RayC

Where did I mention neo-Nazis? You seem to have cornered the market in deluded fantasies. You're becoming increasingly ageist. (However, I do prefer Hua Hin to Pattaya). "... no lefties stirring up racial divides ..." said without irony by the man who's favourite saying is a sarcastic, "diversity is our strength".

You appear to be replying to yourself.

That's what comes of being so insular, Jonathan; you don't get to meet new and interesting types of people. Once again, you're jumping to conclusions without any supporting evidence. Actually I've never really cared much for Pattaya. You're almost certainly chronologically younger than me, Jonny. Anyway, I'm a bit surprised. I wouldn't have thought that you would have cared much for all the EU-loving politicians and the Labour-loving 'Cool Britannia' arts crowd of the '90s.

I believe that that group you mention are usually referred to as 'luvvies' - not the establishment - but then you can be forgiven that error as terminology isn't your strong suit. The real British establishment obviously has nothing to fear while there exist insular simpletons, who endlessly bemoan their lot as an Englishman and have a longing to return to the good old days of the 19th century.

The "lefty establishment"? What's its' membership and when was it formed? Presumably it's meant to act as a counterweight to the right-wing British establishment, whose membership (not an exhaustive list) contains the monarchy, the aristocracy, media barons, financiers, industrialists, the leaders of the armed forces, etc?

(Mohammed) Zia Yusef's real name is 'Jack Smith'?

How ungrateful can you get? This is not just any old hospital ship, this is a "great" hospital ship🤦

No.

Why should a HoS's role be any different if s/he were directly elected?

Fair points. In the UK, the HoS is mainly a ceremonial role. Nevertheless, imo in a democracy the role should be filled by an election.

That's kind but, unfortunately, your salutation is wasted on me (a non-believer). All the best.

"It would also need backing from the 14 Commonwealth countries where King Charles III is head of state, such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand". And therein lies a potential problem. These other 14 countries might question what value there is in remaining subservient to the British crown or whether membership of the Commonwealth itself brings any benefits. I doubt that Buckingham Palace or Downing Street would welcome any more problems or scrutiny especially at the moment.

Well, that was a waste of time as I knew it would be. I have looked back at our exchange and cannot find any instances where I have not addressed your questions directly. On the other hand, there are plenty of instances where I had to remind you of your non-responses. If you list any previous questions which you think remain unanswered, then I will try to address them. (Note: I said previous questions. I am also willing to address new questions but please list those separately. I want to avoid you trying to muddy the waters any more than you already have done). I'd suggest that you look at recent history. That wasn't the case for Al-Qeda, ISIS, etc. If destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities was as simple as you imply, don't you think that previous US administrations or, for that matter, the Israeli or Saudi governments wouldn't have done so by now? The idea that the US can simply knock out Iran's nuclear capabilities; replace the top tier of Iran's government with more of the same i.e. the second tier, and that while all this is going on, the Iranian government and state continues to function basically 'as normal' and the Iranian people don't give these developments no more than a passing glance is - depending on whether one is generous or not - either 1) touchingly naïve or 2) downright ludicrous.

The government/ navy allowed him to command a ship?🤦😱

The only assumption which I have made is that Trump is willing to see through his threat of "bad things" happening to Iran if it doesn't accede to his demands. I agree that might be 'baseless' as Trump may back down although that looks increasingly unlikely. What other baseless assumptions do you think that I have made? Wrt your specific points: 1) You think that a second tier of religious fundamentalists will for some unstated reasons be more amenable to US demands than the top tier? Let's just say I'm a lot more skeptical than you. 2) I'm pleased that we can agree that a discussion about the Venezuelan government is tangential to any discussion of post-conflict Iran. 3) A benevolent dictatorship might be a good form of government but the problem is that benevolent dictators are pretty thin on the ground. Therefore, imo democracy - imperfect as it may be - is preferable to autocracy. 4) "A government is a noun referring to the governing body, organization, or system of individuals that exercises authority, control, and administration over a political unit, such as a state, nation, or city. It can be treated as a singular or plural collective noun, often capitalized when referring to a specific entity." (Source: Google AI) 5) If the Iranian government does not accede to Trump's demands and Trump does not back down, there will have to be regime change. What is the alternative? As I said in my last post, unless you think that there will be a seamless transition from the deposed government to a as yet unformed, undefined new government, somebody will have to do take on civil duties such as security in the interim. Given that the US will have instigated the regime change, I'd suggest that they have those responsibilities. 6) Post-war Iraq descended into chaos because, "a lot of people abandoned the cause". That needs a lot more explanation, not least a definition of what this (common, agreed) cause actually was. 7) If Trump doesn't want the responsibility of nation building then he should refrain from affecting regime change.

What does that even mean? That the second tier of mullahs should take over? That's meant to be an improvement? Good question but why is that relevant to a discussion about a future post-conflict Iran unless you expect the same people - whoever they might be - to run Iran and Venezuela simultaneously? Why should there be plans for democratic elections post-conflict in Iran? I would have thought that the answer was obvious unless you believe that swapping one autocracy for another is a good idea. Security for the Iranian people. If the US is going to depose the Iranian government don't you think that they have a responsibility to ensure the safety and security of ordinary Iranians? For better or worse security is currently being handled by the Iranian government which is currently in situ. Presumably if the US affect a regime change there will need to be a transition to a new government or do you think that things will somehow fall seamlessly into place overnight? If the chaos that followed the war in Iraq was as a result of some master plan then I can only conclude that the objectives were flawed. So far all you done is answer my questions with questions. How about discarding the deviation and having a go at addressing them directly? For ease of reference, I'll repost them here again: What plans does the US have for Iran post-conflict? In particular, Who will run the country post-conflict? What are the plans for democratic elections post-conflict? How will security be maintained in Iran in the interim? What's the timetable for any transition to a future new administration? A simple "I don't know" to each question is acceptable and honest.

Let's start with governance and security. Who will run the country post-conflict? What are the plans for democratic elections? How will security be maintained in the interim? What's the timetable for any transition? You know, the sort of detail that was completely overlooked when invading Iraq.

To misquote Mrs Merton, "So Melania, what first attracted you to the multi-millionaire Donald Trump?"

Interchange 'the left' and 'Trump' and it begs the question (which I asked of another poster): Can you explain what plans the US has for Iran post-conflict?

Is 'soft' the correct word?😉

You're right. There was no investigation by The Express. The fact is that they published an article which is factually inaccurate. This suggests that they did not attempt to validate and verify the facts before publication. That reeks of poor journalism in itself. The disconnect between the headline and the main body of the article is plain for all to see and is, unfortunately, par for the course for The Express.

And then what happens? I wonder if - and doubt that - Trump's plans for a post-conflict Iran are any more developed than Bush's plans were for a post-war Iraq. Maybe that's the reason Starmer wants nothing to do with this latest US middle Eastern adventure.

Careful what you wish for. Zack Polanski and Rupert Lowe are lurking.

Don't tease us like that. Was this fellow found guilty or not guilty?

Even if Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor is guilty of nothing more serious than being an arrogant, entitled, incompetent, rude sleazeball, imo there's more than enough reason there to justify having no sympathy for his plight.