Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Donald Trump appears to be signalling that the US might get involved in the war on Iran. The timing is interesting and the domestic politics involved will be significant, especially within the republican party. He's taken aim at Tucker Carlson on this recently. The likely impact of the US getting involved would be naval support (Eastern theatre, clearing the gulf and red sea & enforcing sanctions) and B52 support (carrying huge bombs that can penetrate deep underground nuclear and military sites). Is the signalling real, or just extreme leverage for more negotiations?" I don’t get that impression at all, because his MAGA base seem to be very much against it. Obviously the usual Neocons like Lyndsay Graham want it, but they aren’t MAGA Republicans. If Trump enters the war, it makes a mockery of his ‘end all wars’ proclamations. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I don’t get that impression at all, because his MAGA base seem to be very much against it. Obviously the usual Neocons like Lyndsay Graham want it, but they aren’t MAGA Republicans. If Trump enters the war, it makes a mockery of his ‘end all wars’ proclamations." His argument might be that he didn't start it, but he's going to finish it, and end most proxy wars while doing so. Odds on it will happen by midnight. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the goal is to remove Iran's nuclear capabilities the US will need to supply the weapons specifically for that job. They will also need to be on hand to protect shipping that will certainly be attacked by their proxies. Iran are now desperately trying to get negotiations back on the table with the US to bring a pause to the Israeli attacks. It would be foolish to walk away from this without achieving the objective, especially after Iran has been militarily weakened. " Tend to agree, it looks like Trump's waited to see how it's going and doesn't like seeing Israeli civilians killed.. The irony.. Israel may have reduced Iran's surface to air enough to use the ordnance only America has to properly hit the underground nuclear sites Iran has.. And as the OP says there will be a need to protect their assets plus the shipping which may come under attack.. No one regionally wants a nuclear Iran so that's a factor.. Iran still has several thousand missiles plus Hezbollah are still a threat as is the Houthis so it will escalate.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the goal is to remove Iran's nuclear capabilities the US will need to supply the weapons specifically for that job. They will also need to be on hand to protect shipping that will certainly be attacked by their proxies. Iran are now desperately trying to get negotiations back on the table with the US to bring a pause to the Israeli attacks. It would be foolish to walk away from this without achieving the objective, especially after Iran has been militarily weakened. Tend to agree, it looks like Trump's waited to see how it's going and doesn't like seeing Israeli civilians killed.. The irony.. Israel may have reduced Iran's surface to air enough to use the ordnance only America has to properly hit the underground nuclear sites Iran has.. And as the OP says there will be a need to protect their assets plus the shipping which may come under attack.. No one regionally wants a nuclear Iran so that's a factor.. Iran still has several thousand missiles plus Hezbollah are still a threat as is the Houthis so it will escalate.." Hezbollah are not the threat they were after Isreal took out many of their leadership and around 3000 - 4000 fighters. Houthis are a problem to shipping, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if any response to an attack on shipping would be greater than they have seen to date. Starmer and Macron are tiptoeing around the edges again with the diplomatic speak of reaching a peaceful outcome through diplomacy. They are fooling nobody... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the goal is to remove Iran's nuclear capabilities the US will need to supply the weapons specifically for that job. They will also need to be on hand to protect shipping that will certainly be attacked by their proxies. Iran are now desperately trying to get negotiations back on the table with the US to bring a pause to the Israeli attacks. It would be foolish to walk away from this without achieving the objective, especially after Iran has been militarily weakened. Tend to agree, it looks like Trump's waited to see how it's going and doesn't like seeing Israeli civilians killed.. The irony.. Israel may have reduced Iran's surface to air enough to use the ordnance only America has to properly hit the underground nuclear sites Iran has.. And as the OP says there will be a need to protect their assets plus the shipping which may come under attack.. No one regionally wants a nuclear Iran so that's a factor.. Iran still has several thousand missiles plus Hezbollah are still a threat as is the Houthis so it will escalate.." I don't see Hezbollah doing anything significant any time soon. They are still severely weakened (and scared) after the Israeli "pager" attack and they have seen what has happened to Hamas. Maybe they will lob the odd token rocket but that will be about it. Hamas are a busted flush now. The Houthis have gone a bit quiet since they were bombed by the Americans and I think the will keep their heads down for now. Besides they need Iran for financial and military support (mostly arms supplies) and the Iranians have suddenly got much more important priorities. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the goal is to remove Iran's nuclear capabilities the US will need to supply the weapons specifically for that job. They will also need to be on hand to protect shipping that will certainly be attacked by their proxies. Iran are now desperately trying to get negotiations back on the table with the US to bring a pause to the Israeli attacks. It would be foolish to walk away from this without achieving the objective, especially after Iran has been militarily weakened. Tend to agree, it looks like Trump's waited to see how it's going and doesn't like seeing Israeli civilians killed.. The irony.. Israel may have reduced Iran's surface to air enough to use the ordnance only America has to properly hit the underground nuclear sites Iran has.. And as the OP says there will be a need to protect their assets plus the shipping which may come under attack.. No one regionally wants a nuclear Iran so that's a factor.. Iran still has several thousand missiles plus Hezbollah are still a threat as is the Houthis so it will escalate.. Hezbollah are not the threat they were after Isreal took out many of their leadership and around 3000 - 4000 fighters. Houthis are a problem to shipping, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if any response to an attack on shipping would be greater than they have seen to date. Starmer and Macron are tiptoeing around the edges again with the diplomatic speak of reaching a peaceful outcome through diplomacy. They are fooling nobody..." The estimated number of Hamas recruits even after others were taken out shows that an ideology can't be destroyed fully by force, Hezbollah have been depleted but still retain much of their weapons .. Three ships on fire after a collision in the Strait of Hormuz possibly to do with the electronic interference affecting navigation systems that's massively increased most likely by Iran or their proxies.. Such things also add to the plus side of any charts that Trump will look at before saying go if he does do.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the goal is to remove Iran's nuclear capabilities the US will need to supply the weapons specifically for that job. They will also need to be on hand to protect shipping that will certainly be attacked by their proxies. Iran are now desperately trying to get negotiations back on the table with the US to bring a pause to the Israeli attacks. It would be foolish to walk away from this without achieving the objective, especially after Iran has been militarily weakened. Tend to agree, it looks like Trump's waited to see how it's going and doesn't like seeing Israeli civilians killed.. The irony.. Israel may have reduced Iran's surface to air enough to use the ordnance only America has to properly hit the underground nuclear sites Iran has.. And as the OP says there will be a need to protect their assets plus the shipping which may come under attack.. No one regionally wants a nuclear Iran so that's a factor.. Iran still has several thousand missiles plus Hezbollah are still a threat as is the Houthis so it will escalate.. Hezbollah are not the threat they were after Isreal took out many of their leadership and around 3000 - 4000 fighters. Houthis are a problem to shipping, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if any response to an attack on shipping would be greater than they have seen to date. Starmer and Macron are tiptoeing around the edges again with the diplomatic speak of reaching a peaceful outcome through diplomacy. They are fooling nobody... The estimated number of Hamas recruits even after others were taken out shows that an ideology can't be destroyed fully by force, Hezbollah have been depleted but still retain much of their weapons .. Three ships on fire after a collision in the Strait of Hormuz possibly to do with the electronic interference affecting navigation systems that's massively increased most likely by Iran or their proxies.. Such things also add to the plus side of any charts that Trump will look at before saying go if he does do.. " It must be a go, and if it does, it will be one of the most significant events of our times. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Iran with nukes is one step away from WW3. The reasons to not use nukes doesn’t apply to them… " Maybe, and maybe not. Like most people in power, they tend to like staying there once there. Pressing the button ends all that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Iran with nukes is one step away from WW3. The reasons to not use nukes doesn’t apply to them… Maybe, and maybe not. Like most people in power, they tend to like staying there once there. Pressing the button ends all that." I’d agree normally. But for the fact that these are religious extremists who 100% believe that a host of virgins are waiting for them in the after life if they die in the name of their god. And that doing so is the greatest thing they can do in this life. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Iran with nukes is one step away from WW3. The reasons to not use nukes doesn’t apply to them… Maybe, and maybe not. " Exactly. "Maybe" is fine if you live in the UK. Not so much if you live next door to them and they've threatened your state with religiously fanatical annihilation. Should the UK get involved? Maybe not. Saudi Arabia or Israel? Maybe yes. A maybe existential threat needs needs to be taken seriously. Iran has been playing a slow game with Israel, giving them no good options. Building up Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis and their own arsenal (shifting every closer to nuclear), Israel has never had a clear cut "legitimate" time to strike. Whatever Israel did, whenever they did it, was going to cause problems for them. Oct 7th overplayed Iran's "axis of resistance" hand before they were ready, and now Israel simply doesn't care for niceties and is finishing the job that they started. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just on a technical note, I keep hearing people say that US bunker busters could destroy Iran's underground facilities. I'm not sure this is true." Most analysis agree that it probably wouldn't be a "one and done" kind of thing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the goal is to remove Iran's nuclear capabilities the US will need to supply the weapons specifically for that job. They will also need to be on hand to protect shipping that will certainly be attacked by their proxies. Iran are now desperately trying to get negotiations back on the table with the US to bring a pause to the Israeli attacks. It would be foolish to walk away from this without achieving the objective, especially after Iran has been militarily weakened. Tend to agree, it looks like Trump's waited to see how it's going and doesn't like seeing Israeli civilians killed.. The irony.. Israel may have reduced Iran's surface to air enough to use the ordnance only America has to properly hit the underground nuclear sites Iran has.. And as the OP says there will be a need to protect their assets plus the shipping which may come under attack.. No one regionally wants a nuclear Iran so that's a factor.. Iran still has several thousand missiles plus Hezbollah are still a threat as is the Houthis so it will escalate.. Hezbollah are not the threat they were after Isreal took out many of their leadership and around 3000 - 4000 fighters. Houthis are a problem to shipping, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if any response to an attack on shipping would be greater than they have seen to date. Starmer and Macron are tiptoeing around the edges again with the diplomatic speak of reaching a peaceful outcome through diplomacy. They are fooling nobody... The estimated number of Hamas recruits even after others were taken out shows that an ideology can't be destroyed fully by force, Hezbollah have been depleted but still retain much of their weapons .. Three ships on fire after a collision in the Strait of Hormuz possibly to do with the electronic interference affecting navigation systems that's massively increased most likely by Iran or their proxies.. Such things also add to the plus side of any charts that Trump will look at before saying go if he does do.. It must be a go, and if it does, it will be one of the most significant events of our times. " I think it will be as others have said also, the chance to change the region which will be largely welcomed and to degrade the proxies which will hopefully lead to stability.. Too big a feather in trumps cap, might even get him the Nobel peace prize.. It will also hurt Putin if his allies in Iran are deposed.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the goal is to remove Iran's nuclear capabilities the US will need to supply the weapons specifically for that job. " And Trumps reply to the journalist about leaving G7 early for peace talks ‘ no something bigger than that’ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It will also hurt Putin if his allies in Iran are deposed.. " Easy solution to that isn’t there. He could by pass all this & simply give Iran some of his nukes if he really wanted to stir the pot. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It will also hurt Putin if his allies in Iran are deposed.. " correct ..... the usual waffle about proxies of tehran fail to acknowledge that Iran is itself a proxy of russia. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just on a technical note, I keep hearing people say that US bunker busters could destroy Iran's underground facilities. I'm not sure this is true. The USAF's most powerful bunker buster is the GBU-57A/B MOP. In its maximum configuration it can penetrate through about 60 metres of concrete or soil. Let's assume they have something secret that can penetrate to 100 metres - do we think that the Iranians are stupid enough to store their kit at such a shallow depth? They are using mountains as shields not concrete bunkers. Sure the US could destroy entrances to underground facilities but humans are pretty good at digging holes so the Iranians could recover their kit in time." Technicalities aside with UK carrier and Typhoons sent by Starmer who pictured with Trump signing the us/uk trade deal, and trumps language it for me looks like the removal of Iran's nuclear capabilities is coming very soon | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Most analysis agree that it probably wouldn't be a "one and done" kind of thing." The mountains in Iran are around the 4,000 metre mark. There aren't any weapons that can penetrate thousands of metres through rock. I can't see how it would be feasible even if they dropped a dozen bombs a day for months on end. A Star Wars style Death Star shot down a winding tunnel that's a kilometer or two long ain't going to happen either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It will also hurt Putin if his allies in Iran are deposed.. Easy solution to that isn’t there. He could by pass all this & simply give Iran some of his nukes if he really wanted to stir the pot." I've no doubt that there has been some assistance in the development, ditto with North Korea but the line of actually handing over a weapon or weapons is one that I doubt Putin would cross.. What were seeing is the Iranian vulnerabilities to Israel's intelligence network who are able to identify and kill the guy who replaced the guy they killed last week who coordinates and controls the Iranian armed forces and the IRGC.. They know where the kit is they're hitting and who they need to take out.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Most analysis agree that it probably wouldn't be a "one and done" kind of thing. The mountains in Iran are around the 4,000 metre mark. There aren't any weapons that can penetrate thousands of metres through rock. I can't see how it would be feasible even if they dropped a dozen bombs a day for months on end. A Star Wars style Death Star shot down a winding tunnel that's a kilometer or two long ain't going to happen either. " Two US carriers, nine squadron strike fleet and the US most sophisticated destroyer on the way. Decades of munitions supplies in Israel, Uk has sent a squadron of typhoons to Cyprus. Add whatever else we don’t know about Trumps language probably right ‘ much bigger’ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It will also hurt Putin if his allies in Iran are deposed.. correct ..... the usual waffle about proxies of tehran fail to acknowledge that Iran is itself a proxy of russia." But not only a proxy, Iran is also an important arms supplier to Putin. Many of the drones Putin fires at Ukraine are Iranian made. If the Israeli's (or maybe the Americans) knock out a drone factory or two the consequences could be far reaching. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Most analysis agree that it probably wouldn't be a "one and done" kind of thing. The mountains in Iran are around the 4,000 metre mark. There aren't any weapons that can penetrate thousands of metres through rock. I can't see how it would be feasible even if they dropped a dozen bombs a day for months on end. A Star Wars style Death Star shot down a winding tunnel that's a kilometer or two long ain't going to happen either. " The estimated amount of weapons ready material is about 400 kilogrammes according to Reuters etc, if that is stored deep then it can't be dug out easily after a direct hit and yes of course there may well be other exits no one knows about.. But if the aim is to topple the regime then full access by the IAEA will be part of any cease fire if it gets to that point .. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Most analysis agree that it probably wouldn't be a "one and done" kind of thing. The mountains in Iran are around the 4,000 metre mark. There aren't any weapons that can penetrate thousands of metres through rock. I can't see how it would be feasible even if they dropped a dozen bombs a day for months on end. A Star Wars style Death Star shot down a winding tunnel that's a kilometer or two long ain't going to happen either." They only need to destroy the entrance and exits. Sure they can go and start digging but that will be picked up on the satellite and another strike sent. I’m not saying there should be airstrikes, just that they could be successful in putting the program back decades if there was. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I can't see how it would be feasible even if they dropped a dozen bombs a day for months on end. A Star Wars style Death Star shot down a winding tunnel that's a kilometer or two long ain't going to happen either. " The resistance only had the Force. Israel has Mossad. Welcome to the Dark Side  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Most analysis agree that it probably wouldn't be a "one and done" kind of thing. The mountains in Iran are around the 4,000 metre mark. There aren't any weapons that can penetrate thousands of metres through rock. I can't see how it would be feasible even if they dropped a dozen bombs a day for months on end. A Star Wars style Death Star shot down a winding tunnel that's a kilometer or two long ain't going to happen either. They only need to destroy the entrance and exits. Sure they can go and start digging but that will be picked up on the satellite and another strike sent. I’m not saying there should be airstrikes, just that they could be successful in putting the program back decades if there was. " I would have agreed about putting back the programme etc after the first couple of days but I think with the success the Israelis have had so far I think the end game has to be fully removing the possibilities of any regime getting back to where they were, offensive nuclear capability wise before last week.. Iran were launching missiles in batches of 100 two days ago and the last two have been estimated to be less than half that figure.. They could be binding their time and will try to overwhelm Israel's defences in a huge attack but it could also be that Israel with the air superiority are gradually taking out the launchers.. Although a lot will be mobile and harder to find .. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The resistance only had the Force. Israel has Mossad." mossad who's intel on WMD in Iraq formed the decision for war .... they're either liars or not that intelligent | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The resistance only had the Force. Israel has Mossad. mossad who's intel on WMD in Iraq formed the decision for war .... they're either liars or not that intelligent" I'm torn with being impressed by how mossad are clearly pretty effective in Iran yet missed the Oct 7 attacks.. I think shin bet are largely internal but could be wrong.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Two US carriers, nine squadron strike fleet and the US most sophisticated destroyer on the way. Decades of munitions supplies in Israel, Uk has sent a squadron of typhoons to Cyprus. Add whatever else we don’t know about Trumps language probably right ‘ much bigger’ " I'm just trying to relate my understanding of the near physical impossibility of penetrating large mountains using an explosive device. Even an H-bomb can't destroy a 4,000 metre high mountain. The only weak spot would be an entrance tunnel and I can think of ways to design a small-bore zig-zag tunnel of several kilometres in length that would be almost impossible to penetrate outside of a sci-fi movie scenario. Also although MOP's can be precision guided their detonation is "dumb" once they hit, so fine tuning a detonation depth would be another near impossible problem to solve. To guarantee an end to Iran's nuclear program you'd either need boots on the ground, to attack constantly for an indefinite amount of time or to annialate the country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Two US carriers, nine squadron strike fleet and the US most sophisticated destroyer on the way. Decades of munitions supplies in Israel, Uk has sent a squadron of typhoons to Cyprus. Add whatever else we don’t know about Trumps language probably right ‘ much bigger’ I'm just trying to relate my understanding of the near physical impossibility of penetrating large mountains using an explosive device. Even an H-bomb can't destroy a 4,000 metre high mountain. The only weak spot would be an entrance tunnel and I can think of ways to design a small-bore zig-zag tunnel of several kilometres in length that would be almost impossible to penetrate outside of a sci-fi movie scenario. Also although MOP's can be precision guided their detonation is "dumb" once they hit, so fine tuning a detonation depth would be another near impossible problem to solve. To guarantee an end to Iran's nuclear program you'd either need boots on the ground, to attack constantly for an indefinite amount of time or to annialate the country. " If Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is buried so deep that no airstrike can eliminate it totally, then waiting and negotiating increases the risk of Iran achieving nuclear breakout. Destroy and disrupt is the only logical step forward. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Although Israel and the USA have enprmous military resources and have been prepared to do some very questionable things over the years, they've both struggled in their war aims. The only way to win a war is to turn your enemies into your friends." Agree with that. Go back to 1953 & the coup and you have the root cause of a lot of Iranian resentment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The time for friendship will come after the bloody nose." Looking forward to all those displaced Iranians as a result of bombing the place to dust? Rinse & repeat. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The time for friendship will come after the bloody nose. Looking forward to all those displaced Iranians as a result of bombing the place to dust? Rinse & repeat." Ah, scare tactics hey? Better than a cease fire. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The time for friendship will come after the bloody nose. Looking forward to all those displaced Iranians as a result of bombing the place to dust? Rinse & repeat. Ah, scare tactics hey? Better than a cease fire. " How do you know what’s better than a ceasefire? You, or anybody else cannot possibly know what will follow a full on pummeling of Iran. Do you think obliterating the place is a sure fire way of winning Iranian hearts & minds? The Iranians might not like ‘The Regime’ but I’m guessing they don’t like being blown to bits either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The time for friendship will come after the bloody nose. Looking forward to all those displaced Iranians as a result of bombing the place to dust? Rinse & repeat. Ah, scare tactics hey? Better than a cease fire. How do you know what’s better than a ceasefire? You, or anybody else cannot possibly know what will follow a full on pummeling of Iran. Do you think obliterating the place is a sure fire way of winning Iranian hearts & minds? The Iranians might not like ‘The Regime’ but I’m guessing they don’t like being blown to bits either." I can say with 100% confidence that Iran without nuclear military capabilities, is the best outcome for everyone. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The time for friendship will come after the bloody nose. Looking forward to all those displaced Iranians as a result of bombing the place to dust? Rinse & repeat. Ah, scare tactics hey? Better than a cease fire. How do you know what’s better than a ceasefire? You, or anybody else cannot possibly know what will follow a full on pummeling of Iran. Do you think obliterating the place is a sure fire way of winning Iranian hearts & minds? The Iranians might not like ‘The Regime’ but I’m guessing they don’t like being blown to bits either. I can say with 100% confidence that Iran without nuclear military capabilities, is the best outcome for everyone. " Easier to say sat at home in the UK than when you’re in Tehran, bombs dropping on your head though eh? & stop whining about migration when it’s ‘interventions’ like this that help to fuel it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The time for friendship will come after the bloody nose. Looking forward to all those displaced Iranians as a result of bombing the place to dust? Rinse & repeat. Ah, scare tactics hey? Better than a cease fire. How do you know what’s better than a ceasefire? You, or anybody else cannot possibly know what will follow a full on pummeling of Iran. Do you think obliterating the place is a sure fire way of winning Iranian hearts & minds? The Iranians might not like ‘The Regime’ but I’m guessing they don’t like being blown to bits either. I can say with 100% confidence that Iran without nuclear military capabilities, is the best outcome for everyone. Easier to say sat at home in the UK than when you’re in Tehran, bombs dropping on your head though eh? & stop whining about migration when it’s ‘interventions’ like this that help to fuel it." I'm sensing you are starting to accept that allowing the Iranian authoritarians to destabilise the Middle East and interfere in the West is no longer the accepted way forward. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The time for friendship will come after the bloody nose. Looking forward to all those displaced Iranians as a result of bombing the place to dust? Rinse & repeat. Ah, scare tactics hey? Better than a cease fire. How do you know what’s better than a ceasefire? You, or anybody else cannot possibly know what will follow a full on pummeling of Iran. Do you think obliterating the place is a sure fire way of winning Iranian hearts & minds? The Iranians might not like ‘The Regime’ but I’m guessing they don’t like being blown to bits either. I can say with 100% confidence that Iran without nuclear military capabilities, is the best outcome for everyone. Easier to say sat at home in the UK than when you’re in Tehran, bombs dropping on your head though eh? & stop whining about migration when it’s ‘interventions’ like this that help to fuel it. I'm sensing you are starting to accept that allowing the Iranian authoritarians to destabilise the Middle East and interfere in the West is no longer the accepted way forward. " The UK primarily, through greed, helped set off a chain of events that ultimately led to that Iranian Revolution in 1979. I’m sure there’s a lesson there somewhere for us. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The time for friendship will come after the bloody nose. Looking forward to all those displaced Iranians as a result of bombing the place to dust? Rinse & repeat. Ah, scare tactics hey? Better than a cease fire. How do you know what’s better than a ceasefire? You, or anybody else cannot possibly know what will follow a full on pummeling of Iran. Do you think obliterating the place is a sure fire way of winning Iranian hearts & minds? The Iranians might not like ‘The Regime’ but I’m guessing they don’t like being blown to bits either. I can say with 100% confidence that Iran without nuclear military capabilities, is the best outcome for everyone. Easier to say sat at home in the UK than when you’re in Tehran, bombs dropping on your head though eh? & stop whining about migration when it’s ‘interventions’ like this that help to fuel it. I'm sensing you are starting to accept that allowing the Iranian authoritarians to destabilise the Middle East and interfere in the West is no longer the accepted way forward. The UK primarily, through greed, helped set off a chain of events that ultimately led to that Iranian Revolution in 1979. I’m sure there’s a lesson there somewhere for us. " That event has passed and we are now faced with different problems. I'm really not sure what your pushback is, why do want Iran to be left to continue supplying state backed support for terrorism, global disruption and an authoritarian regime that executes its people in public for challenging them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The time for friendship will come after the bloody nose." You'll remember I was talking about the instinct to action in the last thread. And no I do not think that Eco was some kind of all seeing genius. He just had some valuable insights due to his personal experiences and considerable intellect. Your insticnt is to lash out at Iran and I can see why. But what I and others are cautioning is that we should think about the consequences very carefully. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Generally the lesser of two evils is the better course, but it's untidy and doesn't give one that vivid sense of satisfaction that acting on instinct does. Reason is rather dull and unexciting. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That event has passed and we are now faced with different problems. I'm really not sure what your pushback is, why do want Iran to be left to continue supplying state backed support for terrorism, global disruption and an authoritarian regime that executes its people in public for challenging them? " You’re putting an awful lot of words in my mouth there, absolutely none of which I have said. Carry on being deliberately disingenuous & I’ll stop engaging. Basically: Diplomacy brute force wherever possible. Talks were ongoing, Netanyahu has jumped the leash & now wants Trump (the same Trump who ripped up Obama’s deal, the same Trump whose Director of National Intelligence has confirmed in March that ‘Iran is not building a nuclear weapon’) to jump in with both feet. Netanyahu has been banging on about Iran & Nukes for 30 years. It has shades of WMD all over again. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That event has passed and we are now faced with different problems. I'm really not sure what your pushback is, why do want Iran to be left to continue supplying state backed support for terrorism, global disruption and an authoritarian regime that executes its people in public for challenging them? You’re putting an awful lot of words in my mouth there, absolutely none of which I have said. Carry on being deliberately disingenuous & I’ll stop engaging. Basically: Diplomacy brute force wherever possible. Talks were ongoing, Netanyahu has jumped the leash & now wants Trump (the same Trump who ripped up Obama’s deal, the same Trump whose Director of National Intelligence has confirmed in March that ‘Iran is not building a nuclear weapon’) to jump in with both feet. Netanyahu has been banging on about Iran & Nukes for 30 years. It has shades of WMD all over again. " I was not being disingenuous at all, I have taken your views and arguments which are all against military action on Iran's nuclear sites and the using the UK's involvement 50 years ago to suggest it is what we have built so we should live with it. You are still calling out Trump getting involved, and I'm sure you understand that Israel need US weaponry to achieve the objective of removing nuclear capabilities. I will also assume you know Iran has reached 60%, the IAEA have confirmed this and are only a stones throw from the 90% enrichment for nuclear weapons. It is not WMD all over again, so you can see why I'm asking you the reason for the pushback, removing the capabilities removes the risk. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The time for friendship will come after the bloody nose. You'll remember I was talking about the instinct to action in the last thread. And no I do not think that Eco was some kind of all seeing genius. He just had some valuable insights due to his personal experiences and considerable intellect. Your insticnt is to lash out at Iran and I can see why. But what I and others are cautioning is that we should think about the consequences very carefully. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Generally the lesser of two evils is the better course, but it's untidy and doesn't give one that vivid sense of satisfaction that acting on instinct does. Reason is rather dull and unexciting. " "A policy of appeasement only invites further aggression", you will know who said that. At some point restraint turns into a liability, which is an expensive virtue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Donald Trump appears to be signalling that the US might get involved in the war on Iran. The timing is interesting and the domestic politics involved will be significant, especially within the republican party. He's taken aim at Tucker Carlson on this recently. The likely impact of the US getting involved would be naval support (Eastern theatre, clearing the gulf and red sea & enforcing sanctions) and B52 support (carrying huge bombs that can penetrate deep underground nuclear and military sites). Is the signalling real, or just extreme leverage for more negotiations?" Mr trump is just waiting for the death to America cry from the Iranians. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I was not being disingenuous at all, I have taken your views and arguments which are all against military action on Iran's nuclear sites and the using the UK's involvement 50 years ago to suggest it is what we have built so we should live with it. You are still calling out Trump getting involved, and I'm sure you understand that Israel need US weaponry to achieve the objective of removing nuclear capabilities. I will also assume you know Iran has reached 60%, the IAEA have confirmed this and are only a stones throw from the 90% enrichment for nuclear weapons. It is not WMD all over again, so you can see why I'm asking you the reason for the pushback, removing the capabilities removes the risk. " ‘…why do want Iran to be left to continue supplying state backed support for terrorism, global disruption and an authoritarian regime that executes its people in public for challenging them?’ Not being disingenuous? Tell me where I have said the above? I don’t WANT Iran to keep doing that, but there could be consequences for what you seem to advocating as well. ‘Completely destroying’ Iran’s nuclear capabilities would be difficult. It’s not all about that though is it & it’s pretty obvious regime change is a desired aim as well. There is no guarantee air bombardment & an arms length conflict would lead to the removal of the Iranian regime. That, imo, would require boots on the ground & then you are possibly looking at another very long, drawn out conflict like Afghanistan over Iran’s mountainous terrain with no guarantees of long term victory but also running the risk of breeding a whole lot of Iranian resentment not only towards the regime but the western powers flattening their country. …& if the regime IS actually removed, what is it replaced by? The West has a track record of making things worse in some cases after their little jaunts. Would the Iranians really want another western puppet as The Shah was with his authoritarianism, corruption & secret police? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I was not being disingenuous at all, I have taken your views and arguments which are all against military action on Iran's nuclear sites and the using the UK's involvement 50 years ago to suggest it is what we have built so we should live with it. You are still calling out Trump getting involved, and I'm sure you understand that Israel need US weaponry to achieve the objective of removing nuclear capabilities. I will also assume you know Iran has reached 60%, the IAEA have confirmed this and are only a stones throw from the 90% enrichment for nuclear weapons. It is not WMD all over again, so you can see why I'm asking you the reason for the pushback, removing the capabilities removes the risk. ‘…why do want Iran to be left to continue supplying state backed support for terrorism, global disruption and an authoritarian regime that executes its people in public for challenging them?’ Not being disingenuous? Tell me where I have said the above? I don’t WANT Iran to keep doing that, but there could be consequences for what you seem to advocating as well. ‘Completely destroying’ Iran’s nuclear capabilities would be difficult. It’s not all about that though is it & it’s pretty obvious regime change is a desired aim as well. There is no guarantee air bombardment & an arms length conflict would lead to the removal of the Iranian regime. That, imo, would require boots on the ground & then you are possibly looking at another very long, drawn out conflict like Afghanistan over Iran’s mountainous terrain with no guarantees of long term victory but also running the risk of breeding a whole lot of Iranian resentment not only towards the regime but the western powers flattening their country. …& if the regime IS actually removed, what is it replaced by? The West has a track record of making things worse in some cases after their little jaunts. Would the Iranians really want another western puppet as The Shah was with his authoritarianism, corruption & secret police? " It is the way you are reading it. I was pointing out that is what they do, not what you said. The regime change is very clear, the actions being taken now will give the Iranian people the opportunity to force change, which I believe is what you advocated for on another thread? The worry that any new regime will be worse than the regime today, is not a valid reason to do nothing in my opinion and supports inaction. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I had to look up the quote "A policy of appeasement only invites further aggression". Dean Rusk the U.S. secretary of state from 1961 to 1969 who was famous for his support of the Vietnam War said: "Appeasement only makes the aggressor more aggressive." https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1338570 Is that the reference you were trying to make? I doubt it as most people recognise that the Vietnam War was a disaster. I suspect you were thinking of Churchill though AFAIK he never actually said this. "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last" is about the closest match I can find from Churchill. Either way, cautioning against burning Tehran, a city of 10 million people, to the ground isn't the same as appeasing 1930's Germany. " Where has burning Tehran to the ground come from? Who is saying that is the objective? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I was not being disingenuous at all, I have taken your views and arguments which are all against military action on Iran's nuclear sites and the using the UK's involvement 50 years ago to suggest it is what we have built so we should live with it. You are still calling out Trump getting involved, and I'm sure you understand that Israel need US weaponry to achieve the objective of removing nuclear capabilities. I will also assume you know Iran has reached 60%, the IAEA have confirmed this and are only a stones throw from the 90% enrichment for nuclear weapons. It is not WMD all over again, so you can see why I'm asking you the reason for the pushback, removing the capabilities removes the risk. ‘…why do want Iran to be left to continue supplying state backed support for terrorism, global disruption and an authoritarian regime that executes its people in public for challenging them?’ Not being disingenuous? Tell me where I have said the above? I don’t WANT Iran to keep doing that, but there could be consequences for what you seem to advocating as well. ‘Completely destroying’ Iran’s nuclear capabilities would be difficult. It’s not all about that though is it & it’s pretty obvious regime change is a desired aim as well. There is no guarantee air bombardment & an arms length conflict would lead to the removal of the Iranian regime. That, imo, would require boots on the ground & then you are possibly looking at another very long, drawn out conflict like Afghanistan over Iran’s mountainous terrain with no guarantees of long term victory but also running the risk of breeding a whole lot of Iranian resentment not only towards the regime but the western powers flattening their country. …& if the regime IS actually removed, what is it replaced by? The West has a track record of making things worse in some cases after their little jaunts. Would the Iranians really want another western puppet as The Shah was with his authoritarianism, corruption & secret police? It is the way you are reading it. I was pointing out that is what they do, not what you said. The regime change is very clear, the actions being taken now will give the Iranian people the opportunity to force change, which I believe is what you advocated for on another thread? The worry that any new regime will be worse than the regime today, is not a valid reason to do nothing in my opinion and supports inaction. " Talking & diplomacy isn’t ‘inaction’ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The worry that any new regime will be worse than the regime today, is not a valid reason to do nothing in my opinion and supports inaction." You are explicitly saying that you want action even if it makes things worse. I can't think of any way to get through to you that you letting your emotions get the better of your reasoning. This is exactly what Eco was talking about. "Where has burning Tehran to the ground come from? Who is saying that is the objective?" Israel Katz the Israeli Defence Minister said "If Khamenei continues to fire missiles at the Israeli home front — Tehran will burn,” Other choice quotes from this gentleman... "We will fight the terrorist organization Hamas and destroy it. All the civilian population in Gaza is ordered to leave immediately. We will win. They will not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world." "No one is currently planning to allow any humanitarian aid into Gaza, and there are no preparations to enable such aid." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Now that Israel and the US have explicitly used the words “regime change “ the rest of the world won’t touch this situation The us is going to use the excuse of “we have x thousand American citizens stranded…we are not protecting Israel, we are protecting them!” I am not sure bombing a television station counts as a military target " Germany's Mertz is starting to sound like he's on board with at least some assistance for Israel, from somewhere. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The worry that any new regime will be worse than the regime today, is not a valid reason to do nothing in my opinion and supports inaction. You are explicitly saying that you want action even if it makes things worse. I can't think of any way to get through to you that you letting your emotions get the better of your reasoning. This is exactly what Eco was talking about. Where has burning Tehran to the ground come from? Who is saying that is the objective? Israel Katz the Israeli Defence Minister said "If Khamenei continues to fire missiles at the Israeli home front — Tehran will burn,” Other choice quotes from this gentleman... "We will fight the terrorist organization Hamas and destroy it. All the civilian population in Gaza is ordered to leave immediately. We will win. They will not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world." "No one is currently planning to allow any humanitarian aid into Gaza, and there are no preparations to enable such aid." " I think you’re trying a little too hard to shoehorn Eco’s “everyone who disagrees with me is a fascist” lens onto this discussion and doing that, you’re missing the point. Iran has been destabilising the. region for years and were the backers of Oct 7th. They have gone out of their way to stop Gulf state normalisation with Israel and some would say that is why we are where we are today. A regime change will hopefully lead to lifting of sanctions and the Iranian people beginning to thrive again. That side of the coin gets conveniently left out in favour of fear of what leader comes next. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think you’re trying a little too hard to shoehorn Eco’s “everyone who disagrees with me is a fascist” lens onto this discussion and doing that, you’re missing the point. Iran has been destabilising the. region for years and were the backers of Oct 7th. They have gone out of their way to stop Gulf state normalisation with Israel and some would say that is why we are where we are today. A regime change will hopefully lead to lifting of sanctions and the Iranian people beginning to thrive again. That side of the coin gets conveniently left out in favour of fear of what leader comes next." I'm not trying to do any shoehorning, I'm pointing out that you are explicitly arguing that it is better to make the situation worse than it is to not make the situation worse. You've not countered with any logic because your position is inherently irrational. It is possible to be against Iran's behaviour while still being cautious about escalating the situation. The Iranian regime is both vile and dangerous, nobody is arguing otherwise, but war is a blunt instrument that very often has unintended consequences. It isn't at all clear that the apparent current course of action will fare better than previous ill-considered interventions like those in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no obvious mechanism to achieve regime change in Iran and there is no obvious mechanism to close down Iran's nuclear program either. This is unfortunate but thowing toys out of the pram won't change matters. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems to be moving to the U.S. providing the bombs to reaxh below ground sites" The bombs need the US bombers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems to be moving to the U.S. providing the bombs to reaxh below ground sites The bombs need the US bombers." Indeed, the B2 Spirit is probably the only bomber capable of delivering these six tonne devices. Although as I've already pointed out the use of bunker busters doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny IMO. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think you’re trying a little too hard to shoehorn Eco’s “everyone who disagrees with me is a fascist” lens onto this discussion and doing that, you’re missing the point. Iran has been destabilising the. region for years and were the backers of Oct 7th. They have gone out of their way to stop Gulf state normalisation with Israel and some would say that is why we are where we are today. A regime change will hopefully lead to lifting of sanctions and the Iranian people beginning to thrive again. That side of the coin gets conveniently left out in favour of fear of what leader comes next. I'm not trying to do any shoehorning, I'm pointing out that you are explicitly arguing that it is better to make the situation worse than it is to not make the situation worse. You've not countered with any logic because your position is inherently irrational. It is possible to be against Iran's behaviour while still being cautious about escalating the situation. The Iranian regime is both vile and dangerous, nobody is arguing otherwise, but war is a blunt instrument that very often has unintended consequences. It isn't at all clear that the apparent current course of action will fare better than previous ill-considered interventions like those in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no obvious mechanism to achieve regime change in Iran and there is no obvious mechanism to close down Iran's nuclear program either. This is unfortunate but thowing toys out of the pram won't change matters." Your opinion is that I'm arguing to make things worse, because my view is not aligned to yours. Great argument  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Iran is facing an existential crisis. Many posters are advocating obliteration. Few are cautioning for calm heads and diplomatic solutions. . Sun Tzu prioritized diplomacy and negotiation to resolve conflicts before they escalate to war. He believed that diplomacy was a more effective and less costly way to achieve one's objectives. . To date, I have not seen nowhere near enough diplomacy." Iran is pledged to Israel's total elimination. What is there to achieve through diplomacy? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Your opinion is that I'm arguing to make things worse, because my view is not aligned to yours." No I'm pointing out that what you said was irrational in and of itself. You said... "The worry that any new regime will be worse than the regime today, is not a valid reason to do nothing in my opinion and supports inaction." In other words: having a worse regime than the current one would be a better outcome than inaction. So you weren't just arguing that it couldn't get any worse you were arguing that if it did get worse it would be better. If you had said that the chance of making things worse was very small in comparison with the risk of inaction then we could have gone on to debate the risk but instead you made a sweeping statement that it was not valid to consider such risk. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Iran is facing an existential crisis. Many posters are advocating obliteration. Few are cautioning for calm heads and diplomatic solutions. . Sun Tzu prioritized diplomacy and negotiation to resolve conflicts before they escalate to war. He believed that diplomacy was a more effective and less costly way to achieve one's objectives. . To date, I have not seen nowhere near enough diplomacy. Iran is pledged to Israel's total elimination. What is there to achieve through diplomacy?" What comes after? Let’s say we blow everything to kingdom come - I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. Does it stop there? If you don’t then remove the government they will simply rebuild. And hide it deeper. If you do topple them then who do you replace them with? I don’t see anyone talking about anything beyond the next few days. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Iran is facing an existential crisis. Many posters are advocating obliteration. Few are cautioning for calm heads and diplomatic solutions. . Sun Tzu prioritized diplomacy and negotiation to resolve conflicts before they escalate to war. He believed that diplomacy was a more effective and less costly way to achieve one's objectives. . To date, I have not seen nowhere near enough diplomacy. Iran is pledged to Israel's total elimination. What is there to achieve through diplomacy? What comes after? Let’s say we blow everything to kingdom come - I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. Does it stop there? If you don’t then remove the government they will simply rebuild. And hide it deeper. If you do topple them then who do you replace them with? I don’t see anyone talking about anything beyond the next few days. " It's possible to destroy tanks, planes, buildings even people, but you can't destroy an ideology. In fact the opposite - a direct attack just strengthens it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...but you can't destroy an ideology. In fact the opposite - a direct attack just strengthens it." Are the Nazis and their ideology stronger now than in 1939? Was that achieved by diplomacy, or overwhelming military power, followed by a measure of benevolence? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...but you can't destroy an ideology. In fact the opposite - a direct attack just strengthens it. Are the Nazis and their ideology stronger now than in 1939? Was that achieved by diplomacy, or overwhelming military power, followed by a measure of benevolence?" Ground down by superior military power (just) and military mistakes. But I'm not sure extremist ideology has disappeared as a consequence - far from it. Putin does a convincing impersonation of Hitler. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Your opinion is that I'm arguing to make things worse, because my view is not aligned to yours. No I'm pointing out that what you said was irrational in and of itself. You said... The worry that any new regime will be worse than the regime today, is not a valid reason to do nothing in my opinion and supports inaction. In other words: having a worse regime than the current one would be a better outcome than inaction. So you weren't just arguing that it couldn't get any worse you were arguing that if it did get worse it would be better. If you had said that the chance of making things worse was very small in comparison with the risk of inaction then we could have gone on to debate the risk but instead you made a sweeping statement that it was not valid to consider such risk. " You have reduced your argument to semantics. It is clear that my comment referred to 2 decisions, take action or don't take action. Your argument is action could give Iran a regime worse than the one in place today and there needs to be more consideration through diplomacy, which ignores completely the efforts over many years to achieve that outcome without success. I'm saying that is not a reason to not take action, it is simply delaying the inevitability by talking around the same old things. The time is right to achieve the objective, tough decisions need to be made and not shied away from. For clarity the action that I'm talking about is destroying or depleting Iran's nuclear capabilities. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...but you can't destroy an ideology. In fact the opposite - a direct attack just strengthens it. Are the Nazis and their ideology stronger now than in 1939? Was that achieved by diplomacy, or overwhelming military power, followed by a measure of benevolence?" This proves my point - to follow this to the logical endpoint it will require vast amounts of time and money on the ground - Germany cost gazillions to rebuild. Iraq and Afghanistan also took trillions and they didn’t work. Are we prepared to spend that sort of money again and very likely be left with another failed state in the Middle East? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Iran is facing an existential crisis. Many posters are advocating obliteration. Few are cautioning for calm heads and diplomatic solutions. . Sun Tzu prioritized diplomacy and negotiation to resolve conflicts before they escalate to war. He believed that diplomacy was a more effective and less costly way to achieve one's objectives. . To date, I have not seen nowhere near enough diplomacy. Iran is pledged to Israel's total elimination. What is there to achieve through diplomacy? What comes after? Let’s say we blow everything to kingdom come - I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. Does it stop there? If you don’t then remove the government they will simply rebuild. And hide it deeper. If you do topple them then who do you replace them with? I don’t see anyone talking about anything beyond the next few days. " The message has been clear, the weakening of the Iranian governments forces and influence should be taken as an opportunity for the people of Iran to force change. Netanyahu said: Israel’s current military aim is to dismantle Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, those attacks “could certainly… result in regime change” because “the Iran regime is very weak. This is the message he sent to the Iranian people: “The time has come for the Iranian people to unite around its flag and its historic legacy, by standing up for your freedom from the evil and oppressive regime.” The above is the preferred outcome, attack Iran's military capabilities to remove their ever present disruption and influence, and hope the people of Iran use the opportunity to force change. There is no mention of destroying Iran completely and letting it rise out of the ashes and wait to see what emerges. The second worry is the US entering the war, what is that worry exactly? They have a role in this, to take out the nuclear facilities, they will also play their part in protecting shipping. But what is the actual worry surrounding this? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Iran is facing an existential crisis. Many posters are advocating obliteration. Few are cautioning for calm heads and diplomatic solutions. . Sun Tzu prioritized diplomacy and negotiation to resolve conflicts before they escalate to war. He believed that diplomacy was a more effective and less costly way to achieve one's objectives. . To date, I have not seen nowhere near enough diplomacy. Iran is pledged to Israel's total elimination. What is there to achieve through diplomacy? What comes after? Let’s say we blow everything to kingdom come - I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. Does it stop there? If you don’t then remove the government they will simply rebuild. And hide it deeper. If you do topple them then who do you replace them with? I don’t see anyone talking about anything beyond the next few days. The message has been clear, the weakening of the Iranian governments forces and influence should be taken as an opportunity for the people of Iran to force change. Netanyahu said: Israel’s current military aim is to dismantle Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, those attacks “could certainly… result in regime change” because “the Iran regime is very weak. This is the message he sent to the Iranian people: “The time has come for the Iranian people to unite around its flag and its historic legacy, by standing up for your freedom from the evil and oppressive regime.” The above is the preferred outcome, attack Iran's military capabilities to remove their ever present disruption and influence, and hope the people of Iran use the opportunity to force change. There is no mention of destroying Iran completely and letting it rise out of the ashes and wait to see what emerges. The second worry is the US entering the war, what is that worry exactly? They have a role in this, to take out the nuclear facilities, they will also play their part in protecting shipping. But what is the actual worry surrounding this?" The US spy chief has told congress there is no plan for Iran to build a nuclear weapon. Trump said’ I don’t care what she says, I think they do’ It does potentially point to another weapons of mass destruction jackonory | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Iran is facing an existential crisis. Many posters are advocating obliteration. Few are cautioning for calm heads and diplomatic solutions. . Sun Tzu prioritized diplomacy and negotiation to resolve conflicts before they escalate to war. He believed that diplomacy was a more effective and less costly way to achieve one's objectives. . To date, I have not seen nowhere near enough diplomacy. Iran is pledged to Israel's total elimination. What is there to achieve through diplomacy? What comes after? Let’s say we blow everything to kingdom come - I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. Does it stop there? If you don’t then remove the government they will simply rebuild. And hide it deeper. If you do topple them then who do you replace them with? I don’t see anyone talking about anything beyond the next few days. The message has been clear, the weakening of the Iranian governments forces and influence should be taken as an opportunity for the people of Iran to force change. Netanyahu said: Israel’s current military aim is to dismantle Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, those attacks “could certainly… result in regime change” because “the Iran regime is very weak. This is the message he sent to the Iranian people: “The time has come for the Iranian people to unite around its flag and its historic legacy, by standing up for your freedom from the evil and oppressive regime.” The above is the preferred outcome, attack Iran's military capabilities to remove their ever present disruption and influence, and hope the people of Iran use the opportunity to force change. There is no mention of destroying Iran completely and letting it rise out of the ashes and wait to see what emerges. The second worry is the US entering the war, what is that worry exactly? They have a role in this, to take out the nuclear facilities, they will also play their part in protecting shipping. But what is the actual worry surrounding this?" What’s the worry? It’s: the minor factor of which people will rise to the top when the “uprising” takes place. If we have learnt anything from the past 20 years it is not the democrats and western orientated people who thrive. If you can point to credible government in waiting then let’s bomb the hell out of the place and let democracy flower. If you can’t then the last 20 years of Iraq and Afghanistan should give you pause for thought. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Iran is facing an existential crisis. Many posters are advocating obliteration. Few are cautioning for calm heads and diplomatic solutions. . Sun Tzu prioritized diplomacy and negotiation to resolve conflicts before they escalate to war. He believed that diplomacy was a more effective and less costly way to achieve one's objectives. . To date, I have not seen nowhere near enough diplomacy. Iran is pledged to Israel's total elimination. What is there to achieve through diplomacy? What comes after? Let’s say we blow everything to kingdom come - I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. Does it stop there? If you don’t then remove the government they will simply rebuild. And hide it deeper. If you do topple them then who do you replace them with? I don’t see anyone talking about anything beyond the next few days. The message has been clear, the weakening of the Iranian governments forces and influence should be taken as an opportunity for the people of Iran to force change. Netanyahu said: Israel’s current military aim is to dismantle Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, those attacks “could certainly… result in regime change” because “the Iran regime is very weak. This is the message he sent to the Iranian people: “The time has come for the Iranian people to unite around its flag and its historic legacy, by standing up for your freedom from the evil and oppressive regime.” The above is the preferred outcome, attack Iran's military capabilities to remove their ever present disruption and influence, and hope the people of Iran use the opportunity to force change. There is no mention of destroying Iran completely and letting it rise out of the ashes and wait to see what emerges. The second worry is the US entering the war, what is that worry exactly? They have a role in this, to take out the nuclear facilities, they will also play their part in protecting shipping. But what is the actual worry surrounding this? What’s the worry? It’s: the minor factor of which people will rise to the top when the “uprising” takes place. If we have learnt anything from the past 20 years it is not the democrats and western orientated people who thrive. If you can point to credible government in waiting then let’s bomb the hell out of the place and let democracy flower. If you can’t then the last 20 years of Iraq and Afghanistan should give you pause for thought." Hobsons choice, can’t have an Islamic country with a nuclear capability, one day someone will wake up with Allahs calling to launch it. On the other hand, bombing civilians as in Gaza will only strengthen their resolve. No winners here | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Iran is facing an existential crisis. Many posters are advocating obliteration. Few are cautioning for calm heads and diplomatic solutions. . Sun Tzu prioritized diplomacy and negotiation to resolve conflicts before they escalate to war. He believed that diplomacy was a more effective and less costly way to achieve one's objectives. . To date, I have not seen nowhere near enough diplomacy. Iran is pledged to Israel's total elimination. What is there to achieve through diplomacy? What comes after? Let’s say we blow everything to kingdom come - I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. Does it stop there? If you don’t then remove the government they will simply rebuild. And hide it deeper. If you do topple them then who do you replace them with? I don’t see anyone talking about anything beyond the next few days. The message has been clear, the weakening of the Iranian governments forces and influence should be taken as an opportunity for the people of Iran to force change. Netanyahu said: Israel’s current military aim is to dismantle Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, those attacks “could certainly… result in regime change” because “the Iran regime is very weak. This is the message he sent to the Iranian people: “The time has come for the Iranian people to unite around its flag and its historic legacy, by standing up for your freedom from the evil and oppressive regime.” The above is the preferred outcome, attack Iran's military capabilities to remove their ever present disruption and influence, and hope the people of Iran use the opportunity to force change. There is no mention of destroying Iran completely and letting it rise out of the ashes and wait to see what emerges. The second worry is the US entering the war, what is that worry exactly? They have a role in this, to take out the nuclear facilities, they will also play their part in protecting shipping. But what is the actual worry surrounding this? The US spy chief has told congress there is no plan for Iran to build a nuclear weapon. Trump said’ I don’t care what she says, I think they do’ It does potentially point to another weapons of mass destruction jackonory" If we take away he said, she said and look at the capability, Iran has nuclear facilities and capabilities with a known uranium enrichment of 60%. They may not have a nuclear weapon today, they will tomorrow. Once that genie is out of the bottle, it is too late. What do we want our leaders to do? Nothing and cross their fingers that a religious ideology led regime who see the West as the enemy do not progress any further. Or, act at a time that is appropriate in terms of risk to destroy or disrupt the risk of nuclear weapon grade uranium being produced in the first place. Personally I would prefer them not to cross their fingers and hope. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Iran is facing an existential crisis. Many posters are advocating obliteration. Few are cautioning for calm heads and diplomatic solutions. . Sun Tzu prioritized diplomacy and negotiation to resolve conflicts before they escalate to war. He believed that diplomacy was a more effective and less costly way to achieve one's objectives. . To date, I have not seen nowhere near enough diplomacy. Iran is pledged to Israel's total elimination. What is there to achieve through diplomacy? What comes after? Let’s say we blow everything to kingdom come - I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. Does it stop there? If you don’t then remove the government they will simply rebuild. And hide it deeper. If you do topple them then who do you replace them with? I don’t see anyone talking about anything beyond the next few days. The message has been clear, the weakening of the Iranian governments forces and influence should be taken as an opportunity for the people of Iran to force change. Netanyahu said: Israel’s current military aim is to dismantle Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, those attacks “could certainly… result in regime change” because “the Iran regime is very weak. This is the message he sent to the Iranian people: “The time has come for the Iranian people to unite around its flag and its historic legacy, by standing up for your freedom from the evil and oppressive regime.” The above is the preferred outcome, attack Iran's military capabilities to remove their ever present disruption and influence, and hope the people of Iran use the opportunity to force change. There is no mention of destroying Iran completely and letting it rise out of the ashes and wait to see what emerges. The second worry is the US entering the war, what is that worry exactly? They have a role in this, to take out the nuclear facilities, they will also play their part in protecting shipping. But what is the actual worry surrounding this? What’s the worry? It’s: the minor factor of which people will rise to the top when the “uprising” takes place. If we have learnt anything from the past 20 years it is not the democrats and western orientated people who thrive. If you can point to credible government in waiting then let’s bomb the hell out of the place and let democracy flower. If you can’t then the last 20 years of Iraq and Afghanistan should give you pause for thought." You have moved to bomb the hell out of the place again. Is that going to happen? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Iran is facing an existential crisis. Many posters are advocating obliteration. Few are cautioning for calm heads and diplomatic solutions. . Sun Tzu prioritized diplomacy and negotiation to resolve conflicts before they escalate to war. He believed that diplomacy was a more effective and less costly way to achieve one's objectives. . To date, I have not seen nowhere near enough diplomacy. Iran is pledged to Israel's total elimination. What is there to achieve through diplomacy? What comes after? Let’s say we blow everything to kingdom come - I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. Does it stop there? If you don’t then remove the government they will simply rebuild. And hide it deeper. If you do topple them then who do you replace them with? I don’t see anyone talking about anything beyond the next few days. The message has been clear, the weakening of the Iranian governments forces and influence should be taken as an opportunity for the people of Iran to force change. Netanyahu said: Israel’s current military aim is to dismantle Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, those attacks “could certainly… result in regime change” because “the Iran regime is very weak. This is the message he sent to the Iranian people: “The time has come for the Iranian people to unite around its flag and its historic legacy, by standing up for your freedom from the evil and oppressive regime.” The above is the preferred outcome, attack Iran's military capabilities to remove their ever present disruption and influence, and hope the people of Iran use the opportunity to force change. There is no mention of destroying Iran completely and letting it rise out of the ashes and wait to see what emerges. The second worry is the US entering the war, what is that worry exactly? They have a role in this, to take out the nuclear facilities, they will also play their part in protecting shipping. But what is the actual worry surrounding this? What’s the worry? It’s: the minor factor of which people will rise to the top when the “uprising” takes place. If we have learnt anything from the past 20 years it is not the democrats and western orientated people who thrive. If you can point to credible government in waiting then let’s bomb the hell out of the place and let democracy flower. If you can’t then the last 20 years of Iraq and Afghanistan should give you pause for thought. You have moved to bomb the hell out of the place again. Is that going to happen?" I hope not. It was a sarcastic comment. My whole point is that I think this is strategic madness. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Iran is facing an existential crisis. Many posters are advocating obliteration. Few are cautioning for calm heads and diplomatic solutions. . Sun Tzu prioritized diplomacy and negotiation to resolve conflicts before they escalate to war. He believed that diplomacy was a more effective and less costly way to achieve one's objectives. . To date, I have not seen nowhere near enough diplomacy. Iran is pledged to Israel's total elimination. What is there to achieve through diplomacy? What comes after? Let’s say we blow everything to kingdom come - I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. Does it stop there? If you don’t then remove the government they will simply rebuild. And hide it deeper. If you do topple them then who do you replace them with? I don’t see anyone talking about anything beyond the next few days. The message has been clear, the weakening of the Iranian governments forces and influence should be taken as an opportunity for the people of Iran to force change. Netanyahu said: Israel’s current military aim is to dismantle Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, those attacks “could certainly… result in regime change” because “the Iran regime is very weak. This is the message he sent to the Iranian people: “The time has come for the Iranian people to unite around its flag and its historic legacy, by standing up for your freedom from the evil and oppressive regime.” The above is the preferred outcome, attack Iran's military capabilities to remove their ever present disruption and influence, and hope the people of Iran use the opportunity to force change. There is no mention of destroying Iran completely and letting it rise out of the ashes and wait to see what emerges. The second worry is the US entering the war, what is that worry exactly? They have a role in this, to take out the nuclear facilities, they will also play their part in protecting shipping. But what is the actual worry surrounding this? What’s the worry? It’s: the minor factor of which people will rise to the top when the “uprising” takes place. If we have learnt anything from the past 20 years it is not the democrats and western orientated people who thrive. If you can point to credible government in waiting then let’s bomb the hell out of the place and let democracy flower. If you can’t then the last 20 years of Iraq and Afghanistan should give you pause for thought. You have moved to bomb the hell out of the place again. Is that going to happen? I hope not. It was a sarcastic comment. My whole point is that I think this is strategic madness." In what way exactly? The US stayed well away from the start of this and waited to see what the response and capability of Iran would be. It became relatively quick to see that Israel had inflicted damage from their fighter jets with some ease and that allowed them to start taking out air defences. In May 2025 Iran rejected as a "non starter" a US proposal to pause their uranium enrichment for financial rewards. With Iran's military weakened, strategically I would consider this an ideal time to destroy or disrupt their nuclear capabilities. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What’s the worry? It’s: the minor factor of which people will rise to the top when the “uprising” takes place. If we have learnt anything from the past 20 years it is not the democrats and western orientated people who thrive. If you can point to credible government in waiting then let’s bomb the hell out of the place and let democracy flower. If you can’t then the last 20 years of Iraq and Afghanistan should give you pause for thought. You have moved to bomb the hell out of the place again. Is that going to happen? I hope not. It was a sarcastic comment. My whole point is that I think this is strategic madness. In what way exactly? The US stayed well away from the start of this and waited to see what the response and capability of Iran would be. It became relatively quick to see that Israel had inflicted damage from their fighter jets with some ease and that allowed them to start taking out air defences. In May 2025 Iran rejected as a "non starter" a US proposal to pause their uranium enrichment for financial rewards. With Iran's military weakened, strategically I would consider this an ideal time to destroy or disrupt their nuclear capabilities." I agree the time is perfect to destroy the Iranian nuclear infrastructure. I can see how that would benefit the world. The question is what happens after? If you don’t follow through with actively changing the government then why would they change their current approach? They will have been humiliated and if we know anything about human psychology then humiliated people with resources (Iran has a lot of oil!) can harbour long grudges. This doesn’t make the world safer - it just pushes the day of reckoning down the line. If you do replace the government then with whom do you replace them? The removal of the nuclear infrastructure will be a tactical masterclass. There is no overarching strategy though. Do we want a reduced but humiliated and financially rich country or do we want something else? What’s the end game? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What’s the worry? It’s: the minor factor of which people will rise to the top when the “uprising” takes place. If we have learnt anything from the past 20 years it is not the democrats and western orientated people who thrive. If you can point to credible government in waiting then let’s bomb the hell out of the place and let democracy flower. If you can’t then the last 20 years of Iraq and Afghanistan should give you pause for thought. You have moved to bomb the hell out of the place again. Is that going to happen? I hope not. It was a sarcastic comment. My whole point is that I think this is strategic madness. In what way exactly? The US stayed well away from the start of this and waited to see what the response and capability of Iran would be. It became relatively quick to see that Israel had inflicted damage from their fighter jets with some ease and that allowed them to start taking out air defences. In May 2025 Iran rejected as a "non starter" a US proposal to pause their uranium enrichment for financial rewards. With Iran's military weakened, strategically I would consider this an ideal time to destroy or disrupt their nuclear capabilities. I agree the time is perfect to destroy the Iranian nuclear infrastructure. I can see how that would benefit the world. The question is what happens after? If you don’t follow through with actively changing the government then why would they change their current approach? They will have been humiliated and if we know anything about human psychology then humiliated people with resources (Iran has a lot of oil!) can harbour long grudges. This doesn’t make the world safer - it just pushes the day of reckoning down the line. If you do replace the government then with whom do you replace them? The removal of the nuclear infrastructure will be a tactical masterclass. There is no overarching strategy though. Do we want a reduced but humiliated and financially rich country or do we want something else? What’s the end game?" I have seen nothing that indicates a forceful change of regime. If the messaging gets through and the people force change, which is a possibility if you cast your mind back 3 years. That internal change allows for a more moderate element to enter, such as (I did need to look these up and I have taken them at face value for the sake of an example): Reza Pahlavi: Exiled Crown Prince. Advocates a secular, democratic Iran via referendum. Masih Alinejad is a prominent journalist and women’s rights activist, her voice is strong in mobilising civil society especially post Mahsa Amini protests. Mohammad Khatami: Former president, a cleric who championed a Dialogue of Civilisations with the West. And an outsider but very popular with the younger generations the people behind the network, Women, Life, Freedom that began the protests in 2022. Even if regime change is resisted, it will take this current regime many years to rebuild their capabilities and a slow burn of change could be achieved. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" ...a slow burn of change could be achieved. " If not incapacitated, the first order of business for the existing regime will be to eliminate any internal threat. "Traitors and spies". Everything else will be secondary. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" ...a slow burn of change could be achieved. If not incapacitated, the first order of business for the existing regime will be to eliminate any internal threat. "Traitors and spies". Everything else will be secondary." Think: abusive husband coming home to his family after his team lost and he got beaten up in a bar fight. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What’s the worry? It’s: the minor factor of which people will rise to the top when the “uprising” takes place. If we have learnt anything from the past 20 years it is not the democrats and western orientated people who thrive. If you can point to credible government in waiting then let’s bomb the hell out of the place and let democracy flower. If you can’t then the last 20 years of Iraq and Afghanistan should give you pause for thought. You have moved to bomb the hell out of the place again. Is that going to happen? I hope not. It was a sarcastic comment. My whole point is that I think this is strategic madness. In what way exactly? The US stayed well away from the start of this and waited to see what the response and capability of Iran would be. It became relatively quick to see that Israel had inflicted damage from their fighter jets with some ease and that allowed them to start taking out air defences. In May 2025 Iran rejected as a "non starter" a US proposal to pause their uranium enrichment for financial rewards. With Iran's military weakened, strategically I would consider this an ideal time to destroy or disrupt their nuclear capabilities. I agree the time is perfect to destroy the Iranian nuclear infrastructure. I can see how that would benefit the world. The question is what happens after? If you don’t follow through with actively changing the government then why would they change their current approach? They will have been humiliated and if we know anything about human psychology then humiliated people with resources (Iran has a lot of oil!) can harbour long grudges. This doesn’t make the world safer - it just pushes the day of reckoning down the line. If you do replace the government then with whom do you replace them? The removal of the nuclear infrastructure will be a tactical masterclass. There is no overarching strategy though. Do we want a reduced but humiliated and financially rich country or do we want something else? What’s the end game? I have seen nothing that indicates a forceful change of regime. If the messaging gets through and the people force change, which is a possibility if you cast your mind back 3 years. That internal change allows for a more moderate element to enter, such as (I did need to look these up and I have taken them at face value for the sake of an example): Reza Pahlavi: Exiled Crown Prince. Advocates a secular, democratic Iran via referendum. Masih Alinejad is a prominent journalist and women’s rights activist, her voice is strong in mobilising civil society especially post Mahsa Amini protests. Mohammad Khatami: Former president, a cleric who championed a Dialogue of Civilisations with the West. And an outsider but very popular with the younger generations the people behind the network, Women, Life, Freedom that began the protests in 2022. Even if regime change is resisted, it will take this current regime many years to rebuild their capabilities and a slow burn of change could be achieved. " I hope you are right but hope is not a strategy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I hope you are right but hope is not a strategy." The most true and important statement on this forum. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" ...a slow burn of change could be achieved. If not incapacitated, the first order of business for the existing regime will be to eliminate any internal threat. "Traitors and spies". Everything else will be secondary." I'm sure they do that today, an example was the Mahsa Amini protests. They executed 800 people, shot 500 and blinded 120. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What’s the worry? It’s: the minor factor of which people will rise to the top when the “uprising” takes place. If we have learnt anything from the past 20 years it is not the democrats and western orientated people who thrive. If you can point to credible government in waiting then let’s bomb the hell out of the place and let democracy flower. If you can’t then the last 20 years of Iraq and Afghanistan should give you pause for thought. You have moved to bomb the hell out of the place again. Is that going to happen? I hope not. It was a sarcastic comment. My whole point is that I think this is strategic madness. In what way exactly? The US stayed well away from the start of this and waited to see what the response and capability of Iran would be. It became relatively quick to see that Israel had inflicted damage from their fighter jets with some ease and that allowed them to start taking out air defences. In May 2025 Iran rejected as a "non starter" a US proposal to pause their uranium enrichment for financial rewards. With Iran's military weakened, strategically I would consider this an ideal time to destroy or disrupt their nuclear capabilities. I agree the time is perfect to destroy the Iranian nuclear infrastructure. I can see how that would benefit the world. The question is what happens after? If you don’t follow through with actively changing the government then why would they change their current approach? They will have been humiliated and if we know anything about human psychology then humiliated people with resources (Iran has a lot of oil!) can harbour long grudges. This doesn’t make the world safer - it just pushes the day of reckoning down the line. If you do replace the government then with whom do you replace them? The removal of the nuclear infrastructure will be a tactical masterclass. There is no overarching strategy though. Do we want a reduced but humiliated and financially rich country or do we want something else? What’s the end game? I have seen nothing that indicates a forceful change of regime. If the messaging gets through and the people force change, which is a possibility if you cast your mind back 3 years. That internal change allows for a more moderate element to enter, such as (I did need to look these up and I have taken them at face value for the sake of an example): Reza Pahlavi: Exiled Crown Prince. Advocates a secular, democratic Iran via referendum. Masih Alinejad is a prominent journalist and women’s rights activist, her voice is strong in mobilising civil society especially post Mahsa Amini protests. Mohammad Khatami: Former president, a cleric who championed a Dialogue of Civilisations with the West. And an outsider but very popular with the younger generations the people behind the network, Women, Life, Freedom that began the protests in 2022. Even if regime change is resisted, it will take this current regime many years to rebuild their capabilities and a slow burn of change could be achieved. I hope you are right but hope is not a strategy." The only tangible strategy on the table is destroying Iranian nuclear capabilities, The regime change is a message being given to the people of Iran, it is not part of the wider strategy to deliver but this operation could leverage it. That part is hope. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anyone actually believe that a female journalist who lives in New York, is a feminist and a US citizen could become the leader of Iran in the near future?" No however, she and others were instrumental in building up the protests against one of the world’s most repressive regimes. Sometimes it’s about giving people the courage to stand up that will create change. This is why the message of regime change is being pumped into Iran . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" ...a slow burn of change could be achieved. If not incapacitated, the first order of business for the existing regime will be to eliminate any internal threat. "Traitors and spies". Everything else will be secondary. I'm sure they do that today, an example was the Mahsa Amini protests. They executed 800 people, shot 500 and blinded 120." Think what they’d do to 9.7 million Israelis | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems to be moving to the U.S. providing the bombs to reaxh below ground sites The bombs need the US bombers. Indeed, the B2 Spirit is probably the only bomber capable of delivering these six tonne devices. Although as I've already pointed out the use of bunker busters doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny IMO." B2 Spirit on (confirmed) video circling in Israeli skies today. Could be posturing, could be something else. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It seems to be moving to the U.S. providing the bombs to reaxh below ground sites The bombs need the US bombers. Indeed, the B2 Spirit is probably the only bomber capable of delivering these six tonne devices. Although as I've already pointed out the use of bunker busters doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny IMO. B2 Spirit on (confirmed) video circling in Israeli skies today. Could be posturing, could be something else." That was incorrect information. It was a different aircraft. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That was incorrect information. It was a different aircraft." It woudn't suprise me if the B2s were in the region. Recent satellite imagery I saw somewhere showed that they had moved from a base. I can't remember where it was Also reading what I wrote earlier the MOPs don't weigh 6 tonnes they weigh closer to 14 tonnes. Don't know why I wrote six. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the significant question is this. Would the current regime in Iran use a nuke against Isreal? And if the likely answer is yes, what should be done about that? Because what’s being done at the moment isn’t working." 1) I don't think Iran has the capability of delivering a nuclear weapon to Israel. The vast majority of their missiles are intercepted or fail and a nuclear warhead is going to be so bulky and heavy without considerable weaponization effort that they probably don't have a viable vehicle. 2) If they could overcome (1) then what would they target without causing potential damage to their allies? 3) If they could overcome (1) and didn't care about (2) and succeeded in a strike then Israel would likely retaliate with multiple nuclear weapons. I guess if one ignores the above and believes that the Iranian leadership would go ahead then your next question comes into play. I personally don't think there is much that can be done. Using MOPs on sites like Fordow and Natanz could with repeated attacks possibly destroy some of their enrichment capabilities but I am almost certain that they would have moved their existing stockpiles of highly enriched uranium to one or more even more secure locations deep in the mountains. They will also probably have centrifuges in unknown locations and certainly will have the ability to restart enrichment should the US manage to destroy the known sites. From a recent Washington Post article... "Tzachi Hanegbi, head of Israel’s National Security Council, acknowledged that Iran’s nuclear program “cannot be destroyed through kinetic means.” In an interview early Friday with Israeli Channel 12, he said “only the Americans can make that happen” — though not by supplying its “bunker buster” bomb but with the deal offered by President Donald Trump in which Iran would voluntarily give up its nuclear program in exchange for peace and lifted sanctions." But I think this is overly optimistic. The JCPOA wasn't watertight but was probably the best option for at least trying to contain things a little but Trump withdrew from that agreement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Iranian leadership seems to be negotiating surrender in Oman now anyway. That would be very interesting indeed." All I can find is the following AP report: "Three aircraft took off from Iran for Muscat, Oman’s capital, on Wednesday. The flights come as Iranian airspace has been closed for days. Their flight trackers all turned on in southeastern Iran, meaning it wasn’t immediately clear from where the aircraft took off. Iran offered no explanation for the flights and Oman did not immediately acknowledge any arrival of Iranian officials to the sultanate. Oman has been a key mediator between Iran and the United States during their five rounds of talks over Tehran’s nuclear program." Let's hope something positive happens. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the significant question is this. Would the current regime in Iran use a nuke against Isreal? And if the likely answer is yes, what should be done about that? Because what’s being done at the moment isn’t working. 1) I don't think Iran has the capability of delivering a nuclear weapon to Israel. The vast majority of their missiles are intercepted or fail and a nuclear warhead is going to be so bulky and heavy without considerable weaponization effort that they probably don't have a viable vehicle. 2) If they could overcome (1) then what would they target without causing potential damage to their allies? 3) If they could overcome (1) and didn't care about (2) and succeeded in a strike then Israel would likely retaliate with multiple nuclear weapons. I guess if one ignores the above and believes that the Iranian leadership would go ahead then your next question comes into play. I personally don't think there is much that can be done. Using MOPs on sites like Fordow and Natanz could with repeated attacks possibly destroy some of their enrichment capabilities but I am almost certain that they would have moved their existing stockpiles of highly enriched uranium to one or more even more secure locations deep in the mountains. They will also probably have centrifuges in unknown locations and certainly will have the ability to restart enrichment should the US manage to destroy the known sites. From a recent Washington Post article...Tzachi Hanegbi, head of Israel’s National Security Council, acknowledged that Iran’s nuclear program “cannot be destroyed through kinetic means.” In an interview early Friday with Israeli Channel 12, he said “only the Americans can make that happen” — though not by supplying its “bunker buster” bomb but with the deal offered by President Donald Trump in which Iran would voluntarily give up its nuclear program in exchange for peace and lifted sanctions. But I think this is overly optimistic. The JCPOA wasn't watertight but was probably the best option for at least trying to contain things a little but Trump withdrew from that agreement. " I didn’t say they had one, I asked if people thought they would use one. They are moving towards having them for a reason. Is that reason to use them or for deterrent? Because if it’s purely for a deterrent then there is less urgency. But if there is a genuine concern that they might use one, even as a dirty bomb, then they need to be brought into check. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Donald Trump appears to be signalling that the US might get involved in the war on Iran. The timing is interesting and the domestic politics involved will be significant, especially within the republican party. He's taken aim at Tucker Carlson on this recently. The likely impact of the US getting involved would be naval support (Eastern theatre, clearing the gulf and red sea & enforcing sanctions) and B52 support (carrying huge bombs that can penetrate deep underground nuclear and military sites). Is the signalling real, or just extreme leverage for more negotiations?" Cause his interventions with pootin went so well he's focusing on Iran now. He makes Biden look like a young Einstein | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I didn’t say they had one, I asked if people thought they would use one. They are moving towards having them for a reason. Is that reason to use them or for deterrent? Because if it’s purely for a deterrent then there is less urgency. But if there is a genuine concern that they might use one, even as a dirty bomb, then they need to be brought into check. " The language in the JCPOA expressly stated to what percentage they could enrich uranium up to… and it had to open up all facilities to independent inspectors and the IAEA to confirm this to make sure all parts of the agreement were being adhered to The percentage made sure it could only be used for domestic nuclear power as opposed to it being “weapons grade” Israel from the very beginning opposed the agreement, and had been looking at ways to destroy the treaty They may not have liked the agreement but in all the time the treaty was valid there was no argument on any side from any party, even Israel, that Iran was in compliance with the agreement! And again in was bibi having a word in Trumps that got him to pull the US out of the JCPOA Even the US own intelligence agencies told both house and senate committees that by their best estimates Iran was “3-4 years away from developing a nuclear weapon “…… bibi whispers in his ear “a few weeks” .. Trump decides to believe them over his own agencies! Puppet… strings.. you decide who is pulling who I do find it interesting that of all the countries in the Middle Eastern sphere… only 1 refuses to allow IAEA inspectors in, only 1 refuses to sign the NNPT, and only 1 will neither confirm or deny they are actively of programs Care to guess which country….. So it’s easy to use the “self defence” argument… but if you are the only one that has them…. Then mutually assured destruction isn’t quite that! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I didn’t say they had one, I asked if people thought they would use one. They are moving towards having them for a reason. Is that reason to use them or for deterrent? Because if it’s purely for a deterrent then there is less urgency. But if there is a genuine concern that they might use one, even as a dirty bomb, then they need to be brought into check. The language in the JCPOA expressly stated to what percentage they could enrich uranium up to… and it had to open up all facilities to independent inspectors and the IAEA to confirm this to make sure all parts of the agreement were being adhered to The percentage made sure it could only be used for domestic nuclear power as opposed to it being “weapons grade” Israel from the very beginning opposed the agreement, and had been looking at ways to destroy the treaty They may not have liked the agreement but in all the time the treaty was valid there was no argument on any side from any party, even Israel, that Iran was in compliance with the agreement! And again in was bibi having a word in Trumps that got him to pull the US out of the JCPOA Even the US own intelligence agencies told both house and senate committees that by their best estimates Iran was “3-4 years away from developing a nuclear weapon “…… bibi whispers in his ear “a few weeks” .. Trump decides to believe them over his own agencies! Puppet… strings.. you decide who is pulling who I do find it interesting that of all the countries in the Middle Eastern sphere… only 1 refuses to allow IAEA inspectors in, only 1 refuses to sign the NNPT, and only 1 will neither confirm or deny they are actively of programs Care to guess which country….. So it’s easy to use the “self defence” argument… but if you are the only one that has them…. Then mutually assured destruction isn’t quite that! " But obviously you know Fabio, that country is too moral and wouldn't ever want cause mass slaughter..  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I didn’t say they had one, I asked if people thought they would use one. They are moving towards having them for a reason. Is that reason to use them or for deterrent? Because if it’s purely for a deterrent then there is less urgency. But if there is a genuine concern that they might use one, even as a dirty bomb, then they need to be brought into check. The language in the JCPOA expressly stated to what percentage they could enrich uranium up to… and it had to open up all facilities to independent inspectors and the IAEA to confirm this to make sure all parts of the agreement were being adhered to The percentage made sure it could only be used for domestic nuclear power as opposed to it being “weapons grade” Israel from the very beginning opposed the agreement, and had been looking at ways to destroy the treaty They may not have liked the agreement but in all the time the treaty was valid there was no argument on any side from any party, even Israel, that Iran was in compliance with the agreement! And again in was bibi having a word in Trumps that got him to pull the US out of the JCPOA Even the US own intelligence agencies told both house and senate committees that by their best estimates Iran was “3-4 years away from developing a nuclear weapon “…… bibi whispers in his ear “a few weeks” .. Trump decides to believe them over his own agencies! Puppet… strings.. you decide who is pulling who I do find it interesting that of all the countries in the Middle Eastern sphere… only 1 refuses to allow IAEA inspectors in, only 1 refuses to sign the NNPT, and only 1 will neither confirm or deny they are actively of programs Care to guess which country….. So it’s easy to use the “self defence” argument… but if you are the only one that has them…. Then mutually assured destruction isn’t quite that! " If they are not making weapons grade uranium, how will they have a nuclear weapon in 3-4 years? You can have all the treaties and agreements in the world but they are not worth the paper they are printed on if countries choose to ignore them. I’m not saying they are, I’m saying we can’t be sure. I also think it’s hypocritical of countries that have nukes to say others can’t. Not that having more countries having nukes is a good thing. They have helped keep the peace for decades but sooner or later one will get in the wrong hands. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tipi Hotovely has been doing the rounds on TV claiming Iran will soon be able to hit London with a nuke. While Bibi has been telling the US audience, it will be able to hit New York. Sounds very familiar 🤔 " They won’t hit London. They know that Sadiq Khan will hit them with a ULEZ fine for bringing in an unauthorised missile and they won’t be able to afford to pay it because of the sanctions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nuremberg in 1946, Hermann Goering was asked how he got the German people to accept Nazism. He allegedly responded: “It was very easy, it has nothing to do with Nazism, it has something to do with human nature. You can do it in a Nazi, socialist, communist regime, in a monarchy and even in a democracy. The only thing that needs to be done to ensl*ve people is to scare them. If you manage to find a way to scare people, you can make them do what you want.”" So the Iranians were the architects of their own downfall by scaring the Israelis with constant threats of annihilation and missiles from Gaza, Lebanon and Yemen? Sounds like an own goal. Fun story from Iran. A German who lived there as a youth (his father taught there) related the following. The Iranians were often congratulating him (as a German) for the fantastic work that the Nazis did with the Jews. Being such keen students of the Nazis, they really should have considered this gem from Goering and how fear can be harnessed by an adversary. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nuremberg in 1946, Hermann Goering was asked how he got the German people to accept Nazism. He allegedly responded: “It was very easy, it has nothing to do with Nazism, it has something to do with human nature. You can do it in a Nazi, socialist, communist regime, in a monarchy and even in a democracy. The only thing that needs to be done to ensl*ve people is to scare them. If you manage to find a way to scare people, you can make them do what you want.” So the Iranians were the architects of their own downfall by scaring the Israelis with constant threats of annihilation and missiles from Gaza, Lebanon and Yemen? Sounds like an own goal. Fun story from Iran. A German who lived there as a youth (his father taught there) related the following. The Iranians were often congratulating him (as a German) for the fantastic work that the Nazis did with the Jews. Being such keen students of the Nazis, they really should have considered this gem from Goering and how fear can be harnessed by an adversary." I think they've been on the hit list long before that. The American Neo Con list for regime change included Iran from the outset. Iraq, Libya, Syria ticked off the list. Iran , North Korea to go. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I didn’t say they had one, I asked if people thought they would use one. They are moving towards having them for a reason. Is that reason to use them or for deterrent? Because if it’s purely for a deterrent then there is less urgency. But if there is a genuine concern that they might use one, even as a dirty bomb, then they need to be brought into check. The language in the JCPOA expressly stated to what percentage they could enrich uranium up to… and it had to open up all facilities to independent inspectors and the IAEA to confirm this to make sure all parts of the agreement were being adhered to The percentage made sure it could only be used for domestic nuclear power as opposed to it being “weapons grade” Israel from the very beginning opposed the agreement, and had been looking at ways to destroy the treaty They may not have liked the agreement but in all the time the treaty was valid there was no argument on any side from any party, even Israel, that Iran was in compliance with the agreement! And again in was bibi having a word in Trumps that got him to pull the US out of the JCPOA Even the US own intelligence agencies told both house and senate committees that by their best estimates Iran was “3-4 years away from developing a nuclear weapon “…… bibi whispers in his ear “a few weeks” .. Trump decides to believe them over his own agencies! Puppet… strings.. you decide who is pulling who I do find it interesting that of all the countries in the Middle Eastern sphere… only 1 refuses to allow IAEA inspectors in, only 1 refuses to sign the NNPT, and only 1 will neither confirm or deny they are actively of programs Care to guess which country….. So it’s easy to use the “self defence” argument… but if you are the only one that has them…. Then mutually assured destruction isn’t quite that! " It’s misleading to paint only one side as non compliant. I'm sure you know Iran has restricted access and monitoring to their sites. Did you know this? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone see the irony in the Israelis being mad over the Iranians striking the hospital and calling it a red line crossed! If I was Iranian I would just claim that there were IDF troops in the vicinity or using it as a base…. "That's exactly what Iran did. Fair play to them. Presumably, they will now shut up when they or their allies have a similar situation. ...what do YOU suppose Iran was actually targeting? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone see the irony in the Israelis being mad over the Iranians striking the hospital and calling it a red line crossed! If I was Iranian I would just claim that there were IDF troops in the vicinity or using it as a base….
That's exactly what Iran did.
Fair play to them.
Presumably, they will now shut up when they or their allies have a similar situation.
...what do YOU suppose Iran was actually targeting?"Well the IDF have not disputed the Iranian claim that there was an IDF defence facility need door to the hospital…. When opens the whole “civilian defence shield” door as well I would like to have thought that Iran would have taken the higher ground….. if I criticise the IDF for doing it in Gaza, then I absolutely am going to criticise the Iranian government for doing it here! It was more the fact that Israel opened that particular door and are now being hypocritical in their response Also.. that fact that the military censorship over the press means we are seeing more information about it here. , that Israell are seeing on their own tv’s and then the Israeli defence minister asking anyone to grass on their neighbours watching Al Jazeera when the same information is being seen on their neighbours watching BBC or CNN | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here’s a radical idea, how about they have an election without troops checking the right box is ticked before allowing it in the ballot box. " It's not always that simple in the Middle East. They could vote for whomever they want, but without the backing of the military, it would fail miserably. The IRGC is the biggest issue in Iran. They are religious soldiers, aligned with the ayatollahs. So unless you remove the ayatollahs and cripple the IRGC, you've got a civil war, at best. It's a very messy situation with no easy answers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Going back to the early discussion on this thread about regime change and potential new leadership in Iran. Although it was laughable that one poster suggested the son of the Shah and a feminist from New York as candidates, I did think his mention of Mohammad Khatami was interesting. He was the Iranian President before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Khatami is still probably thought of as a moderate by people who aren't commited to the idea that Iran is the embobiment of evil. Khatami is now 81 and I'm not sure about his health, but I'd say he's probably too old to take on an executive role. Yes, he's in the same ballpark as Biden and Trump but some of us doubt that octagenarians make the best of leaders. Anyway, while reading up to try and learn about Khatami's more recent history, I discovered that in his term he appointed the current President Masoud Pezeshkian as Minister of Health and Education. This led me to looking more into Pezeshkian and I found that he's quite an interesting character. He was a heart surgeon before getting into politics. He was the oldest President ever - aged 69 when he became President last year. I'd recommend people read the wiki page on this guy as he's probably the most liberal and sensible person to have ever led Iran. OK that might not be saying much by modern liberal (dare I say woke) standards but I think it's true from what I can see. So if Pezeshkian is seen as an extremist by Netanyahu and Trump then who with any chance of leadership wouldn't be seen as an extremist by them? " You have again missed the point I was making by quite some distance. To be clear, I said: “I have seen nothing that indicates a forceful change of regime. If the messaging gets through and the people force change, which is a possibility if you cast your mind back 3 years, that internal change allows for a more moderate element to enter, such as…” I then gave examples (which I said I had looked up for the sake of discussion). That was the context! Masih Alinejad is not simply a “feminist from New York” as you have said. She is one of the most prominent and courageous voices against the Iranian regime. She has risked her life through her work against the regime, with multiple assassination attempts against her, and has played a significant role in joining together Iranian protest movements. Her influence could change the landscape of who would be in the running as the new leader of Iran. Maybe look her up as something other than feminist in New York, and you will understand her reach and how she has already changed the minds of millions of Iranians, shockingly men too.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Going back to the early discussion on this thread about regime change and potential new leadership in Iran. Although it was laughable that one poster suggested the son of the Shah and a feminist from New York as candidates, I did think his mention of Mohammad Khatami was interesting. He was the Iranian President before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Khatami is still probably thought of as a moderate by people who aren't commited to the idea that Iran is the embobiment of evil. Khatami is now 81 and I'm not sure about his health, but I'd say he's probably too old to take on an executive role. Yes, he's in the same ballpark as Biden and Trump but some of us doubt that octagenarians make the best of leaders. Anyway, while reading up to try and learn about Khatami's more recent history, I discovered that in his term he appointed the current President Masoud Pezeshkian as Minister of Health and Education. This led me to looking more into Pezeshkian and I found that he's quite an interesting character. He was a heart surgeon before getting into politics. He was the oldest President ever - aged 69 when he became President last year. I'd recommend people read the wiki page on this guy as he's probably the most liberal and sensible person to have ever led Iran. OK that might not be saying much by modern liberal (dare I say woke) standards but I think it's true from what I can see. So if Pezeshkian is seen as an extremist by Netanyahu and Trump then who with any chance of leadership wouldn't be seen as an extremist by them? " As I said on a previous post, this conflict has been in the pipeline for a while. It's probably inevitable no matter who is in charge in Tehran. In August 1992, the Israeli-American political scientist Yossef Bodansky wrote a paper entitled "Tehran, Baghdad & Damascus: The New Axis Pact" while serving as the Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the US House of Representatives. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here’s a radical idea, how about they have an election without troops checking the right box is ticked before allowing it in the ballot box. It's not always that simple in the Middle East. They could vote for whomever they want, but without the backing of the military, it would fail miserably. The IRGC is the biggest issue in Iran. They are religious soldiers, aligned with the ayatollahs. So unless you remove the ayatollahs and cripple the IRGC, you've got a civil war, at best. It's a very messy situation with no easy answers." It’s never simple in the Middle East. But there’s posters here suggesting people to take over another country like that’s how things are done. In my opinion civil war within Iran is probably the best option, like they had in Syria. Are the civilian population in Tehran sat back thinking “yeah bring it on Jews and I’ll ‘av you”? Or have most of them had enough of the decades of conflict and just want to live without bombs falling from the sky. I should imagine most of the population of Tel Aviv feel the same. It’s the power hungry leaders driving this conflict. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here’s a radical idea, how about they have an election without troops checking the right box is ticked before allowing it in the ballot box. It's not always that simple in the Middle East. They could vote for whomever they want, but without the backing of the military, it would fail miserably. The IRGC is the biggest issue in Iran. They are religious soldiers, aligned with the ayatollahs. So unless you remove the ayatollahs and cripple the IRGC, you've got a civil war, at best. It's a very messy situation with no easy answers. It’s never simple in the Middle East. But there’s posters here suggesting people to take over another country like that’s how things are done. In my opinion civil war within Iran is probably the best option, like they had in Syria. Are the civilian population in Tehran sat back thinking “yeah bring it on Jews and I’ll ‘av you”? Or have most of them had enough of the decades of conflict and just want to live without bombs falling from the sky. I should imagine most of the population of Tel Aviv feel the same. It’s the power hungry leaders driving this conflict. " There are estimates that up to 70% of Iranians are anti regime, and the protests in 2022 echoed that. The regime will not want to let power go and will likely attack their own people again to protect their power, it is as others have said messy. But having said that there is a generational difference in that the majority of the under 30 somethings, want change, they are tired of sanctions and not being able to get basic medicines and other supplies. Iran's current regime is on a fine line, and it could be fragile enough to topple. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You have again missed the point I was making by quite some distance. To be clear, I said: “I have seen nothing that indicat a forceful change of regime. If the messaging gets through and the people force change, which is a possibility if you cast your mind back 3 years, that internal change allows for a more moderate element to enter, such as…” I then gave examples (which I said I had looked up for the sake of discussion). That was the context! Masih Alinejad is not simply a “feminist from New York” as you have said. She is one of the most prominent and courageous voices against the Iranian regime. She has risked her life through her work against the regime, with multiple assassination attempts against her, and has played a significant role in joining together Iranian protest movements. Her influence could change the landscape of who would be in the running as the new leader of Iran. Maybe look her up as something other than feminist in New York, and you will understand her reach and how she has already changed the minds of millions of Iranians, shockingly men too...." I read your comments in the context of the post you were replying to. Directly before your self-quotation another poster asked... "If you do replace the government then with whom do you replace them? The removal of the nuclear infrastructure will be a tactical masterclass. There is no overarching strategy though. Do we want a reduced but humiliated and financially rich country or do we want something else? What’s the end game?" I respect Alinejad and she does have some influence but in the context of the question who would replace the current government your comment was indeed laughable. And you were clearly talking about a potential leader of a government as you also suggested the Shah's son and a previous President. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As I said on a previous post, this conflict has been in the pipeline for a while. It's probably inevitable no matter who is in charge in Tehran. In August 1992, the Israeli-American political scientist Yossef Bodansky wrote a paper entitled "Tehran, Baghdad & Damascus: The New Axis Pact" while serving as the Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the US House of Representatives." Yup, and Netanyahu claimed that Iran was just about to nuke Israel in 1992, 1995, 2002, 2009, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2018....... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here’s a radical idea, how about they have an election without troops checking the right box is ticked before allowing it in the ballot box. It's not always that simple in the Middle East. They could vote for whomever they want, but without the backing of the military, it would fail miserably. The IRGC is the biggest issue in Iran. They are religious soldiers, aligned with the ayatollahs. So unless you remove the ayatollahs and cripple the IRGC, you've got a civil war, at best. It's a very messy situation with no easy answers. It’s never simple in the Middle East. But there’s posters here suggesting people to take over another country like that’s how things are done. In my opinion civil war within Iran is probably the best option, like they had in Syria. Are the civilian population in Tehran sat back thinking “yeah bring it on Jews and I’ll ‘av you”? Or have most of them had enough of the decades of conflict and just want to live without bombs falling from the sky. I should imagine most of the population of Tel Aviv feel the same. It’s the power hungry leaders driving this conflict. There are estimates that up to 70% of Iranians are anti regime, and the protests in 2022 echoed that. The regime will not want to let power go and will likely attack their own people again to protect their power, it is as others have said messy. But having said that there is a generational difference in that the majority of the under 30 somethings, want change, they are tired of sanctions and not being able to get basic medicines and other supplies. Iran's current regime is on a fine line, and it could be fragile enough to topple." Here's hoping. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As I said on a previous post, this conflict has been in the pipeline for a while. It's probably inevitable no matter who is in charge in Tehran. In August 1992, the Israeli-American political scientist Yossef Bodansky wrote a paper entitled "Tehran, Baghdad & Damascus: The New Axis Pact" while serving as the Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the US House of Representatives. Yup, and Netanyahu claimed that Iran was just about to nuke Israel in 1992, 1995, 2002, 2009, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2018......." Thousands of Ukrainians have died from drones supplied by Iran. 45 years ago Iranian terrorists took over their own London embassy. Terrorist regime that needs ending. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The middle east is full of religious snowflakes trying to burn the place down." Not just their own place either. Islamic terror attacks the world over. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As I said on a previous post, this conflict has been in the pipeline for a while. It's probably inevitable no matter who is in charge in Tehran. In August 1992, the Israeli-American political scientist Yossef Bodansky wrote a paper entitled "Tehran, Baghdad & Damascus: The New Axis Pact" while serving as the Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the US House of Representatives. Yup, and Netanyahu claimed that Iran was just about to nuke Israel in 1992, 1995, 2002, 2009, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2018....... Thousands of Ukrainians have died from drones supplied by Iran. 45 years ago Iranian terrorists took over their own London embassy. Terrorist regime that needs ending. " Leading supplier of IEDs too. Hard to shed many tears for the Iranian state, although ordinary people suffer as always. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are estimates that up to 70% of Iranians are anti regime, and the protests in 2022 echoed that." I can easily believe that. I'd also estimate that about 70% of posters on fab are anti the "Labour regime". "The regime will not want to let power go and will likely attack their own people again to protect their power, it is as others have said messy." I agree. "But having said that there is a generational difference in that the majority of the under 30 somethings, want change" If ever the under 30 somethings don't want change then we are all f*cked. ", they are tired of sanctions and not being able to get basic medicines and other supplies." Sanctions promoted by people like youself perhaps? "Iran's current regime is on a fine line, and it could be fragile enough to topple." Again, who will replace the existing government? A government led by, as I said earlier, perhaps the most moderate and sensible leader that Iran has ever had? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thousands of Ukrainians have died from drones supplied by Iran." Approximately 16,000 children in Gaza have died from weapons supplied by the USA. Do you apply the same standards? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thousands of Ukrainians have died from drones supplied by Iran. Approximately 16,000 children in Gaza have died from weapons supplied by the USA. Do you apply the same standards?" Reported that 75% of Gazans supported Hamas October attacks. Reap what you sow | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reported that 75% of Gazans supported Hamas October attacks. Reap what you sow " So you think that those 16,000 children supported Hamas and therefore deserved to die? Seriously? Are you on bad drugs? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reported that 75% of Gazans supported Hamas October attacks. Reap what you sow So you think that those 16,000 children supported Hamas and therefore deserved to die? Seriously? Are you on bad drugs? " Children always get caught up in a war, every war. No they didn't ask for it any more than the children in London or Dresden during the blitz of WW2. That doesn’t mean you don’t take action. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reported that 75% of Gazans supported Hamas October attacks. Reap what you sow So you think that those 16,000 children supported Hamas and therefore deserved to die? Seriously? Are you on bad drugs? " Ask Keir Starmer. The RAF have carried out 518 sortees for the IDF identifying targets to bomb Our tax’s paid for this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reported that 75% of Gazans supported Hamas October attacks. Reap what you sow So you think that those 16,000 children supported Hamas and therefore deserved to die? Seriously? Are you on bad drugs? " Palestinians were cheering in the streets while Israeli women and children were butchered by Hamas. Not taking any position, they are murdering bastards on both sides. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You have again missed the point I was making by quite some distance. To be clear, I said: “I have seen nothing that indicat a forceful change of regime. If the messaging gets through and the people force change, which is a possibility if you cast your mind back 3 years, that internal change allows for a more moderate element to enter, such as…” I then gave examples (which I said I had looked up for the sake of discussion). That was the context! Masih Alinejad is not simply a “feminist from New York” as you have said. She is one of the most prominent and courageous voices against the Iranian regime. She has risked her life through her work against the regime, with multiple assassination attempts against her, and has played a significant role in joining together Iranian protest movements. Her influence could change the landscape of who would be in the running as the new leader of Iran. Maybe look her up as something other than feminist in New York, and you will understand her reach and how she has already changed the minds of millions of Iranians, shockingly men too.... I read your comments in the context of the post you were replying to. Directly before your self-quotation another poster asked... If you do replace the government then with whom do you replace them? The removal of the nuclear infrastructure will be a tactical masterclass. There is no overarching strategy though. Do we want a reduced but humiliated and financially rich country or do we want something else? What’s the end game? I respect Alinejad and she does have some influence but in the context of the question who would replace the current government your comment was indeed laughable. And you were clearly talking about a potential leader of a government as you also suggested the Shah's son and a previous President. " Let's leave leave it here, as the concept of Iranian influencers that could help decide a new leader other than the next Ayatollah in waiting seems a step too far. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Children always get caught up in a war, every war. No they didn't ask for it any more than the children in London or Dresden during the blitz of WW2. That doesn’t mean you don’t take action. " Almost nobody today thinks that the attack on Dresden that killed an estimated 25,000 people was justified. Operation Gomorrah on Hamburg was even worse with casualties of as many as 37,000. I've never understood why the atrocities of Hamburg are hardly ever mentioned but that's another issue. Yet killing 55,000 Gazans seems OK to most on the right. The modern world should not be repeating the horrendous mistakes of the past. People who think that 16,000 children out of a population of 2.1 million is acceptable collateral damage need to think harder. When scaled up to the UK it would be the equivalent of more than 500,000 children being killed. Even if the UK had done something absolutely terrible would anyone try to argue that an enemy retaliation that "caught up" half a million British children was in any way justifiable? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Children always get caught up in a war, every war. No they didn't ask for it any more than the children in London or Dresden during the blitz of WW2. That doesn’t mean you don’t take action. Almost nobody today thinks that the attack on Dresden that killed an estimated 25,000 people was justified. Operation Gomorrah on Hamburg was even worse with casualties of as many as 37,000. I've never understood why the atrocities of Hamburg are hardly ever mentioned but that's another issue. Yet killing 55,000 Gazans seems OK to most on the right. The modern world should not be repeating the horrendous mistakes of the past. People who think that 16,000 children out of a population of 2.1 million is acceptable collateral damage need to think harder. When scaled up to the UK it would be the equivalent of more than 500,000 children being killed. Even if the UK had done something absolutely terrible would anyone try to argue that an enemy retaliation that "caught up" half a million British children was in any way justifiable? " Not just the right. If every country on the globe took roughly 10,000 displaced Palestinian refugees there would be nobody in Gaza to bomb. 10,000 is not many. Uk in isolation had 2402 refugees arrive in small boats in the last week. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here’s a radical idea, how about they have an election without troops checking the right box is ticked before allowing it in the ballot box. It's not always that simple in the Middle East. They could vote for whomever they want, but without the backing of the military, it would fail miserably. The IRGC is the biggest issue in Iran. They are religious soldiers, aligned with the ayatollahs. So unless you remove the ayatollahs and cripple the IRGC, you've got a civil war, at best. It's a very messy situation with no easy answers. It’s never simple in the Middle East. But there’s posters here suggesting people to take over another country like that’s how things are done. In my opinion civil war within Iran is probably the best option, like they had in Syria. Are the civilian population in Tehran sat back thinking “yeah bring it on Jews and I’ll ‘av you”? Or have most of them had enough of the decades of conflict and just want to live without bombs falling from the sky. I should imagine most of the population of Tel Aviv feel the same. It’s the power hungry leaders driving this conflict. There are estimates that up to 70% of Iranians are anti regime, and the protests in 2022 echoed that. The regime will not want to let power go and will likely attack their own people again to protect their power, it is as others have said messy. But having said that there is a generational difference in that the majority of the under 30 somethings, want change, they are tired of sanctions and not being able to get basic medicines and other supplies. Iran's current regime is on a fine line, and it could be fragile enough to topple.Here's hoping. Mrs x" It will happen sooner rather than later, and when it does it will be much to the disappointment and anger from those who support anything and everything other than Israel, no matter how abhorrent. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Children always get caught up in a war, every war. No they didn't ask for it any more than the children in London or Dresden during the blitz of WW2. That doesn’t mean you don’t take action. Almost nobody today thinks that the attack on Dresden that killed an estimated 25,000 people was justified. Operation Gomorrah on Hamburg was even worse with casualties of as many as 37,000. I've never understood why the atrocities of Hamburg are hardly ever mentioned but that's another issue. Yet killing 55,000 Gazans seems OK to most on the right. The modern world should not be repeating the horrendous mistakes of the past. People who think that 16,000 children out of a population of 2.1 million is acceptable collateral damage need to think harder. When scaled up to the UK it would be the equivalent of more than 500,000 children being killed. Even if the UK had done something absolutely terrible would anyone try to argue that an enemy retaliation that "caught up" half a million British children was in any way justifiable? " Where did I use the word “justified”? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Children always get caught up in a war, every war. No they didn't ask for it any more than the children in London or Dresden during the blitz of WW2. That doesn’t mean you don’t take action. Almost nobody today thinks that the attack on Dresden that killed an estimated 25,000 people was justified. Operation Gomorrah on Hamburg was even worse with casualties of as many as 37,000. I've never understood why the atrocities of Hamburg are hardly ever mentioned but that's another issue. Yet killing 55,000 Gazans seems OK to most on the right. The modern world should not be repeating the horrendous mistakes of the past. People who think that 16,000 children out of a population of 2.1 million is acceptable collateral damage need to think harder. When scaled up to the UK it would be the equivalent of more than 500,000 children being killed. Even if the UK had done something absolutely terrible would anyone try to argue that an enemy retaliation that "caught up" half a million British children was in any way justifiable? " Where did I use the word “justified”? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Where did I use the word “justified”? " You didn't, you wrote... "Children always get caught up in a war, every war. No they didn't ask for it any more than the children in London or Dresden during the blitz of WW2. That doesn’t mean you don’t take action." The middle sentence doesn't change the meaning so we end up with... "Children always get caught up in a war, every war. That doesn’t mean you don’t take action." Your "caught up in a war, every war" was a euphemism for my statement that 16,000 children had been killed by Israeli action in Gaza. Therefore the meaning becomes... 16,000 children being killed doesn't mean you don't take action. In any universe that means that it can be justified to take an action that results in the death of 16,000 children. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Children always get caught up in a war, every war. No they didn't ask for it any more than the children in London or Dresden during the blitz of WW2. That doesn’t mean you don’t take action. Almost nobody today thinks that the attack on Dresden that killed an estimated 25,000 people was justified. Operation Gomorrah on Hamburg was even worse with casualties of as many as 37,000. I've never understood why the atrocities of Hamburg are hardly ever mentioned but that's another issue. Yet killing 55,000 Gazans seems OK to most on the right. The modern world should not be repeating the horrendous mistakes of the past. People who think that 16,000 children out of a population of 2.1 million is acceptable collateral damage need to think harder. When scaled up to the UK it would be the equivalent of more than 500,000 children being killed. Even if the UK had done something absolutely terrible would anyone try to argue that an enemy retaliation that "caught up" half a million British children was in any way justifiable? Not just the right. If every country on the globe took roughly 10,000 displaced Palestinian refugees there would be nobody in Gaza to bomb. 10,000 is not many. Uk in isolation had 2402 refugees arrive in small boats in the last week. " The problem with that, is every country that has provided the Palestinians with shelter end up kicking them out again due to them being violent to their hosts. This is what happened in Jordan and Egypt. Why is nobody asking why no other Muslim country is prepared to look after them, the reason is that none of them want the ordinary Palestinians due to the problems they cause, unless they are the leaders of the terrorist groups, spending millions to live in luxury, then some Arab states will accommodate a few of them. But in reality they are not wanted anywhere, by anyone because of their own behaviours, which are not related to Israel or the Jews, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Where did I use the word “justified”? You didn't, you wrote... Children always get caught up in a war, every war. No they didn't ask for it any more than the children in London or Dresden during the blitz of WW2. That doesn’t mean you don’t take action. The middle sentence doesn't change the meaning so we end up with... Children always get caught up in a war, every war. That doesn’t mean you don’t take action. Your "caught up in a war, every war" was a euphemism for my statement that 16,000 children had been killed by Israeli action in Gaza. Therefore the meaning becomes... 16,000 children being killed doesn't mean you don't take action. In any universe that means that it can be justified to take an action that results in the death of 16,000 children." You leaping about there, like Tigger on a hot tin roof, covered in tacks, whilst having his feet shot at by an evil cowboy, telling him to dance. All wars have civilian casualties unfortunately. In this case the lives of children could have been reduced by a certain group not insisting that they remain in the conflict zone or even if one side had prepared for an upcoming conflict by building bunkers for their civillians instead of tunnels for their terrorists. Not one fucking bunker, not one. Yet loads of tunnels and thousands of missiles, oh and millions in hotel bills for accomodation, 5 Star obviously and the matching food, for the leadership of this group. But not one penny on any bunkers, shelters anything the civillians could hide in during g a conflict. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Children always get caught up in a war, every war. No they didn't ask for it any more than the children in London or Dresden during the blitz of WW2. That doesn’t mean you don’t take action. Almost nobody today thinks that the attack on Dresden that killed an estimated 25,000 people was justified. Operation Gomorrah on Hamburg was even worse with casualties of as many as 37,000. I've never understood why the atrocities of Hamburg are hardly ever mentioned but that's another issue. Yet killing 55,000 Gazans seems OK to most on the right. The modern world should not be repeating the horrendous mistakes of the past. People who think that 16,000 children out of a population of 2.1 million is acceptable collateral damage need to think harder. When scaled up to the UK it would be the equivalent of more than 500,000 children being killed. Even if the UK had done something absolutely terrible would anyone try to argue that an enemy retaliation that "caught up" half a million British children was in any way justifiable? Not just the right. If every country on the globe took roughly 10,000 displaced Palestinian refugees there would be nobody in Gaza to bomb. 10,000 is not many. Uk in isolation had 2402 refugees arrive in small boats in the last week. The problem with that, is every country that has provided the Palestinians with shelter end up kicking them out again due to them being violent to their hosts. This is what happened in Jordan and Egypt. Why is nobody asking why no other Muslim country is prepared to look after them, the reason is that none of them want the ordinary Palestinians due to the problems they cause, unless they are the leaders of the terrorist groups, spending millions to live in luxury, then some Arab states will accommodate a few of them. But in reality they are not wanted anywhere, by anyone because of their own behaviours, which are not related to Israel or the Jews, Mrs x" Over 7 million Ukrainians passed through Poland, the Polish did an admirable job of looking after and rehoming them across Europe 2 million Palestinians shouldn’t be a problem, what threat are they ? And they are not getting their Gaza homes back anyway which nobody is talking about either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Children always get caught up in a war, every war. No they didn't ask for it any more than the children in London or Dresden during the blitz of WW2. That doesn’t mean you don’t take action. Almost nobody today thinks that the attack on Dresden that killed an estimated 25,000 people was justified. Operation Gomorrah on Hamburg was even worse with casualties of as many as 37,000. I've never understood why the atrocities of Hamburg are hardly ever mentioned but that's another issue. Yet killing 55,000 Gazans seems OK to most on the right. The modern world should not be repeating the horrendous mistakes of the past. People who think that 16,000 children out of a population of 2.1 million is acceptable collateral damage need to think harder. When scaled up to the UK it would be the equivalent of more than 500,000 children being killed. Even if the UK had done something absolutely terrible would anyone try to argue that an enemy retaliation that "caught up" half a million British children was in any way justifiable? Not just the right. If every country on the globe took roughly 10,000 displaced Palestinian refugees there would be nobody in Gaza to bomb. 10,000 is not many. Uk in isolation had 2402 refugees arrive in small boats in the last week. The problem with that, is every country that has provided the Palestinians with shelter end up kicking them out again due to them being violent to their hosts. This is what happened in Jordan and Egypt. Why is nobody asking why no other Muslim country is prepared to look after them, the reason is that none of them want the ordinary Palestinians due to the problems they cause, unless they are the leaders of the terrorist groups, spending millions to live in luxury, then some Arab states will accommodate a few of them. But in reality they are not wanted anywhere, by anyone because of their own behaviours, which are not related to Israel or the Jews, Mrs x Over 7 million Ukrainians passed through Poland, the Polish did an admirable job of looking after and rehoming them across Europe 2 million Palestinians shouldn’t be a problem, what threat are they ? And they are not getting their Gaza homes back anyway which nobody is talking about either. " OK but look up what has happened historically to those who harboured the Palestinians pre hourly. You say what threat are they? Read up and fi d out, that's why they are not welcomed by their Arabic brethren, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Children always get caught up in a war, every war. No they didn't ask for it any more than the children in London or Dresden during the blitz of WW2. That doesn’t mean you don’t take action. Almost nobody today thinks that the attack on Dresden that killed an estimated 25,000 people was justified. Operation Gomorrah on Hamburg was even worse with casualties of as many as 37,000. I've never understood why the atrocities of Hamburg are hardly ever mentioned but that's another issue. Yet killing 55,000 Gazans seems OK to most on the right. The modern world should not be repeating the horrendous mistakes of the past. People who think that 16,000 children out of a population of 2.1 million is acceptable collateral damage need to think harder. When scaled up to the UK it would be the equivalent of more than 500,000 children being killed. Even if the UK had done something absolutely terrible would anyone try to argue that an enemy retaliation that "caught up" half a million British children was in any way justifiable? Not just the right. If every country on the globe took roughly 10,000 displaced Palestinian refugees there would be nobody in Gaza to bomb. 10,000 is not many. Uk in isolation had 2402 refugees arrive in small boats in the last week. The problem with that, is every country that has provided the Palestinians with shelter end up kicking them out again due to them being violent to their hosts. This is what happened in Jordan and Egypt. Why is nobody asking why no other Muslim country is prepared to look after them, the reason is that none of them want the ordinary Palestinians due to the problems they cause, unless they are the leaders of the terrorist groups, spending millions to live in luxury, then some Arab states will accommodate a few of them. But in reality they are not wanted anywhere, by anyone because of their own behaviours, which are not related to Israel or the Jews, Mrs x Over 7 million Ukrainians passed through Poland, the Polish did an admirable job of looking after and rehoming them across Europe 2 million Palestinians shouldn’t be a problem, what threat are they ? And they are not getting their Gaza homes back anyway which nobody is talking about either. OK but look up what has happened historically to those who harboured the Palestinians pre hourly. You say what threat are they? Read up and fi d out, that's why they are not welcomed by their Arabic brethren, Mrs x" Ask any Jordainian if they have forgotten about Black September and then ask them if Palestinians are a threat to others, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Where did I use the word “justified”? You didn't, you wrote... Children always get caught up in a war, every war. No they didn't ask for it any more than the children in London or Dresden during the blitz of WW2. That doesn’t mean you don’t take action. The middle sentence doesn't change the meaning so we end up with... Children always get caught up in a war, every war. That doesn’t mean you don’t take action. Your "caught up in a war, every war" was a euphemism for my statement that 16,000 children had been killed by Israeli action in Gaza. Therefore the meaning becomes... 16,000 children being killed doesn't mean you don't take action. In any universe that means that it can be justified to take an action that results in the death of 16,000 children." Nope, you have put the cart before the horse. The time line was… Hamas attack Isreal killing children and take hundreds of hostages. Israel take action. Hamas hide behind woman and children so the children get killed in the response. The alternative is let terrorists steal and murder your citizens. It’s the foremost task of any government to protect its citizens. And to continue the metaphor, Dreaden never would have been bombed had Germany not invaded Poland. Cause and effect Not effect and cause | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Where did I use the word “justified”? You didn't, you wrote... Children always get caught up in a war, every war. No they didn't ask for it any more than the children in London or Dresden during the blitz of WW2. That doesn’t mean you don’t take action. The middle sentence doesn't change the meaning so we end up with... Children always get caught up in a war, every war. That doesn’t mean you don’t take action. Your "caught up in a war, every war" was a euphemism for my statement that 16,000 children had been killed by Israeli action in Gaza. Therefore the meaning becomes... 16,000 children being killed doesn't mean you don't take action. In any universe that means that it can be justified to take an action that results in the death of 16,000 children. Nope, you have put the cart before the horse. The time line was… Hamas attack Isreal killing children and take hundreds of hostages. Israel take action. Hamas hide behind woman and children so the children get killed in the response. The alternative is let terrorists steal and murder your citizens. It’s the foremost task of any government to protect its citizens. And to continue the metaphor, Dreaden never would have been bombed had Germany not invaded Poland. Cause and effect Not effect and cause " Exactly, spot on, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Where did I use the word “justified”? You didn't, you wrote... Children always get caught up in a war, every war. No they didn't ask for it any more than the children in London or Dresden during the blitz of WW2. That doesn’t mean you don’t take action. The middle sentence doesn't change the meaning so we end up with... Children always get caught up in a war, every war. That doesn’t mean you don’t take action. Your "caught up in a war, every war" was a euphemism for my statement that 16,000 children had been killed by Israeli action in Gaza. Therefore the meaning becomes... 16,000 children being killed doesn't mean you don't take action. In any universe that means that it can be justified to take an action that results in the death of 16,000 children.You leaping about there, like Tigger on a hot tin roof, covered in tacks, whilst having his feet shot at by an evil cowboy, telling him to dance. All wars have civilian casualties unfortunately. In this case the lives of children could have been reduced by a certain group not insisting that they remain in the conflict zone or even if one side had prepared for an upcoming conflict by building bunkers for their civillians instead of tunnels for their terrorists. Not one fucking bunker, not one. Yet loads of tunnels and thousands of missiles, oh and millions in hotel bills for accomodation, 5 Star obviously and the matching food, for the leadership of this group. But not one penny on any bunkers, shelters anything the civillians could hide in during g a conflict. Mrs x" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
