RayC

'The war is going great'. Apparently, it's even better than that: 'The war is won'. I can only assume that the US Navy and Air Force are staying on in the region for a bit of R&R. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/12/trump-administration-news-updates-today

Which bit of "The UK has a long and proud tradition of providing a safe haven for the persecuted" is unclear? As a matter of fact, the Huguenots were persecuted in France and many were given safe haven in England. Not knowing this is yet another example of your almost complete ignorance of Britain. Yes, some idiots are useful; others are simply idiots The majority of people have no difficulty understanding the difference between legal and illegal immigration, and the majority of people are also sympathetic to genuine refugees. You are obviously not one of the majority. You need to look outside your goldfish bowl. Fortunately - and no doubt despite your best efforts - right-wing dictatorships are still thin on the ground I've never claimed to be brave and I have no idea how I'd react in a frontline battle. Fortunately at my age, this is unlikely to be tested. I'm the one who opposes discrimination. Bigotry is your province. Given your views, it's certainly more likely that you would invite Nazis in for tea and crumpets than me. (My apologies, I should explain: A crumpet is a type of bread which was quite popular in the UK (less so now). Brits and knowledgeable Anglophiles know this but I thought it best to explain this word as you don't fall into either of those categories).

Yet more proof - as if it were needed - that you know very little about the UK. The UK has a long and proud tradition of providing a safe haven for the persecuted and, in general, most Brits are welcoming and tolerant of outsiders. Did previous generations have more backbone and courage? Maybe. They certainly had enough courage to fight against those who sought to discriminate against others simply because they came from a different country, had a different skin tone or followed a different religion. They - and most of us today - view those who seek to divide on the basis of race or religion as pathetic.

Your representations of the UK - a country I doubt that you have even ever set foot in - are insulting and not even close to reality. You wouldn't recognise the truth if you bumped into it.

You have nothing to offer but division.

You have been misinformed. There is no colonisation of the UK One Trump is more than enough for the world to have to cope with.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were tasked with issuing quarterly reports stating whether Iran was complying with the terms of JCPOA. Up to the time of the US's withdrawal from the Agreement, they did not find Iran non-compliant even once. Your position is akin to a sports team objecting to the score and then replacing the designated independent referee with one of their own choosing in an attempt to influence the result. Iran was found to be non-compliant after the US withdrew from the Agreement and reapplied sanctions. Given the circumstances, I'd suggest that Iran's reaction was hardly surprising. As I said previously, the mess that we (the world) now finds itself in wrt the situation in Iran is of Trump's own making.

Then your interpretation was incorrect. That is your narrative. The UN were satisfied that Iran was complying with the terms of the Agreement and did not think that the JCPOA was worthless. Without perfect knowledge, there is very little that anyone can be certain about. You seem unwilling to accept the fact that the authorities who mattered were convinced that Iran was complying with the terms of the Agreement. Why would Iran go over and above the agreed terms? Urging the Iranian public to enact regime change - which would almost certainly result in a large number of casualties - while at the same time ruling out US support to effect that change does not suggest to me that Trump is overly concerned with the fate of Iranian civilians. I suggest that you re-read the bit in my previous post about what would happened if Iran had been found to be non-compliant when the JCPOA was in force. Then you recall incorrectly. I have never stated that no action should be taken against illegal migrants. You're welcome. If 'leftism' hadn't existed, then you might still have 4-year olds cleaning chimneys if it were cost-effective. There likely wouldn't be any restrictions on 'laissez faire' capitalism, such as Health and Safety legislation but, hey, what's a few industrial related deaths amongst friends: Humans don't need to be treated any differently to machines.

"Meanwhile, early optimism for the newly formed Restore Britain party has diminished. Their odds have increased from 10/1 to 16/1, indicating a loss of enthusiasm from the betting public". At least there's some positive news.

No I will not acknowledge that statement because it is not what I said or meant. In response to the question: "Did iran allow access to its nuclear facilities in accordance with the terms of JCPOA?", AI provided the following response: "Iran's compliance with the access and monitoring terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has shifted significantly over three distinct phases: 1. Initial Compliance (2016–2019) Verified Access: Following "Implementation Day" on January 16, 2016, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verified that Iran had provided "unprecedented access" to its nuclear facilities and supply chain. Active Monitoring: During this period, the IAEA maintained continuous surveillance at declared sites like Natanz and Fordow, utilizing tamper-resistant cameras and fiber-optic seals. Implementation of Additional Protocol: Iran provisionally applied the Additional Protocol, which granted inspectors short-notice access to undeclared sites. I realise that this answer does not fit your narrative but there you have it. "If Iran broke the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the "snapback" mechanism in UN Security Council Resolution 2231 would have automatically reimposed pre-2015 UN sanctions. These measures, which were triggered in late 2025 by the E3 (UK, France, Germany), include a full arms embargo, restrictions on missile technology, a ban on uranium enrichment, and financial sanctions" (Source: AI again) I'll preempt your objection: If those sanctions did not have the desired effect effect, then I assume the use of force against Iran to ensure compliance would be an option. Sadly, very little. But let's not pretend concern for Iranian's civilian population forms part of Trump's agenda. The statement about 'Not being in the business of nation building' proves that. Of course it is. The 7% of the UK population who are Muslims are plotting the overthrow of the British state as the extreme left-wing Starmer government does nothing. Sorry but sometimes sarcasm is justified. No as I have explained at least twice previously, I do not believe that Iran - or any other nation which does not already possess such arms - should be permitted to continue developing nuclear weapons. Yes, I do believe that Iran should be permitted to continue developing ballistic missiles in order to protect itself against its' perceived enemies, notably Israel (I do not know whether such missiles would be considered intercontinental). In an ideal world, Iran and Israel would enter into a bi-lateral agreement limiting the development of arms but that is almost certainly wishful thinking on my part.

No I did not "... falsely claim that the JCPOA was approved by Congress ..". What I actually said was " .. both the UN and the US Congress at the time were convinced that Iran was abiding by the agreement". I will acknowledge that my mistake: The US Congress - together with Israel and Saudi Arabia (there's an unholy alliance) - were not convinced. "Only" the UN inspectors and the rest of the world were convinced. Will you acknowledge that you misrepresented my position? Again, I am not falsely claiming anything. Iran allowed access to its nuclear facilities in accordance with the terms of the JCPOA which was enough to satisfy the UN and other bodies/ nations. Where is your evidence that Iran breached the terms of the Agreement, other than an unverified and unvalidated Israeli report? So the US explanation for developing (and using) nuclear devices is, 'We didn't invent them'. Not much of a defence, is it? If Trump had not ripped up JCPOA, there would not be a conversation about Iran possessing nuclear weapons and, if there was then the international community would be fully entitled to do something about it. Wrt ballistic missiles, unless and until Israel decommissions it's arsenal, why shouldn't Iran be allowed its own deterrent? The situation in Iran is of Trump's own making. As I mentioned previously, if he hadn't unilaterally left JCPOA we wouldn't be having this discussion and there would have been no bombing of Iran. Two wrongs rarely make a right, and they certainly don't in this case. The US right-wing's attitude to solving problems seems to be 'F**k the rest of the world' and/or 'Bomb it'.

Whether the JCPOA was a Treaty or an Agreement may have significant legal implications within the US, however, the discussion is about whether (1) the contents of the JCPOA were (are) a good thing and (2) whether Iran was abiding by those contents. The answer to (1) was 'Yes', a view predominant most everywhere apart from Israel and within the US government, but shared at the time by the majority (67%) of the US public (Source: "Majority say US should not withdraw from Iran nuclear agreement"). The answer to 2) was also, 'Yes'; again a view shared by most of the rest of the world apart from the US and Israeli governments. Imo it would be in the best interests of the world if no nation had a nuclear weapon capability but, unfortunately, it would be naive idealism to think that state could be reached. Preventing further nations from obtaining this nuclear capability would be a second-best outcome (although again this might also be a bit idealistic). However, irrespective of whether either of those outcomes are realistic and achievable, neither justifies the US attack on Iran.

For similar reasons to the first signing i.e. economic necessity. The Iranian economy was in dire straits, even before this conflict started, so economic incentives could have led to an agreement. Why shouldn't a nation be allowed to develop a peaceful nuclear program? Whether the inspections were unrestricted or not, both the UN and the US Congress at the time were convinced that Iran was abiding by the agreement. What's weak, brother? Iran worries - not without good reason - that it might be attacked by Israel. Is it unreasonable of them to demand concessions on the part of Israel if Iran halts its' development of nuclear weapons and limit its' ballistic missile program?

So says ASN's great intellect.

You wouldn't know 'a proof' if you ran into one.

Of course, other nationalities fought for the UK during WW2. Millions of Aussies, Canadians, Kiwis, Indians, Africans, etc did (apologies to other nationalities; there are too many to mention individually), and their actions and sacrifice should always be remembered, but the point is if the UK had surrendered those brave individuals would not have had the opportunity to fight Nazism.

You are completely incapable of engaging in polite, thoughtful discussion. You are nothing more than an ignorant xenophobe.

I don't pretend to be an elite military expert. As for facts, it is a fact that the UK stood alone against Nazi Germany in 1940/41, something which you seem unwilling or unable to accept or acknowledge. What would have happened if the UK had surrendered in 1940/41 is obviously conjecture. I have an opinion which I have stated and explained. There is, of course, an opposite opinion. I don't like liars either. I also don't like xenophobes, which something you appear to be given your continuous stream of anti-British rhetoric.

There is a mountain of literature on the internet about these subjects. In the context of this discussion on this conflict in Iran, I think that the answers to your comment could be filed under 'Self incriminating evidence'.

Funnily enough when someone attacks me, I react in kind. If you want to have a polite discussion then I suggest that you tone down your own aggressive rhetoric, especially wrt those of us who are British. It's an interesting article but in no way negates my premise (although I accept that disproving a counterfactual is difficult).

There is no reason why the JCPOA could not have been extended. Any agreement to limit Iran's development of intercontinental ballistic missiles would be more difficult. Presumably Iran would require some reciprocal agreement re Israeli missile capability?An opportunity for President Trump to use his famed powers of persuasion.

Are you some sort of masochist? Do you derive pleasure from displaying your almost complete ignorance and lack of analytical thought about any number of topics? I think that can be the only explanation for your posts. Russia was able to succeed due to 1) Stalin's disregard for his own citizens' lives 2) Supplies under the Lend-Lease program and 3) German resources being stretched in order to continue the fight against the UK. If the UK had surrendered in 1940/41, 3) becomes a non-issue and in all probability, so does 2) as Germany would have had total control of the (European) Atlantic supply channels. In short, the US would have ceased supplies and not declared war on Germany. Re 1) Stalin would, no doubt, have fought on but starved of supplies, Russia would not have been able to launch an offensive move against Germany. At most, Russia would have put up an irritating, prolonged resistance to Germany. Assuming that Germany did not declare war on the US - not the wildest of assumptions - why would the US launch a nuclear attack on a state which it was not at war with? This ignores the little matters of the US managing to deliver a bomb to its' target without it firstly being intercepted. I hope that is simple enough for an ignorant American to understand? (Note: I am NOT suggesting that all Americans are ignorant)

The alternatives were 1) for Trump to have not torn up the original 2015 agreement with Iran during his first term as President, the terms of which all interested parties - including the US - agreed Iran was complying with and 2) for Trump to have reinstated this agreement during this term in office.

Yes, Churchill was a pretty poor peacetime politician: Failure as Home Secretary, Chancellor and other positions. However, without Churchill the UK would almost certainly have sued for peace in 1940/41, which trumped - no pun and definitely no comparison intended - his previous failings.

Without the UK holding out alone in 1940/41 the Nazis win the war and Orwell's 1984 is closer to a reality.