Iran

[Hrolf The Ganger]

That's hard to do when the train keeps changing track!

I claimed the government hasn't made their decision on whether to involve ourselves in this war based on 'pandering to Muslims'.

The same way our position on Israel/Gaza clearly wasn't influenced by 'pandering to Muslims'.

I appreciate you're somewhat obsessed with the topic, and whilst I think certainly there is evidence of this pandering in other ways across our politics, I think you're grossly overstating the extent of it, presumably to try and rationalise why your view is the minority one on this topic.

The attitude to this war is a result of people having seen this script plenty of times in recent history, and knowing it's a road to nowhere. That, in the context of declining living standards and a country falling apartment at the seams, make it inevitable that most people don't want us pumping millions into a completely unnecessary war.

OK. I'll be more focused.

People are generally reluctant to support war because they only see the negative outcomes of it. Death, cost, deprivation, destruction and often seemingly not much to show for so called victory. What they don't see is what didn't happen as a result of war, because obviously, that future didn't happen. The consequences of not going to war could have been greater in terms of more negative outcomes than positive.

Now, it's easy to speculate on reasons why politicians might or might not do things with the conclusion depending on your political bent. The pattern of this government is to pander to Islam for block votes. They got a shock at the last by election. Their crown as the champion of Muslims was dented. They needed to claim it back. Suddenly we have the Iran war lead by their arch political enemy Donald Trump against a Muslim nation who garner more sympathy from British Muslims than the West. Meanwhile, thousands of them are in Trafalgar square for a mass prayer and out demonstrating in favour of Iran along with their new green haired friends. The left are out in force defending the spread of Islam in Britain.

Does it really take too much thinking to see what is going on here?

 

[McAhuna]

The polling on support for this 'war' doesn't remotely support your theory - across our political spectrum, the majority of people don't support the war and don't want us involved (70% of voters oppose UK involvement, only 17% support it).

Even anecdotally on here, there doesn't seem to be much correlation between support for Trump and support for this war - plenty on here seem to support Trump but not the war.

I'm honestly amazed they found 17% who support it.

The whole MAGA movement was opposed to foreign interventions, it promoted American domestic priorities above all else. Witness how many of Trump's former supporters are now turning against him because of Iran.
In the UK, pointless and futile middle east interventions will forever be associated with Tony Blair's government.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

OK. I'll be more focused.

People are generally reluctant to support war because they only see the negative outcomes of it. Death, cost, deprivation, destruction and often seemingly not much to show for so called victory. What they don't see is what didn't happen as a result of war, because obviously, that future didn't happen. The consequences of not going to war could have been greater in terms of more negative outcomes than positive.

Now, it's easy to speculate on reasons why politicians might or might not do things with the conclusion depending on your political bent. The pattern of this government is to pander to Islam for block votes. They got a shock at the last by election. Their crown as the champion of Muslims was dented. They needed to claim it back. Suddenly we have the Iran war lead by their arch political enemy Donald Trump against a Muslim nation who garner more sympathy from British Muslims than the West. Meanwhile, thousands of them are in Trafalgar square for a mass prayer and out demonstrating in favour of Iran along with their new green haired friends. The left are out in force defending the spread of Islam in Britain.

Does it really take too much thinking to see what is going on here?

Completely hypothetical - the consequences of not going to war could also be absolutely no change to our way of life at all, so it's not remotely an argument in favour of it. The idea that someone is going to be nuked by Iran if we don't immediately intervene is just laughably unbelievable - I'm amazed you take it seriously.

I think framing every decision the government takes around Islam is a projection of your own obsession rather than anything rooted in reality.

I'd suggest far more prevalent in their thinking on this matter is the broader public opinion on it, the expenditure, and indeed the memories of the last time a Labour government pushed for us to support a US attack on a middle-eastern country, in the name of neutralising a deadly and imminent threat to our way of life... as I said, we all know that script.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I'm honestly amazed they found 17% who support it.

The whole MAGA movement was opposed to foreign interventions, it promoted American domestic priorities above all else. Witness how many of Trump's former supporters are now turning against him because of Iran.
In the UK, pointless and futile middle east interventions will forever be associated with Tony Blair's government.

Quite.

And if it were a Labour government who did it again... politically disastrous, and Starmer will know that.

 

[McAhuna]

Quite.

And if it were a Labour government who did it again... politically disastrous, and Starmer will know that.

Well, we've all seen this play before.
And now we all have the additional benefit of hindsight of how previous middle east interventions have panned out.

 

[McAhuna]

I'm not sure how this one will pan out.
Will the war-mongers be pleased or furious?
Pleased because we are, in effect, at war?
Or furious because of who the news comes from?

https://twitter.com/x/status/2034228363452194951

 

[Racehorse-80s]

This war gets more bizarre by the day , Isreal firstly kill a moderate military leader who they could negotiate with and now they destroy the gas fields ..
It’s going to get more painful for the West ..

 

[cryrst]

This war gets more bizarre by the day , Isreal firstly kill a moderate military leader who they could negotiate with and now they destroy the gas fields ..
It’s going to get more painful for the West ..

Is this the same moderate who oversaw the murder of over 30 k of his own people recently for protesting. Some, or many murdered in their hospital beds.
Is this the same person we could negotiate with, just out of interest !
I’m positive he may have been a wolf in sheep’s clothing but hey we all believe different things.

 

[Ouzo Dan]

Iran are hitting Gas sites all over the middle east in retaliation to their own Gas site being struck by team Epstein.

If you've got any common sense at all id suggest filling your car up with petrol/diesel & getting some supplies, there's no brakes on this conflict.

 

[kevlee]

Has there been any progress today? Not that I can see.
Just looks like another day another dollar ( for BP, Shell, Chevron etc).
Scanning the US news sites the natives are getting twitchy. There seems to be no end in sight and gas prices and US troops being put on the front line could well be the undoing of Trump. Majority of the public in the USA are now against the war. He needs to come up with a get out of jail card.
Times like this makes you wish you had an electric car or a hybrid.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Such an ally.
We lost thousands fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and this weasel thinks we should be putting our ships in the strait when the US fleet won't even do it.

 

[silvertop]

I'm honestly amazed they found 17% who support it.

The whole MAGA movement was opposed to foreign interventions, it promoted American domestic priorities above all else. Witness how many of Trump's former supporters are now turning against him because of Iran.
In the UK, pointless and futile middle east interventions will forever be associated with Tony Blair's government.

Blair sandbagged Clinton over Kosovo. Dubya was calling in the debt.

 

[silvertop]

Such an ally.
We lost thousands fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and this weasel thinks we should be putting our ships in the strait when the US fleet won't even do it.

View attachment 3117

Precisely how did Reagan support us? I recall his loyalty was divided between us and their client state.

The only other time we have properly put our head up was Suez and they fecked us on that.

Otherwise we have obediently tootled behind them in pretty much every campaign the US has prosecuted.

Also "cowardly". Is he 7? My view (and I suspect that of the majority on the planet). They broke it. They fix it.

 

[silvertop]

Having said all that spoke to an Iranian mate today who speaks to a lot of Iranians who all agree...

More bombs.

 

[Matov]

Having said all that spoke to an Iranian mate today who speaks to a lot of Iranians who all agree...

More bombs.

And there in lies the crust aching dilemma of this entire s***-show. No person in their right mind can claim that the current Iranian regime is a positive for the world and yet this war (or rather bombing/missile/drone campaign) is being fought at the behest of an Israel that is the definition of s***-c*** regime of its own, more than happy to kill 10,000's of people just to push its own national borders. And exposing the supposed 'leader' of the free world to be nothing more than their puppet. And by defult, the UK as a kind of bitch-boy as well.

I am sure there is a clever German word to describe this, or some bit of pithy ancient Greek, but all I can come up with is FUBAR. Which I accept is an acronym, but am sure you get the point.

 

[Stirlingsays]

An RAF pilot's views on Iran.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Completely hypothetical - the consequences of not going to war could also be absolutely no change to our way of life at all, so it's not remotely an argument in favour of it. The idea that someone is going to be nuked by Iran if we don't immediately intervene is just laughably unbelievable - I'm amazed you take it seriously.

I think framing every decision the government takes around Islam is a projection of your own obsession rather than anything rooted in reality.

I'd suggest far more prevalent in their thinking on this matter is the broader public opinion on it, the expenditure, and indeed the memories of the last time a Labour government pushed for us to support a US attack on a middle-eastern country, in the name of neutralising a deadly and imminent threat to our way of life... as I said, we all know that script.

Of course public opinion is a factor, but you are deliberately ignoring the obvious. It goes with the territory of being on the left.
Making decisions about one conflict based on another is a little illogical. It is typical of the emotionalism that the left use to steer their thinking.

To say a series of events that didn't happen is hypothetical is rather stating the obvious, and missing the point. Neither you nor know what plans the religious zealots who run Iran have with regards to a nuclear program, but American intelligence seems to know, and they went to a lot of trouble to bomb the alleged nuclear sites.
Perhaps you know more than they do.

 

[McAhuna]

Of course public opinion is a factor, but you are deliberately ignoring the obvious. It goes with the territory of being on the left.
Making decisions about one conflict based on another is a little illogical. It is typical of the emotionalism that the left use to steer their thinking.

To say a series of events that didn't happen is hypothetical is rather stating the obvious, and missing the point. Neither you nor know what plans the religious zealots who run Iran have with regards to a nuclear program, but American intelligence seems to know, and they went to a lot of trouble to bomb the alleged nuclear sites.
Perhaps you know more than they do.

Is the same intelligence that advised invading Iraq because of its WMD?

Or are we 'deliberately ignoring the obvious'?

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Of course public opinion is a factor, but you are deliberately ignoring the obvious. It goes with the territory of being on the left.
Making decisions about one conflict based on another is a little illogical. It is typical of the emotionalism that the left use to steer their thinking.

To say a series of events that didn't happen is hypothetical is rather stating the obvious, and missing the point. Neither you nor know what plans the religious zealots who run Iran have with regards to a nuclear program, but American intelligence seems to know, and they went to a lot of trouble to bomb the alleged nuclear sites.
Perhaps you know more than they do.

I’m not sure why you keep talking about the left - as has been explained to you, and as is evidenced on this thread, this is not a left wing view. It’s very low level to keep insisting it is.

As is suggesting that we ignore the lessons we learned from the last time we took a remarkably similar course of action to what you propose - it’s outright ridiculous to call that emotionalism.

Forgive me if have some scepticism about whatever claims the Americans make publicly.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Is the same intelligence that advised invading Iraq because of its WMD?

Or are we 'deliberately ignoring the obvious'?

Sounds like ‘emotionalism’.