General News Thread

[Trav Le Bleu]

7 hours ago, Lionator said:

Seems like they’re prepping for a ground invasion unfortunately, which would be absolutely insane btw. It would be a bloodbath. 

 

3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Insane mainly because once you are in it is very hard to get out.  I suspect the US could walk over Iran on the ground much like it did Iraq, but then what?  Walk out again?  Leaving utter chaos?

Once USA troops start dying in just their 10s and then 100s, public opinion in the US will drop even more 

 

Also, have you seen the size of Iran and it's geography? There'll not be squadrons of tanks rolling over flat deserts reaching the capital in a few hours. Much more like Afghanistan than Iraq.

[Heathrow fox]

I thought the troops will be used to destroy yet more vital infrastructure?

Making conditions for an uprising. Which is what they seem to be relying on.Then installing a pro US government and having control of the movement of much of the worlds oil.(Really bad for us)

Quite an interesting watch as our media and politicians hate Iran,but hate Trump just as much.

[Stevosevic]

 

Hypocrite warning for Tony. He started a lot of this 😂 

[Lionator]

4 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Insane mainly because once you are in it is very hard to get out.  I suspect the US could walk over Iran on the ground much like it did Iraq, but then what?  Walk out again?  Leaving utter chaos?

I can’t remember which one but in one of the Tim Marshall books he talks about Iran and how it’s basically impossible to invade. And that was before the drone era. Look at the Russians, the only reason they can barely progress in Ukraine is because drones eat you alive. 

[leicsmac]

42 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

I thought the troops will be used to destroy yet more vital infrastructure?

Making conditions for an uprising. Which is what they seem to be relying on.Then installing a pro US government and having control of the movement of much of the worlds oil.(Really bad for us)

 

And I'm sure that would work out exactly as intended and really well in practice. Just as it has done in the past.

 

43 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

Quite an interesting watch as our media and politicians hate Iran,but hate Trump just as much.

...which is pretty much the most reasonable position to take given both parties involved here. I'd be interested in hearing about arguments to the contrary.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

 

Hypocrite warning for Tony. He started a lot of this 😂 

Does the man really still not grasp the idea that Iraq was the worst decision he ever made and following the Americans into Iran (or even backing it in any way) would be an even worse one?

[Trav Le Bleu]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Does the man really still not grasp the idea that Iraq was the worst decision he ever made and following the Americans into Iran (or even backing it in any way) would be an even worse one?

££££££money$$$$$$

[Blarmy]

24 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

And I'm sure that would work out exactly as intended and really well in practice. Just as it has done in the past.

 

...which is pretty much the most reasonable position to take given both parties involved here. I'd be interested in hearing about arguments to the contrary.

 

 

Does the man really still not grasp the idea that Iraq was the worst decision he ever made and following the Americans into Iran (or even backing it in any way) would be an even worse one?

Don’t know you if you watched the  three part Sky doc on Blair, but if you didn’t, and spoiler alert - no.

[Sampson]

It’s weird, Blair’s reputation had had a decent amount of rebuilding in recent years, but this Iran stuff is kind ruining it again. Last I saw, only 8% of British people said we should join attacks in Iran and only around 25% supported  us letting the US use our bases. 
 

I think hes massively out of step with public opinion on this one.

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

 

And I'm sure that would work out exactly as intended and really well in practice. Just as it has done in the past.

 

...which is pretty much the most reasonable position to take given both parties involved here. I'd be interested in hearing about arguments to the contrary.

 

 

Does the man really still not grasp the idea that Iraq was the worst decision he ever made and following the Americans into Iran (or even backing it in any way) would be an even worse one?

It’s odd that he talks about Islamism being bad but he overthrew Saddam, who was bad for Iraqi’s, but kept the extremist groups well and truly oppressed. Same with Gadaffi in Libya and now the same as Assad in Syria. All terrible people, replaced by even worse actual Islamic fundamentalists in massively destabilised countries. You could argue the same with Iran too. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think we’ve ever seen a mass casualty attack in the west based upon Shia extremism. And these guys once again want to throw a match on a tinderbox. 

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Stevosevic said:

 

Hypocrite warning for Tony. He started a lot of this 😂 

He didn't start antisemitism or the weird obsession some of the left have with Palestine.

[Lionator]

9 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

He didn't start antisemitism or the weird obsession some of the left have with Palestine.

I don’t think it’s a weird obsession. It’s a story of an oppressed, vulnerable population standing against a much more powerful political adversary living under the threat and reality of destruction and displacement (West Bank) while the blame for the current mess can be placed on imperial Britain (Balfour declaration). It’s the perfect recipe for us lefties. It’s also why the Irish are so energised for Palestine because it’s literally a retelling of their own historical tale. And also remembering that history is subjective. 

[Md9]

11 hours ago, Lionator said:

Seems like they’re prepping for a ground invasion unfortunately, which would be absolutely insane btw. It would be a bloodbath. 

Peacemaker president and all that 

[Clogger_]

14 hours ago, Parafox said:

Interesting article from the much admired and very knowledgeable Jeremy Bowen on the Iran/Trump conflict:

 

Jeremy Bowen: Trump is waging war based on instinct and it isn't working - BBC News

Thanks for sharing this Parafox. It's as clear a summary of events as we could wish for. Can't disagree with anything in the article

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

££££££money$$$$$$

Yep, greed.

 

2 hours ago, Blarmy said:

Don’t know you if you watched the  three part Sky doc on Blair, but if you didn’t, and spoiler alert - no.

I haven't.

 

That's disappointing, the man clearly lacks any kind of self awareness in that area. 

 

 

45 minutes ago, Clogger_ said:

Thanks for sharing this Parafox. It's as clear a summary of events as we could wish for. Can't disagree with anything in the article

Agreed.

 

Bowen is a superb correspondent and when it comes to foreign policy his analysis is usually spot on. As it is here. 

[slymunn]

Scott Mills sacked by the BBC following allegations about his personal conduct.

[Tommy G]

53 minutes ago, slymunn said:

Scott Mills sacked by the BBC following allegations about his personal conduct.

Wonder what he's been up to....

[Silebyfox_89]

10 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Wonder what he's been up to....

Probably going through old Huw's contact list.

[MPH]

5 hours ago, Lionator said:

I can’t remember which one but in one of the Tim Marshall books he talks about Iran and how it’s basically impossible to invade. And that was before the drone era. Look at the Russians, the only reason they can barely progress in Ukraine is because drones eat you alive. 

 

I think they’ll go for Kharg island to control the oil . I don’t think they’ll go for mainland Iran unless it’s for some special ops  missions, in which case they’ll need a base to operate from - kharg island.

 

i think if they really wanted in to mainland Iran they could manage it- Iran has absolutely no radar system left, no air defense, troops haven’t no leaders and some units are showing a desire to defect aware from the revolutionary guard order.. plus you have the  Kurds in the North chomping at the bit to get involved and seek revenge for years of repression… but it wouldn’t suit their purpose.. the want the oil.. it’s the Israelis who might be interested in weeding out any support for the militia groups in the area..

Edited 30 March by MPH

[ramboacdc]

49 minutes ago, Silebyfox_89 said:

Probably going through old Huw's contact list.

 

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

Wonder what he's been up to....

Expecting something to come out in the papers in the next few weeks. £500k and possibly one of the top paid employees at the BBC. I know it was Linekar, who has now gone. Then Zoe Ball, who has now also gone. He would have been close to Zoe's wage doing the most listened to breakfast radio show in the country.  The fact nothing is leaking and not even BBC employees apart from those who need to know seem aware, it seems strange. Huw Edwards was unnamed until his wife mentioned it was him who had been suspended. I know he liked the ol' Columbian back in the day, but if every BBC employee was sacked for doing coke, there would be no BBC.

Wonder who will replace him? Good lord if it's Vernon Kay we may be at the death knolls of Radio 2. 

Edited 30 March by ramboacdc
adding more info

[slymunn]

4 minutes ago, ramboacdc said:

 

Expecting something to come out in the papers in the next few weeks. £500k and possibly one of the top paid employees at the BBC. I know it was Linekar, who has now gone. Then Zoe Ball, who has now also gone. He would have been close to Zoe's wage doing the most listened to breakfast radio show in the country. 

Wonder who will replace him? Good lord if it's Vernon Kay we may be at the death knolls of Radio 2. 

 

59 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Wonder what he's been up to....

A who worked at Google has just taken over as BBC director...maybe had a look at his search history 

[MPH]

So this is why he’s saying the talks are going well and the Iranians are saying they are not even holding talks…. He’s talking to completely different people!  My guess is he’s talking to the son of the Shah who fled at the start of the Islamic revolution that brought in the reign of the ayotollas

 

 

and don’t even get me started on him blowing up the infrastructure if he doesn’t get his way…

Edited 30 March by MPH

[Md9]

6 minutes ago, MPH said:

So this is why he’s saying the talks are going well and the Iranians are saying they are not even holding talks…. He’s talking to completely different people!  My guess is he’s talking to the son of the Shah who fled at the start of the Islamic revolution that brought in the reign of the ayotollas

 

 

and don’t even get me started on him blowing up the infrastructure if he doesn’t get his way…

He talks so much b****** he probably isn’t talking to anyone and is trying to worm his way out of this as easy as he can.

also the strait wouldn’t be closed if the idiot didn’t start this in the first place. But will no doubt claim it as a great victory, the best victory the world has ever seen 

[Sampson]

It’s Monday and end of month, Trump is just trying to get the markets to go up, it’s been obvious from that start that Iran aren’t going to agree to anything.

[Salisbury Fox]

38 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

I think they’ll go for Kharg island to control the oil . I don’t think they’ll go for mainland Iran unless it’s for some special ops  missions, in which case they’ll need a base to operate from - kharg island.

 

i think if they really wanted in to mainland Iran they could manage it- Iran has absolutely no radar system left, no air defense, troops haven’t no leaders and some units are showing a desire to defect aware from the revolutionary guard order.. plus you have the  Kurds in the North chomping at the bit to get involved and seek revenge for years of repression… but it wouldn’t suit their purpose.. the want the oil.. it’s the Israelis who might be interested in weeding out any support for the militia groups in the area..

Kharg island seems a bit of an unnecessary risk to me given that firstly an approach will be expected and secondly they will be a clear static target. If they want to control the oil, a safer option would surely be to blockade Iranian tankers. 
 

I agree that they would make short work of opposition, but I don’t think they have enough troops in the region for this to be a serious consideration as I would expect some high casualties. He is also struggling to find an off ramp now, this would be even harder with boots on the ground. Who knows with Trump though.

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

Kharg island seems a bit of an unnecessary risk to me given that firstly an approach will be expected and secondly they will be a clear static target. If they want to control the oil, a safer option would surely be to blockade Iranian tankers. 
 

I agree that they would make short work of opposition, but I don’t think they have enough troops in the region for this to be a serious consideration as I would expect some high casualties. He is also struggling to find an off ramp now, this would be even harder with boots on the ground. Who knows with Trump though.

Attacking energy plants and desalination would be a war crime, would it not?

 

Stick him in a cell with his mate Vlad.