17 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Blair lied about WMD to start an illegal war with Bush.

Now there's real justification for action, Starmer bottles it.

Like most leftists, always on the wrong side of any situation. At least it won't upset the "community leaders" that manage Starmer though.

Isn't Blair on the board of peace?

12 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Talk about buyers regret. 3 more years of the most unpopular government. No way Starmer can keep holding the reigns.

It's not Starmer I'm talking about, it's the Labour party. Short of a government collapse after losing a no-confidence motion, they're in for the long haul

20 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

So you are in favour of allowing Iran to mass murder and torture non combatants? What was it, 40,000 dead in a month with the slaughter continuing? And are you in favour of Iran continuing with its nuclear weapon program. especially after it said it would use it on western nations? Are you also in favour of Iran's funding and arming shia militias in Iraq, Lebanon and supporting the Houthi's in the Yemen civil war?

Gross distortion. Matters like this should be a UN rather than a US decision, but then the US put the UN in handcuffs so they could take the decisions.

The last thing the UK needs is headlines like these again.

In Kuala Lumpur, after two years of investigation by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC), a tribunal (the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, or KLWCT) consisting of five judges with judicial and academic backgrounds reached a unanimous verdict that found George W Bush and Tony Blair guilty of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and genocide as a result of their roles in the Iraq War.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2011/11/28/kuala-lumpur-tribunal-bush-and-blair-guilty#:~:text=In%20Kuala%20Lumpur%2C%20after%20two,with%20the%20International%20Criminal%20Court.

13 hours ago, Peter Crow said:

Would be interesting to see that carrier sunk. The ragheads can have interesting tricks.

The was a time before 2025 were I wouldn't have posted that...

The left would love that, eh?

13 hours ago, RayC said:

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.

Just go back and look at every time I asked: "Why do you assume....", which you never seem to answer.

You asked: "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."

I think when the top tier is killed, the second tier becomes a lot more reasonable.

You imply the striking Iran's nuclear sites and killing the top tier will destroy the government. Then when I ask you to define government you give a glib response. In a strike as described, per your lame definition, 95% of the government would not be touched.

49 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The left would love that, eh?

The left of what? Where is the left of a narcissistic dictator?

10 minutes ago, Peter Crow said:

The left of what? Where is the left of a narcissistic dictator?

His post showed his simple way of thinking.

12 minutes ago, Peter Crow said:

The left of what?

The center

12 minutes ago, Peter Crow said:

Where is the left of a narcissistic dictator?

David Lammy

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

His post showed his simple way of thinking.

Is thinking difficult for you? That explains a lot.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Is thinking difficult for you? That explains a lot.

Just following your example possibly!

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Is thinking difficult for you? That explains a lot.

Since not everything is left or right and not all left is stupid and right intelligent and well spoken, you have shown it is difficult time and time again.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Just go back and look at every time I asked: "Why do you assume....", which you never seem to answer.

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).

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

You asked: "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."

I think when the top tier is killed, the second tier becomes a lot more reasonable.

I'd suggest that you look at recent history. That wasn't the case for Al-Qeda, ISIS, etc.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

You imply the striking Iran's nuclear sites and killing the top tier will destroy the government. Then when I ask you to define government you give a glib response. In a strike as described, per your lame definition, 95% of the government would not be touched.

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.

20 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Non-citizens are allowed to vote in a number of just stictions in the US.

Tell me more...

5 hours ago, sandyf said:

Gross distortion. Matters like this should be a UN rather than a US decision, but then the US put the UN in handcuffs so they could take the decisions.

The last thing the UK needs is headlines like these again.

In Kuala Lumpur, after two years of investigation by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC), a tribunal (the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, or KLWCT) consisting of five judges with judicial and academic backgrounds reached a unanimous verdict that found George W Bush and Tony Blair guilty of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and genocide as a result of their roles in the Iraq War.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2011/11/28/kuala-lumpur-tribunal-bush-and-blair-guilty#:~:text=In%20Kuala%20Lumpur%2C%20after%20two,with%20the%20International%20Criminal%20Court.

Righto. No country wants that kind of PR. However, there need to be a lot more War Crimes Tribunals and War Crimes Commissions, Peace and Reconciliation Commissions aso. Unfortunately, these bodies do not prevent wars but do provide accountability after the fact.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

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 ather 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.

Go with God brother.

39 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Tell me more...

About what? Do you not believe that non-citizens are allowed to vote in a number of just stictions in the US?

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Go with God brother.

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

All the best.

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

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

All the best.

What we believe matters not.

38 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Righto. No country wants that kind of PR. However, there need to be a lot more War Crimes Tribunals and War Crimes Commissions, Peace and Reconciliation Commissions aso. Unfortunately, these bodies do not prevent wars but do provide accountability after the fact.

When the UN Charter was drawn up after WW2 the fundamental aim was to maintain international peace and security, something that many seem to have forgotten or were never aware of.

However the US insisted on a veto, which was granted to all 5 permanent members, effectively rendering the organisation powerless to achieve that fundamental aim, giving a free hand to those that subscribed to "Might is Right".

1 minute ago, sandyf said:

When the UN Charter was drawn up after WW2 the fundamental aim was to maintain international peace and security, something that many seem to have forgotten or were never aware of.

However the US insisted on a veto, which was granted to all 5 permanent members, effectively rendering the organisation powerless to achieve that fundamental aim, giving a free hand to those that subscribed to "Might is Right".

You have an organization with five rich people and 200 poor people and we're going to vote on where the money goes. Sounds great.

Is it your position the UN should be dictate which military actions are to be taken, and by who?

On 2/20/2026 at 2:36 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

The UK is not at war with Iran, Iran is not at war with the UK, Iran is not threatening the UK.

Starmer is right to keep the UK out of yet another illegal U.S. war.

"Like most leftists, always on the wrong side of any situation. At least it won't upset the "community leaders" that manage Starmer though."

"...leftists, always on the wrong side of any situation..." What does that mean?

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

About what? Do you not believe that non-citizens are allowed to vote in a number of just stictions in the US?

Nope. And, for the record, that would be, for $500, jurisdictions.

2 hours ago, RayC said:

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

All the best.

Ya mean, brother. And seriously, he didn't say which god. I vote for Kali.

6 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Nope. And, for the record, that would be, for $500, jurisdictions.

You're betting?

5 hours ago, scorecard said:

"Like most leftists, always on the wrong side of any situation. At least it won't upset the "community leaders" that manage Starmer though."

"...leftists, always on the wrong side of any situation..." What does that mean?

Not supporting military action that has no legal basis (illegal war) is not being on the wrong side of the situation.

On 2/20/2026 at 5:18 AM, stevenl said:

If true, good to see countries standing up to Trump.

Wrong.

Too many Muslims in the UK now. If Starmer was to allow it, it could kick off in the UK, and he knows it.

The UK is that far gone now that all Starmer is in control of is the UK benefits system, and he know who he has to be generous to. 🙂

14 hours ago, sandyf said:

Gross distortion. Matters like this should be a UN rather than a US decision, but then the US put the UN in handcuffs so they could take the decisions.

The last thing the UK needs is headlines like these again.

In Kuala Lumpur, after two years of investigation by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC), a tribunal (the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, or KLWCT) consisting of five judges with judicial and academic backgrounds reached a unanimous verdict that found George W Bush and Tony Blair guilty of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and genocide as a result of their roles in the Iraq War.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2011/11/28/kuala-lumpur-tribunal-bush-and-blair-guilty#:~:text=In%20Kuala%20Lumpur%2C%20after%20two,with%20the%20International%20Criminal%20Court.

The UN gave up its impartial standing and integrity long ago. This is the organization that appointed despot nations as guardians of basic human rights and women's rights. It failed to act in Syria, in Yemen, in the Congo, in Haiti and in the Darfur, but here you come to proclaim its supremacy in this matter. The UN is a corrupt organization contaminated by political bias.

18 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not supporting military action that has no legal basis (illegal war) is not being on the wrong side of the situation.

We should not forget.

They never did find any WMD, but that didn't stop western governments, from all around the world, lying to their citizens about it, and sending other people's children off to war.

Bottom line is, if the west either want, or want to control Iran's oil. they can. All they need to do is sell a lie to their citizens.

The same old BS can be rolled out again, for the benefit of big global corporations.

14 hours ago, sandyf said:

Gross distortion. Matters like this should be a UN rather than a US decision, but then the US put the UN in handcuffs so they could take the decisions.

The last thing the UK needs is headlines like these again.

In Kuala Lumpur, after two years of investigation by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC), a tribunal (the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, or KLWCT) consisting of five judges with judicial and academic backgrounds reached a unanimous verdict that found George W Bush and Tony Blair guilty of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and genocide as a result of their roles in the Iraq War.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2011/11/28/kuala-lumpur-tribunal-bush-and-blair-guilty#:~:text=In%20Kuala%20Lumpur%2C%20after%20two,with%20the%20International%20Criminal%20Court.

You have made reference to this 2X. It has no validity, nor legal standing to pass judgement.

It was created by the corrupt totalitarian PM of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, who should have been in jail himself for human rights abuses and the false charges he brought against Anwar. Do you really believe that no one will recognize the diabolical dictator Mohamed for what he is?

Not only the UK, but most US allies in the Middle East, where many US bases are located. This will severely hamper capabilities. The US is famous for underestimating their enemies and getting itself involved in very expensive and prolonged wars.

Iran could turn out to be a disaster of epic proportions and the War President does not have a clue.