Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- 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
-
Vaguely what the other fella was saying. I just don’t think Trump is in any way that strategic.
Lincolnshire voting leave again 
You must log in or register to see images
Who's pulling Trump's strings? He can hardly put a coherent sentence together. Loads of conjecture, all sorts of theories, I can't see a stable outcome or lasting peace in the long or short term.
No I haven't, you're misleading, this your post "the fact that now Khamenei is out of the picture it changes everything" It doesn't. I just added the "it is NOT a" part to make it "it is NOT a fact that now Khamenei is out of the picture it changes everything".
Last edited:
Good grief, this is hard work.
No this is my post, the whole sentence not just the part you wanted to use.
"He does put a lot of store in the fact that now Khamenei is out of the picture it changes everything but as you say the new Iranian hierarchy is unlikely to have a different strategy."
I shouldn't have to explain it to an adult but here goes. "He (the author) does put a lot of store (reliance) in the fact that now Khamenei is out of the picture (that is the fact I'm referring to) it changes everything (in the authors opinion) but as you say (me quoting Laces) the new Iranian hierarchy is unlikely to have a different strategy (that's me agreeing with Laces)".
Have you ever wondered why I reply to other posters but rarely to you? On this occasion I went against my better judgement and decided to engage, which was clearly a mistake. If you weren't in such a hurry to dive in and argue against all my posts, you might give yourself a better chance to understand them.
Last edited:
In my reply to Laces, I agreed it is unlikely that the new Iranian regime will have a different strategy. And unless the Israeli/US implement a regime change they will be in the same situation in the near future.
I know you don't agree but IMO, Israel had to show that they couldn't tolerate Iran as a nuclear power. I'm guessing that they are not finished yet and where they go from here only they and the US will know. Also, what they do know better than any of us, is what it's like to live alongside countries whose single ambition is to annihilate them. They have to be on constant high alert knowing that any let up or miscalculation would almost certainly end in thousands of Israeli deaths. In order to survive, they have to seek out threats and ruthlessly deal with them. In their position, they can't wait for the rest of the world to approve or worry about their reputation.
There has been a lot said about what state the middle east will become after this conflict. But I would guess that if there is turmoil in that area for the next 20 years, from Israel's point of view, it would be better than being nuked.
In any case, they've been living in turmoil ever since they were formed in 1948, and things probably wouldn't change all that much for them. In that region of the world you have to look after yourself.
Last edited:
Thanks for the clarification. I was replying to the author's statement and should have made that clear.
I think you're putting too much stock in this idea that Iran was about to get nuclear capacity. Totally understand your point that Israel can't just sit and get battered without responding, but the math with the nuclear thing ain't mathing. Either Trump and Israel militarily destroyed their capability (as they claimed a few months ago), or they didn't. Obama's nuclear deal was preventing them form doing it, so Trump shouldn't have torn that up because he can't bear anything that he hasn't done. Or they should have waited a whole 24 hours and worked with the Omanis on the new deal that Trump could have claimed he was oh-so-clever in doing, and that it had nothing to do with Obama.
Either that or it should be renamed Operation Epstein Fury, which feels closer to the truth.
This war is a recruiting tool for terrorists as is Trump's rhetoric, current and historical. I found this, it's all but ten years old but holds good for current times. It also highlights the success the coalition under Obama was having.
10 Reckless Donald Trump Statements on Terrorism and National Security
Donald Trump has laid out a reckless foreign policy vision. He fails to understand the most critical national security issues facing the U.S. In this memo, we review the 10 most misinformed statements made by Donald Trump on terrorism, and counter them with tough and smart responses.
i think there is nothing rational about Trump. I do not agree with attackiing Iran and the events of the last week have underscored than Iran was justified in being fearful of the US and Israel. Lets not forget that Western sanctions had caused much of the issues in Iran.
It is a total disaster politically , economically and ecologically. Nothing good will come out of this. It only proves than the US and Israel are now a threat to the whole world.
Interesting to read that Cuba appears to be next on Trump's list. Again, Cuba has been weakened by US sanctions. We should all stand with Cuba.
It mught also be worth noting that Putin is rubbing his hands in glee as the Russian economy is being boosted by higher oil pricss. The Chinese are laughing as they know that US involvement in thr Middle East will prevent them influencing the Pacific. China is now getting traction in Australia due to anti Trump opinion.
Starmer ahould be ostracising Trump. We shoild not let the US use UK air bases for their operations nor provide US with intelligence. The UK and European allies should be working with india, Australia, South Africa , Brazil etc to put Trump , Vance and Heckseth before ICC. Why tje Israeli govt is not before ICC already is a mystery.
It is a total disaster politically , economically and ecologically. Nothing good will come out of this. It only proves than the US and Israel are now a threat to the whole world.
Interesting to read that Cuba appears to be next on Trump's list. Again, Cuba has been weakened by US sanctions. We should all stand with Cuba.
It mught also be worth noting that Putin is rubbing his hands in glee as the Russian economy is being boosted by higher oil pricss. The Chinese are laughing as they know that US involvement in thr Middle East will prevent them influencing the Pacific. China is now getting traction in Australia due to anti Trump opinion.
Starmer ahould be ostracising Trump. We shoild not let the US use UK air bases for their operations nor provide US with intelligence. The UK and European allies should be working with india, Australia, South Africa , Brazil etc to put Trump , Vance and Heckseth before ICC. Why tje Israeli govt is not before ICC already is a mystery.
Got to say, being attacked by Tony Blair for not going all in with the US is just about the best vindication Starmer could possibly get that he is right.
Hmmm…I’d suggest that the current regime caused many more of the issues in modern Iran than any Western sanctions ever did.
China sending envoys to Saudi to broker peace . I think that countries in the Middle East will prefer China to US as an ally. Just can see that American action in Iran marking a turning point. Other countries will blame US for Iranian air raids.
Pete Hegseth, not fit for purpose in government or as a human being. Same could probably be said about most if not all of the Trump administration.
www.theguardian.com
“Death and destruction from the sky all day long,” Pete Hegseth, wearing a red, white and and blue tie and pocket square, bragged to reporters at the Pentagon near Washington. “This was never meant to be a fair fight, and it is not a fair fight. We are punching them while they’re down, which is exactly how it should be.”
Hegseth, 45, a former Fox News TV host who now commands the world’s most powerful military, has this week become the face of Donald Trump’s war in Iran. That has set off alarm bells for critics who warn that the Secretary of Defense – pointedly rebranded “Secretary of War” – has rapidly transformed the Pentagon into the staging ground for an ideological and religious crusade.
With machismo, Christian nationalism and callousness toward the lives of US troops, they say, Hegseth’s puerile displays on TV are aimed at sating Trump’s desire for a warmonger worthy of the manosphere. This was reinforced by a lurid social media video that intersperses clips from Hollywood blockbusters such as Braveheart, Gladiator, Superman and Top Gun with Hegseth and real kill-shot footage of the attacks in Iran.
Janessa Goldbeck, chief executive of Vet Voice Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy organisation, said: “Pete Hegseth is a very dangerous person. He’s a white Christian nationalist and has the arsenal of the United States government at his disposal and a permission slip from President Trump to deploy carnage wherever he wishes against whomever he wishes.”
After leaving Princeton, Hegseth joined the US army national guard as an infantry officer. He later revealed in a book that he told soldiers under his command in Iraq to ignore legal advice about when they were permitted to kill enemy combatants under their rules of engagement.
In 2018 Hegseth’s mother, Penelope, sent him an email that said: “You are an abuser of women – that is the ugly truth and I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around, and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth.”
As defence secretary Hegseth has vowed to “unleash overwhelming and punishing violence” on enemies and promised to dispense with “stupid rules of engagement” – rules designed to restrict attacks on civilian populations."
‘A very dangerous person’: alarm as Pete Hegseth revels in carnage of Iran war
Critics say brash, bombastic Fox News host out of his depth to guide US military through murky new Middle East conflict
www.theguardian.com
“Death and destruction from the sky all day long,” Pete Hegseth, wearing a red, white and and blue tie and pocket square, bragged to reporters at the Pentagon near Washington. “This was never meant to be a fair fight, and it is not a fair fight. We are punching them while they’re down, which is exactly how it should be.”
Hegseth, 45, a former Fox News TV host who now commands the world’s most powerful military, has this week become the face of Donald Trump’s war in Iran. That has set off alarm bells for critics who warn that the Secretary of Defense – pointedly rebranded “Secretary of War” – has rapidly transformed the Pentagon into the staging ground for an ideological and religious crusade.
With machismo, Christian nationalism and callousness toward the lives of US troops, they say, Hegseth’s puerile displays on TV are aimed at sating Trump’s desire for a warmonger worthy of the manosphere. This was reinforced by a lurid social media video that intersperses clips from Hollywood blockbusters such as Braveheart, Gladiator, Superman and Top Gun with Hegseth and real kill-shot footage of the attacks in Iran.
Janessa Goldbeck, chief executive of Vet Voice Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy organisation, said: “Pete Hegseth is a very dangerous person. He’s a white Christian nationalist and has the arsenal of the United States government at his disposal and a permission slip from President Trump to deploy carnage wherever he wishes against whomever he wishes.”
After leaving Princeton, Hegseth joined the US army national guard as an infantry officer. He later revealed in a book that he told soldiers under his command in Iraq to ignore legal advice about when they were permitted to kill enemy combatants under their rules of engagement.
In 2018 Hegseth’s mother, Penelope, sent him an email that said: “You are an abuser of women – that is the ugly truth and I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around, and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth.”
As defence secretary Hegseth has vowed to “unleash overwhelming and punishing violence” on enemies and promised to dispense with “stupid rules of engagement” – rules designed to restrict attacks on civilian populations."
Last edited:
Just read a post saying “It took the US 19 years to replace the taliban with the taliban. It’s only taken 9 days to replace Ayatollah Khamenei with Ayatollah Khamenei. #progress”
Not sure I understand what that tweet about China and the Straits of Hormuz is talking about. Maybe I am missing something.
He says it is all about controlling Iran so they can control the oil supply that China Imports which comes through that straight and therefore wants a US allied Iran to control that import............
...............but that oil must be coming from countries other than Iran that are already allied with the US? So if the US cant control alies that produce the oil not to sell it to China............wouldn't that mean doing it by using an allied Iran to forcefully control oil that their other allies are producing and selling to China just cause even more problems?
If the reason was that simple then surely he could have leaned more heavily on his existing allies that are selling the oil?
I tend to agree on the energy aspect overall though. The big beasts of US, China and to a degree Russia are going after rare earth and other "newer" energy and tech needs in a big way and away from the general newsfeeds control and supply of this market is likely to be a big big thing in the near future, if it isn't already.
He says it is all about controlling Iran so they can control the oil supply that China Imports which comes through that straight and therefore wants a US allied Iran to control that import............
...............but that oil must be coming from countries other than Iran that are already allied with the US? So if the US cant control alies that produce the oil not to sell it to China............wouldn't that mean doing it by using an allied Iran to forcefully control oil that their other allies are producing and selling to China just cause even more problems?
If the reason was that simple then surely he could have leaned more heavily on his existing allies that are selling the oil?
I tend to agree on the energy aspect overall though. The big beasts of US, China and to a degree Russia are going after rare earth and other "newer" energy and tech needs in a big way and away from the general newsfeeds control and supply of this market is likely to be a big big thing in the near future, if it isn't already.
