55 minutes ago, Rooney said:

Pretty sure as someone who has had to get a repatriation flight before, they’re certainly not free. You pay the pleasure of a commercial price for none of the experience!

I assume they are hoping that there is a difference between a health emergency and an emergency caused by an imbecilic orange baboon.

The media were telling people this morning not to panic buy petrol which is gonna make them panic buy petrol. Let’s tell people to panic buy petrol by telling them not to panic buy petrol. Yeah that makes sense 🤦‍♂️

Edited March 4Mar 4 by Hadji

minor hysteria over fuel seems so quaint when there's a BLOODY WAR BETWEEN NATIONS going on

Strikes in Tehran, an Iranian ship has gone missing with over 100 people, I think the death toll in Iran has passed 1,000 (and Western media is apoplectic at Iran defending itself, random missiles hitting neutral targets in Dubai notwithstanding).

Completely unnecessary death and chaos. I hope more than just the reliable and consistent anti-war left start condemning it soon.

Absolutely correct, youd think watching the bews over the past 5 days that Iran started this war and that they had nuclear weapons when on both accounts it’s America and Israel that are guilty of this!

From a world war perspective, I see why the US and Israel attacked now, as you see how many missiles they had. China has magnitudes more. They want to empty the stockpiles in the middle east to focus on China's.

4 minutes ago, Cupid Stunts said:

From a world war perspective, I see why the US and Israel attacked now, as you see how many missiles they had. China has magnitudes more. They want to empty the stockpiles in the middle east to focus on China's.

I have seen some analysis that relates to knocking out an ally of China as they might gear up for an invasion of Taiwan. It's an interesting angle certainly and may make sense to some American-Israel strategists.

I don't read Chinese foreign policy as being particularly hawkish right now though, and while China/Iran certainly do trade, this gives just as much currency for China to court allies elsewhere in the Global South.

Far better for Beijing to cast itself as the stable partner who can resist the mad president, in fact I think this may even be a gift to Xi long-term, assuming he can remain pragmatic.

1 hour ago, Iz様 🌟 said:

I have seen some analysis that relates to knocking out an ally of China as they might gear up for an invasion of Taiwan. It's an interesting angle certainly and may make sense to some American-Israel strategists.

I don't read Chinese foreign policy as being particularly hawkish right now though, and while China/Iran certainly do trade, this gives just as much currency for China to court allies elsewhere in the Global South.

Far better for Beijing to cast itself as the stable partner who can resist the mad president, in fact I think this may even be a gift to Xi long-term, assuming he can remain pragmatic.

I'd agree with that analysis. Also, I think it's more about di.inishing the capability and capacity, regardless of intention. A lot of US generals have been saying there's a 50% chance of a war with China in thr next five years, so I can see why they decided to knock out a Chinese ally when they had a chance, frim a geopolitical standpoint.

China will come out of this with a lot more soft power, framed as stable against the mad president. Thid is a good thing for China, and maybe for diminishing the chances of world war. It won't want to squander its improved place in geopolitics by launching an invasion.

Mojtaba Khamenei is the new Supreme Leader.

Most influential son of the former Supreme Leader and from what I can tell your standard issue grey eminence, I expect nothing much will change on this front.

The US-Israeli attacks are looking horrendous, the images from Tehran apocalyptic, with thousands dead. Along with great economic instability across the world, horrendous war from the American administration.

I am constantly flabbergasted by our Media. I mean I'm not a fan of Starmer as much as the next person, but do people seriously think the best thing for us is to get involved with this and risk economic and social meltdown?! I personally don't want another Iraq situation which is what this could be heading towards, especially as it is ultimately a destructive, pointless exercise in distracting from the Epstein files

Tony Blair criticising Starmer for not grtting involved in thr Middle East, after the Iraq and Afghanistan ears ended his premiership and torpeoded his legacy. Like ... this is the stuff of satire.

45 minutes ago, Chez Wombat said:

I am constantly flabbergasted by our Media. I mean I'm not a fan of Starmer as much as the next person, but do people seriously think the best thing for us is to get involved with this and risk economic and social meltdown?! I personally don't want another Iraq situation which is what this could be heading towards, especially as it is ultimately a destructive, pointless exercise in distracting from the Epstein files

The only way we gte involved is if Iran start bombing our infastructure or bases overseas without being able to be brushed off as an accident. Certain people just want us to follow the US for our "special relationship" which is the most perplexing thing ever, as the US seem to take everything from us but never give us anything in return! Problem we have now is we have people who have no idea about strategy in charge and now the global economy is going to tank. Clearly a lot of the Middle Eastern nations want a regime change too as it is in their interests, but this probably pushes tourism in the Middle East back a few years. Suppose they might all be happy if oil prices stay high when they start producing again though.

If Johnson had still been PM, he would’ve insisted on flying a plane himself and would probably have bombed Mecca by mistake.

Was reading the thread we had back when Solemaini got assassinated, specifically because I remembered making a post on why attacking Iran was a stupid idea that any warmonger wouldn't be going full throttle on. Interesting thread to link so I'll do that at this time because we had a lot of discussion there on why it was a spectacularly stupid idea.

On 06/01/2020 at 16:06, Iz様 🌟 said:

Chris, I don't think you know what you're saying when you talk about Iran, Iran is a far different beast to Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

I have to hope that even Trump would balk at using nukes, and I do not think even he would risk it. Popping the nuke question over a mid-sized country like Iran is not the one to get out of MAD. That's the one route that would likely bring actual harm to American citizens in America.

 

So if there is actually a war, it will be a conventional war, an invasion, and Iran is not a country that American troops can fly in, set up base camps, and start strutting about with rifles strapped to their waist to root out the guerilla resistance. It has a stable government, exceptionally difficult terrain to fight in and enough military force that could easily bog down conventional American deployments. It would be Vietnam if not worse.

 

That's a reason why he won't go for it, but it's not about being able to crush Iran. It's more that they couldn't without expending a spectacularly unpopular and pointless excessive effort.

^I agree with this guy, he seems pretty smart.

In that Trump is very much looking to wrap up the war and say that 'it was a complete victory, very complete', and stocks are rallying again. No sign of committing to the bit. Netanyahu will though, but hopefully price shocks on this will be small? Too early to say still.