War in the Middle East

[McAhuna]

We don't have the majority of the world's oil supply running through the English Channel.
It is in the West's interests. That is all the reason I need.

The complete collapse of Western moral legitimacy and international standing summed up in a single post.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

The complete collapse of Western moral legitimacy and international standing summed up in a single post.

You honestly think that being the good guys wins?

We need to protect our interests against people who would see us exterminated. That is the only legitimacy you need to worry about.

 

[silvertop]

They were on our side then. The mistake we made was not declaring war on Russia before they got the bomb.

Now there's a thought.

Patton wanted to keep marching east.

Churchill to push the reds beyond the polish border to continue to fulfil our treaty obligation.

Both overruled.

On balance probably correct in terms of the objective you cite which would have required quick USSR surrender and friendly regime change. As Hitler and Napoleon demonstrated, a difficult country to conquer, especially when they are on full war footing. And remember, they already had the bomb blueprints before the war ended.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Patton wanted to keep marching east.

Churchill to push the reds beyond the polish border to continue to fulfil our treaty obligation.

Both overruled.

On balance probably correct in terms of the objective you cite which would have required quick USSR surrender and friendly regime change. As Hitler and Napoleon demonstrated, a difficult country to conquer, especially when they are on full war footing. And remember, they already had the bomb blueprints before the war ended.

Your usual defeatist attitude.

We had the bomb. They didn't. I think that might have given us a bit of an advantage.

They didn't create a bomb until 1949. That is with no war for 4 years.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

30p a litre. The overnight increase in my local fuel prices. Fantastic 👍 This is going to financially and physically cripple me.
This is what I've been doing today - see photo.
Next thing I'll be posting on the BBS cycling thread. This is how devastating the Gulf war is to me. My mental health will be destroyed going on the BBS. 😁

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

30p a litre. The overnight increase in my local fuel prices. Fantastic 👍 This is going to financially and physically cripple me.
This is what I've been doing today - see photo.
Next thing I'll be posting on the BBS cycling thread. This is how devastating the Gulf war is to me. My mental health will be destroyed going on the BBS. 😁

Call Rachael and tell her to cut petrol duty.

 

[McAhuna]

You honestly think that being the good guys wins?

We need to protect our interests against people who would see us exterminated. That is the only legitimacy you need to worry about.

Not talking about extermination though, are we?

We are talking about the security of oil supply. Supply that was secure before the US and Israel started a war.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Not talking about extermination though, are we?

We are talking about the security of oil supply. Supply that was secure before the US and Israel started a war.

Yeah, we shouldn't do anything about Iran because of oil and gas.

So if Iran got a nuke and attacked Israel, should we worry about the oil and gas then?

 

[silvertop]

Your usual defeatist attitude.

We had the bomb. They didn't. I think that might have given us a bit of an advantage.

They didn't create a bomb until 1949. That is with no war for 4 years.

Huh?

The bomb was still "used". Stalin decided not to push as far west as the Azores (to include us!) due to the allies having the bomb.

Unsurprisingly, there was little appetite among western powers to use the bomb against an ally that had already suffered in excess of 27 million dead.

Put yourself in the shoes of those in charge at the time. Europe was rubble and the people were exhausted and traumatized. The last thing all but self serving hawks like Patton wanted was to put the Continent into another war with a highly questionable outcome.

And the USSR was very spread out and had moved their base of operations far east. 2 bombs against a densely populated Japan is very different to the USSR. We would have to build a lot more bombs and practise much longer range bombing against an opponent with a huge air force that contested the skies. Imagine the bomber being shot down over, say, Germany.

Meanwhile, we would be preparing over months and possibly years while we engaged in a bruising conventional war with our intentions being leaked to them by a dense network of spies and the USSR having to accelerate production to a time well in advance of 1949 to ensure parity.

Your assertion of defeatist is rubbish.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Huh?

The bomb was still "used". Stalin decided not to push as far west as the Azores (to include us!) due to the allies having the bomb.

Unsurprisingly, there was little appetite among western powers to use the bomb against an ally that had already suffered in excess of 27 million dead.

Put yourself in the shoes of those in charge at the time. Europe was rubble and the people were exhausted and traumatized. The last thing all but self serving hawks like Patton wanted was to put the Continent into another war with a highly questionable outcome.

And the USSR was very spread out and had moved their base of operations far east. 2 bombs against a densely populated Japan is very different to the USSR. We would have to build a lot more bombs and practise much longer range bombing against an opponent with a huge air force that contested the skies. Imagine the bomber being shot down over, say, Germany.

Meanwhile, we would be preparing over months and possibly years while we engaged in a bruising conventional war with our intentions being leaked to them by a dense network of spies and the USSR having to accelerate production to a time well in advance of 1949 to ensure parity.

Your assertion of defeatist is rubbish.

I understand the resistance to further conflict after WW2 and the moral question of using an atom bomb.
The story goes that Truman though that the bombs on Japan were for military targets with minimum civilian casualties. I don't know how true, but with hindsight it could easily be argued that destroying the Russian threat would have been a strategically sensible move. The counterargument is that we have avoided a third world war for 80 years albeit with countless proxy wars and the threat of nuclear war hanging over our heads.
Now relating this to the current situation. Would people in 50 years have been asking why we didn't stop Iran getting nukes if they had attacked Israel and become a nuclear threat to the West?

Decisions are made considering numerous factors. In this case, nukes, terrorism, domestic popularity. Some might say a distraction to scandals. Oil and gas. Revenge?
What ever the reasons or decision, there will be various outcomes which will be positive and negative depending on your point of view.

 

[beak]

Huh?

The bomb was still "used". Stalin decided not to push as far west as the Azores (to include us!) due to the allies having the bomb.

Unsurprisingly, there was little appetite among western powers to use the bomb against an ally that had already suffered in excess of 27 million dead.

Put yourself in the shoes of those in charge at the time. Europe was rubble and the people were exhausted and traumatized. The last thing all but self serving hawks like Patton wanted was to put the Continent into another war with a highly questionable outcome.

And the USSR was very spread out and had moved their base of operations far east. 2 bombs against a densely populated Japan is very different to the USSR. We would have to build a lot more bombs and practise much longer range bombing against an opponent with a huge air force that contested the skies. Imagine the bomber being shot down over, say, Germany.

Meanwhile, we would be preparing over months and possibly years while we engaged in a bruising conventional war with our intentions being leaked to them by a dense network of spies and the USSR having to accelerate production to a time well in advance of 1949 to ensure parity.

Your assertion of defeatist is rubbish.

That is why I used the ignore button and the mindless repetition was another factor *yawn*.

 

[Spindle]

What this situation emphasises is how a country like Iran can affect our economy by cutting off oil supply.
This is the very best reason to replace their government and take control of the shipping route, so this can never happen.

Meanwhile, in Britain, Starmer and his gang of morons will have had a little chat and decided that they must appear deeply concerned about the war and how it will affect people's pockets. That can remove all responsibility for the complete mess the chancellor has made of things and make Donald Trump, and by association, Nigel Farage look like the bad guys who made us poor.
Never mind about Iran's nuclear weapons or supporting our greatest ally. All that bellend cares about is his own job and votes for Labour.

Instead of trying to get votes from people's fears, what the government should do is lower the tax on fuel and fine oil companies if they profiteer as a result. That money could then be used as a payment to offset the cost to consumers.

Or to go more green so we don't need them

 

[Spindle]

B52s.

Its another level of bomb load.

Three US bombers land at RAF Fairford amid conflict with Iran

The military bombers are capable of launching missiles more than 1,500 miles.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[McAhuna]

Yeah, we shouldn't do anything about Iran because of oil and gas.

So if Iran got a nuke and attacked Israel, should we worry about the oil and gas then?

I know if the world was filled with Hrolf the Grangers then I'd give human species another 2 to 3 years tops.
Thankfully most of those demanding more war and more bombings are behind a screen rather than at the front lines.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

I know if the world was filled with Hrolf the Grangers then I'd give human species another 2 to 3 years tops.
Thankfully most of those demanding more war and more bombings are behind a screen rather than at the front lines.

When you're at war you have to speak the language of war. We won't prevail by being nice.

War brings peace more often that it brings more war. The majority never want it, but the majority aren't megalomaniacs or those who have to oppose them. What should really matter to the masses is being on the winning side. In the case of Iran, the West and most of the Middle East, including most Iranians, will be the winners if we topple Iran's Ayatollahs and remove their military threat.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Or to go more green so we don't need them

Yes except that wind farms etc are highly inefficient and expensive. They put the price of energy up not down.
What we needed decades ago was a program of building nuclear power stations, but successive governments failed to do it.
There have been numerous examples of cheap energy inventions being created only for the inventors to die mysteriously or have their patents seized. The world could be better right now but our overlords have different ideas.
While oil and gas are still king, we must ensure that supplies are not restricted by rogue states who just happen by chance to have favourable geology and geography. This was always coming like a Biblical prophecy.

 

[McAhuna]

She would have sounded like a crazy person to most, even a few years ago.

Now she sounds like the only one talking sense.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

She would have sounded like a crazy person to most, even a few years ago.

Now she sounds like the only one talking sense.

View attachment 3033

She still sounds like a crazy person and you aren't far behind. She is another victim, or exploiter, of America's tendency towards religious nuttery.

If we think that the American government is crammed with paedophiles then this is a serious issue but not one we can address while we are at war. The war will end and then we can deal with criminals, if you think these people are guilty or will ever face justice.

 

[McAhuna]

If we think that the American government is crammed with paedophiles then this is a serious issue but not one we can address while we are at war.

You have unwittingly outlined the exact reason we went to war.

Just a couple of weeks after the Epstein files release.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

You have unwittingly outlined the exact reason we went to war.

Just a couple of weeks after the Epstein files release.

What are you on about?

Any claimed relationship between the two is supposition. I seriously doubt they are related, but if they are, it would just be one among numerous more important considerations for going to war now. It would also not prove any guilt, merely a desire to deflect accusations and political heat from the opposition.