General News Thread

[MPH]

22 minutes ago, Guesty said:

But he had to say that after America's bases and allies started getting hit. It is possible he planned for this. Or, he thought they'd take out the leadership then the Iranian people would rise up. But they haven't, yet. 

 

When he bombed Venezuela he was saying something about this is nothing like a conflict in the middle east which is why he was doing it (can't remember his exact words). He changes what he says on a whim. It's one thing saying more soldiers will die, it's another thing when it actually starts happening.

 

Regime change isn't a bad thing if it works. But the regime that comes after could be worse. America spent all that time, money and death in Afghanistan and replaced the Taliban with the Taliban. The last memory was a load of their soldiers being blown up at the airport as they left as quickly as possible.

 

Iran has a lot of cheap missiles and drones. And all the defences America uses like Patriot missiles are a lot more expensive. That will start to add up, as will the economy and the price of oil. Iran could really drag this out.

 

 

he’s actually told them not to yet. He’s told them to wait until all the bombing campaigns have been completed. He said that on his very first speech on the subject.

[grth2004]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Some limited flights planned out of Dubai and Abu Dhabi 

 

does that surprise anyone?   Surely they can only do this with agreement of the Iranians not to target the airport - and would you be happy to be 10,000 feet in the sky atm over the gulf  ??.

I’m trying not to laugh at all those patriots who ran away to Dubai with their money moaning about the UK saying it’s safest place. 

now crying In basements. 

[MPH]

One interesting point is that the term ‘war’ is a very legal term in the United States. Usually, it can only be used in a legal description in the United States once it has been ratified by congress. However trump , hesgeth and others are using the term freely.. I wonder why?

[Detroit Blues]

9 minutes ago, MPH said:

One interesting point is that the term ‘war’ is a very legal term in the United States. Usually, it can only be used in a legal description in the United States once it has been ratified by congress. However trump , hesgeth and others are using the term freely.. I wonder why?

It just is another example of Trump's administration usurping the power and responsibility of Congress. The President cannot declare war. He can only deploy troops for a short duration. An official declaration of war must come from congress. 

 

This is a very unpopular move, and would not have gathered bipartisan support. 

[Zear0]

22 minutes ago, StanSP said:

But he's allowed US to use UK military bases? 

 

I do agree it's good we didn't get involved with initial strikes. 

I interpreted what they said was to use our bases to counter Iranian missile and drones rather that attacks on Iran itself. 

[MPH]

Just now, Detroit Blues said:

It just is another example of Trump's administration usurping the power and responsibility of Congress. The President cannot declare war. He can only deploy troops for a short duration. An official declaration of war must come from congress. 

 

This is a very unpopular move, and would not have gathered bipartisan support. 

 

right I get all that. But why is he doing this? What’s the reason?

 

who is it aimed towards?  The more I’m thinking about it, I think it’s aimed towards our allies in the area.. those that are being attacked in the area that host American/British airbases.. if they can be convinced this is a war, they might somehow be willing to participate?

 

he’s not going to win Dems support and he got elected by promising his MAGA that there will be no long term wars so it serves no national purpose to keep banding that word around.. I’m really not sure but I can only guess it’s for an international audience 

[Guesty]

8 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

he’s actually told them not to yet. He’s told them to wait until all the bombing campaigns have been completed. He said that on his very first speech on the subject.

I mean, I don't pay much attention to what he says anymore. So this could be out of context as I don't really watch his speeches.  Or, this could be fake news as it's easy nowadays to be fooled, but MSN.com and Daily Express US have reported it. So if it is fake, I apologise.

 

But they hacked Iranian state TV and he told them to. Saying things like: now is the time and this is the moment.

 

This was around 20 hours ago and they haven't yet. So it's not unreasonable to think, maybe, that is what he really wanted.

[MPH]

2 minutes ago, Guesty said:

I mean, I don't pay much attention to what he says anymore. So this could be out of context as I don't really watch his speeches.  Or, this could be fake news as it's easy nowadays to be fooled, but MSN.com and Daily Express US have reported it. So if it is fake, I apologise.

 

But they hacked Iranian state TV and he told them to. Saying things like: now is the time and this is the moment.

 

This was around 20 hours ago and they haven't yet. So it's not unreasonable to think, maybe, that is what he really wanted.

it’s possible it was the same speech but listen to the last section 

 

 

[Zear0]

9 minutes ago, Guesty said:

I mean, I don't pay much attention to what he says anymore. So this could be out of context as I don't really watch his speeches.  Or, this could be fake news as it's easy nowadays to be fooled, but MSN.com and Daily Express US have reported it. So if it is fake, I apologise.

 

But they hacked Iranian state TV and he told them to. Saying things like: now is the time and this is the moment.

 

This was around 20 hours ago and they haven't yet. So it's not unreasonable to think, maybe, that is what he really wanted.

Not the first time he's asked a nation to overthrow a government. Least this time it's not his own. 

[Free Falling Foxes]

Giving the place a wide berth, I see.

 

[Samilktray]

30 minutes ago, Free Falling Foxes said:

Giving the place a wide berth, I see.

 

Still makes me laugh every time I see there’s a country named Chad 

[danny.]

1 hour ago, grth2004 said:

I’m trying not to laugh at all those patriots who ran away to Dubai with their money moaning about the UK saying it’s safest place. 

now crying In basements. 

You're trying not to laugh that people might be injured or killed by bombs? Wow.

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, Guesty said:

I mean, I don't pay much attention to what he says anymore. So this could be out of context as I don't really watch his speeches.  Or, this could be fake news as it's easy nowadays to be fooled, but MSN.com and Daily Express US have reported it. So if it is fake, I apologise.

 

But they hacked Iranian state TV and he told them to. Saying things like: now is the time and this is the moment.

 

This was around 20 hours ago and they haven't yet. So it's not unreasonable to think, maybe, that is what he really wanted.

Imagine being told to do something, but you don't speak their language, so you don't.

[Trumpet]

1 hour ago, Free Falling Foxes said:

Giving the place a wide berth, I see.

 

I think this has been typical for years, at least for most of the western world. That said, there would usually be traffic from nations friendly with Iran flying over, I think.

[grth2004]

55 minutes ago, danny. said:

You're trying not to laugh that people might be injured or killed by bombs? Wow.

No I’m laughing at the irony. 

[boots60]

Forget all this middle East guff

 

The Syston Banksy postbox is back.

[Raj]

Hope UK leave well alone.

Trumps war against Iran is just a cover up for all the noise that was coming from Robert Garcia regarding Epstein.

Great timing, and I wouldn't be suprised to hear all the other remaining documents are destroyed as they were in a bunker in Iran!!!!

[Lionator]

45 minutes ago, Trumpet said:

I think this has been typical for years, at least for most of the western world. That said, there would usually be traffic from nations friendly with Iran flying over, I think.

I flew back from Singapore 10 days ago and the route literally straddled the Iran-Iraq border though stayed firmly on the Iraq side. 

[skolfoxes]

2 hours ago, grth2004 said:

I’m trying not to laugh at all those patriots who ran away to Dubai with their money moaning about the UK saying it’s safest place. 

now crying In basements. 

I’m sure Ant Middleton is going round all of the beach clubs and Hyrox gyms rounding them up to fight back as we speak.

 

(Edited to say that obviously it’s not funny when any civilian is under attack, but there’s definitely a certain irony that a good number of influencer, forex trader and general right wing grifter types that left the UK because ‘it’s on it’s ar$e’ and ‘not safe anymore’ are having to sleep in their hallways away from the windows because they’re literally coming under fire from ballistic missiles)

Edited 2 March by skolfoxes
.

[MaidstoneFox]

3 hours ago, Guesty said:

But he had to say that after America's bases and allies started getting hit. It is possible he planned for this. Or, he thought they'd take out the leadership then the Iranian people would rise up. But they haven't, yet. 

 

When he bombed Venezuela he was saying something about this is nothing like a conflict in the middle east which is why he was doing it (can't remember his exact words). He changes what he says on a whim. It's one thing saying more soldiers will die, it's another thing when it actually starts happening.

 

Regime change isn't a bad thing if it works. But the regime that comes after could be worse. America spent all that time, money and death in Afghanistan and replaced the Taliban with the Taliban. The last memory was a load of their soldiers being blown up at the airport as they left as quickly as possible.

 

Iran has a lot of cheap missiles and drones. And all the defences America uses like Patriot missiles are a lot more expensive. That will start to add up, as will the economy and the price of oil. Iran could really drag this out.

And good luck if it end up being a ground war. Iran's mountainous terrain means you would have weapons and rebels hiding out and launching attacks for years. Best outcome here is some sort of de-escalation and installation of a more moderate regime change without Iran losing too much face.

[MPH]

39 minutes ago, MaidstoneFox said:

And good luck if it end up being a ground war. Iran's mountainous terrain means you would have weapons and rebels hiding out and launching attacks for years. Best outcome here is some sort of de-escalation and installation of a more moderate regime change without Iran losing too much face.

 

im all for regime change. I just prefer when it’s done democratically. That’s just not possible  with a bloodthirsty Ayatollah in charge.in 1997 when khatani was elected president he tried to bring around reforms. They passed the votes, were sent to the ayotollah to be signed off on and he threw them out.

 

it could be argued  that Rouhani in 2013 was a centrist as he was agreeable to a nuclear deal for the easing of sanctions ( only for the Iranian terms to be altered and hardened by the ayotollah). It’s still up for debate however as to wether the Americans shot themselves in the foot when a certain ehem president withdrew from that deal.But it keeps coming back to the ayotollah.

 

still, it remains that the Iranian people are not the problem and neither maybe are their politicians although I admit the line has been muddied between their politicians and who I believe the real issue is - the inappropriately named ‘ assembly of Experts’ who elect and appoint the Ayatollah.

 

so, troops on the ground would be a wholly unfair escalation, but it doesn’t seem like we operate in a world of fairness anymore anyway.

Edited 2 March by MPH

[Pliskin]

Slightly off topic but relevant. I drove through my town not too long ago and there’s queues at the petrol stations…. Something to be mindful of as the panic’ers start to stock pile fuel! 

[Jattdogg]

Piss poor excuse IMO. Why didn't they persuade Israel to not attack and go through diplomacy? I know its not easy to deal with Iran but life should always be the first thing you think of before going the bomb route.

 

 

 

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued that the “imminent threat” posed by Iran was its expected retaliation to planned Israeli military action, and that prompted the US to strike first.

 

“We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties,” he told reporters on Capitol Hill Monday.

 

“Obviously, we were aware of Israeli intentions and understood what that would mean for us, and we had to be prepared to act as a result of it,” he said.

 

Still, Rubio said, “this had to happen, no matter what.”

 

The top US diplomat’s comments are the latest in a string of reasons that the administration has offered for its aggressive military assault on Iran.

 

He said the administration “would not be heartbroken” if there is regime change in Iran but reiterated that “the objectives of this operation are to destroy their ballistic missile capability and make sure they can’t rebuild it and make sure that they can’t hide behind that to have a nuclear program.”

 

“We hope that the Iranian people can overthrow this government and establish a new future for that country. We would love for that to be possible,” Rubio said.

 

 

 

[Jattdogg]

The irony of what her hubby and his boss are involved with. Fookin joke.

 

 

[MPH]

17 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

Piss poor excuse IMO. Why didn't they persuade Israel to not attack and go through diplomacy? I know its not easy to deal with Iran but life should always be the first thing you think of before going the bomb route.

 

 

 

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued that the “imminent threat” posed by Iran was its expected retaliation to planned Israeli military action, and that prompted the US to strike first.

 

“We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties,” he told reporters on Capitol Hill Monday.

 

“Obviously, we were aware of Israeli intentions and understood what that would mean for us, and we had to be prepared to act as a result of it,” he said.

 

Still, Rubio said, “this had to happen, no matter what.”

 

The top US diplomat’s comments are the latest in a string of reasons that the administration has offered for its aggressive military assault on Iran.

 

He said the administration “would not be heartbroken” if there is regime change in Iran but reiterated that “the objectives of this operation are to destroy their ballistic missile capability and make sure they can’t rebuild it and make sure that they can’t hide behind that to have a nuclear program.”

 

“We hope that the Iranian people can overthrow this government and establish a new future for that country. We would love for that to be possible,” Rubio said.

 

 

 

 

 

just a reminder that Iran are on record as being committed to the total annihilation of Israel.

 

in my opinion,  words like that free Israel from a commitment of diplomacy to a commitment of defensive measures. and yes, unfortunately preemptive attacks are the best form of defense, when statements like that are on record.