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 |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder what the protocol is when you meet the other side after a war. Do you shake hands or do you have to look sternly at the other side and ignore them for a bit. Maybe they do an icebreaker. “So Ayatollah what’s your favourite joke”? " JD Vance is actually good friends with David Lammy, so if you can get on with him the Mad Mullahs will be a pushover! 🤣 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder what the protocol is when you meet the other side after a war. Do you shake hands or do you have to look sternly at the other side and ignore them for a bit. Maybe they do an icebreaker. “So Ayatollah what’s your favourite joke”? JD Vance is actually good friends with David Lammy, so if you can get on with him the Mad Mullahs will be a pushover! 🤣" What's the difference between a mad mullah and a Raghead? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder what the protocol is when you meet the other side after a war. Do you shake hands or do you have to look sternly at the other side and ignore them for a bit. Maybe they do an icebreaker. “So Ayatollah what’s your favourite joke”? JD Vance is actually good friends with David Lammy, so if you can get on with him the Mad Mullahs will be a pushover! 🤣 What's the difference between a mad mullah and a Raghead?" One is a satirical reference to the Iranian Regime which killed 50,000 of its own people; the other is a racially offensive term used for people of Middle Eastern origin and culture.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder what the protocol is when you meet the other side after a war. Do you shake hands or do you have to look sternly at the other side and ignore them for a bit. Maybe they do an icebreaker. “So Ayatollah what’s your favourite joke”? JD Vance is actually good friends with David Lammy, so if you can get on with him the Mad Mullahs will be a pushover! 🤣 What's the difference between a mad mullah and a Raghead? One is a satirical reference to the Iranian Regime which killed 50,000 of its own people; the other is a racially offensive term used for people of Middle Eastern origin and culture. "You made that up 😂🤣 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder what the protocol is when you meet the other side after a war. Do you shake hands or do you have to look sternly at the other side and ignore them for a bit. Maybe they do an icebreaker. “So Ayatollah what’s your favourite joke”? JD Vance is actually good friends with David Lammy, so if you can get on with him the Mad Mullahs will be a pushover! 🤣 What's the difference between a mad mullah and a Raghead? One is a satirical reference to the Iranian Regime which killed 50,000 of its own people; the other is a racially offensive term used for people of Middle Eastern origin and culture. "Is there a reason you taking one sources figures as gospel. Estimates by Source Iranian Government: Officially reports 3,117 deaths as of February 2026. Officials claim most of these were "terrorists" or security forces, though activists dispute these labels. Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRANA): Has verified 7,007 deaths, including 236 minors and 207 security personnel, as of late February 2026. They are reportedly investigating over 11,000 additional cases. Medical Professionals & Networks: Reports from a network of over 80 doctors cite more than 30,000 clinically recorded deaths in hospitals and clinics. Some medical sources estimate the total could be as high as 33,000 to 36,500. United Nations: The UN Special Rapporteur on Iran stated that deaths number at least 5,000, with potential figures reaching 20,000 or more. Opposition Groups: Some activists and political figures, such as Reza Pahlavi, have suggested the toll could be as high as 50,000, though this figure remains unverified. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder what the protocol is when you meet the other side after a war. Do you shake hands or do you have to look sternly at the other side and ignore them for a bit. Maybe they do an icebreaker. “So Ayatollah what’s your favourite joke”? JD Vance is actually good friends with David Lammy, so if you can get on with him the Mad Mullahs will be a pushover! 🤣 What's the difference between a mad mullah and a Raghead? One is a satirical reference to the Iranian Regime which killed 50,000 of its own people; the other is a racially offensive term used for people of Middle Eastern origin and culture.
Is there a reason you taking one sources figures as gospel.
Estimates by Source
Iranian Government: Officially reports 3,117 deaths as of February 2026. Officials claim most of these were "terrorists" or security forces, though activists dispute these labels.
Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRANA): Has verified 7,007 deaths, including 236 minors and 207 security personnel, as of late February 2026. They are reportedly investigating over 11,000 additional cases.
Medical Professionals & Networks: Reports from a network of over 80 doctors cite more than 30,000 clinically recorded deaths in hospitals and clinics. Some medical sources estimate the total could be as high as 33,000 to 36,500.
United Nations: The UN Special Rapporteur on Iran stated that deaths number at least 5,000, with potential figures reaching 20,000 or more.
Opposition Groups: Some activists and political figures, such as Reza Pahlavi, have suggested the toll could be as high as 50,000, though this figure remains unverified."You are seriously quoting regime sources?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder what the protocol is when you meet the other side after a war. Do you shake hands or do you have to look sternly at the other side and ignore them for a bit. Maybe they do an icebreaker. “So Ayatollah what’s your favourite joke”? JD Vance is actually good friends with David Lammy, so if you can get on with him the Mad Mullahs will be a pushover! 🤣 What's the difference between a mad mullah and a Raghead? One is a satirical reference to the Iranian Regime which killed 50,000 of its own people; the other is a racially offensive term used for people of Middle Eastern origin and culture.
Is there a reason you taking one sources figures as gospel.
Estimates by Source
Iranian Government: Officially reports 3,117 deaths as of February 2026. Officials claim most of these were "terrorists" or security forces, though activists dispute these labels.
Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRANA): Has verified 7,007 deaths, including 236 minors and 207 security personnel, as of late February 2026. They are reportedly investigating over 11,000 additional cases.
Medical Professionals & Networks: Reports from a network of over 80 doctors cite more than 30,000 clinically recorded deaths in hospitals and clinics. Some medical sources estimate the total could be as high as 33,000 to 36,500.
United Nations: The UN Special Rapporteur on Iran stated that deaths number at least 5,000, with potential figures reaching 20,000 or more.
Opposition Groups: Some activists and political figures, such as Reza Pahlavi, have suggested the toll could be as high as 50,000, though this figure remains unverified.
You are seriously quoting regime sources? "No am quoting all the varies sources out there and asking why you only believe one of them..? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder what the protocol is when you meet the other side after a war. Do you shake hands or do you have to look sternly at the other side and ignore them for a bit. Maybe they do an icebreaker. “So Ayatollah what’s your favourite joke”? JD Vance is actually good friends with David Lammy, so if you can get on with him the Mad Mullahs will be a pushover! 🤣 What's the difference between a mad mullah and a Raghead? One is a satirical reference to the Iranian Regime which killed 50,000 of its own people; the other is a racially offensive term used for people of Middle Eastern origin and culture. "I don't know the actual figures they killed but there are several reports that they have been busy execution some arrested during the protests along with political prisoners so unfortunately the killing continues | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder what the protocol is when you meet the other side after a war. Do you shake hands or do you have to look sternly at the other side and ignore them for a bit. Maybe they do an icebreaker. “So Ayatollah what’s your favourite joke”? JD Vance is actually good friends with David Lammy, so if you can get on with him the Mad Mullahs will be a pushover! 🤣 What's the difference between a mad mullah and a Raghead? One is a satirical reference to the Iranian Regime which killed 50,000 of its own people; the other is a racially offensive term used for people of Middle Eastern origin and culture.
Is there a reason you taking one sources figures as gospel.
Estimates by Source
Iranian Government: Officially reports 3,117 deaths as of February 2026. Officials claim most of these were "terrorists" or security forces, though activists dispute these labels.
Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRANA): Has verified 7,007 deaths, including 236 minors and 207 security personnel, as of late February 2026. They are reportedly investigating over 11,000 additional cases.
Medical Professionals & Networks: Reports from a network of over 80 doctors cite more than 30,000 clinically recorded deaths in hospitals and clinics. Some medical sources estimate the total could be as high as 33,000 to 36,500.
United Nations: The UN Special Rapporteur on Iran stated that deaths number at least 5,000, with potential figures reaching 20,000 or more.
Opposition Groups: Some activists and political figures, such as Reza Pahlavi, have suggested the toll could be as high as 50,000, though this figure remains unverified.
You are seriously quoting regime sources?
No am quoting all the varies sources out there and asking why you only believe one of them..?"Because the higher figures are the most independent and credible. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder what the protocol is when you meet the other side after a war. Do you shake hands or do you have to look sternly at the other side and ignore them for a bit. Maybe they do an icebreaker. “So Ayatollah what’s your favourite joke”? JD Vance is actually good friends with David Lammy, so if you can get on with him the Mad Mullahs will be a pushover! 🤣 What's the difference between a mad mullah and a Raghead? One is a satirical reference to the Iranian Regime which killed 50,000 of its own people; the other is a racially offensive term used for people of Middle Eastern origin and culture.
Is there a reason you taking one sources figures as gospel.
Estimates by Source
Iranian Government: Officially reports 3,117 deaths as of February 2026. Officials claim most of these were "terrorists" or security forces, though activists dispute these labels.
Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRANA): Has verified 7,007 deaths, including 236 minors and 207 security personnel, as of late February 2026. They are reportedly investigating over 11,000 additional cases.
Medical Professionals & Networks: Reports from a network of over 80 doctors cite more than 30,000 clinically recorded deaths in hospitals and clinics. Some medical sources estimate the total could be as high as 33,000 to 36,500.
United Nations: The UN Special Rapporteur on Iran stated that deaths number at least 5,000, with potential figures reaching 20,000 or more.
Opposition Groups: Some activists and political figures, such as Reza Pahlavi, have suggested the toll could be as high as 50,000, though this figure remains unverified.
You are seriously quoting regime sources?
No am quoting all the varies sources out there and asking why you only believe one of them..?
Because the higher figures are the most independent and credible. "Again, what has trumpets war contributed to halting the horrible Iranian regime and preventing them killing more protesters | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder what the protocol is when you meet the other side after a war. Do you shake hands or do you have to look sternly at the other side and ignore them for a bit. Maybe they do an icebreaker. “So Ayatollah what’s your favourite joke”? JD Vance is actually good friends with David Lammy, so if you can get on with him the Mad Mullahs will be a pushover! 🤣 What's the difference between a mad mullah and a Raghead? One is a satirical reference to the Iranian Regime which killed 50,000 of its own people; the other is a racially offensive term used for people of Middle Eastern origin and culture.
Is there a reason you taking one sources figures as gospel.
Estimates by Source
Iranian Government: Officially reports 3,117 deaths as of February 2026. Officials claim most of these were "terrorists" or security forces, though activists dispute these labels.
Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRANA): Has verified 7,007 deaths, including 236 minors and 207 security personnel, as of late February 2026. They are reportedly investigating over 11,000 additional cases.
Medical Professionals & Networks: Reports from a network of over 80 doctors cite more than 30,000 clinically recorded deaths in hospitals and clinics. Some medical sources estimate the total could be as high as 33,000 to 36,500.
United Nations: The UN Special Rapporteur on Iran stated that deaths number at least 5,000, with potential figures reaching 20,000 or more.
Opposition Groups: Some activists and political figures, such as Reza Pahlavi, have suggested the toll could be as high as 50,000, though this figure remains unverified.
You are seriously quoting regime sources?
No am quoting all the varies sources out there and asking why you only believe one of them..?
Because the higher figures are the most independent and credible. "Independent..?..
Reza Pahlavi , supporters of the former Shah. Thats like saying everything thing Labour say about the Tories is true or vice versa. Or that their opinion on each other is Independent.
Very telling that you claim Reza Pahlavi are to be believed more than say HRANA, the Medical Professionals & Networks or the United Nations. Very, very telling. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder what the protocol is when you meet the other side after a war. Do you shake hands or do you have to look sternly at the other side and ignore them for a bit. Maybe they do an icebreaker. “So Ayatollah what’s your favourite joke”? JD Vance is actually good friends with David Lammy, so if you can get on with him the Mad Mullahs will be a pushover! 🤣 What's the difference between a mad mullah and a Raghead? One is a satirical reference to the Iranian Regime which killed 50,000 of its own people; the other is a racially offensive term used for people of Middle Eastern origin and culture.
Is there a reason you taking one sources figures as gospel.
Estimates by Source
Iranian Government: Officially reports 3,117 deaths as of February 2026. Officials claim most of these were "terrorists" or security forces, though activists dispute these labels.
Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRANA): Has verified 7,007 deaths, including 236 minors and 207 security personnel, as of late February 2026. They are reportedly investigating over 11,000 additional cases.
Medical Professionals & Networks: Reports from a network of over 80 doctors cite more than 30,000 clinically recorded deaths in hospitals and clinics. Some medical sources estimate the total could be as high as 33,000 to 36,500.
United Nations: The UN Special Rapporteur on Iran stated that deaths number at least 5,000, with potential figures reaching 20,000 or more.
Opposition Groups: Some activists and political figures, such as Reza Pahlavi, have suggested the toll could be as high as 50,000, though this figure remains unverified.
You are seriously quoting regime sources?
No am quoting all the varies sources out there and asking why you only believe one of them..?
Because the higher figures are the most independent and credible.
Again, what has trumpets war contributed to halting the horrible Iranian regime and preventing them killing more protesters "I guess like trump, his supporters will avoid the hard questions and concentrate on bullshit | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently face to face talks have been cancelled as the Iranian leader no longer has a face." That’s ok, the Americans have two. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently face to face talks have been cancelled as the Iranian leader no longer has a face. That’s ok, the Americans have two." That's not bad ! 🤣 | |||
(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 |
"American ships passing through the Strait today unchallenged to clear any illegally laid mines. " The Machiavellian play would have been for the US to mine the strait themselves under the pretext of stopping Iranian vessels, threatening to only reopen it when all ships could pass through. That would have removed Iran's ability to control the strait, and would hold China, Russia and France to ransom. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American ships passing through the Strait today unchallenged to clear any illegally laid mines. The Machiavellian play would have been for the US to mine the strait themselves under the pretext of stopping Iranian vessels, threatening to only reopen it when all ships could pass through. That would have removed Iran's ability to control the strait, and would hold China, Russia and France to ransom." Brilliant! I'm never playing you at Poker.  | |||
(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 |
"More hell is the honest answer. U.S. started a murder spree after Israel attacked Iranians several times, including killing a general while in Syria. Ceesefire fire talks makes me laugh. It's the bully saying I will stop a moment. While Israel wants to steal Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and parts of Egypt and Saudi Arabia for the zionist cause of the few Jews around the world, nothing can change. Israel has nukes, it threatens all attempts at peace by doing so. The Palestine genocide and pedo Trumps disgusting behaviour temporarily forgot for weird people to cheer on a war the Orange turd started, has ended. Iran is the victim and is now being abused another way. " I appreciate for TDS sufferers the world basically consists of “Trump” and everything has to be seen through that prism. But calling Iran the “victim” is just laughable. Iran is the major supporter in financial and military aid to terrorist groups around the world, including to terrorist groups that even weak willed Britanistan has managed to proscribe as terrorist organisations: Hezbollah Hamas Palestinian Islamic Jihad Houthis Iraqi Shia Militias | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"More hell is the honest answer. U.S. started a murder spree after Israel attacked Iranians several times, including killing a general while in Syria. Ceesefire fire talks makes me laugh. It's the bully saying I will stop a moment. While Israel wants to steal Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and parts of Egypt and Saudi Arabia for the zionist cause of the few Jews around the world, nothing can change. Israel has nukes, it threatens all attempts at peace by doing so. The Palestine genocide and pedo Trumps disgusting behaviour temporarily forgot for weird people to cheer on a war the Orange turd started, has ended. Iran is the victim and is now being abused another way. " 'A few Jews'. Yes I'm sure they won't be missed.🤦♂️ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Now the peace talks have failed the ceasefire will likely end Israel will carry on bombing Lebanon Gaza news seems to have disappeared Iran bombing will resume. Has to end somewhere. But where ? " Ask Turkey. Erdogan is itching to get involved, and has just threatened to do so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"More hell is the honest answer. U.S. started a murder spree after Israel attacked Iranians several times, including killing a general while in Syria. Ceesefire fire talks makes me laugh. It's the bully saying I will stop a moment. While Israel wants to steal Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and parts of Egypt and Saudi Arabia for the zionist cause of the few Jews around the world, nothing can change. Israel has nukes, it threatens all attempts at peace by doing so. The Palestine genocide and pedo Trumps disgusting behaviour temporarily forgot for weird people to cheer on a war the Orange turd started, has ended. Iran is the victim and is now being abused another way. I appreciate for TDS sufferers the world basically consists of “Trump” and everything has to be seen through that prism. But calling Iran the “victim” is just laughable. Iran is the major supporter in financial and military aid to terrorist groups around the world, including to terrorist groups that even weak willed Britanistan has managed to proscribe as terrorist organisations: Hezbollah Hamas Palestinian Islamic Jihad Houthis Iraqi Shia Militias " Amerikkka is the worlds biggest financer of terrorism. Amerikkka has been at war for 93% of its entire existence. If include shady stuff like assassinations, assassination attempts, coups and regime changes that figure goes up to 98%. Bearing in mind that almost 5 million people were killed directly and indirectly as a result of the post 9/11 wars - Source Watson Institute. What's happening in Iran is yet another illegal war, a war being waged by a legit criminal-in-chief, not to mention that his pal Netanyahu is pending trial for genocide #ffs | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"More hell is the honest answer. U.S. started a murder spree after Israel attacked Iranians several times, including killing a general while in Syria. Ceesefire fire talks makes me laugh. It's the bully saying I will stop a moment. While Israel wants to steal Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and parts of Egypt and Saudi Arabia for the zionist cause of the few Jews around the world, nothing can change. Israel has nukes, it threatens all attempts at peace by doing so. The Palestine genocide and pedo Trumps disgusting behaviour temporarily forgot for weird people to cheer on a war the Orange turd started, has ended. Iran is the victim and is now being abused another way. 'A few Jews'. Yes I'm sure they won't be missed.🤦♂️" what you on about, I am pointing out few Jews are zionists and not all support the genocide or hostile Israeli government. You seem to be looking for something els in my words, pathetic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"More hell is the honest answer. U.S. started a murder spree after Israel attacked Iranians several times, including killing a general while in Syria. Ceesefire fire talks makes me laugh. It's the bully saying I will stop a moment. While Israel wants to steal Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and parts of Egypt and Saudi Arabia for the zionist cause of the few Jews around the world, nothing can change. Israel has nukes, it threatens all attempts at peace by doing so. The Palestine genocide and pedo Trumps disgusting behaviour temporarily forgot for weird people to cheer on a war the Orange turd started, has ended. Iran is the victim and is now being abused another way. I appreciate for TDS sufferers the world basically consists of “Trump” and everything has to be seen through that prism. But calling Iran the “victim” is just laughable. Iran is the major supporter in financial and military aid to terrorist groups around the world, including to terrorist groups that even weak willed Britanistan has managed to proscribe as terrorist organisations: Hezbollah Hamas Palestinian Islamic Jihad Houthis Iraqi Shia Militias " One person terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Trump and Israel will fuel more of your so called terrorists. As the U.S. and Israel has done for decades. If someone attacked and shrunk my country do I have no right to defend. After all Israel was created to steal land. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"More hell is the honest answer. U.S. started a murder spree after Israel attacked Iranians several times, including killing a general while in Syria. Ceesefire fire talks makes me laugh. It's the bully saying I will stop a moment. While Israel wants to steal Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and parts of Egypt and Saudi Arabia for the zionist cause of the few Jews around the world, nothing can change. Israel has nukes, it threatens all attempts at peace by doing so. The Palestine genocide and pedo Trumps disgusting behaviour temporarily forgot for weird people to cheer on a war the Orange turd started, has ended. Iran is the victim and is now being abused another way. I appreciate for TDS sufferers the world basically consists of “Trump” and everything has to be seen through that prism. But calling Iran the “victim” is just laughable. Iran is the major supporter in financial and military aid to terrorist groups around the world, including to terrorist groups that even weak willed Britanistan has managed to proscribe as terrorist organisations: Hezbollah Hamas Palestinian Islamic Jihad Houthis Iraqi Shia Militias One person terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Trump and Israel will fuel more of your so called terrorists. As the U.S. and Israel has done for decades. If someone attacked and shrunk my country do I have no right to defend. After all Israel was created to steal land. " 'So called terrorists' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Now the peace talks have failed the ceasefire will likely end Israel will carry on bombing Lebanon Gaza news seems to have disappeared Iran bombing will resume. Has to end somewhere. But where ? " Trump says he doesn't give a fuck so US gas prices continue to go up and the yanks won't be smiling | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" One person terrorist is another's freedom fighter. " Karmas coming 6 million displaced in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran 90,000 killed, 300,000 injured mostly women and children, 39,000 children with one parent killed and 20,000 complete Ophans Suicide bombers queue is miles long | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American ships passing through the Strait today unchallenged to clear any illegally laid mines. Iran's military nowhere to be seen, like their leader the Ayatollah Wheres Whalid." Fantastic news, I'll check marine traffic I'm sure hundreds of tankers will be on the move today 👍 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" One person terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Karmas coming 6 million displaced in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran 90,000 killed, 300,000 injured mostly women and children, 39,000 children with one parent killed and 20,000 complete Ophans Suicide bombers queue is miles long " According to a very local source, all these Iranian migrants are highly qualified and will be welcomed in the UK, in fact he might be in favour of sending a ferry rather than them have to use dinghy's | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...one would expect a more considered negotiation tactic from Vance." Such as? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...one would expect a more considered negotiation tactic from Vance. Such as?" In his post talk remarks he says: ‘This is our final & best offer’. Not good if you want to continue with jaw jaw. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...one would expect a more considered negotiation tactic from Vance. Such as? In his post talk remarks he says: ‘This is our final & best offer’. Not good if you want to continue with jaw jaw." There is a two-week window. This first phase is the "cock waving" phase, where each side shows how willing they are to not bend or break. If there was an agreement at this stage, then (in addition to being surprising) that would be a massive failure for at least one side. Expect at best a last minute deal, or extension/reprieve before any real progress. It's also unclear how each side will want to proceed after the expiration of the window. Trump is under more time pressure than Iran, who can benefit from stalling, but Iran is, of course, under much more military pressure. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...one would expect a more considered negotiation tactic from Vance. Such as? In his post talk remarks he says: ‘This is our final & best offer’. Not good if you want to continue with jaw jaw." When Obama reached a nuclear deal with Iran, which many people applaud despite Iran's later breaches, it took 18 months of negotiations. These talks took less than a day so its a little soon to write off the prospect of a deal at some point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...one would expect a more considered negotiation tactic from Vance. Such as? In his post talk remarks he says: ‘This is our final & best offer’. Not good if you want to continue with jaw jaw. There is a two-week window. This first phase is the "cock waving" phase, where each side shows how willing they are to not bend or break. If there was an agreement at this stage, then (in addition to being surprising) that would be a massive failure for at least one side. Expect at best a last minute deal, or extension/reprieve before any real progress. It's also unclear how each side will want to proceed after the expiration of the window. Trump is under more time pressure than Iran, who can benefit from stalling, but Iran is, of course, under much more military pressure." Ordinarily there should be a two week window, that’s correct. But we are talking about a US admin that has attacked Iran twice previously whilst negotiating. Wouldn’t be in the least surprised if Tango pulled the rug again after all his previous bellicose rhetoric. Let’s see what side of bed he gets out of this morning. That’s what the Iranians & the rest of the world are dealing with. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American ships passing through the Strait today unchallenged to clear any illegally laid mines. Iran's military nowhere to be seen, like their leader the Ayatollah Wheres Whalid. Fantastic news, I'll check marine traffic I'm sure hundreds of tankers will be on the move today 👍" Conflicting accounts of that to be fair: Bloomberg, citing a regional intelligence official, reports that two U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyers attempted to transit the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday but turned back after encountering threats from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which also launched a drone toward the vessels. The incident occurred around noon Dubai time as U.S. and Iranian delegations were in Islamabad for negotiations, the official said. The account contrasts with U.S. Central Command, which says the destroyers successfully passed through the strait into the Persian Gulf as part of a mission to clear alleged sea mines and establish a safe maritime corridor, a claim Iran denies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...one would expect a more considered negotiation tactic from Vance. Such as? In his post talk remarks he says: ‘This is our final & best offer’. Not good if you want to continue with jaw jaw. When Obama reached a nuclear deal with Iran, which many people applaud despite Iran's later breaches, it took 18 months of negotiations. These talks took less than a day so its a little soon to write off the prospect of a deal at some point." I do agree it is far too soon to expect anything substantive. This will take a very long time given the mutual distrust. The “final offer” statement is disappointing. I think it shows that the US believe they have the upper hand and expect the Iranians to just roll over. The past month and half have shown that is unlikely but there we go. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The “final offer” statement is disappointing. I think it shows that the US believe they have the upper hand and expect the Iranians to just roll over. The past month and half have shown that is unlikely but there we go." Iran have also said that one of their points is non negotiable, the Isreal action against terrorists in Lebanon. If protecting terrorists is your first request and non negotiable then that says a lot about who the US are dealing with. More untreated in saving terrorists than their own citizens. We just have to be thankful Starmer isn’t in the negotiations, he’d have paid them the 500 billion already, agreed to supply them with weapons to speed up the genocide and send over a team of nuclear weapons specialists to speed up their nukes program | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American ships passing through the Strait today unchallenged to clear any illegally laid mines. Iran's military nowhere to be seen, like their leader the Ayatollah Wheres Whalid. Fantastic news, I'll check marine traffic I'm sure hundreds of tankers will be on the move today 👍 Conflicting accounts of that to be fair: Bloomberg, citing a regional intelligence official, reports that two U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyers attempted to transit the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday but turned back after encountering threats from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which also launched a drone toward the vessels. The incident occurred around noon Dubai time as U.S. and Iranian delegations were in Islamabad for negotiations, the official said. The account contrasts with U.S. Central Command, which says the destroyers successfully passed through the strait into the Persian Gulf as part of a mission to clear alleged sea mines and establish a safe maritime corridor, a claim Iran denies. " By 'regional intelligence source' I'd read Iranian Ministry of Information! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The “final offer” statement is disappointing. I think it shows that the US believe they have the upper hand and expect the Iranians to just roll over. The past month and half have shown that is unlikely but there we go. Iran have also said that one of their points is non negotiable, the Isreal action against terrorists in Lebanon. If protecting terrorists is your first request and non negotiable then that says a lot about who the US are dealing with. More untreated in saving terrorists than their own citizens. We just have to be thankful Starmer isn’t in the negotiations, he’d have paid them the 500 billion already, agreed to supply them with weapons to speed up the genocide and send over a team of nuclear weapons specialists to speed up their nukes program " I haven’t said the Iranian position is reasonable. Reconciling highly divergent positions is what a capable set of negotiation teams need to do. That applies to both sides. Successful negotiators invariably have to be able to at least emphasise with the others side so they can accurately predict what the response will be. We will see if either side has that ability. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Both sides will just blame the other if talks break down. Iran will drag the takes out as long as they can while they continue their nuclear weapons program. And as soon as they have one they will fire on Isreal and WW3 will follow quite quickly." That would appear to put the US in a bit of a predicament then wouldn’t it? What do they do? * Carry on the air campaign? * Launch a full ground invasion? * Find a diplomatic solution? It has to be one of the three. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Both sides will just blame the other if talks break down. Iran will drag the takes out as long as they can while they continue their nuclear weapons program. And as soon as they have one they will fire on Isreal and WW3 will follow quite quickly." People said the same about India and Pakistan in the 70s to stop them getting a nuclear bomb. Same scare stories about North Korea. Hasn't happened yet. If western countries ever wanted to allay the fears of countries pursuing through security through nuclear armament. Libya certainly put a end to that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Both sides will just blame the other if talks break down. Iran will drag the takes out as long as they can while they continue their nuclear weapons program. And as soon as they have one they will fire on Isreal and WW3 will follow quite quickly. That would appear to put the US in a bit of a predicament then wouldn’t it? What do they do? * Carry on the air campaign? * Launch a full ground invasion? * Find a diplomatic solution? It has to be one of the three." The 4th option would be to take control of the Strait of Hormuz, if that is possible. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Both sides will just blame the other if talks break down. Iran will drag the takes out as long as they can while they continue their nuclear weapons program. And as soon as they have one they will fire on Isreal and WW3 will follow quite quickly. That would appear to put the US in a bit of a predicament then wouldn’t it? What do they do? * Carry on the air campaign? * Launch a full ground invasion? * Find a diplomatic solution? It has to be one of the three. The 4th option would be to take control of the Strait of Hormuz, if that is possible." And that stops the nuclear weapons? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Both sides will just blame the other if talks break down. Iran will drag the takes out as long as they can while they continue their nuclear weapons program. And as soon as they have one they will fire on Isreal and WW3 will follow quite quickly." Why is Israel allowed nukes but Iran isn't? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ceasefire talks this weekend with top lad JD Vance leading the US team. Will there be an agreement? Is so what will be the long term consequences? And if the two sides can't agree, what happens next ? " Israel will break the ceasefire as always | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Both sides will just blame the other if talks break down. Iran will drag the takes out as long as they can while they continue their nuclear weapons program. And as soon as they have one they will fire on Isreal and WW3 will follow quite quickly. That would appear to put the US in a bit of a predicament then wouldn’t it? What do they do? * Carry on the air campaign? * Launch a full ground invasion? * Find a diplomatic solution? It has to be one of the three. The 4th option would be to take control of the Strait of Hormuz, if that is possible. And that stops the nuclear weapons?" It would considerably weaken Iran's bargaining position. | |||
(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 |
" Why is Israel allowed nukes but Iran isn't? " Israel isn't "allowed" them - it's just too much bother to take them. Like other countries, once one has them, it's a pain to take them away. The calculus with Iran is that they're a huge threat with nukes, so best to stop them ahead of the game. If it were up to the UN or any other body, Israel would not be "allowed" them, were they to be in the midst of a nuclear programme. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If they were so bent on Martyrdom, they have had 47 years to launch a ground invasion of Israel but haven’t. " Because they're not stupid. How would they project a Shi'ite army that far? Oh yes... It's called Hezbollah, and they've been building it up in slices over decades, attempting to keep just beneath the threshold at which Israel would be forced to annihilate them to remain safe. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If they were so bent on Martyrdom, they have had 47 years to launch a ground invasion of Israel but haven’t. Because they're not stupid. How would they project a Shi'ite army that far? Oh yes... It's called Hezbollah, and they've been building it up in slices over decades, attempting to keep just beneath the threshold at which Israel would be forced to annihilate them to remain safe." But the argument goes that we can’t let the stupid Iranians have nukes because they are so volatile & irrational doesn’t it? I really don’t think the Iranians would fire a nuke first. Rather, they would want nukes as insurance against existential threats to the regime imo | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why is Israel allowed nukes but Iran isn't? Israel isn't "allowed" them - it's just too much bother to take them. Like other countries, once one has them, it's a pain to take them away. The calculus with Iran is that they're a huge threat with nukes, so best to stop them ahead of the game. If it were up to the UN or any other body, Israel would not be "allowed" them, were they to be in the midst of a nuclear programme." Iran signed up to the Non Proliferation Treaty. Israel hasn't. Israel is the one pending trial for genocide. Israel is continually expanding it's borders via military force which has been illegal under international law post WWII I don't think any country should have nukes. If we spent the cost of building and maintaining nukes on funding education, health care and climate change the world would be better for it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If they were so bent on Martyrdom, they have had 47 years to launch a ground invasion of Israel but haven’t. Because they're not stupid. How would they project a Shi'ite army that far? Oh yes... It's called Hezbollah, and they've been building it up in slices over decades, attempting to keep just beneath the threshold at which Israel would be forced to annihilate them to remain safe. But the argument goes that we can’t let the stupid Iranians have nukes because they are so volatile & irrational doesn’t it? I really don’t think the Iranians would fire a nuke first. Rather, they would want nukes as insurance against existential threats to the regime imo " We wouldn't want regime change in Iran now would we. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If they were so bent on Martyrdom, they have had 47 years to launch a ground invasion of Israel but haven’t. Because they're not stupid. How would they project a Shi'ite army that far? Oh yes... It's called Hezbollah, and they've been building it up in slices over decades, attempting to keep just beneath the threshold at which Israel would be forced to annihilate them to remain safe. But the argument goes that we can’t let the stupid Iranians have nukes because they are so volatile & irrational doesn’t it? I really don’t think the Iranians would fire a nuke first. Rather, they would want nukes as insurance against existential threats to the regime imo We wouldn't want regime change in Iran now would we." It would have been nice but trump seems to be ok with the current one | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Both sides will just blame the other if talks break down. Iran will drag the takes out as long as they can while they continue their nuclear weapons program. And as soon as they have one they will fire on Isreal and WW3 will follow quite quickly. That would appear to put the US in a bit of a predicament then wouldn’t it? What do they do? * Carry on the air campaign? * Launch a full ground invasion? * Find a diplomatic solution? It has to be one of the three. The 4th option would be to take control of the Strait of Hormuz, if that is possible." Your guy has already tried that and failed | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can’t believe people would think Iran having a nuclear weapon capability is okay, or arguing they wouldn’t use it! Anyone up for a bit of missile and drone launching at the civilian infrastructure of our neighbours because we are being attacked by an enemy state? It’s time to put the LEGO down. " But those anti semitic regime propaganda clips are SO funny ! 🤦♂️ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can’t believe people would think Iran having a nuclear weapon capability is okay, or arguing they wouldn’t use it! Anyone up for a bit of missile and drone launching at the civilian infrastructure of our neighbours because we are being attacked by an enemy state? It’s time to put the LEGO down. " Why are Iran doing that? C’mon, don’t just tell us Half the story. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can’t believe people would think Iran having a nuclear weapon capability is okay, or arguing they wouldn’t use it! Anyone up for a bit of missile and drone launching at the civilian infrastructure of our neighbours because we are being attacked by an enemy state? It’s time to put the LEGO down. " Didn't the yanks destroy all the lego | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why is Israel allowed nukes but Iran isn't? Israel isn't "allowed" them - it's just too much bother to take them. Like other countries, once one has them, it's a pain to take them away. The calculus with Iran is that they're a huge threat with nukes, so best to stop them ahead of the game. If it were up to the UN or any other body, Israel would not be "allowed" them, were they to be in the midst of a nuclear programme. Iran signed up to the Non Proliferation Treaty. Israel hasn't. Israel is the one pending trial for genocide. Israel is continually expanding it's borders via military force which has been illegal under international law post WWII I don't think any country should have nukes. If we spent the cost of building and maintaining nukes on funding education, health care and climate change the world would be better for it. " Is your point that Iran should be allowed nukes, or that people should forcibly remove them from Israel? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can’t believe people would think Iran having a nuclear weapon capability is okay, or arguing they wouldn’t use it! Anyone up for a bit of missile and drone launching at the civilian infrastructure of our neighbours because we are being attacked by an enemy state? It’s time to put the LEGO down. Why are Iran doing that? C’mon, don’t just tell us Half the story." It’s not “half the story”, it’s the part some people seem willing to ignore..  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those saying Iran should never have nukes, what’s the strategy to achieve this? Carry on bombing them every year for the foreseeable? That is going to become a long war of attrition between Shahed drones & Patriot missiles as far as I see." Allow the IAEA to inspect all uranium stocks and nuclear facilities, is a start to an end. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those saying Iran should never have nukes, what’s the strategy to achieve this? Carry on bombing them every year for the foreseeable? That is going to become a long war of attrition between Shahed drones & Patriot missiles as far as I see. Allow the IAEA to inspect all uranium stocks and nuclear facilities, is a start to an end. " Weren’t Iran already doing that under the JCPOA? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those saying Iran should never have nukes, what’s the strategy to achieve this? Carry on bombing them every year for the foreseeable? That is going to become a long war of attrition between Shahed drones & Patriot missiles as far as I see. Allow the IAEA to inspect all uranium stocks and nuclear facilities, is a start to an end. Weren’t Iran already doing that under the JCPOA?" Trump walked away from that stupid Obama idea | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those saying Iran should never have nukes, what’s the strategy to achieve this? Carry on bombing them every year for the foreseeable? That is going to become a long war of attrition between Shahed drones & Patriot missiles as far as I see. Allow the IAEA to inspect all uranium stocks and nuclear facilities, is a start to an end. Weren’t Iran already doing that under the JCPOA? Trump walked away from that stupid Obama idea" He did. Wonder how much AIPAC paid him. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those saying Iran should never have nukes, what’s the strategy to achieve this? Carry on bombing them every year for the foreseeable? That is going to become a long war of attrition between Shahed drones & Patriot missiles as far as I see. Allow the IAEA to inspect all uranium stocks and nuclear facilities, is a start to an end. Weren’t Iran already doing that under the JCPOA? Trump walked away from that stupid Obama idea He did. Wonder how much AIPAC paid him." Why do you think the US left in 2018 and has not returned? You know half the story? I would also say in hindsight they were correct now we have seen their ballistic capabilities, and the IAEA being very vocal in their concerns towards Irans uranium enrichment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those saying Iran should never have nukes, what’s the strategy to achieve this? Carry on bombing them every year for the foreseeable? That is going to become a long war of attrition between Shahed drones & Patriot missiles as far as I see. Allow the IAEA to inspect all uranium stocks and nuclear facilities, is a start to an end. Weren’t Iran already doing that under the JCPOA? Trump walked away from that stupid Obama idea He did. Wonder how much AIPAC paid him. Why do you think the US left in 2018 and has not returned? You know half the story? I would also say in hindsight they were correct now we have seen their ballistic capabilities, and the IAEA being very vocal in their concerns towards Irans uranium enrichment. " Because Netanyahu was in Trump’s ear? “Initial Compliance (2016–2018): After the deal was implemented in January 2016, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was adhering to its nuclear-related commitments, including restrictions on centrifuge numbers and uranium enrichment levels” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those saying Iran should never have nukes, what’s the strategy to achieve this? Carry on bombing them every year for the foreseeable? That is going to become a long war of attrition between Shahed drones & Patriot missiles as far as I see." Your point seems to be that it's too hard/expensive/unpalatable to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes, therefore best not to try? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those saying Iran should never have nukes, what’s the strategy to achieve this? Carry on bombing them every year for the foreseeable? That is going to become a long war of attrition between Shahed drones & Patriot missiles as far as I see. Allow the IAEA to inspect all uranium stocks and nuclear facilities, is a start to an end. Weren’t Iran already doing that under the JCPOA? Trump walked away from that stupid Obama idea He did. Wonder how much AIPAC paid him." Nothing…. Bibi was the whisperer all the time… When you think about it… 2 things… a)anytime there is an agreement or something close to an agreement, why is it Israel that always scupper it? B) why are Israel allowed nukes, but no one else is? …. The only 4 countries in the world that are not in the NNPT are India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel In the history of Israel since 1948, Israel has always been the aggressor… taking bits of Egypt… Jordan, Syria and now Lebanon…. If ministers in the Israeli government are talking about a “greater Israel” why are we not listening….. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In the history of Israel since 1948, Israel has always been the aggressor… " That is an outright untruth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those saying Iran should never have nukes, what’s the strategy to achieve this? Carry on bombing them every year for the foreseeable? That is going to become a long war of attrition between Shahed drones & Patriot missiles as far as I see. Allow the IAEA to inspect all uranium stocks and nuclear facilities, is a start to an end. Weren’t Iran already doing that under the JCPOA? Trump walked away from that stupid Obama idea He did. Wonder how much AIPAC paid him. Why do you think the US left in 2018 and has not returned? You know half the story? I would also say in hindsight they were correct now we have seen their ballistic capabilities, and the IAEA being very vocal in their concerns towards Irans uranium enrichment. Because Netanyahu was in Trump’s ear? “Initial Compliance (2016–2018): After the deal was implemented in January 2016, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was adhering to its nuclear-related commitments, including restrictions on centrifuge numbers and uranium enrichment levels”" That isn’t really true in terms of compliance and the wider picture, and to be fair we are moving away from the question you originally asked. The answer I gave remains the same, reinstate full inspections and ensure they are actually enforced. Iran should allow the IAEA to inspect all uranium stockpiles and nuclear facilities and to comply at all times. Any deal should also address Iran’s funding of Hezbollah and others who create terror and an unstable middle east. Moving on, negotiations have broken down and I suspect the sticking points are tied to issues like the ones I have provided. I will reiterate the point I made earlier. If the display of aggression by Iran against their neighbours civilian infrastructure and use of long range ballistic missiles is not a clear indication of their threat potential, people really need to consider what it is they are supporting. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those saying Iran should never have nukes, what’s the strategy to achieve this? Carry on bombing them every year for the foreseeable? That is going to become a long war of attrition between Shahed drones & Patriot missiles as far as I see. Your point seems to be that it's too hard/expensive/unpalatable to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes, therefore best not to try?" I’m not sure the considerable effort, expense, death & damage to the world economy is worth it if you aren’t guaranteed a result anyway with a ‘hit & hope’ strategy though I suspect you probably disagree, which is fine. If Netanyahu’s wet dream is to take Iran out, maybe the Israelis should be putting boots on the ground in Iran. Good luck chaps, all the best. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
", people really need to consider what it is they are supporting." Is someone here supporting the Iranian regime because I haven't seen it ? Questioning the US and Israel is a far throw from supporting Iran or is that just an insult at someone ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those saying Iran should never have nukes, what’s the strategy to achieve this? Carry on bombing them every year for the foreseeable? That is going to become a long war of attrition between Shahed drones & Patriot missiles as far as I see. Allow the IAEA to inspect all uranium stocks and nuclear facilities, is a start to an end. Weren’t Iran already doing that under the JCPOA? Trump walked away from that stupid Obama idea He did. Wonder how much AIPAC paid him. Why do you think the US left in 2018 and has not returned? You know half the story? I would also say in hindsight they were correct now we have seen their ballistic capabilities, and the IAEA being very vocal in their concerns towards Irans uranium enrichment. Because Netanyahu was in Trump’s ear? “Initial Compliance (2016–2018): After the deal was implemented in January 2016, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was adhering to its nuclear-related commitments, including restrictions on centrifuge numbers and uranium enrichment levels” That isn’t really true in terms of compliance and the wider picture, and to be fair we are moving away from the question you originally asked. The answer I gave remains the same, reinstate full inspections and ensure they are actually enforced. Iran should allow the IAEA to inspect all uranium stockpiles and nuclear facilities and to comply at all times. Any deal should also address Iran’s funding of Hezbollah and others who create terror and an unstable middle east. Moving on, negotiations have broken down and I suspect the sticking points are tied to issues like the ones I have provided. I will reiterate the point I made earlier. If the display of aggression by Iran against their neighbours civilian infrastructure and use of long range ballistic missiles is not a clear indication of their threat potential, people really need to consider what it is they are supporting." Iran did not violate the JCPOA: While it is concerning that Iran may not be cooperating in a timely fashion and Tehran should rectify this, Iran has *not violated the deal* The report noted that the IAEA has had access to “all the sites and locations in Iran which it needed to visit.” Trump violated the JCPOA by withdrawing & reimposing sanctions. Would be very ironic if we ended up back where Obama’s deal was wouldn’t it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
", people really need to consider what it is they are supporting. Is someone here supporting the Iranian regime because I haven't seen it ? Questioning the US and Israel is a far throw from supporting Iran or is that just an insult at someone ?" You might want to read that again in the context of what I actually wrote, not the interpretation you’ve added to it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those saying Iran should never have nukes, what’s the strategy to achieve this? Carry on bombing them every year for the foreseeable? That is going to become a long war of attrition between Shahed drones & Patriot missiles as far as I see. Allow the IAEA to inspect all uranium stocks and nuclear facilities, is a start to an end. Weren’t Iran already doing that under the JCPOA? Trump walked away from that stupid Obama idea He did. Wonder how much AIPAC paid him. Why do you think the US left in 2018 and has not returned? You know half the story? I would also say in hindsight they were correct now we have seen their ballistic capabilities, and the IAEA being very vocal in their concerns towards Irans uranium enrichment. Because Netanyahu was in Trump’s ear? “Initial Compliance (2016–2018): After the deal was implemented in January 2016, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was adhering to its nuclear-related commitments, including restrictions on centrifuge numbers and uranium enrichment levels” That isn’t really true in terms of compliance and the wider picture, and to be fair we are moving away from the question you originally asked. The answer I gave remains the same, reinstate full inspections and ensure they are actually enforced. Iran should allow the IAEA to inspect all uranium stockpiles and nuclear facilities and to comply at all times. Any deal should also address Iran’s funding of Hezbollah and others who create terror and an unstable middle east. Moving on, negotiations have broken down and I suspect the sticking points are tied to issues like the ones I have provided. I will reiterate the point I made earlier. If the display of aggression by Iran against their neighbours civilian infrastructure and use of long range ballistic missiles is not a clear indication of their threat potential, people really need to consider what it is they are supporting." Under JCPOA, the IAEA were allowed to do random inspections at any facility anytime they wanted with no notice , which is why we known that Iran were abiding You forget that there were 8 signatories to JCPOA… Iran, the US, the EU , France, Germany, Russia, china and the UK So it was only the US that had an issue (ear bent by Israel) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Your point seems to be that it's too hard/expensive/unpalatable to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes, therefore best not to try? I’m not sure the considerable effort, expense, death & damage to the world economy is worth it if you aren’t guaranteed a result anyway with a ‘hit & hope’ strategy though I suspect you probably disagree, which is fine. " That's exactly the Iranian calculus. Their strategy for decades has been to fly just below the red line of action, regarding everything from proxy support to nuclear capability. That's why they're hitting the soft targets of UAE/Saudi and closing Hormuz. They're looking to hold the world to ransom. That's what they do with their hostage taking. The piece from Yes Prime Minister on Russia's salami slicing strategy is apt here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In the history of Israel since 1948, Israel has always been the aggressor… That is an outright untruth." Israel attacked first in both 67 and 73, Isreal invaded Lebanon in 82 on the false premise of going after the PLO Isreal annexed Gaza, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the golan heights, and now in effect southern Lebanon up to the letani river… Anything incorrect? Israel love a good “defensive first strike”…… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Your point seems to be that it's too hard/expensive/unpalatable to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes, therefore best not to try? I’m not sure the considerable effort, expense, death & damage to the world economy is worth it if you aren’t guaranteed a result anyway with a ‘hit & hope’ strategy though I suspect you probably disagree, which is fine. That's exactly the Iranian calculus. Their strategy for decades has been to fly just below the red line of action, regarding everything from proxy support to nuclear capability. That's why they're hitting the soft targets of UAE/Saudi and closing Hormuz. They're looking to hold the world to ransom. That's what they do with their hostage taking." Right, so what’s your solution? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those saying Iran should never have nukes, what’s the strategy to achieve this? Carry on bombing them every year for the foreseeable? That is going to become a long war of attrition between Shahed drones & Patriot missiles as far as I see. Allow the IAEA to inspect all uranium stocks and nuclear facilities, is a start to an end. Weren’t Iran already doing that under the JCPOA? Trump walked away from that stupid Obama idea He did. Wonder how much AIPAC paid him. Why do you think the US left in 2018 and has not returned? You know half the story? I would also say in hindsight they were correct now we have seen their ballistic capabilities, and the IAEA being very vocal in their concerns towards Irans uranium enrichment. Because Netanyahu was in Trump’s ear? “Initial Compliance (2016–2018): After the deal was implemented in January 2016, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was adhering to its nuclear-related commitments, including restrictions on centrifuge numbers and uranium enrichment levels” That isn’t really true in terms of compliance and the wider picture, and to be fair we are moving away from the question you originally asked. The answer I gave remains the same, reinstate full inspections and ensure they are actually enforced. Iran should allow the IAEA to inspect all uranium stockpiles and nuclear facilities and to comply at all times. Any deal should also address Iran’s funding of Hezbollah and others who create terror and an unstable middle east. Moving on, negotiations have broken down and I suspect the sticking points are tied to issues like the ones I have provided. I will reiterate the point I made earlier. If the display of aggression by Iran against their neighbours civilian infrastructure and use of long range ballistic missiles is not a clear indication of their threat potential, people really need to consider what it is they are supporting. Iran did not violate the JCPOA: While it is concerning that Iran may not be cooperating in a timely fashion and Tehran should rectify this, Iran has *not violated the deal* The report noted that the IAEA has had access to “all the sites and locations in Iran which it needed to visit.” Trump violated the JCPOA by withdrawing & reimposing sanctions. Would be very ironic if we ended up back where Obama’s deal was wouldn’t it?" They didn’t have access to all sites, and during that period Iran was developing ballistic missiles and using money from lifted sanctions to support the groups I mentioned earlier. If Iran complied fully with inspections and wasn't funding hostile militia, which I don’t think is an unreasonable thing to ask, why would there be any need for military action? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In the history of Israel since 1948, Israel has always been the aggressor… That is an outright untruth. Israel attacked first in both 67 and 73, Isreal invaded Lebanon in 82 on the false premise of going after the PLO Isreal annexed Gaza, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the golan heights, and now in effect southern Lebanon up to the letani river… Anything incorrect? Israel love a good “defensive first strike”……" For brevity, let's just pick the most recent - the current situation in Lebanon (although we could do all of them, adding in the Yom Kippur war 1973("The war started on 6 October 1973, when the Arab coalition launched a surprise attack across their respective frontiers during the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur, which coincided with the 10th day of Ramadan." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War) The action at the moment was directly a reaction to Hezbollah action over the past couple of years, which was not provoked or initiated by Israel (without some serious sophistry to make it seem so). How are you arguing that Israel was the aggressor in relation to Hezbollah? Israel warned them many times NOT to get involved, but they did, almost immediately after October 7th. Had they kept out of things, then there would be zero action in Lebanon. Arguably, the recent regime change in Syria is a direct result of Hezbollah's weakening undermining Assad's power and Iran's ability to project power. Had Hezbollah simply kept out of the post-October-7th action, the Middle East would look very different today. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those saying Iran should never have nukes, what’s the strategy to achieve this? Carry on bombing them every year for the foreseeable? That is going to become a long war of attrition between Shahed drones & Patriot missiles as far as I see. Allow the IAEA to inspect all uranium stocks and nuclear facilities, is a start to an end. Weren’t Iran already doing that under the JCPOA? Trump walked away from that stupid Obama idea He did. Wonder how much AIPAC paid him. Why do you think the US left in 2018 and has not returned? You know half the story? I would also say in hindsight they were correct now we have seen their ballistic capabilities, and the IAEA being very vocal in their concerns towards Irans uranium enrichment. Because Netanyahu was in Trump’s ear? “Initial Compliance (2016–2018): After the deal was implemented in January 2016, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was adhering to its nuclear-related commitments, including restrictions on centrifuge numbers and uranium enrichment levels” That isn’t really true in terms of compliance and the wider picture, and to be fair we are moving away from the question you originally asked. The answer I gave remains the same, reinstate full inspections and ensure they are actually enforced. Iran should allow the IAEA to inspect all uranium stockpiles and nuclear facilities and to comply at all times. Any deal should also address Iran’s funding of Hezbollah and others who create terror and an unstable middle east. Moving on, negotiations have broken down and I suspect the sticking points are tied to issues like the ones I have provided. I will reiterate the point I made earlier. If the display of aggression by Iran against their neighbours civilian infrastructure and use of long range ballistic missiles is not a clear indication of their threat potential, people really need to consider what it is they are supporting. Iran did not violate the JCPOA: While it is concerning that Iran may not be cooperating in a timely fashion and Tehran should rectify this, Iran has *not violated the deal* The report noted that the IAEA has had access to “all the sites and locations in Iran which it needed to visit.” Trump violated the JCPOA by withdrawing & reimposing sanctions. Would be very ironic if we ended up back where Obama’s deal was wouldn’t it? They didn’t have access to all sites, and during that period Iran was developing ballistic missiles and using money from lifted sanctions to support the groups I mentioned earlier. If Iran complied fully with inspections and wasn't funding hostile militia, which I don’t think is an unreasonable thing to ask, why would there be any need for military action?" The IAEA said they had access to all the sites they needed to visit. If Obama’s deal didn’t cut the mustard in your opinion, why would another deal do so? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Both sides will just blame the other if talks break down. Iran will drag the takes out as long as they can while they continue their nuclear weapons program. And as soon as they have one they will fire on Isreal and WW3 will follow quite quickly. Why is Israel allowed nukes but Iran isn't? " Stopping Israel would be anti Semitic. Plus JFK wanted to, but look what happened to him. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those saying Iran should never have nukes, what’s the strategy to achieve this? Carry on bombing them every year for the foreseeable? That is going to become a long war of attrition between Shahed drones & Patriot missiles as far as I see. Allow the IAEA to inspect all uranium stocks and nuclear facilities, is a start to an end. Weren’t Iran already doing that under the JCPOA? Trump walked away from that stupid Obama idea He did. Wonder how much AIPAC paid him. Why do you think the US left in 2018 and has not returned? You know half the story? I would also say in hindsight they were correct now we have seen their ballistic capabilities, and the IAEA being very vocal in their concerns towards Irans uranium enrichment. Because Netanyahu was in Trump’s ear? “Initial Compliance (2016–2018): After the deal was implemented in January 2016, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was adhering to its nuclear-related commitments, including restrictions on centrifuge numbers and uranium enrichment levels” That isn’t really true in terms of compliance and the wider picture, and to be fair we are moving away from the question you originally asked. The answer I gave remains the same, reinstate full inspections and ensure they are actually enforced. Iran should allow the IAEA to inspect all uranium stockpiles and nuclear facilities and to comply at all times. Any deal should also address Iran’s funding of Hezbollah and others who create terror and an unstable middle east. Moving on, negotiations have broken down and I suspect the sticking points are tied to issues like the ones I have provided. I will reiterate the point I made earlier. If the display of aggression by Iran against their neighbours civilian infrastructure and use of long range ballistic missiles is not a clear indication of their threat potential, people really need to consider what it is they are supporting. Under JCPOA, the IAEA were allowed to do random inspections at any facility anytime they wanted with no notice , which is why we known that Iran were abiding You forget that there were 8 signatories to JCPOA… Iran, the US, the EU , France, Germany, Russia, china and the UK So it was only the US that had an issue (ear bent by Israel)" I agree the IAEA were reporting compliance, but the context is in terms of what they were able to inspect. The US left the agreement, other countries remained in it but had the same concerns regarding Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities being extended, sunset clauses, and support for Hezbollah. Looking at the actions and outcomes of the conflict, I think it is hard to argue that the concerns about Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities were not correct. Hezbollah and its role in instability has also been well known for a long time, and uncertainty around uranium enrichment remains the most dangerous element. US withdrawal was to reintroduce sanctions to slowdown Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities, I think that was a good call from the events we have now seen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Your point seems to be that it's too hard/expensive/unpalatable to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes, therefore best not to try? I’m not sure the considerable effort, expense, death & damage to the world economy is worth it if you aren’t guaranteed a result anyway with a ‘hit & hope’ strategy though I suspect you probably disagree, which is fine. That's exactly the Iranian calculus. Their strategy for decades has been to fly just below the red line of action, regarding everything from proxy support to nuclear capability. That's why they're hitting the soft targets of UAE/Saudi and closing Hormuz. They're looking to hold the world to ransom. That's what they do with their hostage taking. Right, so what’s your solution?" That's for politicians and military strategists to decide. The question is, how much short-term pain will the world be willing to wear to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. For us, we would take a few years of increased prices over a nuclear Iran. But not everyone would - we recognise that. That's where propaganda, politics, leverage and diplomacy come in. In terms of specific actions, that's a really tough one. Presumably the US wants to use airpower and economic leverage. Israel probably wants an internally-imposed regime change. Turkey wants the status quo and Pakistan would be happy for Iran to become nuclear (although that's not at all certain). Britain and Europe just wish that the problem would go away somehow, without their involvement. Russia probably loves the idea of a nuclear Iran. But the people we should probably listen to the closest are Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and UAE. Not blindly do their bidding (they have serious issues), but getting a range of views from the Gulf countries and others in the region, as to how they want to proceed. Clearly the US and Israel are driving this war, but they should listen to regional partners as to how best to proceed. And determine, politically, what they're willing to pay, be it soldiers in caskets, war costs or sustained political pressure. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those saying Iran should never have nukes, what’s the strategy to achieve this? Carry on bombing them every year for the foreseeable? That is going to become a long war of attrition between Shahed drones & Patriot missiles as far as I see. Allow the IAEA to inspect all uranium stocks and nuclear facilities, is a start to an end. Weren’t Iran already doing that under the JCPOA? Trump walked away from that stupid Obama idea He did. Wonder how much AIPAC paid him. Why do you think the US left in 2018 and has not returned? You know half the story? I would also say in hindsight they were correct now we have seen their ballistic capabilities, and the IAEA being very vocal in their concerns towards Irans uranium enrichment. Because Netanyahu was in Trump’s ear? “Initial Compliance (2016–2018): After the deal was implemented in January 2016, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was adhering to its nuclear-related commitments, including restrictions on centrifuge numbers and uranium enrichment levels” That isn’t really true in terms of compliance and the wider picture, and to be fair we are moving away from the question you originally asked. The answer I gave remains the same, reinstate full inspections and ensure they are actually enforced. Iran should allow the IAEA to inspect all uranium stockpiles and nuclear facilities and to comply at all times. Any deal should also address Iran’s funding of Hezbollah and others who create terror and an unstable middle east. Moving on, negotiations have broken down and I suspect the sticking points are tied to issues like the ones I have provided. I will reiterate the point I made earlier. If the display of aggression by Iran against their neighbours civilian infrastructure and use of long range ballistic missiles is not a clear indication of their threat potential, people really need to consider what it is they are supporting. Iran did not violate the JCPOA: While it is concerning that Iran may not be cooperating in a timely fashion and Tehran should rectify this, Iran has *not violated the deal* The report noted that the IAEA has had access to “all the sites and locations in Iran which it needed to visit.” Trump violated the JCPOA by withdrawing & reimposing sanctions. Would be very ironic if we ended up back where Obama’s deal was wouldn’t it? They didn’t have access to all sites, and during that period Iran was developing ballistic missiles and using money from lifted sanctions to support the groups I mentioned earlier. If Iran complied fully with inspections and wasn't funding hostile militia, which I don’t think is an unreasonable thing to ask, why would there be any need for military action? The IAEA said they had access to all the sites they needed to visit. If Obama’s deal didn’t cut the mustard in your opinion, why would another deal do so?" It had clauses that needed ironing out but was okay, the Iranians were not following it explicitly and were also using the money from lifted sanctions to boost their missile capabilities. We can go around this all day, my opinion is Iran should not have nuclear capabilities and if they are close to having that capability they need to be stopped. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Your point seems to be that it's too hard/expensive/unpalatable to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes, therefore best not to try? I’m not sure the considerable effort, expense, death & damage to the world economy is worth it if you aren’t guaranteed a result anyway with a ‘hit & hope’ strategy though I suspect you probably disagree, which is fine. That's exactly the Iranian calculus. Their strategy for decades has been to fly just below the red line of action, regarding everything from proxy support to nuclear capability. That's why they're hitting the soft targets of UAE/Saudi and closing Hormuz. They're looking to hold the world to ransom. That's what they do with their hostage taking. Right, so what’s your solution? That's for politicians and military strategists to decide. The question is, how much short-term pain will the world be willing to wear to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. For us, we would take a few years of increased prices over a nuclear Iran. But not everyone would - we recognise that. That's where propaganda, politics, leverage and diplomacy come in. In terms of specific actions, that's a really tough one. Presumably the US wants to use airpower and economic leverage. Israel probably wants an internally-imposed regime change. Turkey wants the status quo and Pakistan would be happy for Iran to become nuclear (although that's not at all certain). Britain and Europe just wish that the problem would go away somehow, without their involvement. Russia probably loves the idea of a nuclear Iran. But the people we should probably listen to the closest are Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and UAE. Not blindly do their bidding (they have serious issues), but getting a range of views from the Gulf countries and others in the region, as to how they want to proceed. Clearly the US and Israel are driving this war, but they should listen to regional partners as to how best to proceed. And determine, politically, what they're willing to pay, be it soldiers in caskets, war costs or sustained political pressure." The point regarding the Russians is one I agree with & has helped to formulate my thinking on this. We could go to all this effort to stop Iran getting a nuke & Putin could just give them to Iran anyway to stir the pot. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American ships passing through the Strait today unchallenged to clear any illegally laid mines. The Machiavellian play would have been for the US to mine the strait themselves under the pretext of stopping Iranian vessels, threatening to only reopen it when all ships could pass through. That would have removed Iran's ability to control the strait, and would hold China, Russia and France to ransom." I thought this madness when I read it this morning. Trump has just announced a blockade of the Strait. I genuinely don’t get it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In the history of Israel since 1948, Israel has always been the aggressor… That is an outright untruth." We might call it a 'Fab-rication', a common occurrence around any discussion on Jewish people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
", people really need to consider what it is they are supporting. Is someone here supporting the Iranian regime because I haven't seen it ? " 🙈 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those saying Iran should never have nukes, what’s the strategy to achieve this? Carry on bombing them every year for the foreseeable? That is going to become a long war of attrition between Shahed drones & Patriot missiles as far as I see. Allow the IAEA to inspect all uranium stocks and nuclear facilities, is a start to an end. Weren’t Iran already doing that under the JCPOA? Trump walked away from that stupid Obama idea He did. Wonder how much AIPAC paid him. Why do you think the US left in 2018 and has not returned? You know half the story? I would also say in hindsight they were correct now we have seen their ballistic capabilities, and the IAEA being very vocal in their concerns towards Irans uranium enrichment. Because Netanyahu was in Trump’s ear? “Initial Compliance (2016–2018): After the deal was implemented in January 2016, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was adhering to its nuclear-related commitments, including restrictions on centrifuge numbers and uranium enrichment levels” That isn’t really true in terms of compliance and the wider picture, and to be fair we are moving away from the question you originally asked. The answer I gave remains the same, reinstate full inspections and ensure they are actually enforced. Iran should allow the IAEA to inspect all uranium stockpiles and nuclear facilities and to comply at all times. Any deal should also address Iran’s funding of Hezbollah and others who create terror and an unstable middle east. Moving on, negotiations have broken down and I suspect the sticking points are tied to issues like the ones I have provided. I will reiterate the point I made earlier. If the display of aggression by Iran against their neighbours civilian infrastructure and use of long range ballistic missiles is not a clear indication of their threat potential, people really need to consider what it is they are supporting. Iran did not violate the JCPOA: While it is concerning that Iran may not be cooperating in a timely fashion and Tehran should rectify this, Iran has *not violated the deal* The report noted that the IAEA has had access to “all the sites and locations in Iran which it needed to visit.” Trump violated the JCPOA by withdrawing & reimposing sanctions. Would be very ironic if we ended up back where Obama’s deal was wouldn’t it? They didn’t have access to all sites, and during that period Iran was developing ballistic missiles and using money from lifted sanctions to support the groups I mentioned earlier. If Iran complied fully with inspections and wasn't funding hostile militia, which I don’t think is an unreasonable thing to ask, why would there be any need for military action? The IAEA said they had access to all the sites they needed to visit. If Obama’s deal didn’t cut the mustard in your opinion, why would another deal do so? It had clauses that needed ironing out but was okay, the Iranians were not following it explicitly and were also using the money from lifted sanctions to boost their missile capabilities. We can go around this all day, my opinion is Iran should not have nuclear capabilities and if they are close to having that capability they need to be stopped. " Trump destroyed all their nuclear ambitions in 2025 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Both sides will just blame the other if talks break down. Iran will drag the takes out as long as they can while they continue their nuclear weapons program. And as soon as they have one they will fire on Isreal and WW3 will follow quite quickly. That would appear to put the US in a bit of a predicament then wouldn’t it? What do they do? * Carry on the air campaign? * Launch a full ground invasion? * Find a diplomatic solution? It has to be one of the three." It puts the whole world in a predicament. The analogy of India and Pakistan, North and South Korea (who don’t have nukes by the way) are completely different. The regime in Iran believes with 100% conviction that their god wants them to kill every Jew on the planet and there’s 73 virgins waiting in heaven for anyone that dies in the process. The other religions of India do not have gods wishing death on non believers. And North Korea would happily take control of the South with no deaths if they could. It’s just not possible. Iran doesn’t want the land between the river and the sea like the Palestinians do, they just want to murder every Jew that lives there. And if they could do that with the press of a button I and many others believe they would. Of your solutions, diplomacy is the preferred option of course. But can Iran be trusted? Saying you won’t continue towards nuclear weapons and not actually doing so are two different things. The countries that have nukes have all had them for a very long time and so can be trusted to not use them. I think Iran being hit by US nukes after they wipe Isreal of the face of the planet would be considered a win by their regime. How do you win against people with that type of mentality? How do you defeat a person who’s willing to die just to stop you from worshipping your god. Whoever wrote the Quran was a very smart individual. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American ships passing through the Strait today unchallenged to clear any illegally laid mines. The Machiavellian play would have been for the US to mine the strait themselves under the pretext of stopping Iranian vessels, threatening to only reopen it when all ships could pass through. That would have removed Iran's ability to control the strait, and would hold China, Russia and France to ransom. I thought this madness when I read it this morning. Trump has just announced a blockade of the Strait. I genuinely don’t get it." This is a bold yet dangerous move and I expect we will see a significant spike in inflation. If this action is to remove the tolls being paid, it is an overreach introduced to quickly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American ships passing through the Strait today unchallenged to clear any illegally laid mines. The Machiavellian play would have been for the US to mine the strait themselves under the pretext of stopping Iranian vessels, threatening to only reopen it when all ships could pass through. That would have removed Iran's ability to control the strait, and would hold China, Russia and France to ransom. I thought this madness when I read it this morning. Trump has just announced a blockade of the Strait. I genuinely don’t get it. This is a bold yet dangerous move and I expect we will see a significant spike in inflation. If this action is to remove the tolls being paid, it is an overreach introduced to quickly. " Tolls .. tolls ... Mango wants a cut | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""OPEN THE STRAIT" "BLOCKADE THE STRAIT" Just your usual swivel eyed Trump "logic". " Trump is many bad things. But do you not see the logic? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American ships passing through the Strait today unchallenged to clear any illegally laid mines. The Machiavellian play would have been for the US to mine the strait themselves under the pretext of stopping Iranian vessels, threatening to only reopen it when all ships could pass through. That would have removed Iran's ability to control the strait, and would hold China, Russia and France to ransom. I thought this madness when I read it this morning. Trump has just announced a blockade of the Strait. I genuinely don’t get it. This is a bold yet dangerous move and I expect we will see a significant spike in inflation. If this action is to remove the tolls being paid, it is an overreach introduced to quickly. " It is certainly bold. In the same way that sticking my fingers in an electrical socket to dry my hair is bold. I am really interested to learn the logic behind this move. I am guessing it is an attempt to stop people paying tolls? I dont see how that helps the global economy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""OPEN THE STRAIT" "BLOCKADE THE STRAIT" Just your usual swivel eyed Trump "logic". Trump is many bad things. But do you not see the logic?" There is no logic - other than the idea that making the global economic pain even worse (particilarly for the Gulf states who have paid Fat Donnie a lot to ensure this doesn't happen) is somehow going to pan out because of magic beans. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don’t see the US stopping Chinese ships who are the main beneficiaries of Iranian oil & won’t be paying tolls as an ‘ally’, it looks like the only people that will be affected by this are the EU/Japan/Korea and the Gulf states." ⬆️ This | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don’t see the US stopping Chinese ships who are the main beneficiaries of Iranian oil & won’t be paying tolls as an ‘ally’, it looks like the only people that will be affected by this are the EU/Japan/Korea and the Gulf states." Got to keep the vassal states in line somehow! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am really interested to learn the logic behind this move. I am guessing it is an attempt to stop people paying tolls? I dont see how that helps the global economy." We cannot know what's going on in Trump's mind. However... Iran held the cards for shipping, and played them well. Ir allowed friendly nations to pass, which have incentive for nations to be friends with Iran. By taking control of the strait, he has taken that incentive off the board. He's now replaced it with a new incentive: work with Trump. Mining the strait would be the cleanest way of doing it. It's vessel/nation agnostic. If it's done with warships... Will he threaten to fire on Russian/Chinese vessels? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am really interested to learn the logic behind this move. I am guessing it is an attempt to stop people paying tolls? I dont see how that helps the global economy. We cannot know what's going on in Trump's mind. However... Iran held the cards for shipping, and played them well. Ir allowed friendly nations to pass, which have incentive for nations to be friends with Iran. By taking control of the strait, he has taken that incentive off the board. He's now replaced it with a new incentive: work with Trump. Mining the strait would be the cleanest way of doing it. It's vessel/nation agnostic. If it's done with warships... Will he threaten to fire on Russian/Chinese vessels?" So the thinking is that replacing Iran with the USA as the actor stopping oil flowing out of rhe Gulf will enhance the standing of the USA? I appreciate I might have had a tough weekend but I am not seeing how telling all the GCC oil states and their Asian customers that delivery can’t go ahead because the USA doesn’t want it to will work out well. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Supporters of the Iranian regime will certainly be upset about losing those tolls. "Well… if I had a petrol/diesel car I would fill up my tank this afternoon…. Because as soon as the Asian markets open tonight, the price of oil is going to go through the roof | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am really interested to learn the logic behind this move. I am guessing it is an attempt to stop people paying tolls? I dont see how that helps the global economy. We cannot know what's going on in Trump's mind. However... Iran held the cards for shipping, and played them well. Ir allowed friendly nations to pass, which have incentive for nations to be friends with Iran. By taking control of the strait, he has taken that incentive off the board. He's now replaced it with a new incentive: work with Trump. Mining the strait would be the cleanest way of doing it. It's vessel/nation agnostic. If it's done with warships... Will he threaten to fire on Russian/Chinese vessels? So the thinking is that replacing Iran with the USA as the actor stopping oil flowing out of rhe Gulf will enhance the standing of the USA? I appreciate I might have had a tough weekend but I am not seeing how telling all the GCC oil states and their Asian customers that delivery can’t go ahead because the USA doesn’t want it to will work out well." It seems to me that the USA is enforcing the law. I guess someone has to because the UK and EU haven’t got the wherewithal to do it. Iran has tried to unlawfully charge “tolls”. The US is going to stop Iran breaking the law. In time no doubt the Straits will be opened to all traffic as the law requires. I’m sure Leftist Liberals will be ecstatic about this return to the “Rules Based Order”. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am really interested to learn the logic behind this move. I am guessing it is an attempt to stop people paying tolls? I dont see how that helps the global economy. We cannot know what's going on in Trump's mind. However... Iran held the cards for shipping, and played them well. Ir allowed friendly nations to pass, which have incentive for nations to be friends with Iran. By taking control of the strait, he has taken that incentive off the board. He's now replaced it with a new incentive: work with Trump. Mining the strait would be the cleanest way of doing it. It's vessel/nation agnostic. If it's done with warships... Will he threaten to fire on Russian/Chinese vessels? So the thinking is that replacing Iran with the USA as the actor stopping oil flowing out of rhe Gulf will enhance the standing of the USA? I appreciate I might have had a tough weekend but I am not seeing how telling all the GCC oil states and their Asian customers that delivery can’t go ahead because the USA doesn’t want it to will work out well. It seems to me that the USA is enforcing the law. I guess someone has to because the UK and EU haven’t got the wherewithal to do it. Iran has tried to unlawfully charge “tolls”. The US is going to stop Iran breaking the law. In time no doubt the Straits will be opened to all traffic as the law requires. I’m sure Leftist Liberals will be ecstatic about this return to the “Rules Based Order”." Genuinely curious as to what “law” is being enforced through a unilateral blockade of an international transit passage? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This will affect hardly any traffic so usual overreaction to anything Trump fires off. Seems like a power play as part of negotiations." How is it a power play? I genuinely don’t understand why Iran would care. They are making a pittance out of transit now so foregoing that is hardly a deal breaker. They are more interested in exerting pain on the global economy. This just doubles down on it. It’s a win win for them isn’t it? The power move now would be for them to transit a set of Chinese ships through and then see what happens. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If Trump starts blocking Chinese tankers, we’re all deep in the $hit." Perhaps China will liberate the West? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If Trump starts blocking Chinese tankers, we’re all deep in the $hit. Perhaps China will liberate the West?" About time they sorted out their client state. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If Trump starts blocking Chinese tankers, we’re all deep in the $hit." My guess, and it is only an guess is that up until now Iran blocked passage for many ships especially those involved in the war, but not to it's big customers like China. After all Iran need to sell their oil. I think what the Americans are saying is that if they can't use the straights then no one can. Maybe they are hoping China will put pressure on Iran but it also risks American and Chinese ships in a potential head to head. Apart from more price rises, nothing seems certain | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Iran blockades the strait causing oil prices to rocket and the cost of everything in the west to rocket, they charge a tariff and use the money earned to buy more bullets to kill their citizens and/or build nuclear missiles to start world war 3 and that’s good? Trump stops traffic through the strait to clear the mines left there by Iran so merchant vessels can travel freely without risk and that’s bad? Am I missing something? " No, it's all out in the open.🙊 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Iran blockades the strait causing oil prices to rocket and the cost of everything in the west to rocket, they charge a tariff and use the money earned to buy more bullets to kill their citizens and/or build nuclear missiles to start world war 3 and that’s good? Trump stops traffic through the strait to clear the mines left there by Iran so merchant vessels can travel freely without risk and that’s bad? Am I missing something? " The price of oil will go up even further with a total blockade. Iran are earning very little from any tolls as Strait traffic is still well down on the norm. The U.S. clearing the Strait of mines isn’t a bad thing, no. But if the Iranians retain the capacity to attack shipping, it’s arguable whether it actually solves anything. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Starmer now “urgently working with France”. Last week he was “working at pace”. “Inaction Man”." To be fair to Starmer he has an excellent record at enabling unimpeded use of waterways. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In the history of Israel since 1948, Israel has always been the aggressor… That is an outright untruth. Israel attacked first in both 67 and 73, Isreal invaded Lebanon in 82 on the false premise of going after the PLO Isreal annexed Gaza, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the golan heights, and now in effect southern Lebanon up to the letani river… Anything incorrect? Israel love a good “defensive first strike”…… For brevity, let's just pick the most recent - the current situation in Lebanon (although we could do all of them, adding in the Yom Kippur war 1973("The war started on 6 October 1973, when the Arab coalition launched a surprise attack across their respective frontiers during the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur, which coincided with the 10th day of Ramadan." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War) The action at the moment was directly a reaction to Hezbollah action over the past couple of years, which was not provoked or initiated by Israel (without some serious sophistry to make it seem so). How are you arguing that Israel was the aggressor in relation to Hezbollah? Israel warned them many times NOT to get involved, but they did, almost immediately after October 7th. Had they kept out of things, then there would be zero action in Lebanon. Arguably, the recent regime change in Syria is a direct result of Hezbollah's weakening undermining Assad's power and Iran's ability to project power. Had Hezbollah simply kept out of the post-October-7th action, the Middle East would look very different today."  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So Iran blockades the strait causing oil prices to rocket and the cost of everything in the west to rocket, they charge a tariff and use the money earned to buy more bullets to kill their citizens and/or build nuclear missiles to start world war 3 and that’s good? Trump stops traffic through the strait to clear the mines left there by Iran so merchant vessels can travel freely without risk and that’s bad? Am I missing something? The price of oil will go up even further with a total blockade. Iran are earning very little from any tolls as Strait traffic is still well down on the norm. The U.S. clearing the Strait of mines isn’t a bad thing, no. But if the Iranians retain the capacity to attack shipping, it’s arguable whether it actually solves anything." So the prime objective we both agree on is clearing the mines? The last thing the world needs is millions of barrels of oil burning in the gulf. And I agree that if nothing is done to stop Iran blowing up merchant shipping, what’s the point. So the next question is how do we stop a rogue nation blowing up merchant shipping? This is basically Iran declaring war on the rest of the world. They have attacked half their neighbours and have threatened to destroy any merchant ship and tanker that enters the strait. This isn’t just about oil. Hundreds of thousands of shipping containers get delivered to gulf states from the rest of the world every year. That has all but dried up. If this was a gang in London blocking deliveries to hospitals, what would you want doing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Starmer now “urgently working with France”. Last week he was “working at pace”. “Inaction Man”." Nope… they always said the plan would be for whenever the “peace” was in place… the policy has not changed Why get involved in a war where they were never consulted on | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Starmer now “urgently working with France”. Last week he was “working at pace”. “Inaction Man”. Nope… they always said the plan would be for whenever the “peace” was in place… the policy has not changed Why get involved in a war where they were never consulted on " Why get involved in the peace process of a conflict you wanted no part of and have no ability to impact the outcome of the talks? There’s not an election coming up is there? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump's at ot again Going to destroy items water treatment plants Going to blow up power stations Thanking the UK for sending minesweepers but then he's going romblock the fucking straits He doesn't need the straits anyway Fucking balloon " What is your point / argument, it isn't clear to me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump's at ot again Going to destroy items water treatment plants Going to blow up power stations Thanking the UK for sending minesweepers but then he's going romblock the fucking straits He doesn't need the straits anyway Fucking balloon " Thank goodness, the strait is blocked to everyone 47 years to late. The world has had so much time looking down the barrel of this and done nothing. And yes, I did my share of protecting ships through the strait back in the 80's as part of the Armilla patrols. The US does need the strait, maybe not directly, but in world of higher energy prices the world's largest economy would be the most sensitive to it being blocked. Those that have major trade with the US need it more than the US, if their prices rise then it plays directly into the US hands of encouraging factories back to the US. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump's at ot again Going to destroy items water treatment plants Going to blow up power stations Thanking the UK for sending minesweepers but then he's going romblock the fucking straits He doesn't need the straits anyway Fucking balloon What is your point / argument, it isn't clear to me." I understood it until the balloon bit. 🎈 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In the history of Israel since 1948, Israel has always been the aggressor… That is an outright untruth. Israel attacked first in both 67 and 73, Isreal invaded Lebanon in 82 on the false premise of going after the PLO Isreal annexed Gaza, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the golan heights, and now in effect southern Lebanon up to the letani river… Anything incorrect? Israel love a good “defensive first strike”……" 1948 – Arab armies invaded Israel at birth. Israel didn't start it. 1956 – Preceded by years of fedayeen raids and an Egyptian blockade of Israeli shipping – considered an act of war). 1967 – Following Soviet misinformation, Egypt blockaded Straits of Tiran, expelled UN forces, massed troops. Israel responded. 1973 – Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Yom Kippur. 1982 – Preceded by years of PLO cross-border attacks and shelling into Israel. Gaza wars – Each followed sustained Hamas rocket fire or cross-border attacks. Israel hasn't initiated a single major war. Additionally, Israel has not annexed any of Lebanon, Gaza or the West Bank except for East Jerusalem - but Gaza and the WB should be, as they were part of the region legally assigned for Jewish settlement during British Mandate. It helps to get your facts straight. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder what the protocol is when you meet the other side after a war. Do you shake hands or do you have to look sternly at the other side and ignore them for a bit. Maybe they do an icebreaker. “So Ayatollah what’s your favourite joke”? JD Vance is actually good friends with David Lammy, so if you can get on with him the Mad Mullahs will be a pushover! 🤣 What's the difference between a mad mullah and a Raghead? One is a satirical reference to the Iranian Regime which killed 50,000 of its own people; the other is a racially offensive term used for people of Middle Eastern origin and culture. "In the interests of balance, in the USA an estimated 250,000 civilian injuries are caused by law enforcement officers annually. In the USA, on average, more than 600 people per year are killed by law enforcement (817 in 2022). 0.23% of Iranians are in prison whilst 0.54% of Americans are; with the European average being 0.11%. Repression of the people comes in many forms. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In the history of Israel since 1948, Israel has always been the aggressor… That is an outright untruth. Israel attacked first in both 67 and 73, Isreal invaded Lebanon in 82 on the false premise of going after the PLO Isreal annexed Gaza, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the golan heights, and now in effect southern Lebanon up to the letani river… Anything incorrect? Israel love a good “defensive first strike”…… 1948 – Arab armies invaded Israel at birth. Israel didn't start it. 1956 – Preceded by years of fedayeen raids and an Egyptian blockade of Israeli shipping – considered an act of war). 1967 – Following Soviet misinformation, Egypt blockaded Straits of Tiran, expelled UN forces, massed troops. Israel responded. 1973 – Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Yom Kippur. 1982 – Preceded by years of PLO cross-border attacks and shelling into Israel. Gaza wars – Each followed sustained Hamas rocket fire or cross-border attacks. Israel hasn't initiated a single major war. Additionally, Israel has not annexed any of Lebanon, Gaza or the West Bank except for East Jerusalem - but Gaza and the WB should be, as they were part of the region legally assigned for Jewish settlement during British Mandate. It helps to get your facts straight." ‘Israel didn’t start it’. It’s certainly the cause of it. 1948 - UN partition plan: Inequitable Land Allocation: The UN plan assigned roughly 56% of the territory to the Jewish state, despite Jews making up only about one-third of the population and owning a smaller fraction of the land. Demographic Conflict: The proposed Jewish state included a population that was almost 50% Arab, raising severe concerns about the rights and displacement of the Arab population. Total Rejection by Arab Parties: The Palestinian Arab leadership and neighboring Arab states rejected the plan, arguing it violated the rights of the majority population. They believed all of Palestine should be an independent state, in accordance with the UN Charter. Lack of Enforcement and Authority: The UN lacked a dedicated force to implement the plan. The British government refused to enforce a solution that was not accepted by both sides, and left the territory with a power vacuum. Violent Escalation: Immediately after the resolution passed, the region broke into conflict, which transformed into the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, bypassing the plan entirely. Inpractical Border Design: The plan created an intricate, "checkerboard" design with narrow, overlapping intersections between the two states, making it nearly impossible to implement. Disagreement Over Jerusalem: The plan designated Jerusalem as an international city (corpus separatum), a status that was not accepted by either side and immediately challenged during the fighting. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" 1948 - UN partition plan: Inequitable Land Allocation: The UN plan assigned roughly 56% of the territory to the Jewish state, despite Jews making up only about one-third of the population and owning a smaller fraction of the land. " Quick question: was this AI generated? Really curious to know. Take a look at the map. How much of the 56% was relatively uninhabitable dessert? Now apply the same question to the 44%. The point was to give the Jewish state access to the Red Sea, since Arab countries already had access via Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia (remember that there was no concept of Palestinians at this time, and Jordan had already been carved off the mandate of Palestine as an Arab state). But the land area metric becomes a little meaningless when you look at the quality of what was actually given. Interestingly, the world has benefited from the innovations that Israel has achieved, driving forward farming and irrigation in arid climates out of necessity, resulting from their possession of inhospitable swamps and desserts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" 1948 - UN partition plan: Inequitable Land Allocation: The UN plan assigned roughly 56% of the territory to the Jewish state, despite Jews making up only about one-third of the population and owning a smaller fraction of the land. Quick question: was this AI generated? Really curious to know. Take a look at the map. How much of the 56% was relatively uninhabitable dessert? Now apply the same question to the 44%. The point was to give the Jewish state access to the Red Sea, since Arab countries already had access via Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia (remember that there was no concept of Palestinians at this time, and Jordan had already been carved off the mandate of Palestine as an Arab state). But the land area metric becomes a little meaningless when you look at the quality of what was actually given. Interestingly, the world has benefited from the innovations that Israel has achieved, driving forward farming and irrigation in arid climates out of necessity, resulting from their possession of inhospitable swamps and desserts." Are you saying those borders were in any way workable given the Arab sentiment? It has been a disaster, don’t try & put a gloss on it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder what the protocol is when you meet the other side after a war. Do you shake hands or do you have to look sternly at the other side and ignore them for a bit. Maybe they do an icebreaker. “So Ayatollah what’s your favourite joke”? JD Vance is actually good friends with David Lammy, so if you can get on with him the Mad Mullahs will be a pushover! 🤣 What's the difference between a mad mullah and a Raghead? One is a satirical reference to the Iranian Regime which killed 50,000 of its own people; the other is a racially offensive term used for people of Middle Eastern origin and culture.
In the interests of balance, in the USA an estimated 250,000 civilian injuries are caused by law enforcement officers annually.
In the USA, on average, more than 600 people per year are killed by law enforcement (817 in 2022).
0.23% of Iranians are in prison whilst 0.54% of Americans are; with the European average being 0.11%.
Repression of the people comes in many forms. "It’s odd that you think that “jailing criminals” equates to “oppression”. Much depends on what they were jailed for. In any kind of reputable international comparison of human rights and freedoms, the US is always towards the top, and Iran always towards the bottom. I appreciate that this may come as a big shock. Of the alleged 250,000 alleged civilian injuries in the US, have you for a breakdown of exactly what those injuries were? A scratch on the hand? A little soreness from the cuffs? In the US in 2025, 47 people were executed. In Iran the figure was somewhere between 1,600 and 2,500 depending on whose statistics you use. The population of the US is 350 million; the population of Iran is 93 million. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Are you saying those borders were in any way workable given the Arab sentiment? It has been a disaster, don’t try & put a gloss on it." Why should anyone give a fuck about racist Arab sentiment? It wasn't Arab beforehand, and hadn't been for several centuries – it was owned by the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire. It was always Arabs who got violent first – they could have chosen coexistence, but instead chose violence. And it isn't like they were missing out on anything. Arabs were given several areas in the Levant to do what they wanted with – but they resented a small sliver the size of wales being allocated for Jews self-determination. However, a promise was broken with the Sykes Picot agreement – as pan-Arabists expected a contiguous region in the Levant rather than smaller states – but (according to the McMahon–Hussein correspondence) the areas "west of Damascus" were always off the table – and Israel, like Lebanon, is west of Damascus. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why should anyone give a fuck about racist Arab sentiment? " I stopped reading there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" 1948 - UN partition plan: Inequitable Land Allocation: The UN plan assigned roughly 56% of the territory to the Jewish state, despite Jews making up only about one-third of the population and owning a smaller fraction of the land. Quick question: was this AI generated? Really curious to know. Take a look at the map. How much of the 56% was relatively uninhabitable dessert? Now apply the same question to the 44%. The point was to give the Jewish state access to the Red Sea, since Arab countries already had access via Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia (remember that there was no concept of Palestinians at this time, and Jordan had already been carved off the mandate of Palestine as an Arab state). But the land area metric becomes a little meaningless when you look at the quality of what was actually given. Interestingly, the world has benefited from the innovations that Israel has achieved, driving forward farming and irrigation in arid climates out of necessity, resulting from their possession of inhospitable swamps and desserts. Are you saying those borders were in any way workable given the Arab sentiment? It has been a disaster, don’t try & put a gloss on it." Not for the Israelis it hasn't  🇮🇱 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder what the protocol is when you meet the other side after a war. Do you shake hands or do you have to look sternly at the other side and ignore them for a bit. Maybe they do an icebreaker. “So Ayatollah what’s your favourite joke”? JD Vance is actually good friends with David Lammy, so if you can get on with him the Mad Mullahs will be a pushover! 🤣 What's the difference between a mad mullah and a Raghead? One is a satirical reference to the Iranian Regime which killed 50,000 of its own people; the other is a racially offensive term used for people of Middle Eastern origin and culture.
In the interests of balance, in the USA an estimated 250,000 civilian injuries are caused by law enforcement officers annually.
In the USA, on average, more than 600 people per year are killed by law enforcement (817 in 2022).
0.23% of Iranians are in prison whilst 0.54% of Americans are; with the European average being 0.11%.
Repression of the people comes in many forms. "I can only think of one group of people who would regard enforcing the law as 'repression'. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump's at ot again Going to destroy items water treatment plants Going to blow up power stations Thanking the UK for sending minesweepers but then he's going romblock the fucking straits He doesn't need the straits anyway Fucking balloon What is your point / argument, it isn't clear to me. I understood it until the balloon bit. 🎈 " It's ok, it was probably too clever for you to grasp. Theres an old English idiom that being full of hot air (such as a balloon) means someone who talks a lot but says nothing of value, often making boastful, exaggerated, or bullshit claims | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump's at ot again Going to destroy items water treatment plants Going to blow up power stations Thanking the UK for sending minesweepers but then he's going romblock the fucking straits He doesn't need the straits anyway Fucking balloon What is your point / argument, it isn't clear to me. I understood it until the balloon bit. 🎈 It's ok, it was probably too clever for you to grasp. Theres an old English idiom that being full of hot air (such as a balloon) means someone who talks a lot but says nothing of value, often making boastful, exaggerated, or bullshit claims" Ah that will be it. Cheers ! 🍻 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump's at ot again Going to destroy items water treatment plants Going to blow up power stations Thanking the UK for sending minesweepers but then he's going romblock the fucking straits He doesn't need the straits anyway Fucking balloon What is your point / argument, it isn't clear to me. I understood it until the balloon bit. 🎈 It's ok, it was probably too clever for you to grasp. Theres an old English idiom that being full of hot air (such as a balloon) means someone who talks a lot but says nothing of value, often making boastful, exaggerated, or bullshit claims" Amazed you know that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump's at ot again Going to destroy items water treatment plants Going to blow up power stations Thanking the UK for sending minesweepers but then he's going romblock the fucking straits He doesn't need the straits anyway Fucking balloon What is your point / argument, it isn't clear to me. I understood it until the balloon bit. 🎈 It's ok, it was probably too clever for you to grasp. Theres an old English idiom that being full of hot air (such as a balloon) means someone who talks a lot but says nothing of value, often making boastful, exaggerated, or bullshit claims Amazed you know that." It's amazing what your mind remembers after a few relaxing drinks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" 1948 - UN partition plan: Inequitable Land Allocation: The UN plan assigned roughly 56% of the territory to the Jewish state, despite Jews making up only about one-third of the population and owning a smaller fraction of the land. Quick question: was this AI generated? Really curious to know. Take a look at the map. How much of the 56% was relatively uninhabitable dessert? Now apply the same question to the 44%. The point was to give the Jewish state access to the Red Sea, since Arab countries already had access via Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia (remember that there was no concept of Palestinians at this time, and Jordan had already been carved off the mandate of Palestine as an Arab state). But the land area metric becomes a little meaningless when you look at the quality of what was actually given. Interestingly, the world has benefited from the innovations that Israel has achieved, driving forward farming and irrigation in arid climates out of necessity, resulting from their possession of inhospitable swamps and desserts. Are you saying those borders were in any way workable given the Arab sentiment? It has been a disaster, don’t try & put a gloss on it." OK. Assuming that it was indeed AI generated, with a prompt such as "tell me what was wrong/unfair about the 1948 UN partition plan for Israel, from an Arab perspective (or later edited to reflect this)". " Inequitable Land Allocation: The UN plan assigned roughly 56% of the territory to the Jewish state, despite Jews making up only about one-third of the population and owning a smaller fraction of the land. " Addressed above, but adding that 60% of the Israeli land was the inhospitable Negev desert. Moreover, the land allocation was specifically to accommodate the anticipated influx of Jews from Europe and other Arab states. As it happens, today, MOST of the Jews of Israel are NOT from Europe, but are from Arab/Muslim countries. You mention ownership of a small fraction of the land, however the Arab ownership of the land was about the same as (or very slightly larger than) the Jewish ownership of the land. Most of the land (including the entire Negev) was Crown land, and the division was of *sovereignty*, not ownership. So that point really doesn't stand up to scrutiny. " Demographic Conflict: The proposed Jewish state included a population that was almost 50% Arab, raising severe concerns about the rights and displacement of the Arab population. " We know from history that, however you want to cut it, the Arabs under Israeli rule had a much better time than Jews in Arab countries, don't we? Where was the concern for the Jews of the Middle East and Arab countries? " Total Rejection by Arab Parties: The Palestinian Arab leadership and neighboring Arab states rejected the plan, arguing it violated the rights of the majority population. They believed all of Palestine should be an independent state, in accordance with the UN Charter. " Interesting to omit the Jewish response. Mainstream Jewish leadership officially accepted the plan (only fringe extremists rejected it). This gives a somewhat lopsided view. And, of course, the reason for a "single state solution" was to ensure Arab dominance over the state, which means it wouldn't really have been a Jewish state. And while many might disagree with the very idea of a Jewish state in the Middle East, remember that most of the world's Jews lived in the Middle East, under varying degrees of persecution, including within Israel itself. " Lack of Enforcement and Authority: The UN lacked a dedicated force to implement the plan. The British government refused to enforce a solution that was not accepted by both sides, and left the territory with a power vacuum. " Almost. The British assisted the Arabs on their way out. " Violent Escalation: Immediately after the resolution passed, the region broke into conflict, which transformed into the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, bypassing the plan entirely. " What an interestingly passive way to frame it - "the region broke into conflict"? It did not spontaneously erupt from both sides simultaneously. Straight after the UN vote, the Arab Higher Committee declared a general strike and Jewish civilian targets were attacked, leading to Jewish attacks and a spiral of violence, which escalated into regional violence as the Arab states attacked, with the goal of genocide. Presumably those were not your words, but a feature of AI - if those WERE your words, then that's just a little bit shameful. " Inpractical Border Design: The plan created an intricate, "checkerboard" design with narrow, overlapping intersections between the two states, making it nearly impossible to implement. " There was always going to be a winner and loser, but you're right that the borders were somewhat iMpractical; an issue that persists today, connecting Gaza and the West Bank. Presumably the thinking was that Israel would have no friendly border states, so required their own access to both the Red Sea and Mediterranean. " Disagreement Over Jerusalem: The plan designated Jerusalem as an international city (corpus separatum), a status that was not accepted by either side and immediately challenged during the fighting. " Actually, this is not correct. What gave you this impression? Jewish leadership formally accepted the ruling (and the plan in its entirety) - until war broke out. There were serious issues with the UN partition plan, but you're saying "It has been a disaster, don’t try & put a gloss on it." - you're kind of glossing the other way. The Middle East is a very, very difficult place. Absolutely no intervention over there has been entirely successful - not the establishment of Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Kuwait, etc. Most glaringly, the LACK of establishment of Kurdistan is arguably one of the biggest failings, and THAT would piss off Turkey, Iran, Iraq & Syria (which is why, despite many promises, it has never materialised). So for all of its issues, imagine that the Jews were in the same position as the Kurds or Yazidis. Imagine what the Muslim Brotherhood or ISIS-types would have done to the region's Jews. Look at the Christian population of every state, most notably Lebanon, over the past century. You're right that the UN plan was flawed, but it gave Jews a chance, which is more that the above-mentioned minorities. There is a general misunderstanding in the West that the Middle East is an Arab Muslim world. It isn't, any more than the British Isles are an English Protestant country. It has been dominated by Arab and Muslim empires and expansion over the centuries, but it remains a tapestry of tribes, cultures, religions and peoples. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" 1948 - UN partition plan: Inequitable Land Allocation: The UN plan assigned roughly 56% of the territory to the Jewish state, despite Jews making up only about one-third of the population and owning a smaller fraction of the land. Quick question: was this AI generated? Really curious to know. Take a look at the map. How much of the 56% was relatively uninhabitable dessert? Now apply the same question to the 44%. The point was to give the Jewish state access to the Red Sea, since Arab countries already had access via Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia (remember that there was no concept of Palestinians at this time, and Jordan had already been carved off the mandate of Palestine as an Arab state). But the land area metric becomes a little meaningless when you look at the quality of what was actually given. Interestingly, the world has benefited from the innovations that Israel has achieved, driving forward farming and irrigation in arid climates out of necessity, resulting from their possession of inhospitable swamps and desserts. Are you saying those borders were in any way workable given the Arab sentiment? It has been a disaster, don’t try & put a gloss on it. OK. Assuming that it was indeed AI generated, with a prompt such as "tell me what was wrong/unfair about the 1948 UN partition plan for Israel, from an Arab perspective (or later edited to reflect this)". Inequitable Land Allocation: The UN plan assigned roughly 56% of the territory to the Jewish state, despite Jews making up only about one-third of the population and owning a smaller fraction of the land. Addressed above, but adding that 60% of the Israeli land was the inhospitable Negev desert. Moreover, the land allocation was specifically to accommodate the anticipated influx of Jews from Europe and other Arab states. As it happens, today, MOST of the Jews of Israel are NOT from Europe, but are from Arab/Muslim countries. You mention ownership of a small fraction of the land, however the Arab ownership of the land was about the same as (or very slightly larger than) the Jewish ownership of the land. Most of the land (including the entire Negev) was Crown land, and the division was of *sovereignty*, not ownership. So that point really doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Demographic Conflict: The proposed Jewish state included a population that was almost 50% Arab, raising severe concerns about the rights and displacement of the Arab population. We know from history that, however you want to cut it, the Arabs under Israeli rule had a much better time than Jews in Arab countries, don't we? Where was the concern for the Jews of the Middle East and Arab countries? Total Rejection by Arab Parties: The Palestinian Arab leadership and neighboring Arab states rejected the plan, arguing it violated the rights of the majority population. They believed all of Palestine should be an independent state, in accordance with the UN Charter. Interesting to omit the Jewish response. Mainstream Jewish leadership officially accepted the plan (only fringe extremists rejected it). This gives a somewhat lopsided view. And, of course, the reason for a "single state solution" was to ensure Arab dominance over the state, which means it wouldn't really have been a Jewish state. And while many might disagree with the very idea of a Jewish state in the Middle East, remember that most of the world's Jews lived in the Middle East, under varying degrees of persecution, including within Israel itself. Lack of Enforcement and Authority: The UN lacked a dedicated force to implement the plan. The British government refused to enforce a solution that was not accepted by both sides, and left the territory with a power vacuum. Almost. The British assisted the Arabs on their way out. Violent Escalation: Immediately after the resolution passed, the region broke into conflict, which transformed into the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, bypassing the plan entirely. What an interestingly passive way to frame it - "the region broke into conflict"? It did not spontaneously erupt from both sides simultaneously. Straight after the UN vote, the Arab Higher Committee declared a general strike and Jewish civilian targets were attacked, leading to Jewish attacks and a spiral of violence, which escalated into regional violence as the Arab states attacked, with the goal of genocide. Presumably those were not your words, but a feature of AI - if those WERE your words, then that's just a little bit shameful. Inpractical Border Design: The plan created an intricate, "checkerboard" design with narrow, overlapping intersections between the two states, making it nearly impossible to implement. There was always going to be a winner and loser, but you're right that the borders were somewhat iMpractical; an issue that persists today, connecting Gaza and the West Bank. Presumably the thinking was that Israel would have no friendly border states, so required their own access to both the Red Sea and Mediterranean. Disagreement Over Jerusalem: The plan designated Jerusalem as an international city (corpus separatum), a status that was not accepted by either side and immediately challenged during the fighting. Actually, this is not correct. What gave you this impression? Jewish leadership formally accepted the ruling (and the plan in its entirety) - until war broke out. There were serious issues with the UN partition plan, but you're saying "It has been a disaster, don’t try & put a gloss on it." - you're kind of glossing the other way. The Middle East is a very, very difficult place. Absolutely no intervention over there has been entirely successful - not the establishment of Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Kuwait, etc. Most glaringly, the LACK of establishment of Kurdistan is arguably one of the biggest failings, and THAT would piss off Turkey, Iran, Iraq & Syria (which is why, despite many promises, it has never materialised). So for all of its issues, imagine that the Jews were in the same position as the Kurds or Yazidis. Imagine what the Muslim Brotherhood or ISIS-types would have done to the region's Jews. Look at the Christian population of every state, most notably Lebanon, over the past century. You're right that the UN plan was flawed, but it gave Jews a chance, which is more that the above-mentioned minorities. There is a general misunderstanding in the West that the Middle East is an Arab Muslim world. It isn't, any more than the British Isles are an English Protestant country. It has been dominated by Arab and Muslim empires and expansion over the centuries, but it remains a tapestry of tribes, cultures, religions and peoples." I could type out a similarly lengthy response, but I haven’t got the time. So, let’s put things more succinctly: If you try & plant people in significant numbers over a relatively short period of time into an area where the majority of people are hostile to the idea, don’t be surprised if there is considerable blowback. And so it’s proved. If it was such a great idea, we wouldn’t still be here debating all the fallout & consequences right decades later would we? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wonder what the protocol is when you meet the other side after a war. Do you shake hands or do you have to look sternly at the other side and ignore them for a bit. Maybe they do an icebreaker. “So Ayatollah what’s your favourite joke”? JD Vance is actually good friends with David Lammy, so if you can get on with him the Mad Mullahs will be a pushover! 🤣 What's the difference between a mad mullah and a Raghead? One is a satirical reference to the Iranian Regime which killed 50,000 of its own people; the other is a racially offensive term used for people of Middle Eastern origin and culture.
In the interests of balance, in the USA an estimated 250,000 civilian injuries are caused by law enforcement officers annually.
In the USA, on average, more than 600 people per year are killed by law enforcement (817 in 2022).
0.23% of Iranians are in prison whilst 0.54% of Americans are; with the European average being 0.11%.
Repression of the people comes in many forms. "How many of those 250,000 were armed and/or resisted arrest? Of the 600, how many were shooting at the police first? The prison population in Iran is probably low because most crimes carry the death penalty and those convicted are not put on death row for years, they are quite often executed with 24 hours of conviction. The best way to avoid an appeal is to kill them straight away. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I could type out a similarly lengthy response, but I haven’t got the time. " Hmm... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, let’s put things more succinctly: If you try & plant people in significant numbers over a relatively short period of time into an area where the majority of people are hostile to the idea, don’t be surprised if there is considerable blowback. And so it’s proved. If it was such a great idea, we wouldn’t still be here debating all the fallout & consequences right decades later would we?" Your argument sounds familiar. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, let’s put things more succinctly: If you try & plant people in significant numbers over a relatively short period of time into an area where the majority of people are hostile to the idea, don’t be surprised if there is considerable blowback. And so it’s proved. If it was such a great idea, we wouldn’t still be here debating all the fallout & consequences right decades later would we? Your argument sounds familiar." Terrifyingly so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am really interested to learn the logic behind this move. I am guessing it is an attempt to stop people paying tolls? I dont see how that helps the global economy. We cannot know what's going on in Trump's mind. However... Iran held the cards for shipping, and played them well. Ir allowed friendly nations to pass, which have incentive for nations to be friends with Iran. By taking control of the strait, he has taken that incentive off the board. He's now replaced it with a new incentive: work with Trump. Mining the strait would be the cleanest way of doing it. It's vessel/nation agnostic. If it's done with warships... Will he threaten to fire on Russian/Chinese vessels?" Explain the "incentive" to work with Trump when between the two nations nothing at all can now pass. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I could type out a similarly lengthy response, but I haven’t got the time. Hmm..." Brilliant post above TM 👏 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I am really interested to learn the logic behind this move. I am guessing it is an attempt to stop people paying tolls? I dont see how that helps the global economy. We cannot know what's going on in Trump's mind. However... Iran held the cards for shipping, and played them well. Ir allowed friendly nations to pass, which have incentive for nations to be friends with Iran. By taking control of the strait, he has taken that incentive off the board. He's now replaced it with a new incentive: work with Trump. Mining the strait would be the cleanest way of doing it. It's vessel/nation agnostic. If it's done with warships... Will he threaten to fire on Russian/Chinese vessels? Explain the "incentive" to work with Trump when between the two nations nothing at all can now pass." Previously, there was an incentive to work with Iran, which would potentially grant free passage through the strait. This gave Iran not just a stick, but a carrot. Trump has now confiscated that carrot and made the stick irrelevant: he also has a stick. Looking forward, one either has to please both parties or the "winner" who controls the strait (take your pick). He's now playing the same bully game as Iran. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Supporters of the Iranian regime will certainly be upset about losing those tolls.
Well… if I had a petrol/diesel car I would fill up my tank this afternoon…. Because as soon as the Asian markets open tonight, the price of oil is going to go through the roof "Hasn't changed round here.🤷 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Starmer and Macron to meet again to discuss opening the Strait of Hormuz. Starmer has offered to send an elite team of DEI consultants to Tehran and Macron has dispatched two minesweepers to Greenland." I know there’s elections coming up which our fascist dictator wanted to cancel of course, so getting that blank expression of his on TV might seem a good idea to the Labour Party PR department, but do they really believe Starmer can convince anyone that he’s even remotely involved in any of this? I can only assume he’s talking to the French to arrange safe passage through Europe for the entire population of the Middle East to come to the UK. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
