls back. We'll also open trade with Russia and buy all their lovely oil and gas again, whilst also concurrently developing nuclear & renewables. We all grow together and the US can feck off. " Of course, Putin is just looking for some nice gestures and promises from the EU | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Europe, emboldened by necessity, could take charge of the Ukraine situation here and negotiate with Russia that the EU/UK -without US involvement- will take responsibility for Ukraine if Russia also pulls back. We'll also open trade with Russia and buy all their lovely oil and gas again, whilst also concurrently developing nuclear & renewables. We all grow together and the US can feck off. Of course, Putin is just looking for some nice gestures and promises from the EU "Nobody said it would be easy, but look what the current approach is achieving. Take Trump at his word. He wants out of NATO, so let’s call his bluff & end his continual bellyaching about European freeloading & then watch him realise the consequences of his actions & look an idiot (not for the first time) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Europe, emboldened by necessity, could take charge of the Ukraine situation here and negotiate with Russia that the EU/UK -without US involvement- will take responsibility for Ukraine if Russia also pulls back. We'll also open trade with Russia and buy all their lovely oil and gas again, whilst also concurrently developing nuclear & renewables. We all grow together and the US can feck off. Of course, Putin is just looking for some nice gestures and promises from the EU
Nobody said it would be easy, but look what the current approach is achieving. Take Trump at his word. He wants out of NATO, so let’s call his bluff & end his continual bellyaching about European freeloading & then watch him realise the consequences of his actions & look an idiot (not for the first time)"If Putin were to accept Ukraine being a member of an Eu defence agreement with its own article 5 etc then yes there would be an upside to America going east amd away from Europe.. Russia would bring its economy up but the current mindset with those who come after Vladimir will probably want to continue and protect.. But I cant see it, maybe they also need a revolution.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If Putin were to accept Ukraine being a member of an Eu defence agreement with its own article 5 etc then yes there would be an upside to America going east amd away from Europe.. Russia would bring its economy up but the current mindset with those who come after Vladimir will probably want to continue and protect.. But I cant see it, maybe they also need a revolution.." Can’t see it either. Russia won’t agree or negotiate and if it did Putin would use any agreement as toilet paper Where does this all go now after 4+ years, a reported 1.2M casualties and 40% gdp spent on Ukraine offensive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If Putin were to accept Ukraine being a member of an Eu defence agreement with its own article 5 etc then yes there would be an upside to America going east amd away from Europe.. Russia would bring its economy up but the current mindset with those who come after Vladimir will probably want to continue and protect.. But I cant see it, maybe they also need a revolution.. Can’t see it either. Russia won’t agree or negotiate and if it did Putin would use any agreement as toilet paper Where does this all go now after 4+ years, a reported 1.2M casualties and 40% gdp spent on Ukraine offensive. " Only onwards in its daily slaughter i fear, Trump had the opportunity to do something but lacks the abilities to do so.. Stalemate akin to the First World War with better tech.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Europe, emboldened by necessity, could take charge of the Ukraine situation here and negotiate with Russia that the EU/UK -without US involvement- will take responsibility for Ukraine if Russia also pulls back. We'll also open trade with Russia and buy all their lovely oil and gas again, whilst also concurrently developing nuclear & renewables. We all grow together and the US can feck off. " Perhaps you are unaware that the EU has never stopped buying Russian Gas and Oil, effectively bankrolling the war against Ukraine. The UK and US don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Europe, emboldened by necessity, could take charge of the Ukraine situation here and negotiate with Russia that the EU/UK -without US involvement- will take responsibility for Ukraine if Russia also pulls back. We'll also open trade with Russia and buy all their lovely oil and gas again, whilst also concurrently developing nuclear & renewables. We all grow together and the US can feck off. Of course, Putin is just looking for some nice gestures and promises from the EU
Nobody said it would be easy, but look what the current approach is achieving. Take Trump at his word. He wants out of NATO, so let’s call his bluff & end his continual bellyaching about European freeloading & then watch him realise the consequences of his actions & look an idiot (not for the first time)"That will be like drinking poison to cure hiccups. Merkel followed this exact logic and Europe is facing the consequences of it now. Europe has made numerous mistakes over the past decade - Not funding the military, Dismantling nuclear reactors, relying on Russian oil, to say a few. These mistakes are the reason why Putin got the courage and funds to attack Ukraine. I agree that the US as an ally is a lost cause. But going to bed with Putin, even as a temporary measure will work out even worse for Europe. Putin is an imperialist. It doesn't matter what kind of monetary deal you try to reach with him, he will use that to only expand further. Putin cannot be bought. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Europe, emboldened by necessity, could take charge of the Ukraine situation here and negotiate with Russia that the EU/UK -without US involvement- will take responsibility for Ukraine if Russia also pulls back. We'll also open trade with Russia and buy all their lovely oil and gas again, whilst also concurrently developing nuclear & renewables. We all grow together and the US can feck off. Of course, Putin is just looking for some nice gestures and promises from the EU
Nobody said it would be easy, but look what the current approach is achieving. Take Trump at his word. He wants out of NATO, so let’s call his bluff & end his continual bellyaching about European freeloading & then watch him realise the consequences of his actions & look an idiot (not for the first time)
That will be like drinking poison to cure hiccups. Merkel followed this exact logic and Europe is facing the consequences of it now.
Europe has made numerous mistakes over the past decade - Not funding the military, Dismantling nuclear reactors, relying on Russian oil, to say a few. These mistakes are the reason why Putin got the courage and funds to attack Ukraine.
I agree that the US as an ally is a lost cause. But going to bed with Putin, even as a temporary measure will work out even worse for Europe. Putin is an imperialist. It doesn't matter what kind of monetary deal you try to reach with him, he will use that to only expand further. Putin cannot be bought.
"Whatever ones thoughts on Trump, he will be gone as President in two years. Putin or a similar successor will be there for decades. Preferring a dictator over a democrat is morally bankrupt, historically illiterate and politically insane. Yet hatred of Trump brings some to this conclusion. 🤷 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Europe, emboldened by necessity, could take charge of the Ukraine situation here and negotiate with Russia that the EU/UK -without US involvement- will take responsibility for Ukraine if Russia also pulls back. We'll also open trade with Russia and buy all their lovely oil and gas again, whilst also concurrently developing nuclear & renewables. We all grow together and the US can feck off. Of course, Putin is just looking for some nice gestures and promises from the EU
Nobody said it would be easy, but look what the current approach is achieving. Take Trump at his word. He wants out of NATO, so let’s call his bluff & end his continual bellyaching about European freeloading & then watch him realise the consequences of his actions & look an idiot (not for the first time)
If Putin were to accept Ukraine being a member of an Eu defence agreement with its own article 5 etc then yes there would be an upside to America going east amd away from Europe..
Russia would bring its economy up but the current mindset with those who come after Vladimir will probably want to continue and protect..
But I cant see it, maybe they also need a revolution.."Well Putin is keen to start selling oil & gas to Europe again. …and the US/Israel are obviously on shaky ground regarding the morality/legality of their own foreign policy at the moment. If the side we traditionally would be expected to join forces with starts going rogue starting wars & killing & displacing millions of people without consensus that affects our costs of living & security of energy supply, why be forced to choose them? If you are living with the threat of Iran shutting the Strait of Hormuz, you might as well live with the threat of Putin turning the gas taps off to Europe, but that is less likely if we solve the Ukraine situation & repair relations with Russia. I think Russia would feel less threatened by Europe if it starts distancing itself from the US. And of course we go on with the nuclear & renewables development whilst we are at it. Europe First. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Europe, emboldened by necessity, could take charge of the Ukraine situation here and negotiate with Russia that the EU/UK -without US involvement- will take responsibility for Ukraine if Russia also pulls back. We'll also open trade with Russia and buy all their lovely oil and gas again, whilst also concurrently developing nuclear & renewables. We all grow together and the US can feck off. Of course, Putin is just looking for some nice gestures and promises from the EU
Nobody said it would be easy, but look what the current approach is achieving. Take Trump at his word. He wants out of NATO, so let’s call his bluff & end his continual bellyaching about European freeloading & then watch him realise the consequences of his actions & look an idiot (not for the first time)
That will be like drinking poison to cure hiccups. Merkel followed this exact logic and Europe is facing the consequences of it now.
Europe has made numerous mistakes over the past decade - Not funding the military, Dismantling nuclear reactors, relying on Russian oil, to say a few. These mistakes are the reason why Putin got the courage and funds to attack Ukraine.
I agree that the US as an ally is a lost cause. But going to bed with Putin, even as a temporary measure will work out even worse for Europe. Putin is an imperialist. It doesn't matter what kind of monetary deal you try to reach with him, he will use that to only expand further. Putin cannot be bought.
Whatever ones thoughts on Trump, he will be gone as President in two years. Putin or a similar successor will be there for decades. Preferring a dictator over a democrat is morally bankrupt, historically illiterate and politically insane. Yet hatred of Trump brings some to this conclusion. 🤷"Plus the belief that all humans are after materialistic wealth. If we start buying gas from Russia and remove sanctions, Russia can improve their economy sure. But if that's what Putin wanted, he would have stopped the war long back. He never gave a fuck about it. Any deal with Putin will be seen by him as an opportunity to build a stronger army to attack again, not an opportunity to improve his economy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Europe, emboldened by necessity, could take charge of the Ukraine situation here and negotiate with Russia that the EU/UK -without US involvement- will take responsibility for Ukraine if Russia also pulls back. We'll also open trade with Russia and buy all their lovely oil and gas again, whilst also concurrently developing nuclear & renewables. We all grow together and the US can feck off. Of course, Putin is just looking for some nice gestures and promises from the EU
Nobody said it would be easy, but look what the current approach is achieving. Take Trump at his word. He wants out of NATO, so let’s call his bluff & end his continual bellyaching about European freeloading & then watch him realise the consequences of his actions & look an idiot (not for the first time)
If Putin were to accept Ukraine being a member of an Eu defence agreement with its own article 5 etc then yes there would be an upside to America going east amd away from Europe..
Russia would bring its economy up but the current mindset with those who come after Vladimir will probably want to continue and protect..
But I cant see it, maybe they also need a revolution..
Well Putin is keen to start selling oil & gas to Europe again.
…and the US/Israel are obviously on shaky ground regarding the morality/legality of their own foreign policy at the moment.
If the side we traditionally would be expected to join forces with starts going rogue starting wars & killing & displacing millions of people without consensus that affects our costs of living & security of energy supply, why be forced to choose them?
If you are living with the threat of Iran shutting the Strait of Hormuz, you might as well live with the threat of Putin turning the gas taps off to Europe, but that is less likely if we solve the Ukraine situation & repair relations with Russia. I think Russia would feel less threatened by Europe if it starts distancing itself from the US.
And of course we go on with the nuclear & renewables development whilst we are at it.
Europe First."Good points but Russia only respects strength so any relations going forward whatever the outcome in Ukraine has to be from a position of greater military defence capability.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If the side we traditionally would be expected to join forces with starts going rogue starting wars & killing & displacing millions of people without consensus that affects our costs of living & security of energy supply, why be forced to choose them? Europe First." You don't have to choose the US. You don't have to suck up to Russia either. But that would mean the European people having to make some sacrifices, working through some difficult times until Europe becomes independent on food and energy needs. If Europe really wants to be safe in the future, this is the path to be taken. Going into a deal with Russia is as good as signing off Putin to take over more parts of Europe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Europe, emboldened by necessity, could take charge of the Ukraine situation here and negotiate with Russia that the EU/UK -without US involvement- will take responsibility for Ukraine if Russia also pulls back. We'll also open trade with Russia and buy all their lovely oil and gas again, whilst also concurrently developing nuclear & renewables. We all grow together and the US can feck off. Of course, Putin is just looking for some nice gestures and promises from the EU
Nobody said it would be easy, but look what the current approach is achieving. Take Trump at his word. He wants out of NATO, so let’s call his bluff & end his continual bellyaching about European freeloading & then watch him realise the consequences of his actions & look an idiot (not for the first time)
That will be like drinking poison to cure hiccups. Merkel followed this exact logic and Europe is facing the consequences of it now.
Europe has made numerous mistakes over the past decade - Not funding the military, Dismantling nuclear reactors, relying on Russian oil, to say a few. These mistakes are the reason why Putin got the courage and funds to attack Ukraine.
I agree that the US as an ally is a lost cause. But going to bed with Putin, even as a temporary measure will work out even worse for Europe. Putin is an imperialist. It doesn't matter what kind of monetary deal you try to reach with him, he will use that to only expand further. Putin cannot be bought.
Whatever ones thoughts on Trump, he will be gone as President in two years. Putin or a similar successor will be there for decades. Preferring a dictator over a democrat is morally bankrupt, historically illiterate and politically insane. Yet hatred of Trump brings some to this conclusion. 🤷"Look at America through any objective lens if ones personal political views allow that (not a dig just how we all view things) .. And their hands are as bloody as Russias post ww2.. Wrongs are wrong no matter who the victims are or their political beliefs.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If the side we traditionally would be expected to join forces with starts going rogue starting wars & killing & displacing millions of people without consensus that affects our costs of living & security of energy supply, why be forced to choose them? Europe First. You don't have to choose the US. You don't have to suck up to Russia either. But that would mean the European people having to make some sacrifices, working through some difficult times until Europe becomes independent on food and energy needs. If Europe really wants to be safe in the future, this is the path to be taken. Going into a deal with Russia is as good as signing off Putin to take over more parts of Europe." As long as the UK/EU make good on their promises to boost defence spending, as has already begun to happen, I don’t see Russia as much of a long term military threat (apart from their nukes obviously) European population dwarfs Russia’s. EU/UK GDP again dwarfs Russia’s. Russia will get a boost from oil sales sure, but after four years already, I’m sure the Russian population would prefer for Putin to resolve Ukraine one way or another & start spending more money on them again after all the sanctions they have endured. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If Europe has to become independent with a strong military, self sufficient for its energy and food needs, the people should be willing to suffer through some temporary hardship. Until that happens, Europe will continue being bitched around by the other powers. Unfortunately, no politician will ever talk about this situation honestly because it's not a vote winner. You can't have your cake and eat it too. So every other solution they propose will always involve surrendering to the US, Russia or China." Europe could start the process tomorrow by cutting welfare spending to international levels and stopping/reversing all low/no skill migration. Probably need retirement age raised to 70 as well, or remove State pension from those with private and public sector pensions. I imagine the people who want Europe to be truly independent would be the first to revolt if any of these things happened. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As long as the UK/EU make good on their promises to boost defence spending, as has already begun to happen, I don’t see Russia as much of a long term military threat (apart from their nukes obviously) " I don't think EU is going to make good on these promises. Even if they did, it's going to take at least a decade, enough time for Putin to go back and start rebuilding his army. " European population dwarfs Russia’s. " It's been quite a few years since war has moved on from using people. " EU/UK GDP again dwarfs Russia’s. " If needed, they will get China's help. " Russia will get a boost from oil sales sure, but after four years already, I’m sure the Russian population would prefer for Putin to resolve Ukraine one way or another & start spending more money on them again after all the sanctions they have endured." This is the fundamental issue I see with many people in the West on these issues - The belief that everyone priotitises material comforts over others. Many would happily sacrifice it for other causes they value. If the majority of the Russian people are seriously against Putin screwing up their economy to fund the war, they would have revolted long back and Putin wouldn't still be in power. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Europe, emboldened by necessity, could take charge of the Ukraine situation here and negotiate with Russia that the EU/UK -without US involvement- will take responsibility for Ukraine if Russia also pulls back. We'll also open trade with Russia and buy all their lovely oil and gas again, whilst also concurrently developing nuclear & renewables. We all grow together and the US can feck off. Perhaps you are unaware that the EU has never stopped buying Russian Gas and Oil, effectively bankrolling the war against Ukraine. The UK and US don't." Wrong again The UK import millions of barrels of Russian oil processed in India and Turkey | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If Europe has to become independent with a strong military, self sufficient for its energy and food needs, the people should be willing to suffer through some temporary hardship. Until that happens, Europe will continue being bitched around by the other powers. Unfortunately, no politician will ever talk about this situation honestly because it's not a vote winner. You can't have your cake and eat it too. So every other solution they propose will always involve surrendering to the US, Russia or China. Europe could start the process tomorrow by cutting welfare spending to international levels and stopping/reversing all low/no skill migration. Probably need retirement age raised to 70 as well, or remove State pension from those with private and public sector pensions. I imagine the people who want Europe to be truly independent would be the first to revolt if any of these things happened." Exactly! Nothing in this world is for free. You always sacrifice one thing to get another. A concept that's lost on many. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is interesting that when an apparent "anti-Trump" post appears pro Trumpers immediately swing in to change the subject by attacking the poster, raising "what about" Starmer and accusations that the OP "always post these points". The Trump defenders clearly use this tactic as well as in the USA Congress where rather than answer legitimate questions they filibuster and throw back "what abouts". One day I hope we can have a reasonable consideration of the pros and Cons of the Trump Administration. " It's like a religion with them, Trumpist worshipping, it's all based on pure blind belief with no facts attached just like the bible | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is interesting that when an apparent "anti-Trump" post appears pro Trumpers immediately swing in to change the subject by attacking the poster, raising "what about" Starmer and accusations that the OP "always post these points". The Trump defenders clearly use this tactic as well as in the USA Congress where rather than answer legitimate questions they filibuster and throw back "what abouts". One day I hope we can have a reasonable consideration of the pros and Cons of the Trump Administration. It's like a religion with them, Trumpist worshipping, it's all based on pure blind belief with no facts attached just like the bible" Or The Art of the Deal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is interesting that when an apparent "anti-Trump" post appears pro Trumpers immediately swing in to change the subject by attacking the poster, raising "what about" Starmer and accusations that the OP "always post these points". The Trump defenders clearly use this tactic as well as in the USA Congress where rather than answer legitimate questions they filibuster and throw back "what abouts". One day I hope we can have a reasonable consideration of the pros and Cons of the Trump Administration. It's like a religion with them, Trumpist worshipping, it's all based on pure blind belief with no facts attached just like the bible" I can't stand all the pro Trump threads they start ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is interesting that when an apparent "anti-Trump" post appears pro Trumpers immediately swing in to change the subject by attacking the poster, raising "what about" Starmer and accusations that the OP "always post these points". The Trump defenders clearly use this tactic as well as in the USA Congress where rather than answer legitimate questions they filibuster and throw back "what abouts". One day I hope we can have a reasonable consideration of the pros and Cons of the Trump Administration. It's like a religion with them, Trumpist worshipping, it's all based on pure blind belief with no facts attached just like the bible Or The Art of the Deal." Personally I would not take advice on making a deal from a mango maniac with a string of bankruptcies and fraud convictions but maybe that's just me 🤷♂️ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is interesting that when an apparent "anti-Trump" post appears pro Trumpers immediately swing in to change the subject by attacking the poster, raising "what about" Starmer and accusations that the OP "always post these points". The Trump defenders clearly use this tactic as well as in the USA Congress where rather than answer legitimate questions they filibuster and throw back "what abouts". One day I hope we can have a reasonable consideration of the pros and Cons of the Trump Administration. It's like a religion with them, Trumpist worshipping, it's all based on pure blind belief with no facts attached just like the bible I can't stand all the pro Trump threads they start ! " I don't recall a pro trump thread 🤷♂️ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is interesting that when an apparent "anti-Trump" post appears pro Trumpers immediately swing in to change the subject by attacking the poster, raising "what about" Starmer and accusations that the OP "always post these points". The Trump defenders clearly use this tactic as well as in the USA Congress where rather than answer legitimate questions they filibuster and throw back "what abouts". One day I hope we can have a reasonable consideration of the pros and Cons of the Trump Administration. It's like a religion with them, Trumpist worshipping, it's all based on pure blind belief with no facts attached just like the bible I can't stand all the pro Trump threads they start ! I don't recall a pro trump thread 🤷♂️" Sad days Harry | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't recall a pro trump thread 🤷♂️" plenty of abuse from the rightist blob on trump threads though 😞 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't think EU is going to make good on these promises. Even if they did, it's going to take at least a decade, enough time for Putin to go back and start rebuilding his army. European population dwarfs Russia’s. It's been quite a few years since war has moved on from using people. EU/UK GDP again dwarfs Russia’s. If needed, they will get China's help. Russia will get a boost from oil sales sure, but after four years already, I’m sure the Russian population would prefer for Putin to resolve Ukraine one way or another & start spending more money on them again after all the sanctions they have endured. This is the fundamental issue I see with many people in the West on these issues - The belief that everyone priotitises material comforts over others. Many would happily sacrifice it for other causes they value. If the majority of the Russian people are seriously against Putin screwing up their economy to fund the war, they would have revolted long back and Putin wouldn't still be in power." I think the EU will make good on their promises, and definitely would if a pivot away from the US actually became policy. As regards how urgently this would occur depends on the nature of the threat I think. The UK wasn’t really ready for war in 1939 for example… Yes, war has become more technical using less manpower in certain instances & scenarios, but look at the US & Israel trying to topple the Iranian regime. Highly unlikely they will do that without boots on the ground is it? Is Russia going to take Eastern Europe without sufficient manpower? I seriously doubt it. The Russians may get China’s help but that’s the case now anyway? Hard to say what true public opinion on the Ukraine war is in Russia isn’t it, so we will leave that point as moot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is interesting that when an apparent "anti-Trump" post appears pro Trumpers immediately swing in to change the subject by attacking the poster, raising "what about" Starmer and accusations that the OP "always post these points". The Trump defenders clearly use this tactic as well as in the USA Congress where rather than answer legitimate questions they filibuster and throw back "what abouts". One day I hope we can have a reasonable consideration of the pros and Cons of the Trump Administration. It's like a religion with them, Trumpist worshipping, it's all based on pure blind belief with no facts attached just like the bible I can't stand all the pro Trump threads they start ! I don't recall a pro trump thread 🤷♂️ Sad days Harry "Trump supporters guide book rule numbers one and two. If you are proven wrong use sarcasm excuse If you don't have an answer use sarcasm | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't think EU is going to make good on these promises. Even if they did, it's going to take at least a decade, enough time for Putin to go back and start rebuilding his army. European population dwarfs Russia’s. It's been quite a few years since war has moved on from using people. EU/UK GDP again dwarfs Russia’s. If needed, they will get China's help. Russia will get a boost from oil sales sure, but after four years already, I’m sure the Russian population would prefer for Putin to resolve Ukraine one way or another & start spending more money on them again after all the sanctions they have endured. This is the fundamental issue I see with many people in the West on these issues - The belief that everyone priotitises material comforts over others. Many would happily sacrifice it for other causes they value. If the majority of the Russian people are seriously against Putin screwing up their economy to fund the war, they would have revolted long back and Putin wouldn't still be in power. I think the EU will make good on their promises, and definitely would if a pivot away from the US actually became policy. As regards how urgently this would occur depends on the nature of the threat I think. The UK wasn’t really ready for war in 1939 for example… Yes, war has become more technical using less manpower in certain instances & scenarios, but look at the US & Israel trying to topple the Iranian regime. Highly unlikely they will do that without boots on the ground is it? Is Russia going to take Eastern Europe without sufficient manpower? I seriously doubt it. The Russians may get China’s help but that’s the case now anyway? Hard to say what true public opinion on the Ukraine war is in Russia isn’t it, so we will leave that point as moot." with the very recent multibillion dollar deal between ukraine and saudi along with the destruction of over 40% of russian oil/gas infrasture and the failure of the russian offensive followed by the ukranian breakthrough pushing back russia on all fronts, the future oucome of things is very much fluid and unpredictable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think the EU will make good on their promises, and definitely would if a pivot away from the US actually became policy. As regards how urgently this would occur depends on the nature of the threat I think. The UK wasn’t really ready for war in 1939 for example… " To make good on the promises, they have to spend a lot on military. That means sacrificing spending on social welfare. How many countries are happy to do make that sacrifice? " Yes, war has become more technical using less manpower in certain instances & scenarios, but look at the US & Israel trying to topple the Iranian regime. Highly unlikely they will do that without boots on the ground is it? Is Russia going to take Eastern Europe without sufficient manpower? I seriously doubt it. " For them, it's a long game. They successfully managed to take Crimea. Then managed to take more in this war. After a few years, they will try take more. " The Russians may get China’s help but that’s the case now anyway? " China does help. But not by much. " Hard to say what true public opinion on the Ukraine war is in Russia isn’t it, so we will leave that point as moot." Sure. Even then if Putin can wage a war for this long, with our without the people's support, nothing is going to change later with any deal Europe is offering Russia. Putin may take the deal temporarily, only to strengthen his army and strike back. He will ensure that the deal is lopsided in his favour, to be able to do that. Why else would he get into a deal if it will kill his imperialist dreams? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dispite the rants of a half witted orange lunatic, there is only one way it ends Get rid of the fat freak and the US makes peace not war, there won't be any winners just losers if they don't He's already admitted himself the US cannot win" Just curious as to how this works in practice? Cos he’s clearly not going to resign and his VP will never sign the 25 amendment clause. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't think EU is going to make good on these promises. Even if they did, it's going to take at least a decade, enough time for Putin to go back and start rebuilding his army. European population dwarfs Russia’s. It's been quite a few years since war has moved on from using people. EU/UK GDP again dwarfs Russia’s. If needed, they will get China's help. Russia will get a boost from oil sales sure, but after four years already, I’m sure the Russian population would prefer for Putin to resolve Ukraine one way or another & start spending more money on them again after all the sanctions they have endured. This is the fundamental issue I see with many people in the West on these issues - The belief that everyone priotitises material comforts over others. Many would happily sacrifice it for other causes they value. If the majority of the Russian people are seriously against Putin screwing up their economy to fund the war, they would have revolted long back and Putin wouldn't still be in power. I think the EU will make good on their promises, and definitely would if a pivot away from the US actually became policy. As regards how urgently this would occur depends on the nature of the threat I think. The UK wasn’t really ready for war in 1939 for example… Yes, war has become more technical using less manpower in certain instances & scenarios, but look at the US & Israel trying to topple the Iranian regime. Highly unlikely they will do that without boots on the ground is it? Is Russia going to take Eastern Europe without sufficient manpower? I seriously doubt it. The Russians may get China’s help but that’s the case now anyway? Hard to say what true public opinion on the Ukraine war is in Russia isn’t it, so we will leave that point as moot. with the very recent multibillion dollar deal between ukraine and saudi along with the destruction of over 40% of russian oil/gas infrasture and the failure of the russian offensive followed by the ukranian breakthrough pushing back russia on all fronts, the future oucome of things is very much fluid and unpredictable." Russia is getting its arse kicked by Ukraine, like its mates in Iran. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another day, another Trump thread. Off the scale TDS. it seems you have stumbled into the politics forum, feel free to scroll past, insults aren't allowed here 🤷♂️ Given that your every post appears to involve calling the President of the United States a “fat freak” or “fat cunt” I somehow feel your concern about insults isn’t genuine. I’m sure there are plenty of people on this website who struggle with weight themselves, and who who may well find your fattist comments extremely diminishing, discriminatory, and humiliating. Maybe you should reconsider how you frame your opinions. Well said. The frequent references to 'lunatics' and 'freaks' are also hardly kind towards people suffering with mental health issues, indeed those words are widely seen as completely inappropriate within the treatment of mental health concerns. It is inevitable and healthy that we have differences of opinions in a Politics Section but the normalisation of cruel and offensive language has been a negative development." In the words of the obnoxious cunt himself "Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another day, another Trump thread. Off the scale TDS. it seems you have stumbled into the politics forum, feel free to scroll past, insults aren't allowed here 🤷♂️ Given that your every post appears to involve calling the President of the United States a “fat freak” or “fat cunt” I somehow feel your concern about insults isn’t genuine. I’m sure there are plenty of people on this website who struggle with weight themselves, and who who may well find your fattist comments extremely diminishing, discriminatory, and humiliating. Maybe you should reconsider how you frame your opinions. Well said. The frequent references to 'lunatics' and 'freaks' are also hardly kind towards people suffering with mental health issues, indeed those words are widely seen as completely inappropriate within the treatment of mental health concerns. It is inevitable and healthy that we have differences of opinions in a Politics Section but the normalisation of cruel and offensive language has been a negative development. In the words of the obnoxious cunt himself "Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell" "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another day, another Trump thread. Off the scale TDS. it seems you have stumbled into the politics forum, feel free to scroll past, insults aren't allowed here 🤷♂️ Given that your every post appears to involve calling the President of the United States a “fat freak” or “fat cunt” I somehow feel your concern about insults isn’t genuine. I’m sure there are plenty of people on this website who struggle with weight themselves, and who who may well find your fattist comments extremely diminishing, discriminatory, and humiliating. Maybe you should reconsider how you frame your opinions. Well said. The frequent references to 'lunatics' and 'freaks' are also hardly kind towards people suffering with mental health issues, indeed those words are widely seen as completely inappropriate within the treatment of mental health concerns. It is inevitable and healthy that we have differences of opinions in a Politics Section but the normalisation of cruel and offensive language has been a negative development. In the words of the obnoxious cunt himself "Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell" " That must be a quandry for the trump supporter averse to bad language on a swingers forum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another day, another Trump thread. Off the scale TDS. it seems you have stumbled into the politics forum, feel free to scroll past, insults aren't allowed here 🤷♂️ Given that your every post appears to involve calling the President of the United States a “fat freak” or “fat cunt” I somehow feel your concern about insults isn’t genuine. I’m sure there are plenty of people on this website who struggle with weight themselves, and who who may well find your fattist comments extremely diminishing, discriminatory, and humiliating. Maybe you should reconsider how you frame your opinions. Well said. The frequent references to 'lunatics' and 'freaks' are also hardly kind towards people suffering with mental health issues, indeed those words are widely seen as completely inappropriate within the treatment of mental health concerns. It is inevitable and healthy that we have differences of opinions in a Politics Section but the normalisation of cruel and offensive language has been a negative development. In the words of the obnoxious cunt himself "Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell" That must be a quandry for the trump supporter averse to bad language on a swingers forum. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another day, another Trump thread. Off the scale TDS. it seems you have stumbled into the politics forum, feel free to scroll past, insults aren't allowed here 🤷♂️ Given that your every post appears to involve calling the President of the United States a “fat freak” or “fat cunt” I somehow feel your concern about insults isn’t genuine. I’m sure there are plenty of people on this website who struggle with weight themselves, and who who may well find your fattist comments extremely diminishing, discriminatory, and humiliating. Maybe you should reconsider how you frame your opinions. Well said. The frequent references to 'lunatics' and 'freaks' are also hardly kind towards people suffering with mental health issues, indeed those words are widely seen as completely inappropriate within the treatment of mental health concerns. It is inevitable and healthy that we have differences of opinions in a Politics Section but the normalisation of cruel and offensive language has been a negative development. In the words of the obnoxious cunt himself "Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell" That must be a quandry for the trump supporter averse to bad language on a swingers forum. " 😱 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another day, another Trump thread. Off the scale TDS. it seems you have stumbled into the politics forum, feel free to scroll past, insults aren't allowed here 🤷♂️ Given that your every post appears to involve calling the President of the United States a “fat freak” or “fat cunt” I somehow feel your concern about insults isn’t genuine. I’m sure there are plenty of people on this website who struggle with weight themselves, and who who may well find your fattist comments extremely diminishing, discriminatory, and humiliating. Maybe you should reconsider how you frame your opinions. Well said. The frequent references to 'lunatics' and 'freaks' are also hardly kind towards people suffering with mental health issues, indeed those words are widely seen as completely inappropriate within the treatment of mental health concerns. It is inevitable and healthy that we have differences of opinions in a Politics Section but the normalisation of cruel and offensive language has been a negative development. In the words of the obnoxious cunt himself "Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell" That must be a quandry for the trump supporter averse to bad language on a swingers forum. " Surely the opposite- those who routinely use foul language can hardly criticise others, unless they wish to be thought of as hypocrites. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another day, another Trump thread. Off the scale TDS. it seems you have stumbled into the politics forum, feel free to scroll past, insults aren't allowed here 🤷♂️ Given that your every post appears to involve calling the President of the United States a “fat freak” or “fat cunt” I somehow feel your concern about insults isn’t genuine. I’m sure there are plenty of people on this website who struggle with weight themselves, and who who may well find your fattist comments extremely diminishing, discriminatory, and humiliating. Maybe you should reconsider how you frame your opinions. Well said. The frequent references to 'lunatics' and 'freaks' are also hardly kind towards people suffering with mental health issues, indeed those words are widely seen as completely inappropriate within the treatment of mental health concerns. It is inevitable and healthy that we have differences of opinions in a Politics Section but the normalisation of cruel and offensive language has been a negative development. In the words of the obnoxious cunt himself "Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell" That must be a quandry for the trump supporter averse to bad language on a swingers forum. "
A stern letter being penned as we speak..
On the finest parchment.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another day, another Trump thread. Off the scale TDS. it seems you have stumbled into the politics forum, feel free to scroll past, insults aren't allowed here 🤷♂️ Given that your every post appears to involve calling the President of the United States a “fat freak” or “fat cunt” I somehow feel your concern about insults isn’t genuine. I’m sure there are plenty of people on this website who struggle with weight themselves, and who who may well find your fattist comments extremely diminishing, discriminatory, and humiliating. Maybe you should reconsider how you frame your opinions. Well said. The frequent references to 'lunatics' and 'freaks' are also hardly kind towards people suffering with mental health issues, indeed those words are widely seen as completely inappropriate within the treatment of mental health concerns. It is inevitable and healthy that we have differences of opinions in a Politics Section but the normalisation of cruel and offensive language has been a negative development. In the words of the obnoxious cunt himself "Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell" That must be a quandry for the trump supporter averse to bad language on a swingers forum. Surely the opposite- those who routinely use foul language can hardly criticise others, unless they wish to be thought of as hypocrites." Correct me if I'm wrong, it was you that suggested the poster above shouldn't be using bad language. Will you condemn the mango man for the expletives? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
