12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Thank you - this is exactly what I wanted to come back to.

Too often, anti-Trump voices default to rhetoric instead of engaging with the nuance and complexity of what’s actually being discussed. Simplified soundbites are easy - proper, contextual analysis isn’t.

What it ends up showing is a focus on the man rather than the events. And that’s a shame, because you’ve shown in plenty of other threads over the years that you’re more than capable of a more thoughtful, balanced take. But the strength of your dislike for Trump pushes your position into the kind of extreme bias, where the broader realities - the causes, the risks, the necessity, the alternatives, even the consequences of not acting - don’t really get a fair look.

At that point, discussions stop being about policy or outcomes. Even if there were a well-executed piece of statesmanship, it feels like you wouldn’t allow yourself to acknowledge it - the instinct would still be to diminish the man rather than assess the action.

Apologies for setting you up - but your argument has been so consistently wrapped in bias and buried in rhetoric that it was always going to lead you straight into it. You brushed past the deeper analysis, probably even ignored it, and went straight back to the anti-Trump angle proving yourself emotionally incapable of holding nuanced discussion on this subject.

Sorry, but that really was just a load of waffle. Sometimes one can discuss nuance and complexity and sometimes you can make an all encompassing argument. The man is behaving like a complete lunatic.

Forget about the rhetoric. Even suggesting that no one told him that Iran would close the Strait.

44 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Thank you - this is exactly what I wanted to come back to.

Too often, anti-Trump voices default to rhetoric instead of engaging with the nuance and complexity of what’s actually being discussed. Simplified soundbites are easy - proper, contextual analysis isn’t.

What it ends up showing is a focus on the man rather than the events. And that’s a shame, because you’ve shown in plenty of other threads over the years that you’re more than capable of a more thoughtful, balanced take. But the strength of your dislike for Trump pushes your position into the kind of extreme bias, where the broader realities - the causes, the risks, the necessity, the alternatives, even the consequences of not acting - don’t really get a fair look.

At that point, discussions stop being about policy or outcomes. Even if there were a well-executed piece of statesmanship, it feels like you wouldn’t allow yourself to acknowledge it - the instinct would still be to diminish the man rather than assess the action.

Apologies for setting you up - but your argument has been so consistently wrapped in bias and buried in rhetoric that it was always going to lead you straight into it. You brushed past the deeper analysis, probably even ignored it, and went straight back to the anti-Trump angle proving yourself emotionally incapable of holding nuanced discussion on this subject.

I expected you to get a thumbs down on that, and wondering how many I've received for the same reason. If it wasn't Trump and another president, I'm sure there wouldn't be near as many negative replies about what's going on. He definitely deserves negativity for things he's said and done in his tenure, but there are way too many factors in this conflict to put all the blame on him without looking at all the motives and agenda behind it.

11 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

That distinction matters. The Iraq case was built on flawed intelligence about current capability, not the absence of any historical basis. It also doesn’t justify how events unfolded afterwards - particularly the failure to stabilise the country once the regime was removed, which created a vacuum and long-term consequences.

Iran is a different scenario. Its nuclear programme has been monitored over time by international bodies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, and enrichment levels of up to around 60% have been documented. That’s not disputed intelligence in the same way - the debate is about intent and future capability, not whether the programme exists.

The decision to invade Iraq wasn't based simply on "flawed" intelligence. There was the open and proven manipulation of "Curveball" which was an invention, a lie, a deceit. It didn't need to prove any historical intent. It simply bolstered the fallacious claim that Saddam possessed WMD. Even the UN's regulatory authorities opinions to the contrary were summarily dismissed.

The world has known about Iran's uranium enrichment program from the get go, and the Iranians openly boast about their ICBM development. Despite the consensus of opinion from US intelligence community and UN regulatory bodies indicating otherwise, Netanyahu fallaciously claimed the regime's imminent intent to use. When the UK initially demurred on permitting the deployment of US offensive forces from British bases, Hegseth suddenly suggested those missiles could reach London. This based on two Iranian missiles fired at Diego Garcia "falling short". Iran hasn't launched any more Hail Mary type missile launches since then because Hegseth has already given the world all the "proof" they need.

The "means to an end" is exactly the same. Invent a worst-case scenario and sell it.

4 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

I expected you to get a thumbs down on that, and wondering how many I've received for the same reason. If it wasn't Trump and another president, I'm sure there wouldn't be near as many negative replies about what's going on. He definitely deserves negativity for things he's said and done in his tenure, but there are way too many factors in this conflict to put all the blame on him without looking at all the motives and agenda behind it.

There are a lot of 'what ifs' in your single paragraph post. We are dealing with realities on the ground, rather than fantasies of your 'what ifs'.

If any other President were doing and saying the same things, there would be people criticising him in exactly the same way. The only Trump obsessives here are the people like yourself, constantly coming up with excuses for indefensible behaviour. Really just an extension of yourselves. The rest of us are simply commenting on what we see, with all honesty.

10 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

No point trying to do that with you since all you seem capable of doing is posting insults!

Ask me nicely.

1 minute ago, IsmeUno said:

There a lot of 'what ifs' in your single paragraph post. We are dealing with realities on the ground, rather than fantasies of your 'what ifs'.

If any other President were doing and saying the same things, there would be people criticising him in exactly the same way. The only Trump obsessives here are the people like yourself, constantly coming up with excuses for indefensible behaviour. Really just an extension of yourselves. The rest of us are simply commenting on what we see, with all honesty.

You see, again you're assuming how I feel about Trump, when all along, as long as I've been on this forum, I've pointed out my disdain for him and know full well, more than you ever will, about how he is and what he's done, as I actually lived it in the US.

People are definitely biased against Trump, and for good reasons, but they also aren't understanding what will happen in this conflict, as that bias has them, and you, automatically thinking it's all about him.

Again try, very hard, not to assume what others think, and go by what they say, without your usual deflection and turning their words around. Thinking people are "waffling" when it's your lack of comprehension and thinking you're some kind of expert in all topics here will never work, as you keep forgetting you are dealing with people smarter than you, who don't BS, deflect or gaslight, which is your normal way of interacting. Give it a rest for once.

10 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

As usual, you avoid the question, and accuse others of not reading what you have written. I read all your replies, and you pointedly avoid the questions.

1. You have nothing to say about the eample of Irish terrorism being defeated over a table (talks). My charge, that I put to you, because you are of Irish extraction, is that you do not regard the IRA as terrorists, ergo you believe the murder of British soldiers and civilians was legitimate.

2. I asked you, since you believe Trump's claims about Iran's nuclear weapons capabilties, whether you believed President Bush's and General Powells statements about Iraq's WMD capabilities. I asked you, if you did believe them, what precautions did you take to protect your self from a 40 minute attack by Iraq.

I am sick to the back teeth of your repetititve "I don't support Trump but....". You fall back on the same old crap that you are old, and are therefore experienced, and no one else is. I know plenty of stupid old people who get suckered by the hucksters every time. Age didn't bring them wisdom.

You claim you take a middle ground, but everything you have stated shows you take an extreme position. with extreme solutions that involve murder and death. Every time, your solutions involve killing people you don't like. And then you retreat into a lot of hot air about how no one has read your responses.

Answer the question please. You've made a false assumption. Accept it, rather than deflect.

Deflection. Or course I know there are many sources. Don't take me for a fool

You are taking as Gospel what Trump is saying about Iran/ You post a lot about your views and opinions, so obviously you are not "waiting for the truth to come out"

I don't believe you.

I have asked you repeatedly to comment on the numerous cases where terrorism was ended by negotiation. You don't want to engage or react to something that doesn't fit with your bias. So much for your "open mind".

So basically you believe the nuclear claims. Hence you are full of it when you claim Trump speaks "crapola". You've accepted without question his claims. That's why I asked you about Iraq WMDs, what you thought at the time about the claims, and what you thought when no WMDs were located.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c5819ed915d338141e317/5972.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-report-of-the-iraq-inquiry

https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/109th-congress/house-report/224/1

And then, if you accept that the government was wrong/lying, what make you think the same isn't true now, given that by your admission, you look at multiple sources. There are multiple sources that state Iran was either no where near developing a viable weapon or were not actually developing a weapon but looking to just enrich uranium as their guarantor.

The alternative views are:

1. Iran's technical advance wasn't sufficient to produce a weapon

2. There was a Fatwa on producing a nuclear weapon

My belief is a mix of 1 and 2. I believe, for the same reasons that Germany was unable to produce a nuclear weapon, the Iranian system of government encourages exaggeration lying, because of the patronage system (you don't tell the boss the bad new), and the patronage system leads to promotion of people not based on capability, but based on loyalty. And a bit of the religious ban is true. What Iran has experience of that no Western country has, is the effects of mass attacks on civilians by chemical weapons. Iran suffered through Iraqi missile attacks. That experience means that there are some who have developed an enthusiasm, and those who have a genuine abhorrance of neclear weapons.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/02/08/iranian-generals-tell-ayatollah-we-need-nuclear-weapons/

https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20250401-iran-will-have-no-choice-but-to-get-nukes-if-attacked-khamenei-adviser-usa-trump-nuclear-weapons-deal-bombing-threats

https://web.archive.org/web/20150708040618/http://farsi.khamenei.ir/treatise-content?id=228#2790

Plenty of other ways. Talks. The British delegation, decades of experience, thought they were going well. The Americans had a different view, but refused to share with their allies why they felt differently.

Provide your reasoning, because immediately you contradict yourself

Despite your claimed decades of experience and wisdom, you miss a rather obvious third outcome. You put into power someone worse. Your country deposed Saddam Hussein, but through your actions you managed to elevate a small time drug dealer, Al Zarqawi, into the head of a truely terrifying organisation that had no bounds of common decency.

The reason people like Al Zarqawi emerged is the same as whats happening in Iran right now. The Iraq enquiry revealed seriously poor planning by the Allies, and frankly gullibilty. The Americans believed self appointed Iraqi opposition, not understanding that they didn't represent anyone (similar vibes from the current wannabe Shah). Like in Iraq, there is no organised opposition. The Americans and British both learned the wrong lessons from history. The Americans thought the Baathist Party was like the Nazi Party, and like in 1945 Germany they could deNazify Iraq by acking the Army, and it would be fine like Germany. The Republican Guard literally became the Insurgency overnight. They literally didn't understand the basis of Party membership in Iraq. The British, with much hubris, thought they knew the place, because they ran it until the 50s. They were wrong. Ironically it was a then young Rory Stewart who trained American officers on the realities of Iraqi society, and he can be attributed to the turnaround post surge.

The Americans had no plan for a postwar Iraq. They had no idea who would succeed Saddam Hussein. In 1945, the Americans knew who was going to succeed Adolf Hitler. Simily, in Iran, you lot have cocked up again, confirmed by your own words, in that piss poor planning means you have no idea who will succeed the leadership. There has been zero cultivation of opposition inside Iran. You could have used all your planes to swamp Iran with free Starlinks, giving every Iranian access to the outside world. Your idea of hearts and minds is to bomb them "back to the stone age" and your President to mock their religion.

Stop attacking the poster and get back on point.

7 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

as you keep forgetting you are dealing with people smarter than you

Are you referring to your 'good' self here? Please clarify.

I think the whole issue is not very complicated to understand.

Benjamin Netanyahu, commonly known as "Bibi," was born Benjamin Netanyahu and is not known to have had an official legal name change, although his family name was originally Mileikowsky. He graduated from

Cheltenham High School in Wyncote, Pennsylvania, in 1967, after moving there from Israel in the early 1960s. 

In his own words he has waited 40 years for this war,he hates Iran and Iran hates him.

Pretty simple.

Trump has said in interviews as early as mid 90's if i recall right that "someone" should take all of the oil in Iran.

The Mossad has a lot of dirt on Trump(Epstein files) so trump is pretty much bibi's bitch.

Both of them had regular wet dreams about Iran and propaganda did the rest.

There are no reports by any security detail in the world that Iran almost had a nuke ready but trump did not care about intelligence,he does what he feels like.

I have seen a number of videos over the years in which bibi repeatedly said that Iran only was a short time from having nuclear weapons.The first of those lies were told many years ago.

All lies by bibi.

Two bullies decided on their own to start this war and they were hoping the rest of the world would join in to help them defeat Iran.

Big miscalculation by trump,very big!

No money for education,health care and other social programs but a lot of money available for war!

300 million to save one soldier who should not have been there in the first place.

Are you really surprised people are turning on trump?

The way the world is looking at trump and the US now rests solely on trumps tired shoulders.

who ever is still defending him is also guilty of any further escalation.

46 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

but there are way too many factors in this conflict to put all the blame on him without looking at all the motives and agenda behind it.

Until Trump walked out of the deal that was made with Iran about nuclear enrichment, Iran kept to the less than 4% enrichment that was verified by inspections. I would say that puts a large percentage of the blame on Trump. Should Iran have started increasing the enrichment? Probably not, but they could see the difference in the treatment of Libya and North Korea, and one of the main reasons why. I want to make it clear that I in no way support the Iranian government, but I sometimes wonder if this whole thing was a setup.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Thank you - this is exactly what I wanted to come back to.

Too often, anti-Trump voices default to rhetoric instead of engaging with the nuance and complexity of what’s actually being discussed. Simplified soundbites are easy - proper, contextual analysis isn’t.

What it ends up showing is a focus on the man rather than the events. And that’s a shame, because you’ve shown in plenty of other threads over the years that you’re more than capable of a more thoughtful, balanced take. But the strength of your dislike for Trump pushes your position into the kind of extreme bias, where the broader realities - the causes, the risks, the necessity, the alternatives, even the consequences of not acting - don’t really get a fair look.

At that point, discussions stop being about policy or outcomes. Even if there were a well-executed piece of statesmanship, it feels like you wouldn’t allow yourself to acknowledge it - the instinct would still be to diminish the man rather than assess the action.

Apologies for setting you up - but your argument has been so consistently wrapped in bias and buried in rhetoric that it was always going to lead you straight into it. You brushed past the deeper analysis, probably even ignored it, and went straight back to the anti-Trump angle proving yourself emotionally incapable of holding nuanced discussion on this subject.

I don't make any secrets about the fact that I despise Trump and the fact that I don't have one nanogram of respect for the man or his policies. I know you're doing your best to try to make a coherent argument for this war but with the majority of us it tends to fall on deaf ears.

It was simply the wrong war, waged at the wrong time, with the wrong partner, against the wrong foe, and fought without much planning, vision, nor an end plan in sight.

What will you be saying about this war a year from now, if the Republicans have lost the House and the Senate due to this war and the raging inflation it has caused, and if the Strait of Hormuz is still closed to the US, and oil is it $200 a barrel and the economy has come grinding to a halt worldwide, with the Dow at 20,000?

remember the Russia invasion of Ukraine, Putin told his service man to bring along their tuxedo as it would take 3-4 days to take over Ukraine, it has been over 4 years now, remember Trump saying it would take 3-4 weeks to finalize the war in Iran, it has been 6 or 7 weeks and far from over and to make things worse, after he kept/keep claiming Iran army has been obliterated, guess what??? Israel just find out that Iran still has more than 1,000 missiles... it doesn't look that wit will be finished anytime soon, let's make a guess.... 1 year or longer??? what a miscalculation between Israel and the USA and what a bad or very bad move without any goal and/or strategy and the US has the best army in the world, so they say

Israel estimates 1,000 Iranian missiles still threaten it as war grinds into second month

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/israel-estimates-1-000-iranian-missiles-still-threaten-it-as-war-grinds-into-second-month/ar-AA20fi4V?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=LCTS&cvid=69d38f37d4d548e6b1f18c9144645c44&ei=81

55 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The WMD issue in Iraq isn’t a useful comparison to Iran - its not even an intelligent debate point in this context.

Saddam Hussein had already used chemical weapons - most notably against Kurdish populations in the northeast during the late 1980s, including the Halabja attack. So there was a clear precedent for both possession and use. The intelligence failure wasn’t invented out of nothing - it was the incorrect assessment that those stockpiles still existed at the time of the invasion.

That distinction matters. The Iraq case was built on flawed intelligence about current capability, not the absence of any historical basis. It also doesn’t justify how events unfolded afterwards - particularly the failure to stabilise the country once the regime was removed, which created a vacuum and long-term consequences.

Iran is a different scenario. Its nuclear programme has been monitored over time by international bodies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, and enrichment levels of up to around 60% have been documented. That’s not disputed intelligence in the same way - the debate is about intent and future capability, not whether the programme exists.

The dossier also covered Iraq's supposed nuclear capabilities,and biological weapons. Part of my career was involved in countering the latter. A renowned British microbiologist, David Kay, committed suicide because of how his opinions about Iraq's biological capability and intent had been misrepresented in the report. No one went to war because Iraq possessed Mustard and Chlorine gas. There was circumstantial evidence of Iraq's interest in everything on the NATO biological threat list. But interest in every single item can also be explained by public health concerns.

If you had read the reports of Halabja, you would realise why the threat of Iraqi chemical weapons isn't even a regional threat, let alone global. UK intelligence was aware of the sorties being flown by the Iraqi airforce. They used Iranian TV news video to do an initial assessment of the agents used, before, in the months later, they were able to get soil and tissue samples. They knew that the Iraqis used gravity bombs. They knew that at first the Iraqis attempted to use Migs, which proved unsuitable. Most of the sorties were completed with Hawker Hunters, which had a superior bomb carrying capability. These are some of the details relayed to me by men involved in that analysis.

Iraq had been inspected to death, repeatedly.UNSCOM and UNMOVIC surveiled the Iraqi capability repeatedly. The issues were down to likely sloppy accounting by the Iraqis, eg losing 650kgs of growth media (and I'll tell you, as a microbiologist, what growth media is; some sugars, and bit of yeast protein, some vitamins). Hans Blix said there were unaccounted materials, there was no evidence of an active weapons programme. The British and Americans argued there was intent, arguing the evasion was proof.

The charge is that the dossier wasn't flawed intelligence. It was an egregious misuse of thin evidence to generate not a military plan, but a political case, the "spin". Information was misrepresented to domestic politicians and global heads to create a justification. For many years, I was like you. I worked in the industry. But over time, my view has shifted. There was a political decision to invade Iraq. The politicians might have said "we want to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein is a bad man". The generals would have replied "that would be illegal". The politicians would have replied "ok, what would make it legal", Reply "you need to identify a threat", and then the spin starts. This is pretty much the same process Russia took over Ukraine. When Putin invaded Ukraine, he literally broke Russian domestic law. He justified it by having his own dossier about Ukrainian neonazis, threats to Russia etc. Putin might say now "sorry, I had it wrong, flawed intelligence told me Nazis ran Ukraine". Putin is driven by a desire to have a place in Russian history.

For Iraq, Bush was floundering post 911. Certainly individuals like Cheney wanted their moment in history, that this was to be their defining glory in the Middle East. And then there is Tony Blair. The guy has many great qualities, undeniable. But there is a toxic element. In Britain, we generally don't like religious people, especially religious politicians, because they are hypocrites. It was a bit disturbing in the wake of the GFA, him talking about the "hand of history" on his shoulder. Is that what drove him? Historical glory? These days he's got himself involved in "peace in the middle east"; this is not just Jimmy Carter in retirement wanting to do good things, this is a retired politician wanting to be involved in nation building.

I see very much the same thing here with Trump, with his desire for awards, for monuments, and now Iran. Its a daddy thing. The older brother let the father down, by not going into the family business; how toxic must that family have been that he died an alcoholic, despite having a worthwhile career as a pilot.

The military would never have gone to war on the strength of the dossier. The invasion of Iraq wasn't based on a military threat, but based on change of political and strategic policy. Iraq was known to be not an instigator of the 911 plot. It may or may not have given succour to the conspirators (medical treatment). The invasion of Iraq was politically justified on the basis that 911 was the result of the US policy of containment. Afghanistan had been contained (ignored) for 15 years. Iraq had been contained for 10 years through UN sanctioned strikes that continually degraded Iraqi capabilties (the Iraqi army was decrepit). The Iraq war was a change from containment. It was based on what Saddam boasting what he wanted to do (start making long range artillery again to shell Jerusalem, to inspire an Arab uprising); what he wanted to do and what he could do are two different things. Iran was more or less saying the same thing, but they weren't invaded. Iraq was invaded not because of the actual threat, but they could be beaten, with little to no global or regional impacts. It was meant to be the easy war, over by christmas sort of thing.

Cheney and Blair might been enablers of Bush. Hegseth and Miller, and Rubio, are enablers. Little to no sign of the Vice President. Though like Blair, Vance is also a Catholic convert. And politicians who loudly convert to Catholicism are the worst eg Anne Widdecombe. They tend to be Holier than Thou.

3 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

remember the Russia invasion of Ukraine, Putin told his service man to bring along their tuxedo as it would take 3-4 days to take over Ukraine, it has been over 4 years now, remember Trump saying it would take 3-4 weeks to finalize the war in Iran, it has been 6 or 7 weeks and far from over and to make things worse, after he kept/keep claiming Iran army has been obliterated, guess what??? Israel just find out that Iran still has more than 1,000 missiles... it doesn't look that wit will be finished anytime soon, let's make a guess.... 1 year or longer??? what a miscalculation between Israel and the USA and what a bad or very bad move without any goal and/or strategy and the US has the best army in the world, so they say

Israel estimates 1,000 Iranian missiles still threaten it as war grinds into second month

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/israel-estimates-1-000-iranian-missiles-still-threaten-it-as-war-grinds-into-second-month/ar-AA20fi4V?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=LCTS&cvid=69d38f37d4d548e6b1f18c9144645c44&ei=81

Like Iraq. This is a Politician's War. Piss Poor Planning all the way.

And guess what, this is Israel's current best guess, likely massaged not to freak the politicians out. More that 1000 might be More than 2000. Who knows/

12 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

The dossier also covered Iraq's supposed nuclear capabilities,and biological weapons. Part of my career was involved in countering the latter. A renowned British microbiologist, David Kay, committed suicide because of how his opinions about Iraq's biological capability and intent had been misrepresented in the report. No one went to war because Iraq possessed Mustard and Chlorine gas. There was circumstantial evidence of Iraq's interest in everything on the NATO biological threat list. But interest in every single item can also be explained by public health concerns.

If you had read the reports of Halabja, you would realise why the threat of Iraqi chemical weapons isn't even a regional threat, let alone global. UK intelligence was aware of the sorties being flown by the Iraqi airforce. They used Iranian TV news video to do an initial assessment of the agents used, before, in the months later, they were able to get soil and tissue samples. They knew that the Iraqis used gravity bombs. They knew that at first the Iraqis attempted to use Migs, which proved unsuitable. Most of the sorties were completed with Hawker Hunters, which had a superior bomb carrying capability. These are some of the details relayed to me by men involved in that analysis.

Iraq had been inspected to death, repeatedly.UNSCOM and UNMOVIC surveiled the Iraqi capability repeatedly. The issues were down to likely sloppy accounting by the Iraqis, eg losing 650kgs of growth media (and I'll tell you, as a microbiologist, what growth media is; some sugars, and bit of yeast protein, some vitamins). Hans Blix said there were unaccounted materials, there was no evidence of an active weapons programme. The British and Americans argued there was intent, arguing the evasion was proof.

The charge is that the dossier wasn't flawed intelligence. It was an egregious misuse of thin evidence to generate not a military plan, but a political case, the "spin". Information was misrepresented to domestic politicians and global heads to create a justification. For many years, I was like you. I worked in the industry. But over time, my view has shifted. There was a political decision to invade Iraq. The politicians might have said "we want to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein is a bad man". The generals would have replied "that would be illegal". The politicians would have replied "ok, what would make it legal", Reply "you need to identify a threat", and then the spin starts. This is pretty much the same process Russia took over Ukraine. When Putin invaded Ukraine, he literally broke Russian domestic law. He justified it by having his own dossier about Ukrainian neonazis, threats to Russia etc. Putin might say now "sorry, I had it wrong, flawed intelligence told me Nazis ran Ukraine". Putin is driven by a desire to have a place in Russian history.

For Iraq, Bush was floundering post 911. Certainly individuals like Cheney wanted their moment in history, that this was to be their defining glory in the Middle East. And then there is Tony Blair. The guy has many great qualities, undeniable. But there is a toxic element. In Britain, we generally don't like religious people, especially religious politicians, because they are hypocrites. It was a bit disturbing in the wake of the GFA, him talking about the "hand of history" on his shoulder. Is that what drove him? Historical glory? These days he's got himself involved in "peace in the middle east"; this is not just Jimmy Carter in retirement wanting to do good things, this is a retired politician wanting to be involved in nation building.

I see very much the same thing here with Trump, with his desire for awards, for monuments, and now Iran. Its a daddy thing. The older brother let the father down, by not going into the family business; how toxic must that family have been that he died an alcoholic, despite having a worthwhile career as a pilot.

The military would never have gone to war on the strength of the dossier. The invasion of Iraq wasn't based on a military threat, but based on change of political and strategic policy. Iraq was known to be not an instigator of the 911 plot. It may or may not have given succour to the conspirators (medical treatment). The invasion of Iraq was politically justified on the basis that 911 was the result of the US policy of containment. Afghanistan had been contained (ignored) for 15 years. Iraq had been contained for 10 years through UN sanctioned strikes that continually degraded Iraqi capabilties (the Iraqi army was decrepit). The Iraq war was a change from containment. It was based on what Saddam boasting what he wanted to do (start making long range artillery again to shell Jerusalem, to inspire an Arab uprising); what he wanted to do and what he could do are two different things. Iran was more or less saying the same thing, but they weren't invaded. Iraq was invaded not because of the actual threat, but they could be beaten, with little to no global or regional impacts. It was meant to be the easy war, over by christmas sort of thing.

Cheney and Blair might been enablers of Bush. Hegseth and Miller, and Rubio, are enablers. Little to no sign of the Vice President. Though like Blair, Vance is also a Catholic convert. And politicians who loudly convert to Catholicism are the worst eg Anne Widdecombe. They tend to be Holier than Thou.

Thanks - Excellent summary and more great information provided.

With Iraq, the September Dossier became a simplified public justification for a decision that was already leaning towards regime change. The WMD narrative gave politicians and media a clean, digestible rationale for something that was actually rooted in broader strategic aims - post-September 11 attacks policy shifts, regional power projection, and a move away from containment. It reduced a complex geopolitical calculation into something the public could quickly understand and accept.

With Iran, the “nuclear threat” plays a similar role in simplifying the message - but the underlying reality is different. Iran’s nuclear capability has been a live, ongoing issue with real strategic implications, not a largely degraded or speculative one like Iraq’s late-stage WMD programmes. So while both cases use simplified narratives for public consumption, Iraq was largely about justifying a chosen war, whereas Iran is about managing - or potentially pre-empting - a developing capability with genuine long-term consequences.

30 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

I don't make any secrets about the fact that I despise Trump and the fact that I don't have one nanogram of respect for the man or his policies. I know you're doing your best to try to make a coherent argument for this war but with the majority of us it tends to fall on deaf ears.

It was simply the wrong war, waged at the wrong time, with the wrong partner, against the wrong foe, and fought without much planning, vision, nor an end plan in sight.

What will you be saying about this war a year from now, if the Republicans have lost the House and the Senate due to this war and the raging inflation it has caused, and if the Strait of Hormuz is still closed to the US, and oil is it $200 a barrel and the economy has come grinding to a halt worldwide, with the Dow at 20,000?

Would you really choose to face this confrontation after Iran becomes nuclear-armed - regardless of whether it’s a Republican or Democrat in the White House?

Because at that point, the entire strategic equation hardens. A nuclear-capable Iran, positioned over the Strait of Hormuz - through which roughly a fifth of the world’s traded oil and a significant share of LNG flows - gains escalation dominance. Under a nuclear umbrella, even limited coercion becomes vastly more dangerous to challenge. It’s no longer a question of deterrence in theory - it’s leverage in practice, applied to global energy markets, shipping insurance, and the free movement of goods.

And the thread doesn’t stop at oil. The Gulf is a hub for petrochemicals, ammonia, and fertiliser precursors that underpin global food production. Disrupt those flows, and we don’t just get price spikes - we get agricultural contraction.. food security scaling into famine risk across import-dependent regions. Layer onto that the near-total reliance of Gulf states on desalination. In any serious escalation, those plants become critical vulnerabilities. Strike them, and we're talking about water loss for millions, rapid uninhabitability, and mass population displacement.

Then comes proliferation. If Iran were ever able to cross the nuclear threshold, regional rivals will not sit idle. A cascade involving states like Saudi Arabia becomes highly likely, compressing timelines, lowering thresholds, and multiplying the risk of miscalculation. At that point, any crisis in the Gulf isn’t a regional issue - it’s a multi-actor nuclear flashpoint tied directly to the arteries of the global economy.

That’s the real distinction. This isn’t about personalities, elections, or short-term political cost. It’s about whether the international system accepts a precedent where a single state can repeatedly threaten to choke a critical global chokepoint - and eventually do so under nuclear protection. If that becomes normalised, we’re not debating whether conflict is justified - we’re accepting a permanent shift in global power, economic stability, and risk.

The uncomfortable truth is: the longer the issue is deferred, the narrower the options become - IMO the options were already way too narrow because Iran was not dealt with decades ago.

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Thanks - Excellent summary and more great information provided.

With Iraq, the September Dossier became a simplified public justification for a decision that was already leaning towards regime change. The WMD narrative gave politicians and media a clean, digestible rationale for something that was actually rooted in broader strategic aims - post-September 11 attacks policy shifts, regional power projection, and a move away from containment. It reduced a complex geopolitical calculation into something the public could quickly understand and accept.

With Iran, the “nuclear threat” plays a similar role in simplifying the message - but the underlying reality is different. Iran’s nuclear capability has been a live, ongoing issue with real strategic implications, not a largely degraded or speculative one like Iraq’s late-stage WMD programmes. So while both cases use simplified narratives for public consumption, Iraq was largely about justifying a chosen war, whereas Iran is about managing - or potentially pre-empting - a developing capability with genuine long-term consequences.

...and just grab the oil whilst you are at it.

Iran is not going to let the US just wait.

How long can the US/World wait without the oil passing through the strait?

4 hours ago, IsmeUno said:

...and just grab the oil whilst you are at it.

Grab the oil’ is something you say if your understanding of global energy stopped somewhere around 1975.

The U.S. gets ~2–3% of its oil consumption from the Middle East - it doesn’t need it.

If you were trying to gesture at the petrodollar system, that’s a far more complex argument. But that would require knowledge, not just repeating tired slogans.

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Grab the oil’ is something you say if your understanding of global energy stopped somewhere around 1975.

The U.S. gets ~2–3% of its oil consumption from the Middle East - it doesn’t need it.

If you were trying to gesture at the petrodollar system, that’s a far more complex argument. But that would require knowledge, not just repeating tired slogans.

“With a little more time, we can easily OPEN THE HORMUZ STRAIT, TAKE THE OIL, & MAKE A FORTUNE,” the US president wrote in a social media post on Friday.

Sometimes, just sometimes, it may be better for you to stay silent...

14 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

People are definitely biased against Trump, and for good reasons, but they also aren't understanding what will happen in this conflict,

Who are these people? Yourself?

Pray tell us what will happen in this conflict.

8 hours ago, IsmeUno said:

“With a little more time, we can easily OPEN THE HORMUZ STRAIT, TAKE THE OIL, & MAKE A FORTUNE,” the US president wrote in a social media post on Friday.

Sometimes, just sometimes, it may be better for you to stay silent...

Every single time this moron opens his mouth, it would have been much better had he stayed silent. Not only is that less embarrassing for Americans, but he would humiliate himself considerably less frequently.

But the man has so little self-awareness that he doesn't even see what's going on.

2 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Every single time this moron opens his mouth, it would have been much better had he stayed silent. Not only is that less embarrassing for Americans, but he would humiliate himself considerably less frequently.

But the man has so little self-awareness that he doesn't even see what's going on.

I'm beginning to think that people are pulling the wool over his eyes. That people are taking advantage of his weaknesses and blind spots.

23 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

from a pushed button by a maniac in charge.

Take a second or two....

There's your 'what if' and then there is reality. There are a lot of maybes for when it comes to Iran, but there is also actual button pushing by the USA and Israel. Iran didn't go to the USA. The USA is in their backyard. They will be seen by many to be the maniacs. So now you have to come up with excuses for the people who actually started the attacks.

Has there been any official apology for the school being hit? That's going to stir up some resistance against America and Israel.

You have this fantasy of the Iranian people hating their leaders, just waiting for the Americans to land to save them all. You perhaps think everyone wants to be in the USA. Just like you are a proud American, there are also proud Iranians. They are not stupid. You may choose to call them terrorists because that is what you are told to call them. But that is not the reality.

You are too gung-ho in your approach to these things, imagining that the US military will crush them.

That's likely not the way this thing will end.

9 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Grab the oil’ is something you say if your understanding of global energy stopped somewhere around 1975.

Agreed, the understanding of trump is at kindergarten level.

10 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Grab the oil’ is something you say if your understanding of global energy stopped somewhere around 1975.

The U.S. gets ~2–3% of its oil consumption from the Middle East - it doesn’t need it.

No, the US may not need the oil, but there is something it would like to have

"U.S. Control and Sales: The U.S. Treasury has issued licenses allowing U.S. companies to engage with Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA) under strict conditions, with sales proceeds channeled to U.S.-supervised accounts rather than directly to the Venezuelan government."

I want to add that I think this has been one of the best discussions on this forum in a long time. With very few personal attacks.

Just as COVID exposed the over-reliance on supply chains, this war is exposing the reliance of many countries on oil from a politically-unstable region.

South Africa developed the SASOL ( coal into oil ) process back in the fifties, and massively expanded production after the 1973 oil shock. It could then also thumb its nose at international sanctions.

Australia has 14% of the world's coal reserves. It is 0.33% of the world's population.

Countries dependent on Gulf oil need to develop their own domestic resources, and leave the protagonists in the Gulf to sort Iran out by themselves.

American boots on the ground did not succeed in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. Why would anyone think the result would be any better in Iran?

3 hours ago, IsmeUno said:

I'm beginning to think that people are pulling the wool over his eyes. That people are taking advantage of his weaknesses and blind spots.

I have been thinking that since 2016. He is a moron.

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Just as COVID exposed the over-reliance on supply chains, this war is exposing the reliance of many countries on oil from a politically-unstable region.

South Africa developed the SASOL ( coal into oil ) process back in the fifties, and massively expanded production after the 1973 oil shock. It could then also thumb its nose at international sanctions.

Australia has 14% of the world's coal reserves. It is 0.33% of the world's population.

Countries dependent on Gulf oil need to develop their own domestic resources, and leave the protagonists in the Gulf to sort Iran out by themselves.

American boots on the ground did not succeed in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. Why would anyone think the result would be any better in Iran?

Along the same line of thought,the US represents only 5% of the worlds population and yet they consume 40% of the worlds energy!

That has to change and is changing already.

40 minutes ago, jvs said:

Along the same line of thought,the US represents only 5% of the worlds population and yet they consume 40% of the worlds energy!

That has to change and is changing already.

Not only that, the USA is the per capita champion for generating toxic and hazardous waste.