Off Topic OLOF's political thread
- Thread starter MIGHTY
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Don't have time to respond Now. Just about noon here, things to do, day three of the NFL draft to watch...
I'll be back...
I assume, that you don't include me in this class?
Clueless is not, in my experience, a descriptor that is generally attached to me.
Again, I'll be back, discussing US strategic assessments and the US/non-US NATO interactions leading up to and during the Iran conflict.
2020VisionofLeeds
Well-Known Member
No I don’t, which is why I took the time to write a paragraph or two in reply.
So, I'll try to be brief, but I'll mention, in passing, yet another (the fourth) attempted assassination on Trump and/or members of his administration by a leftie.
The party of no guns and protecting Democracy certainly has a strange way of demonstrating their resolve.
Some imprecision is inevitable, so I hope that the point will be taken, rather than nit-picked.
Over the last quarter century or so, since the fall of The Berlin Wall the US Strategic perspective has shifted more than once. The apparent end of near peer competition caused a move to oppose asymmetric warfare rather than the battles envisaged on the plains of Northern Europe, and resulted in the substantial reduction in naval forces, the downgrading of the B1 bomber, the establishment of strategic arms limitation, and the reduction in the builds of the F22 and B2.
Around the turn of this century the US was starting, somewhat reluctantly perhaps, to encourage the development of an EU based European "army" with Blair and the UK in the lead, and had started reducing the resources spent on Defense (War?) (Where did the European army go? All talk, no action).
https://www.iss.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUISSFiles/cp039e.pdf#:~:text=During the intervening years, it,States provided most of the
During this time China was perceived as being on the road to liberalization- courtesy of the rules of Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao- and economic cooperation etc. was the big thing. The theory being that once liberalization and capitalism were entrenched that the installation of Western style Liberal Democracy would naturally take its course, just as it was doing in the old Soviet Union.
The events of 9/11, with the clear superiority of Western (i.e. mostly American) weaponry etc. being demonstrated, allowed complacency to set in.
Well, that didn't account for Putin and Xi. The strategic needs shifted, a pair of near peer adversaries started to develop, and the US establishment, not to mention the Europeans, just refused to acknowledge the shift. The US had pared back their Defense spending to about 3.5% of GDP from 6.5%, and the Europeans mostly down to sub 2%, and as low as 1.2% (Spain, I'm looking at you) while offering lip service to Nato. Defense assessments did declare that the US would not be able to guarantee successful engagement in two or more theaters with near peer adversaries, but nothing seemed to be done. The Europeans/Canadians were actively encouraged to re-arm, but they did nothing but provide more lip service, transfer more money from defense to social services, and increasingly put in place mechanisms to obfuscate and deny the social fracturing that was taking place due to their immigration policies.
During this time Nato got involved in Serbia and Libya, neither of which were defensive actions, using force to impose political goals- including the bombing of civilian infrastructure (power generation, bridges etc.) and the indirect killing of opponent leadership. The US Presidents in these cases were Democratic (Clinton, Obama).
The Europeans embraced the Climate religion, while ignoring/miss representing many IPCC conclusions, and decided to not use their own resources but rely on an increasingly expansionist/belligerent Russia and an increasingly more insecure Persian Gulf (Iran has repeatedly threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz since the revolution) to supply their fossil fuel needs.
Germany went full idiot by shutting down their nuclear plants as an apparent reaction to the Fukushima Tsunami.
In came Trump. The encouragement became- more. He started to demand that non-US Nato members should actually live up to the treaty goals for expenditure.
The Europeans chose a passive aggressive approach, like pouty children, while refusing to give up their social support framework and were increasingly relying on the import of mostly third world "workers" in the hope to maintain their population.
So here we are, 2026. A Republican president sees the obvious.
Iran, who has been promising Death to America and Israel since the Islamic revolution 47 years ago (well done France!) has just boasted in "negotiations" with the US of their stock of 450kg or so of 60% refined U235 - enough for 10 or 11 bombs, by their own admission. This level of purification even as it is, could be used to produce gun style weapons of low yield, but Israel (again by Iranian admission) is a one bomb country, and the bomb need not be loaded on a missile to be effective. Heck, it could even be loaded onto a ship and parked off New York (not necessarily a bad thing) for example and detonated as a threat to the US.
The long in place Ayatollah Fatwa that has been cited as a certainty that Iran would not develop nuclear weapons can, effectively, be negated at any time. It does not have the power of law, even in a Theocracy.
Israel, purportedly, has between 60 and 200 nuclear weapons. They have 6 Dolphin submarines which have been configured to allow up to 16 submarine launched cruise missiles each with 200k ton Pu nuclear warheads reportedly with a 1500km range. They will likely retaliate if a nuclear attack occurs. The Iranians care nothing for the temporal state of their population, or that of their neighbors in Pakistan etc. who would necessarily be badly affected by an Israel/Iran nuclear exchange.
Iran has been steadily extending their ballistic missile range- and despite their statements to the contrary there was reason to believe that the goal was to exceed the 2000km range that they said was their limit (subsequently demonstrated by the attack on Diego Garcia), but to include the bulk of The West (Europe, including the UK) and eventually the US. There are also reports that they have been doing design work on miniaturized warheads capable of being loaded onto an ICBM. They are also working on Pickaxe Mountain as a way to make their nuclear capability impervious to non-nuclear assault.
Does this constitute an imminent threat? Personally, if someone says, repeatedly, that their goal is to kill you and that they think God will reward them in Heaven if they do, then I take it seriously. I don't see the need for the weapon to be lodged in my throat before it becomes imminent. The Trump admin apparently sees it this way too. This leads to Trump being willing to do what his predecessors knew would someday be necessary but were unwilling to do.
So, here we were. The decision to attack Iran and take out its leadership/capabilities had been taken.
What about the Europeans, does the US involve them?
Let's assume the US did. What would happen. Well, who do they tell, the UK, France, Germany? How about Poland or Italy, or Hungary or Spain?
How many of them would be willing to help? How many would try to stop it? How many would actually inform, either directly or indirectly, the Iranians?
How long would such conversations take?
The economic consequences to much of Europe would be severe if the Strait was closed due to their idiotic prior choices, and that was always going to be a possibility.
Europe had already made decisions that would make the political choice to assist very non-palatable (Oil, restive Muslim populations), for many of their countries, and, frankly, their ability to actually help, besides allowing the US to use US bases on their lands, was almost non-existent. So, rather than openly admitting that this was a necessary thing, they crossed their arms, pouted, said no, you can't use your bases, etc. etc.
I do agree that the Trump admin could have been a little more diplomatic, but I'm not surprised that they were not. I probably would not have been if I were in charge.
The party of no guns and protecting Democracy certainly has a strange way of demonstrating their resolve.
Some imprecision is inevitable, so I hope that the point will be taken, rather than nit-picked.
Over the last quarter century or so, since the fall of The Berlin Wall the US Strategic perspective has shifted more than once. The apparent end of near peer competition caused a move to oppose asymmetric warfare rather than the battles envisaged on the plains of Northern Europe, and resulted in the substantial reduction in naval forces, the downgrading of the B1 bomber, the establishment of strategic arms limitation, and the reduction in the builds of the F22 and B2.
Around the turn of this century the US was starting, somewhat reluctantly perhaps, to encourage the development of an EU based European "army" with Blair and the UK in the lead, and had started reducing the resources spent on Defense (War?) (Where did the European army go? All talk, no action).
https://www.iss.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUISSFiles/cp039e.pdf#:~:text=During the intervening years, it,States provided most of the
During this time China was perceived as being on the road to liberalization- courtesy of the rules of Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao- and economic cooperation etc. was the big thing. The theory being that once liberalization and capitalism were entrenched that the installation of Western style Liberal Democracy would naturally take its course, just as it was doing in the old Soviet Union.
The events of 9/11, with the clear superiority of Western (i.e. mostly American) weaponry etc. being demonstrated, allowed complacency to set in.
Well, that didn't account for Putin and Xi. The strategic needs shifted, a pair of near peer adversaries started to develop, and the US establishment, not to mention the Europeans, just refused to acknowledge the shift. The US had pared back their Defense spending to about 3.5% of GDP from 6.5%, and the Europeans mostly down to sub 2%, and as low as 1.2% (Spain, I'm looking at you) while offering lip service to Nato. Defense assessments did declare that the US would not be able to guarantee successful engagement in two or more theaters with near peer adversaries, but nothing seemed to be done. The Europeans/Canadians were actively encouraged to re-arm, but they did nothing but provide more lip service, transfer more money from defense to social services, and increasingly put in place mechanisms to obfuscate and deny the social fracturing that was taking place due to their immigration policies.
During this time Nato got involved in Serbia and Libya, neither of which were defensive actions, using force to impose political goals- including the bombing of civilian infrastructure (power generation, bridges etc.) and the indirect killing of opponent leadership. The US Presidents in these cases were Democratic (Clinton, Obama).
The Europeans embraced the Climate religion, while ignoring/miss representing many IPCC conclusions, and decided to not use their own resources but rely on an increasingly expansionist/belligerent Russia and an increasingly more insecure Persian Gulf (Iran has repeatedly threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz since the revolution) to supply their fossil fuel needs.
Germany went full idiot by shutting down their nuclear plants as an apparent reaction to the Fukushima Tsunami.
In came Trump. The encouragement became- more. He started to demand that non-US Nato members should actually live up to the treaty goals for expenditure.
The Europeans chose a passive aggressive approach, like pouty children, while refusing to give up their social support framework and were increasingly relying on the import of mostly third world "workers" in the hope to maintain their population.
So here we are, 2026. A Republican president sees the obvious.
Iran, who has been promising Death to America and Israel since the Islamic revolution 47 years ago (well done France!) has just boasted in "negotiations" with the US of their stock of 450kg or so of 60% refined U235 - enough for 10 or 11 bombs, by their own admission. This level of purification even as it is, could be used to produce gun style weapons of low yield, but Israel (again by Iranian admission) is a one bomb country, and the bomb need not be loaded on a missile to be effective. Heck, it could even be loaded onto a ship and parked off New York (not necessarily a bad thing) for example and detonated as a threat to the US.
The long in place Ayatollah Fatwa that has been cited as a certainty that Iran would not develop nuclear weapons can, effectively, be negated at any time. It does not have the power of law, even in a Theocracy.
Israel, purportedly, has between 60 and 200 nuclear weapons. They have 6 Dolphin submarines which have been configured to allow up to 16 submarine launched cruise missiles each with 200k ton Pu nuclear warheads reportedly with a 1500km range. They will likely retaliate if a nuclear attack occurs. The Iranians care nothing for the temporal state of their population, or that of their neighbors in Pakistan etc. who would necessarily be badly affected by an Israel/Iran nuclear exchange.
Iran has been steadily extending their ballistic missile range- and despite their statements to the contrary there was reason to believe that the goal was to exceed the 2000km range that they said was their limit (subsequently demonstrated by the attack on Diego Garcia), but to include the bulk of The West (Europe, including the UK) and eventually the US. There are also reports that they have been doing design work on miniaturized warheads capable of being loaded onto an ICBM. They are also working on Pickaxe Mountain as a way to make their nuclear capability impervious to non-nuclear assault.
Does this constitute an imminent threat? Personally, if someone says, repeatedly, that their goal is to kill you and that they think God will reward them in Heaven if they do, then I take it seriously. I don't see the need for the weapon to be lodged in my throat before it becomes imminent. The Trump admin apparently sees it this way too. This leads to Trump being willing to do what his predecessors knew would someday be necessary but were unwilling to do.
So, here we were. The decision to attack Iran and take out its leadership/capabilities had been taken.
What about the Europeans, does the US involve them?
Let's assume the US did. What would happen. Well, who do they tell, the UK, France, Germany? How about Poland or Italy, or Hungary or Spain?
How many of them would be willing to help? How many would try to stop it? How many would actually inform, either directly or indirectly, the Iranians?
How long would such conversations take?
The economic consequences to much of Europe would be severe if the Strait was closed due to their idiotic prior choices, and that was always going to be a possibility.
Europe had already made decisions that would make the political choice to assist very non-palatable (Oil, restive Muslim populations), for many of their countries, and, frankly, their ability to actually help, besides allowing the US to use US bases on their lands, was almost non-existent. So, rather than openly admitting that this was a necessary thing, they crossed their arms, pouted, said no, you can't use your bases, etc. etc.
I do agree that the Trump admin could have been a little more diplomatic, but I'm not surprised that they were not. I probably would not have been if I were in charge.
Last edited:
So, I'll try to be brief, but I'll mention, in passing, yet another (the fourth) attempted assassination on Trump and/or members of his administration by a leftie.
The party of no guns and protecting Democracy certainly has a strange way of demonstrating their resolve.
Some, imprecision, is inevitable, so I hope that the point will be taken, rather than nit-picked.
Over the last quarter century or so, since the fall of The Wall the US Strategic perspective has shifted more than once. The apparent end of near peer competition caused a move to oppose asymmetric warfare rather than the battles envisaged on the plains of Northern Europe, and resulted in the substantial reduction in naval forces, the downgrading of the B1 bomber, the establishment of strategic arms limitation, and the reduction in the builds of the F22 and B2.
Around the turn of this century the US was starting, somewhat reluctantly perhaps, to encourage the development of an EU based European "army" with Blair and the UK in the lead, and had started reducing the resources spent on Defense (War?) (Where did the European army go? All talk, no action).
https://www.iss.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUISSFiles/cp039e.pdf#:~:text=During the intervening years, it,States provided most of the
During this time China was perceived as being on the road to liberalization- courtesy of the rules of Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao- and economic cooperation etc. was the big thing. The theory being that once liberalization and capitalism were entrenched that the installation of Western style Liberal democracy would naturally take its course, just as it was doing in the old Soviet Union.
The events of 9/11, with the clear superiority of Western (i.e. mostly American) weaponry etc. being demonstrated, allowed complacency to set in.
Well, that didn't account for Putin and Xi. The strategic needs shifted, a pair of near peer adversaries started to develop, and the US establishment, not to mention the Europeans, just refused to acknowledge the shift. The US had pared back their Defense spending to about 3.5% of GDP from 6.5%, and the Europeans mostly down to sub 2%, and as low as 1.2% (Spain, I'm looking at you) while offering lip service to Nato. Defense assessments did declare that the US would not be able to guarantee successful engagement in two or more theaters with near peer adversaries, but nothing seemed to be done. The Europeans/Canadians were actively encouraged to re-arm, but they did nothing but provide more lip service, transfer more money from defense to social services, and increasingly put in place mechanisms to obfuscate and deny the social fracturing that was taking place due to their immigration policies.
During this time Nato got involved in Serbia and Libya, neither of which were defensive actions, using force to impose political goals- including the bombing of civilian infrastructure (power generation, bridges etc.) and the indirect killing of opponent leadership. The US Presidents in these cases were Democratic (Clinton, Obama).
The Europeans embraced the Climate religion, while ignoring/miss representing many IPCC conclusions, and decided to not use their own resources but rely on an increasingly expansionist/belligerent Russia and an increasingly more insecure Persian Gulf (Iran has repeatedly threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz since the revolution) to supply their fossil fuel needs.
Germany went full idiot by shutting down their nuclear plants as an apparent reaction to the Fukushima Tsunami.
In came Trump. The encouragement became- more. He started to demand that non-US Nato members should actually live up to the treaty goals for expenditure.
The Europeans chose a passive aggressive approach, like pouty children, while refusing to give up their social support framework and were increasingly relying on the import of mostly third world "workers" in the hope to maintain their population.
So here we are, 2026. A Republican president sees the obvious.
Iran, who has been promising Death to America and Israel since the Islamic revolution 47 years ago (well done France!) has just boasted in "negotiations" with the US of their stock of 450kg or so of 60% refined U235 - enough for 10 or 11 bombs, by their own admission. This level of purification even as it is, could be used to produce gun style weapons of low yield, but Israel (again by Iranian admission) is a one bomb country, and the bomb need not be loaded on a missile to be effective. Heck, it could even be loaded onto a ship and parked off New York (not necessarily a bad thing) for example and detonated as a threat to the US.
The long in place Ayatollah Fatwa that has been cited as a certainty that Iran would not develop nuclear weapons can, effectively, be negated at any time. It does not have the power of law, even in a Theocracy.
Israel, purportedly, has between 60 and 200 nuclear weapons. They have 6 Dolphin submarines which have been configured to allow up to 16 submarine launched cruise missiles each with nuclear tipped cruise missiles, reportedly with a 1500km range. They will likely retaliate if a nuclear attack occurs. The Iranians care nothing for the temporal state of their population, or that of their neighbors in Pakistan etc. who would necessarily be badly affected by an Israel/Iran nuclear exchange.
Iran has been steadily extending their ballistic missile range- and despite their statements to the contrary there was reason to believe that the goal was to exceed the 2000km range that they said was their limit (subsequently demonstrated by the attack on Diego Garcia), but to include the bulk of The West (Europe, including the UK) and eventually the US. There are also reports that they have been doing design work on miniaturized warheads capable of being loaded onto an ICBM. They are also working on Pickaxe Mountain as a way to make their nuclear capability impervious to non-nuclear assault.
Does this constitute an imminent threat? Personally, if someone says, repeatedly, that their goal is to kill you and that they think God will reward them in Heaven if they do, then I take it seriously. I don't see the need for the weapon to be lodged in my throat before it becomes imminent. The Trump admin apparently sees it this way too. This leads to Trump being willing to do what his predecessors knew would someday be necessary but were unwilling to do.
So, here we were. The decision to attack Iran and take out its leadership/capabilities had been taken.
What about the Europeans, does the US involve them?
Let's assume the US did. What would happen. Well, who do they tell, the UK, France, Germany? How about Poland or Italy, or Hungary or Spain?
How many of them would be willing to help? How many would try to stop it? How many would actually inform, either directly or indirectly, the Iranians?
How long would such conversations take?
The economic consequences to much of Europe would be severe if the Strait was closed due to their idiotic prior choices, and that was always going to be a possibility.
Europe had already made decisions that would make the political choice to assist very non-palatable (Oil, restive Muslim populations), for many of their countries, and, frankly, their ability to actually help, besides allowing the US to use US bases on their lands, was almost non-existent. So, rather than openly admitting that this was a necessary thing, they crossed their arms, pouted, said no, you can't use your bases, etc. etc.
I do agree that the Trump admin could have been a little more diplomatic, but I'm not surprised that they were not. I probably would not have been if I were in charge.
perfect and still the lefties wont wake up
I don't know why people keep getting worked up about immigration..
All my neighbours are English
All the kids in the local school are English
All the local shops are owned and run by English people
I love it here in Spain.
All my neighbours are English
All the kids in the local school are English
All the local shops are owned and run by English people
I love it here in Spain.
Even the biggest village idiot can see we are being taken for ... err village idiots 
You must log in or register to see images
The latest attack in London on the Jewish community may get out of hand.
Muzzle attacks on Jews in UK = countless
Jewish attacks on Muzzies in UK = none
Copper was putting boot into the raghead, the cops have learnt from Manchester airport incident.
Pathetic police commissioner reading from a script, ****er!!!
Londons midget Mayor a two faced muzzle twat who needs destroying for all his cover ups.
Queer Starmer might have to be seen to attack his muzzle voters politically
Elections coming, getting interesting.
Oh on a final note did you all see the Chelsea BQTCNUT flag, if I see one of them at LS11 thats me done.
Muzzle attacks on Jews in UK = countless
Jewish attacks on Muzzies in UK = none
Copper was putting boot into the raghead, the cops have learnt from Manchester airport incident.
Pathetic police commissioner reading from a script, ****er!!!
Londons midget Mayor a two faced muzzle twat who needs destroying for all his cover ups.
Queer Starmer might have to be seen to attack his muzzle voters politically
Elections coming, getting interesting.
Oh on a final note did you all see the Chelsea BQTCNUT flag, if I see one of them at LS11 thats me done.
well said mate its about time a unified voice was raised at Starmers shinanigans
You must log in or register to see images
2020VisionofLeeds
Well-Known Member
As it’s a dumb question, well done for featuring a dumb blonde to ask it.
I dedicate this to Keir Starmer and all the Labour party councillors around the country....
You must log in or register to see media
Putting ILLEGAL'S in hotels has saved the hotel industry.
Now lets save the airline industry by flying them back home!
Now lets save the airline industry by flying them back home!
You must log in or register to see images
oh dear we've been rumbled!
You must log in or register to see images
You must log in or register to see images
RCP8.5, indeed even RCP7.0 has been a nonsense scenario for a number of years- so of course all of the "world is ending" papers and scenarios that were based on that are also nonsense. It's about time that some level of sanity has erupted.
Now if the "the hurricanes/floods/tornados etc. etc." doom-monger's could also refer to the IPCC's findings (none of these scenarios, beyond the (obvious and inevitable) increase in high temperature events) that NONE of the changes are discernible in the recent climate record, then maybe some true realism would be apparent. That would be excellent seeing as much of the West has fecked itself pursuing utterly implausible climate goals.