War in the Middle East

[Lanzo-Ad]

Can anyone say for 100% certainty that the strike on Iran is not a cynical attempt to divert peoples attention to the Epstein saga, Does Trump care how many die, or what the oil price is, he has Venezuelan oil, he would do anything to stay in the Whitehouse.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Because Iran's modus operandi is not conventional warfare. Its global terrorism, which they have been facilitating for decades.
The bottom line is that they will eventually get nukes and then it will be too late.

Well, they were betting on a hedge position rather than developing a nuke....because Israel had been saying that since the 90s.....And if so that's a mighty slow development cycle.

You can be certain that Iran.....unless they have a puppet government installed.....will be headlong into getting one now.

 

[Common Sense Club]

How can Iran be the 'aggressor' when Israel and USA attacked them first?

Before anyone jumps down my throat, I have no doubt that their current regime is fairly abhorrent.

But facts still matter.

I said they were an aggressor in the region, not that they were the aggressor in this latest conflict. Their stockpile of weapons are aggressive not passive defence orientated, which should give a clue to their mindset.

 

[McAhuna]

Because Iran's modus operandi is not conventional warfare. Its global terrorism, which they have been facilitating for decades.
The bottom line is that they will eventually get nukes and then it will be too late.

But all these terrorist attacks in Britain are caused by 'mental illness', the BBC news told me.

And also because the UK has an open door policy.

Meanwhile, bombing and destabilising Iran will result in a flood of refugees.
I wonder where they will go? I wonder if any of them may harbour grievances against the west after being bombed?

 

[McAhuna]

I said they were an aggressor in the region, not that they were the aggressor in this latest conflict. Their stockpile of weapons are aggressive not passive defence orientated, which should give a clue to their mindset.

Ahh I see.
Also, they aggressively positioned their country next to all these US bases.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Any war involving the States is going to involve us in some way.

The US haven't paid for the vast majority of Europe's defence for 80 years so that subversives can take it for granted.

This point is way beyond Trump or a particular president.

I don't agree with the war but the US have a right to military loyalties and that includes the use of our bases if needed.....but not our involvement.

Perhaps for us on the basis of the “special relationship” but not because of NATO membership.

We didn’t ask, or expect, NATO support during the Falklands war. We did though benefit from US surveillance.

You might agree that Trump’s “might is right” approach is justified but I don’t. I think it belittles the reputation and standing of the USA. Bullies aren’t loved and respected.

 

[McAhuna]

Well, they were betting on a hedge position rather than developing a nuke....because Israel had been saying that since the 90s.....And if so that's a mighty slow development cycle.

You can be certain that Iran.....unless they have a puppet government installed.....will be headlong into getting one now.

Yep, nothing speeds up military research and spending like being subjected to a full-scale attack.

 

[silvertop]

He's saying what many are thinking. He's right, but he forgets that Churchill had to beg Roosevelt to enter the war which he had also avoided for domestic reasons. It took Pearl Harbour to make it happen, so a bit of irony there also.

And give. Boy how we gave.

 

[McAhuna]

Germany actually declared war on the USA, not the other way round.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

And give. Boy how we gave.

Indeed.

 

[Eagleman13]

Reports coming in that an Iranian warship has been torpedoed by a US submarine about 40m off he coast of Sri Lanka. 32 people rescued by SL coastguard.

 

[silvertop]

I said they were an aggressor in the region, not that they were the aggressor in this latest conflict. Their stockpile of weapons are aggressive not passive defence orientated, which should give a clue to their mindset.

We all have those.

Also, define which weapons they have that are aggressive and not "passive defensive" (whatever the feck that means in the context of ordnance) ?

I am also not impressed with this constant reference to the state sponsorship of terrorism point hauled out to justify any action against Iran. When pressed for evidence of this, after some umming and arring, people are left only with proxy wars in the region (no way has the West ever engaged in them), and radical Islamic organizations whose sole ambit is the destruction of Israel.

On the latter, a valid point; but not our war. Israel is big enough and ugly enough to look after its own problems. Did we enlist their help (or anyone's) in Northern Ireland?

When pressed for terrorism by Iran directly against British (or other Western) interests..? The last time I raised the point, someone actually referenced the kidnap of US embassy staff in 1979!!!

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

But all these terrorist attacks in Britain are caused by 'mental illness', the BBC news told me.

And also because the UK has an open door policy.

Meanwhile, bombing and destabilising Iran will result in a flood of refugees.
I wonder where they will go? I wonder if any of them may harbour grievances against the west after being bombed?

Thing is, we don't have to accept them. That is a decision for our government. The ECHR do not dictate to us unless we let them. It's all just hiding behind excuses.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Germany actually declared war on the USA, not the other way round.

It's a technical point but nonetheless true.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

A missile over Turkish airspace. Turkey. Another potential domino to add to the conflagration.

https://www.reuters.com/world/iran-war-live-israeli-strike-kills-four-lebanon-us-names-its-first-casualties-2026-03-04/

 

[silvertop]

Thing is, we don't have to accept them. That is a decision for our government. The ECHR do not dictate to us unless we let them. It's all just hiding behind excuses.

Are you going to stop them?

About 45000 a year who we can't legally stop and where we cannot return them to their home country.

That number is a trickle compared to what will come.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Are you going to stop them?

About 45000 a year who we can't legally stop and where we cannot return them to their home country.

That number is a trickle compared to what will come.

We can stop whomever we like. Our governments are choosing to hide behind the law. They can ignore the ECHR. They can rewrite British law. They are full of s***.

 

[silvertop]

We can stop whomever we like. Our governments are choosing to hide behind the law. They can ignore the ECHR. They can rewrite British law. They are full of s***.

Ok but spell out in practical terms how that would be achieved.

The Royal Navy can blow all the small boats from the sea. Many on here would applaud that. Is that what you propose. A death sentence for all refugees?

 

[McAhuna]

We can stop whomever we like. Our governments are choosing to hide behind the law. They can ignore the ECHR. They can rewrite British law. They are full of s***.

Our governments do what they are told by their masters.

They pay no attention to their electorate.

 

[McAhuna]

Reports coming in that an Iranian warship has been torpedoed by a US submarine about 40m off he coast of Sri Lanka. 32 people rescued by SL coastguard.

Seems odd. What would it be doing all the way over there. You'd think they'd want all their warships in the Straits of Hormuz.