Iran is collapsing.

Inflation up over 40%.

Dollar collapsing.

Trump is (inadvertently) going to help the average Iranian citizen.

That may not be his objective, but things can only get better once the Supreme Loser is removed.

2 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

And come on, he is stabilising the middle east by bombing it and seemingly initiating a regional conflict! Are you that deep in the cult???

Yes, could be a valid theory.

Because Iran has engaged in proxy wars.

In fact, this may be the real reason they are going after them.

So if they neutralize Iran, it does provide more stability in the Middle East.

https://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/proxy-wars/map

Since its inception in 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has aggressively sought to export its Islamic Revolution and remake the Middle East under its dominion. Iran’s primary method to empower itself has been to anchor loyal proxies in the region, which it has done most successfully with Hezbollah in Lebanon, and more recently in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Gaza.

1 hour ago, JimCM said:

So you must support Smotrich, Ben Gvir, and Netanyahu?

You have asked me this question several times before and my answer hasn't changed.

On 7/19/2025 at 1:38 AM, Evil Penevil said:

 

I don't agree at all with Ben-Gvir and Smotrich.  I agree with some of Netanyahu's policies and positions, disagree with others and have no opinion on some.  Broadly speaking,  I support his efforts to destroy Hamas once and for all. 

 

Moreover,  I believe a two-state solution is the best way to settle the conflict in Palestine,  assuming all Palestinian groups and Arab national governments recognize Israel's right to exist as a sovereign state and the Jewish homeland.

2 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Alas in the real world sometimes war needs to be waged to bring about peace. The two Great Wars for example. Recent history of course shows that this isn't always the case.

WW1 certainly didn't bring peace, quite the reverse. WW2 may have been instrumental in the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community, which forced the French and Germans to stop their regular dust-ups but Uncle Joe ensured that Europe was always on edge.

21 minutes ago, Evil Penevil said:

That's one of the realities of the Middle East situation. Some of those realities change over the years, other remain constant.

One reality is Netanyahu still controls US policy and wants, along with his Nazi like cabinet.

47% of Jewish Israelis think it's ok to kill all Gazans.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/majority-israelis-support-expulsion-palestinians-gaza-poll#:~:text=An%20overwhelming%20number%20of%20Israelis,of%20the%20conquest%20of%20Jericho.

6 minutes ago, Evil Penevil said:

You have asked me this question several times before and my answer hasn't changed.

Thanks. But you still support a country where 47% think it's ok to kill all Palestinians in Gaza?

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/majority-israelis-support-expulsion-palestinians-gaza-poll#:~:text=An%20overwhelming%20number%20of%20Israelis,of%20the%20conquest%20of%20Jericho.

8 minutes ago, RayC said:

WW1 certainly didn't bring peace, quite the reverse. WW2 may have been instrumental in the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community, which forced the French and Germans to stop their regular dust-ups but Uncle Joe ensured that Europe was always on edge.

What would have happened otherwise? Sometimes going to battle if no other way can be found is necessary. Sometimes it's all BS. Weapons of mass destruction comes to mind.

4 minutes ago, JimCM said:

Thanks. But you still support a country where 47% think it's ok to kill all Palestinians in Gaza?

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/majority-israelis-support-expulsion-palestinians-gaza-poll#:~:text=An%20overwhelming%20number%20of%20Israelis,of%20the%20conquest%20of%20Jericho.

Unbelievably stupid .

Cant you even read or understand what is written ?

"Expelling" > killing .

Question : "Should Palestinians be expelled " , its NOT a question asking whether they should be killed

Youve failed .

1 minute ago, dinsdale said:

What would have happened otherwise? Sometimes going to battle if no other way can be found is necessary. Sometimes it's all BS. Weapons of mass destruction comes to mind.

Who knows what would have happened next if WW1 hadn't occurred? The US's elevation to the world's leading power would probably have been delayed? France, Germany and Britain probably would have continued their battle for colonies. Would the Nazis have risen to power? Who knows?

Perhaps, a major conflict in Europe would have been inevitable but, as I said previously, the idea that WW1 brought peace to Europe does not stand up to scrutiny.

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

Who knows what would have happened next if WW1 hadn't occurred? The US's elevation to the world's leading power would probably have been delayed? France, Germany and Britain probably would have continued their battle for colonies. Would the Nazis have risen to power? Who knows?

Perhaps, a major conflict in Europe would have been inevitable but, as I said previously, the idea that WW1 brought peace to Europe does not stand up to scrutiny.

I'm not saying if it hadn't occurred. I'm saying as with WWII if it wasn't stopped, and both were stopped through armed conflict. If you think stopping the Germans in WWI and Hitler in WWII by force doesn't stand up to scrutiny then that's an interesting opinion.

42 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Iran is collapsing.

Inflation up over 40%.

Dollar collapsing.

Trump is (inadvertently) going to help the average Iranian citizen.

That may not be his objective, but things can only get better once the Supreme Loser is removed.

I seem to recall similar statements being made about Afghanistan and Iraq.

It is, of course, possible that things might be different this time and that there is a plan for post-war Iran but somehow I doubt it.

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

I seem to recall similar statements being made about Afghanistan and Iraq.

It is, of course, possible that things might be different this time and that there is a plan for post-war Iran but somehow I doubt it.

Fair call but as it is the head still seems to be on the snake. Will the people rise up against this insane fundamentalist theocracy and overthrow them or will troops need to go in to take them out? Either way the cost of human lives will be large. Possibly the Mullahs will see the writing on the wall and a negotiated exit can happen.

Posts with a derogatory political neologism to belittle or mock individuals with differing political views and the replies have been removed.

Posts with derogatory nicknames, intentional misspellings, or personal remarks will be removed. Spell names correctly for all sides of the debate.

15 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

I'm not saying if it hadn't occurred. I'm saying as with WWII if it wasn't stopped, and both were stopped through armed conflict. If you think stopping the Germans in WWI and Hitler in WWII by force doesn't stand up to scrutiny then that's an interesting opinion.

You are attempting to draw parallels between this conflict in Iran and the two World Wars which don't exist.

Given the bi-lateral treaties which existed, once the ball started rolling conflict was inevitable in Europe in 1914 and 1939. There is no such inevitability - or shouldn't be - about a conflict in Iran involving the US (at least not at this time).

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

Iran is collapsing.

Inflation up over 40%.

Dollar collapsing.

Trump is (inadvertently) going to help the average Iranian citizen.

That may not be his objective, but things can only get better once the Supreme Loser is removed.

But the alarmists blame Epstein.

3 hours ago, Wingate said:

So I'm curious....North Korea has nukes. They have the Hwasong 20 which can hit anyplace in the US. During Trump 1.0 they miniaturized their nukes so as to be able to mount them on missiles. They slaughter tens of thousands of their own people, while starving others to death. They represent a major threat to allies like South Korea and Japan.

Certainly the same rationale for attacking Iran exists with North Korea, but Trump loves the little fat dictator.

You overlooked the key word here. North Korea HAS nukes. That's why they can't be stopped.

If Iran were allowed to HAVE nukes they too would be untouchable like N Korea.

If the barbaric Iranian regime stays in place until they get nukes and become untouchable, they'll be free to slaughter their own people and destabilise the ME for ever more.

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

You are attempting to draw parallels between this conflict in Iran and the two World Wars which don't exist.

Given the bi-lateral treaties which existed, once the ball started rolling conflict was inevitable in Europe in 1914 and 1939. There is no such inevitability - or shouldn't be - about a conflict in Iran involving the US (at least not at this time).

No I'm not. I'm simply saying that sometimes war is necessary. As for inevitability this has been on the cards for decades. The insane Mullah's want nukes and want to kill the infidels.

11 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Fair call but as it is the head still seems to be on the snake. Will the people rise up against this insane fundamentalist theocracy and overthrow them or will troops need to go in to take them out? Either way the cost of human lives will be large. Possibly the Mullahs will see the writing on the wall and a negotiated exit can happen.

The Iranian regime - like Saddam's Iraq - is despicable and has a destabilising effect in the region but - and it is a big 'but' - it is no good simply removing it unless there is a plan to ensure that stability follows. Given the utterances coming out of the White House I e. that regime change will have to be instigated by the Iranian people, it seems very unlikely that Trump has given any thought to what happens next.

I think that you are hoping against hope that the Iranian regime will sue for peace.

1 minute ago, dinsdale said:

No I'm not. I'm simply saying that sometimes war is necessary. As for inevitability this has been on the cards for decades. The insane Mullah's want nukes and want to kill the infidels.

If the justification for action at this time is that the insane Mullahs are close to producing nuclear weapons, then the evidence should be produced. Iran has supposedly been 5 minutes away from having a nuclear arsenal for the past 40 years.

Blair and WMD comes to mind.

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

it seems very unlikely that Trump has given any thought to what happens next.

This is naïve in extreme. What's happening is global politics at the highest level. Sadly it would seem your absolute disdain for Trump blinds you from reality. The same thing was said on here by the usual orange man bad crowd about Venezuela but it sure seems that more than "any thought" was given to "what happens next." As for Iran the "what happens next" stage is yet to happen if it will at all. These Islamic fundamentalist's are after all Islamic fundamentalist's. Islam and the destruction of the infidel west is their mantra and they'll do everything they can to achieve this.

18 minutes ago, RayC said:

If the justification for action at this time is that the insane Mullahs are close to producing nuclear weapons, then the evidence should be produced. Iran has supposedly been 5 minutes away from having a nuclear arsenal for the past 40 years.

Blair and WMD comes to mind.

No! It's more than this and I'm not convinced about the 5 minutes away thing. I think the Midnight Hammer assessment was somewhat right and that huge damage was done to the program. I also think that the program was restarted or continued from what was left but not convinced of the five minutes away thing. It's bigger than just this though IMO and my guess is many ME countries are onboard with this. Regime change is the goal.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

Who knows what would have happened next if WW1 hadn't occurred? The US's elevation to the world's leading power would probably have been delayed? France, Germany and Britain probably would have continued their battle for colonies. Would the Nazis have risen to power? Who knows?

WW1 was the beginning of the end. The Nazi's would have never come to pass nor the post-WWII "new world order" where nation states are being dismantled and flooded with foreigners.

AI summary from Mein Kampf:

"Hitler later claimed that Germany’s defeat in 1918 devastated him and shaped his political beliefs. While recovering from gas exposure, he learned Germany had surrendered — which he described as a national betrayal. This became central to his later ideology."

Iran has launched hypersonic missiles.

49 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

If Iran were allowed to HAVE nukes they too would be untouchable like N Korea.

Both India and Pakistan have nukes. These are people that have sub-80 IQs, <deleted> in the streets and practice cousin marriage yet the world allowed them to get nukes.

This isn't about what you think it is. Israel has been trying to get America to bomb Iran since the 90s along with many other countries we've already gone to war with. This is just the end of decades long plan.

8 minutes ago, NorthernRyland said:

Both India and Pakistan have nukes. These are people that have sub-80 IQs, <deleted> in the streets and practice cousin marriage yet the world allowed them to get nukes.

This isn't about what you think it is. Israel has been trying to get America to bomb Iran since the 90s along with many other countries we've already gone to war with. This is just the end of decades long plan.

Flatten the terrorists and move on.

6 hours ago, BLMFem said:

If you're booked with one of the Gulf carriers you better get rebooked post haste.

I have a flight to the US booked on Qatar Airways in two weeks, as part of a five-week trip through South and Central America and the US. At the moment it's looking highly likely that I'll have to cancel the trip. And while I would expect Qatar Airways to give me a refund, I don't think I will be able to get a refund for the half dozen other (expensive) flights that I have already paid for throughout the region.

4 minutes ago, BangkokHank said:

I have a flight to the US booked on Qatar Airways in two weeks, as part of a five-week trip through South and Central America and the US. At the moment it's looking highly likely that I'll have to cancel the trip. And while I would expect Qatar Airways to give me a refund, I don't think I will be able to get a refund for the half dozen other (expensive) flights that I have already paid for throughout the region.

Why not just rebook the flight ? Go in through a different route.

23 minutes ago, blaze master said:

Why not just rebook the flight ? Go in through a different route.

The flight is with Qatar Airways. They only fly through Qatar. Or am I missing something?

Operation Epic Fury? Should be called Nonce Distraction.

I wonder if that Qatari 747 gift is a target?

I know I certainly wouldn’t like to be staying at certain hotels in the gulf at the miment

1 hour ago, BangkokHank said:

The flight is with Qatar Airways. They only fly through Qatar. Or am I missing something?

I always get cancelation protection wifh my tickets. That way if something happens I have an alternative. Then I can rebook to a better route if needed.