5 hours ago, Schoggibueb said:

There are no opposition structures that could take over, except for the Revolutionary Guard. However, the Guard currently wants to maintain the power structure because all those who share power benefit from it.

There will be no boots on the ground. Not even Kurdish fighters in the region, who are willing to assist in efforts to topple the Iranian government. Trump ruled that out.

So after the bombing Trump will say: "Mission accomplished." But this statement will be again - same as in Iraq - proved false, because the principle applies: "If you break it, you own it."

Trump uses the same communication manipulation as Bush did.

He calles on the Iranians to "take over their government." But doesen't give them the chance and the needed support against the Revolutionary Guard.

In doing so, he is only saying that he will help, but if it fails, it won't be his fault.

The typical blame game. Never his fault.

In World War II, nothing united the British more than the Blitz.

Churchill was cast as the symbol of defiance of Nazi tyranny. In truth, he was loathed and despised by the British working class, who voted him out of office shortly after Germany was defeated. He had served his purpose.

It very much looks like the same thing will happen in Iran. Unity while under attack. An unsuccessful military adventure which raises the cost of living for everyone.

Trump and his cabinet are not students of history. In view of the global tariffs, I wonder if they are students of anything.

On 3/6/2026 at 7:29 PM, swissie said:

Could it be that with 400m a day all the homeless people in the US could be fed and housed? Just wondering.

I'm sure the scammers in Minnesota could find a use for 400m a day

On 3/8/2026 at 9:29 AM, Lacessit said:

In World War II, nothing united the British more than the Blitz.

Churchill was cast as the symbol of defiance of Nazi tyranny. In truth, he was loathed and despised by the British working class, who voted him out of office shortly after Germany was defeated. He had served his purpose.

It very much looks like the same thing will happen in Iran. Unity while under attack. An unsuccessful military adventure which raises the cost of living for everyone.

Trump and his cabinet are not students of history. In view of the global tariffs, I wonder if they are students of anything.

It's amazing how history has been rewritten. I totally agree with you on Churchill. He was a bumbling idiot who failed in EVERY job he ever had. As the Queen's cousin, his mother always procured Churchill another plum job, after reaching an agreement for Churchill to depart his previous job by "mutual consent". Churchill managed to become a wartime leader after backstabbing his boss. If you read wartime journals of Churchill's ministers, the common consensus was that he was incredibly stup1d. This assessments reflects his academic record, which shows the young Churchill to be an imbecile, with the ability to read and talk with confidence. He shares these characteristics with Trump.

A post citing an unapproved source has been removed

An unattributed post has also been removed

4 hours ago, 1tooth said:

He was a bumbling idiot who failed in EVERY job he ever had.

Sure as hell was a great writer and a brave cavalry officer.

Id like to see anyone here charge through a wadi filled with screaming and sword slashing Mahdist fanatics while armed only with a C96

9 hours ago, 1tooth said:

As the Queen's cousin, his mother always procured Churchill another plum job

Churchills mother was an American with no ties to the UK Royal Family!

.

On 3/8/2026 at 4:34 PM, khaosokman said:

That posted is disjointed nonsense. Trump can't run again and Churchill was useless. America and USSR defeated the Nazis. Without them Brits speak German.

America, Russia, and England being the main, the rest of the help came from France, Italy, Australia, Poland, Canada. The Russians accounted for more German casualties than the others, but all helped in some ways. Intelligence and covert operations being much of it. Even the Jews helped a lot, diverting troops from the war with their own fighting,

On 3/8/2026 at 4:34 PM, khaosokman said:

That posted is disjointed nonsense. Trump can't run again and Churchill was useless. America and USSR defeated the Nazis. Without them Brits speak German.

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

On 3/8/2026 at 4:34 PM, khaosokman said:

That posted is disjointed nonsense. Trump can't run again and Churchill was useless. America and USSR defeated the Nazis. Without them Brits speak German.

Typical of the Americans to join in when we British were already winning

(sound familiar?)

10 hours ago, 1tooth said:

It's amazing how history has been rewritten. I totally agree with you on Churchill. He was a bumbling idiot who failed in EVERY job he ever had. As the Queen's cousin, his mother always procured Churchill another plum job, after reaching an agreement for Churchill to depart his previous job by "mutual consent". Churchill managed to become a wartime leader after backstabbing his boss. If you read wartime journals of Churchill's ministers, the common consensus was that he was incredibly stup1d. This assessments reflects his academic record, which shows the young Churchill to be an imbecile, with the ability to read and talk with confidence. He shares these characteristics with Trump.

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.

On 3/7/2026 at 1:31 AM, FritsSikkink said:

890 billion a day. Just borrow some more money, from who though?

I think you mean $890 million a day.

Three days of war at $890 billion would add nearly $3 trillion to US debt, the Fed could not print the paper fast enough to keep up.

The Western media deceived themselves and their public again, like they did with Ukraine. The Iranians overwhelmingly support their Mullahs and Guards. Not even the "oppressed women" are predominantly against the regime. The streets are full of women veiled from head to foot waving portraits of Khamenei, just like they were waving portraits of Khomenei some decades ago when the Shah was toppled. The West was blinded and trapped by its own propaganda.

On 3/7/2026 at 4:51 AM, JerryM said:

This just in -- a message to those who read the Farsi version of Truth Social:

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116182551337254643

The start of the US trying to empire build. Countries with oil, and those of South America, better start arming themselves or obtain nuclear weapons.

2 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

Wrong again. The Nazis got stuck in the Soviet winter and the Soviets killed the most Nazis. In 1945 the Americas invented the atomic bomb which they could have used on the Nazis if need be so no the Nazis would have have won. You are just a Brit pretending the nation is tough when it is weak.

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)

11 minutes ago, RayC said:

14 minutes ago, RayC said:

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

Why did the US invade Korea, Vietnam and Iraq then?

12 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

You sound very arrogant and 100% sure you are right based on hypotheticals that never happened ie you live in a fantasy world.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/world-war-ii-truth-lend-lease-saved-countless-lives-didnt-beat-nazi-germany-56102

I agree with this guy who knows more than you.

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).

9 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

Why did the US invade Korea, Vietnam and Iraq then?

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'.

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

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'.

You are king of hypotheticals that never happened and light on actual facts.

The past or current USA could wipe the UK off the map easily if they want.

2 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

If you were an elite military analyst you would be getting paid millions not posting on here. Had Hitler taken London and the yanks don't help is purely hypothetical. But we do know the Soviets and the winter turned the war. We know the American equipment helped. The Brits vs Germans one on one is a Nazi win which means Britain was weak not strong. Stop pretending your nation is stronger than the Americans or Germany. I just don't like liars. Tell the truth.

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.

13 minutes ago, RayC said:

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).

Outsiders did help the Brits in 1940

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/faviconV2?url=https://www.quora.com&client=AIM&size=128&type=FAVICON&fallback_opts=TYPE,SIZE,URL

Yes, the British were assisted by Allied personnel and foreign volunteers during the

Battle of Britain in 1940 (July–October), despite fighting in a largely isolated position following the fall of France. Roughly 20% of the Royal Air Force (RAF) aircrew involved in the battle were non-British, drawn from Commonwealth nations, occupied European countries, and volunteer pilots from neutral nations. 

This international force, which operated under RAF command, was crucial to the victory. 

Key Contributions from Allies in 1940

• The Polish Air Force: Polish pilots were among the most effective. The No. 303 (Polish) Squadron, in particular, was highly successful, with 145 Polish pilots participating in the battle.

• Commonwealth Pilots: Pilots from New Zealand (127), Canada (112), Australia (32), and South Africa (25) formed a significant portion of "The Few".

• Occupied Europe & Others: Pilots from Czechoslovakia (88), Belgium (28), and Free France (13) flew with the RAF.

• American Volunteers: While the U.S. was officially neutral, at least 9 to 11 American pilots fought in the RAF during the Battle of Britain.

• Logistical Support: American companies supplied high-octane fuel (BAM 100) that gave British engines a performance advantage. 

1 minute ago, RayC said:

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.

Already proven wrong. You failed to research the facts. Hundreds of pilots from ally nations helped plus American fuel.

4 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

You are king of hypotheticals that never happened and light on actual facts.

The past or current USA could wipe the UK off the map easily if they want.

You are completely incapable of engaging in polite, thoughtful discussion.

You are nothing more than an ignorant xenophobe.

Just now, RayC said:

You are completely incapable of engaging in polite, thoughtful discussion.

You are nothing more than an ignorant xenophobe.

I proved you wrong using facts. You throw your toys out of the cot. You are a terrible military analyst. You made false claims and deal in hypotheticals.

3 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

Outsiders did help the Brits in 1940

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/faviconV2?url=https://www.quora.com&client=AIM&size=128&type=FAVICON&fallback_opts=TYPE,SIZE,URL

Yes, the British were assisted by Allied personnel and foreign volunteers during the

Battle of Britain in 1940 (July–October), despite fighting in a largely isolated position following the fall of France. Roughly 20% of the Royal Air Force (RAF) aircrew involved in the battle were non-British, drawn from Commonwealth nations, occupied European countries, and volunteer pilots from neutral nations. 

This international force, which operated under RAF command, was crucial to the victory. 

Key Contributions from Allies in 1940

• The Polish Air Force: Polish pilots were among the most effective. The No. 303 (Polish) Squadron, in particular, was highly successful, with 145 Polish pilots participating in the battle.

• Commonwealth Pilots: Pilots from New Zealand (127), Canada (112), Australia (32), and South Africa (25) formed a significant portion of "The Few".

• Occupied Europe & Others: Pilots from Czechoslovakia (88), Belgium (28), and Free France (13) flew with the RAF.

• American Volunteers: While the U.S. was officially neutral, at least 9 to 11 American pilots fought in the RAF during the Battle of Britain.

• Logistical Support: American companies supplied high-octane fuel (BAM 100) that gave British engines a performance advantage. 

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.

4 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

I proved you wrong using facts. You throw your toys out of the cot. You are a terrible military analyst. You made false claims and deal in hypotheticals.

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

1 minute ago, RayC said:

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.

Lucky the Brits were tougher than the French who gave up after 6 weeks. Lucky the Soviets were tough too.

Just now, khaosokman said:

You seem to forget your analysis is worth 0 baht. Water is 7 baht.

So says ASN's great intellect.

Trump will want this to end quickly now that the GCC are talking about invoking Force Majeure and pulling investment from the US.

On 3/7/2026 at 12:39 AM, khaosokman said:

You sound like a Trump and Israel hater.

he does indeed it appears he is hoping for israel and the US to be defeated he should be ashamed of himself

On 3/8/2026 at 11:00 AM, Schoggibueb said:

There are no opposition structures that could take over, except for the Revolutionary Guard. However, the Guard currently wants to maintain the power structure because all those who share power benefit from it.

There will be no boots on the ground. Not even Kurdish fighters in the region, who are willing to assist in efforts to topple the Iranian government. Trump ruled that out.

So after the bombing Trump will say: "Mission accomplished." But this statement will be again - same as in Iraq - proved false, because the principle applies: "If you break it, you own it."

Trump uses the same communication manipulation as Bush did.

He calles on the Iranians to "take over their government." But doesen't give them the chance and the needed support against the Revolutionary Guard.

In doing so, he is only saying that he will help, but if it fails, it won't be his fault.

The typical blame game. Never his fault.

what do you care, as long as he fails eh?