Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
It's totally fair. Israel doing another strike against Iran in response to the one against them which was in response to theirs against the Iranian consulate in Syria would have nothing to do with deterrence. It would be an escalation calculated to shore up the position of Netanyahu inside Israel.
To be clear, I don't want Israel to strike back. I want everyone to calm down and back off. But I think it would take heroic restraint for Israel to do so, and I don't see strategically why it would. And just because such a move might be electorally popular doesn't make it wrong.
Israel knows now it is in an existential struggle and that Iran, and others, are out to destroy it. It seems very hard to me to make a case for inaction. If they do nothing, they know the bomb which will destroy them is coming soon anyway.
I don't think I really understand this logic.
As I understand it, the strike was in response to a bombing of an Iranian consulate in Damascus, which any diplomat would recognise as an attack on sovereign Iranian territory. AIUI this attack was relatively unprovoked.
If my understanding is correct, then putting everything else aside (not least what a brutally evil regime holds sway in Tehran) Iran's response seems quite well calibrated. Fire large numbers of missiles and drones to show your displeasure, but do very little actual damage.
If Israel shows restraint now, it has scored a strategic victory in my view as, publicly at least, they have directly attacked Iran with relatively little comeback. Whereas if it strikes back it gets into a shooting war with one of the few near neighbours with both the firepower and the craziness to mean it really is in an existential struggle.
They already are in a shooting war with one of the few near neighbours with both the firepower and the craziness to mean it really is an existential struggle.
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
It's totally fair. Israel doing another strike against Iran in response to the one against them which was in response to theirs against the Iranian consulate in Syria would have nothing to do with deterrence. It would be an escalation calculated to shore up the position of Netanyahu inside Israel.
To be clear, I don't want Israel to strike back. I want everyone to calm down and back off. But I think it would take heroic restraint for Israel to do so, and I don't see strategically why it would. And just because such a move might be electorally popular doesn't make it wrong.
Israel knows now it is in an existential struggle and that Iran, and others, are out to destroy it. It seems very hard to me to make a case for inaction. If they do nothing, they know the bomb which will destroy them is coming soon anyway.
I don't think I really understand this logic.
As I understand it, the strike was in response to a bombing of an Iranian consulate in Damascus, which any diplomat would recognise as an attack on sovereign Iranian territory. AIUI this attack was relatively unprovoked.
If my understanding is correct, then putting everything else aside (not least what a brutally evil regime holds sway in Tehran) Iran's response seems quite well calibrated. Fire large numbers of missiles and drones to show your displeasure, but do very little actual damage.
If Israel shows restraint now, it has scored a strategic victory in my view as, publicly at least, they have directly attacked Iran with relatively little comeback. Whereas if it strikes back it gets into a shooting war with one of the few near neighbours with both the firepower and the craziness to mean it really is in an existential struggle.
300+ missiles isn't relatively little comback, even if the attack from Iran was unsuccessful.
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
It's totally fair. Israel doing another strike against Iran in response to the one against them which was in response to theirs against the Iranian consulate in Syria would have nothing to do with deterrence. It would be an escalation calculated to shore up the position of Netanyahu inside Israel.
To be clear, I don't want Israel to strike back. I want everyone to calm down and back off. But I think it would take heroic restraint for Israel to do so, and I don't see strategically why it would. And just because such a move might be electorally popular doesn't make it wrong.
Israel knows now it is in an existential struggle and that Iran, and others, are out to destroy it. It seems very hard to me to make a case for inaction. If they do nothing, they know the bomb which will destroy them is coming soon anyway.
You don't think MAD will work in the Middle East?
No, because the cold war was essentially defensive. Neither side really wanted to wipe the other off the map; they just feared the other wiping them off the map. The only reason for striking first was to make yourself safer - and as cold war tech developed, that seemed unlikely to be the case. Whereas Iran actively wants to wipe Israel off the map. If it can do so and largely survive itself, even better. And because Israel knows this, it knows there's no real point appealing to these people's better nature.
The best hope for the world is that the war can be largely confined to the Middle East.
I would say that The Iranian Regime wants to wipe Israel off the map. But as far as Maslow's hierarchy of needs goes, most Iranians don't give a shit.
Don't they? ISTR a survey quite recently which showed quite a lot of Iranians (can't remember how many) would also like to see Israel wiped off the map. Though I really can't remember the details so may be well out.
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
It's totally fair. Israel doing another strike against Iran in response to the one against them which was in response to theirs against the Iranian consulate in Syria would have nothing to do with deterrence. It would be an escalation calculated to shore up the position of Netanyahu inside Israel.
To be clear, I don't want Israel to strike back. I want everyone to calm down and back off. But I think it would take heroic restraint for Israel to do so, and I don't see strategically why it would. And just because such a move might be electorally popular doesn't make it wrong.
Israel knows now it is in an existential struggle and that Iran, and others, are out to destroy it. It seems very hard to me to make a case for inaction. If they do nothing, they know the bomb which will destroy them is coming soon anyway.
I don't think I really understand this logic.
As I understand it, the strike was in response to a bombing of an Iranian consulate in Damascus, which any diplomat would recognise as an attack on sovereign Iranian territory. AIUI this attack was relatively unprovoked.
If my understanding is correct, then putting everything else aside (not least what a brutally evil regime holds sway in Tehran) Iran's response seems quite well calibrated. Fire large numbers of missiles and drones to show your displeasure, but do very little actual damage.
If Israel shows restraint now, it has scored a strategic victory in my view as, publicly at least, they have directly attacked Iran with relatively little comeback. Whereas if it strikes back it gets into a shooting war with one of the few near neighbours with both the firepower and the craziness to mean it really is in an existential struggle.
The issue is if each side feels the need to retaliate at every moment.
And Iran - let's not forget - sent a storm of missiles into Israel targeting civilians.
If someone sent a storm of missiles at the UK, would you not feel a teensy weensy bit of a desire to show your determination to resist such attacks? Of course, the goal is to avoid escalating. But who doesn't want the last word?
That is the problem. Peace came to Northern Ireland when the hard men on each side were persuaded not to be provoked, not to seek the last word. There is no sign of this in the Middle East.
Where’s Barty to really get this party started? Leon’s constant predictions of WW3 and Barty’s cheerleading for the same make this the happiest place on the internet.
She has gone full on Trumpite saying Trump must win in November. Other Tories saying Trump must not win and some saying nothing to do with us guv.
The Tories are really idiotic if they think November is a good time to hold an election here. The main attention will go to Trump. The Tories are deeply and irreconcilably divided on Trump, so they will inevitably look like the divided party they are. And the Tories need attention domestically to somehow catch up in the polling.
As they are indeed idiotic expect a November election.
Trump is the Republican candidate, and the Republicans are the right of centre party. Furthermore, it is true that Biden has been one of the least supportive leaders to the UK, and that Trump has always been well-disposed toward the UK and has friends, business interests, and familial ties here. It seems a mark of polite society that we should all clutch our pearls at the very thought of him gaining the White House again - well that can fuck off.
Not a question of politeness, more an indication of either a disdain for democratic norms or a lack of intelligence, or both, they often go together.
Democratic norms dictate to me that we should accept whoever the Americans choose, not leave a puddle on the floor about how awful it all is.
Furthermore Liz Truss is absolutely right to bring the argument back to who has been more supportive to the UK - that's the only dog we have in this fight, and something too many of us are utterly blind to, either because we feel the national interest is a dirty concept, or because we're the sort of thicko who defaces the cenotaph because an American policman killed someone.
Bollocks. Should we accept whomever the Russians choose? Should we have accepted whom the 1930s Germans chose?
FFS, the man is a genuine fascist, we have every right to condemn the vile piece of shite. As for him being "more supportive to the UK" that is highly arguable, and even if it were true it does not make him remotely appropriate.
Oh, and I forgot to add that to his very long list of puke inducing vileness we should add that he sucks up to Putin. For what reasons, we can only guess.
Yes, and yes - if they're elected legitimately.
I guess it depends on your definition of "accept". It seems that you and the lettuce do not "accept" Joe Biden. Although perhaps as an apologist for the orange Mussolini maybe you buy the Big Lie that Biden isn't legit?
Personally I do not and never will "accept" fascists, whether they have hoodwinked their electorates or not. I do not "accept" racists. I do not "accept" rapists. If politicians this side of the Atlantic wish to accept such scumbags then they are, in effect, endorsing their vile behaviour, and are low-life human beings.
It has not been proven in a court of law that Trump raped anyone, and the circumstances detailed in the allegation seem exceedingly improbable.
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
I greatly dislike Netanyahu and think he is disastrous for Israel, but on this narrow point the Israelis probably don't have much choice. They can't allow a big nasty country like Iran, on the threshold of nukes, to lob 300 missiles at them without any comeback, especially when they know Iran wants Israel destroyed. It means Iran could do more missile attacks every week, making life in Israel intolerable, destroying the economy, making everyone emigrate. Israel has to deter Tehran NOW
It's sod all to do with Bibi, this time
However the Israelis have to get it exactly right. Enough to give Tehran a telling slap, but not so much that it means Iran must strike back, because that is a certain route to a terrible war. I am not sure they can be that exact. Which is why this is so perilous
It wouldn't mean Iran could or would do missile attacks every week. This one was a response to the Consulate and was calibrated to be the end of it. To respond again would be an escalation done principally for domestic reasons.
"calibrated"
lol
You're a fricking idiot. Iran sent 300 drones/missiles with no idea how many would get through, if half of them had got through thousands might have died. Spectacular stupidity
*calibrated*
Israeli Imperialists versus Inept, Ineffectual Iran
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
It's totally fair. Israel doing another strike against Iran in response to the one against them which was in response to theirs against the Iranian consulate in Syria would have nothing to do with deterrence. It would be an escalation calculated to shore up the position of Netanyahu inside Israel.
To be clear, I don't want Israel to strike back. I want everyone to calm down and back off. But I think it would take heroic restraint for Israel to do so, and I don't see strategically why it would. And just because such a move might be electorally popular doesn't make it wrong.
Israel knows now it is in an existential struggle and that Iran, and others, are out to destroy it. It seems very hard to me to make a case for inaction. If they do nothing, they know the bomb which will destroy them is coming soon anyway.
I don't think I really understand this logic.
As I understand it, the strike was in response to a bombing of an Iranian consulate in Damascus, which any diplomat would recognise as an attack on sovereign Iranian territory. AIUI this attack was relatively unprovoked.
If my understanding is correct, then putting everything else aside (not least what a brutally evil regime holds sway in Tehran) Iran's response seems quite well calibrated. Fire large numbers of missiles and drones to show your displeasure, but do very little actual damage.
If Israel shows restraint now, it has scored a strategic victory in my view as, publicly at least, they have directly attacked Iran with relatively little comeback. Whereas if it strikes back it gets into a shooting war with one of the few near neighbours with both the firepower and the craziness to mean it really is in an existential struggle.
The issue is if each side feels the need to retaliate at every moment.
And Iran - let's not forget - sent a storm of missiles into Israel targeting civilians.
If someone sent a storm of missiles at the UK, would you not feel a teensy weensy bit of a desire to show your determination to resist such attacks? Of course, the goal is to avoid escalating. But who doesn't want the last word?
That is the problem. Peace came to Northern Ireland when the hard men on each side were persuaded not to be provoked, not to seek the last word. There is no sign of this in the Middle East.
The hard men in NI were at least operating within the same frame of reference as the rest of humanity. Even the IRA's maddest never suggested that all Protestants should be killed. No-one was promised a reward in the afterlife. Regular Catholics and Protestants didn't, at bottom, believe each other to be subhuman; nor did they have particular doctrinal differences to drive this. It was tribal, but no more than that.
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
It's totally fair. Israel doing another strike against Iran in response to the one against them which was in response to theirs against the Iranian consulate in Syria would have nothing to do with deterrence. It would be an escalation calculated to shore up the position of Netanyahu inside Israel.
To be clear, I don't want Israel to strike back. I want everyone to calm down and back off. But I think it would take heroic restraint for Israel to do so, and I don't see strategically why it would. And just because such a move might be electorally popular doesn't make it wrong.
Israel knows now it is in an existential struggle and that Iran, and others, are out to destroy it. It seems very hard to me to make a case for inaction. If they do nothing, they know the bomb which will destroy them is coming soon anyway.
I don't think I really understand this logic.
As I understand it, the strike was in response to a bombing of an Iranian consulate in Damascus, which any diplomat would recognise as an attack on sovereign Iranian territory. AIUI this attack was relatively unprovoked.
If my understanding is correct, then putting everything else aside (not least what a brutally evil regime holds sway in Tehran) Iran's response seems quite well calibrated. Fire large numbers of missiles and drones to show your displeasure, but do very little actual damage.
If Israel shows restraint now, it has scored a strategic victory in my view as, publicly at least, they have directly attacked Iran with relatively little comeback. Whereas if it strikes back it gets into a shooting war with one of the few near neighbours with both the firepower and the craziness to mean it really is in an existential struggle.
The issue is if each side feels the need to retaliate at every moment.
And Iran - let's not forget - sent a storm of missiles into Israel targeting civilians.
If someone sent a storm of missiles at the UK, would you not feel a teensy weensy bit of a desire to show your determination to resist such attacks? Of course, the goal is to avoid escalating. But who doesn't want the last word?
The right to retaliate doesn't mean that it is always right to retaliate.
On topic, Truss has found an enormous windmill to tilt at. It's not gonna happen.
Off topic. Press reports out if Istarl is that they arent going to 'take the win' or do the tough thing and not retaliate.
They were always going to retaliate. The question is when, rumours suggest quickly, and what. Stories have suggested an attack on Iranian territory against something worth hitting but with low casualty risk....
I wouldn't put it past them to keep the stories of a near immediate response to wind Iran up.
Dublin being asked to pay for upgrades to another road in Northern Ireland. First the A5, now the A1.
Will the money come from the foreign aid budget?
Asked by whom?
Road safety campaigners in the North for now, but the precedent of paying for roads in the North has been created by the A5. Stormont knows they can spend money on other things and twist Dublin into paying.
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
It's totally fair. Israel doing another strike against Iran in response to the one against them which was in response to theirs against the Iranian consulate in Syria would have nothing to do with deterrence. It would be an escalation calculated to shore up the position of Netanyahu inside Israel.
The exchange didn't just start the day before yesterday. Iran has been actively opposing Israel via proxies for decades.
No matter how much of a shit you think Bibi might be.
Iran was quick to try to draw a line under the exchange yesterday and I'm guessing that the current back channel negotiations concern the extent to which Israel will be "allowed" to re-retaliate.
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
It's totally fair. Israel doing another strike against Iran in response to the one against them which was in response to theirs against the Iranian consulate in Syria would have nothing to do with deterrence. It would be an escalation calculated to shore up the position of Netanyahu inside Israel.
The exchange didn't just start the day before yesterday. Iran has been actively opposing Israel via proxies for decades.
No matter how much of a shit you think Bibi might be.
Iran was quick to try to draw a line under the exchange yesterday and I'm guessing that the current back channel negotiations concern the extent to which Israel will be "allowed" to re-retaliate.
The BBC Makes me feel sick. Nick Robinson claims he should have been clearer when accusing Israel of murdering Palestinians.... but you would never have heard him accuse Hamas of killing Jews.. oh no.. double standards. The BBC stinks in its appalling bias against Israel.
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
I greatly dislike Netanyahu and think he is disastrous for Israel, but on this narrow point the Israelis probably don't have much choice. They can't allow a big nasty country like Iran, on the threshold of nukes, to lob 300 missiles at them without any comeback, especially when they know Iran wants Israel destroyed. It means Iran could do more missile attacks every week, making life in Israel intolerable, destroying the economy, making everyone emigrate. Israel has to deter Tehran NOW
It's sod all to do with Bibi, this time
However the Israelis have to get it exactly right. Enough to give Tehran a telling slap, but not so much that it means Iran must strike back, because that is a certain route to a terrible war. I am not sure they can be that exact. Which is why this is so perilous
But surely the way this works is that however measured the retaliation, the other side will deem it necessary to strike back?
As if to prove my point, it would be hard to conceive a less effective retaliation than the one the Iranians launched on Saturday, yet the Israelis feel they must retaliate back.
That's why I think an all-out war is now more likely than not, this is the logic of war once it gets going. The guns of August and all that
Yes, you may be right.
I really really really hope I am wrong and this is worse than what3words
You were massively wrong in the autumn of 2022 when you were convinced Putin was going to use nukes ASAP.
No. I feared it was highly possible and as we now know from pentagon leaks and White House insiders - the Americans thought exactly the same
Biden should make me his National Security Adviser, I would have given him better advice.
What would your advice have been? To hire David Cameron as Secretary of State?
No.
I would have advised him to nuke France, which is the same reason Lord Cameron didn’t appoint me his SPAD because my solution to every foreign policy crisis would have been to suggest we invaded/nuked France.
Good Lord!
Nuke France? Why would we nuke our own possessions? Would dent all those peasants as well. One simply doesn’t dent one’s peasants. Not Done, old chap.
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
I greatly dislike Netanyahu and think he is disastrous for Israel, but on this narrow point the Israelis probably don't have much choice. They can't allow a big nasty country like Iran, on the threshold of nukes, to lob 300 missiles at them without any comeback, especially when they know Iran wants Israel destroyed. It means Iran could do more missile attacks every week, making life in Israel intolerable, destroying the economy, making everyone emigrate. Israel has to deter Tehran NOW
It's sod all to do with Bibi, this time
However the Israelis have to get it exactly right. Enough to give Tehran a telling slap, but not so much that it means Iran must strike back, because that is a certain route to a terrible war. I am not sure they can be that exact. Which is why this is so perilous
But surely the way this works is that however measured the retaliation, the other side will deem it necessary to strike back?
As if to prove my point, it would be hard to conceive a less effective retaliation than the one the Iranians launched on Saturday, yet the Israelis feel they must retaliate back.
That's why I think an all-out war is now more likely than not, this is the logic of war once it gets going. The guns of August and all that
Yes, you may be right.
I really really really hope I am wrong and this is worse than what3words
You were massively wrong in the autumn of 2022 when you were convinced Putin was going to use nukes ASAP.
No. I feared it was highly possible and as we now know from pentagon leaks and White House insiders - the Americans thought exactly the same
Biden should make me his National Security Adviser, I would have given him better advice.
What would your advice have been? To hire David Cameron as Secretary of State?
No.
I would have advised him to nuke France, which is the same reason Lord Cameron didn’t appoint me his SPAD because my solution to every foreign policy crisis would have been to suggest we invaded/nuked France.
Good Lord!
Nuke France? Why would we nuke our own possessions? Would dent all those peasants as well. One simply doesn’t dent one’s peasants. Not Done, old chap.
"Trump appeared to be asleep. His head would fall down… He didn’t pay attention to a note his lawyer passed him. His jaw kept falling on his chest and his mouth kept going slack".
The chances of a Trump health issue are underappreciated.
He spends 24-7 posting on his Truth Network. He must be knackered.
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
It's totally fair. Israel doing another strike against Iran in response to the one against them which was in response to theirs against the Iranian consulate in Syria would have nothing to do with deterrence. It would be an escalation calculated to shore up the position of Netanyahu inside Israel.
To be clear, I don't want Israel to strike back. I want everyone to calm down and back off. But I think it would take heroic restraint for Israel to do so, and I don't see strategically why it would. And just because such a move might be electorally popular doesn't make it wrong.
Israel knows now it is in an existential struggle and that Iran, and others, are out to destroy it. It seems very hard to me to make a case for inaction. If they do nothing, they know the bomb which will destroy them is coming soon anyway.
I don't think I really understand this logic.
As I understand it, the strike was in response to a bombing of an Iranian consulate in Damascus, which any diplomat would recognise as an attack on sovereign Iranian territory. AIUI this attack was relatively unprovoked.
If my understanding is correct, then putting everything else aside (not least what a brutally evil regime holds sway in Tehran) Iran's response seems quite well calibrated. Fire large numbers of missiles and drones to show your displeasure, but do very little actual damage.
If Israel shows restraint now, it has scored a strategic victory in my view as, publicly at least, they have directly attacked Iran with relatively little comeback. Whereas if it strikes back it gets into a shooting war with one of the few near neighbours with both the firepower and the craziness to mean it really is in an existential struggle.
The issue is if each side feels the need to retaliate at every moment.
And Iran - let's not forget - sent a storm of missiles into Israel targeting civilians.
If someone sent a storm of missiles at the UK, would you not feel a teensy weensy bit of a desire to show your determination to resist such attacks? Of course, the goal is to avoid escalating. But who doesn't want the last word?
Of course that's right, but say (just for argument's sake) it was the French who had fired a bunch of missiles at us, almost all of which were shot down over the channel, after we had torched their embassy on bonfire night killing everyone inside, you could also use it as a domestic opportunity to laugh at their ineffectiveness in the face of our blatant Guy-Fawkes-reenactment provocation.
Of course, France is not Iran and the extremist nature of the Iranian regime must be a terrifying neighbour to have. As has been true for some time Israel appears to have no good options, but not escalating further seems the least worst option at the moment. Not least because their worst case scenario is losing the unqualified support of USA, and attacking Iran again must risk that surely?
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
I greatly dislike Netanyahu and think he is disastrous for Israel, but on this narrow point the Israelis probably don't have much choice. They can't allow a big nasty country like Iran, on the threshold of nukes, to lob 300 missiles at them without any comeback, especially when they know Iran wants Israel destroyed. It means Iran could do more missile attacks every week, making life in Israel intolerable, destroying the economy, making everyone emigrate. Israel has to deter Tehran NOW
It's sod all to do with Bibi, this time
However the Israelis have to get it exactly right. Enough to give Tehran a telling slap, but not so much that it means Iran must strike back, because that is a certain route to a terrible war. I am not sure they can be that exact. Which is why this is so perilous
But surely the way this works is that however measured the retaliation, the other side will deem it necessary to strike back?
As if to prove my point, it would be hard to conceive a less effective retaliation than the one the Iranians launched on Saturday, yet the Israelis feel they must retaliate back.
That's why I think an all-out war is now more likely than not, this is the logic of war once it gets going. The guns of August and all that
Yes, you may be right.
I really really really hope I am wrong and this is worse than what3words
You were massively wrong in the autumn of 2022 when you were convinced Putin was going to use nukes ASAP.
No. I feared it was highly possible and as we now know from pentagon leaks and White House insiders - the Americans thought exactly the same
Autumn of 2022 seems the halycon days compared to now. Ukraine was then pushing Russia back and there was no conflict in the middle east.
The BBC Makes me feel sick. Nick Robinson claims he should have been clearer when accusing Israel of murdering Palestinians.... but you would never have heard him accuse Hamas of killing Jews.. oh no.. double standards. The BBC stinks in its appalling bias against Israel.
"Bias", you say? When did the BBC last interview someone from the Palestinian authorities in Gaza? In the past they have practically handed over coverage of Gaza affairs to Mark Regev, with questions amounting to "How can you be sure you've killed enough Palestinians to stop the occupation from being attacked with the occasional rocket, Sir?" The BBC is a disgrace all right. I haven't read any of their output for a few years now.
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
It's totally fair. Israel doing another strike against Iran in response to the one against them which was in response to theirs against the Iranian consulate in Syria would have nothing to do with deterrence. It would be an escalation calculated to shore up the position of Netanyahu inside Israel.
To be clear, I don't want Israel to strike back. I want everyone to calm down and back off. But I think it would take heroic restraint for Israel to do so, and I don't see strategically why it would. And just because such a move might be electorally popular doesn't make it wrong.
Israel knows now it is in an existential struggle and that Iran, and others, are out to destroy it. It seems very hard to me to make a case for inaction. If they do nothing, they know the bomb which will destroy them is coming soon anyway.
I don't think I really understand this logic.
As I understand it, the strike was in response to a bombing of an Iranian consulate in Damascus, which any diplomat would recognise as an attack on sovereign Iranian territory. AIUI this attack was relatively unprovoked.
If my understanding is correct, then putting everything else aside (not least what a brutally evil regime holds sway in Tehran) Iran's response seems quite well calibrated. Fire large numbers of missiles and drones to show your displeasure, but do very little actual damage.
If Israel shows restraint now, it has scored a strategic victory in my view as, publicly at least, they have directly attacked Iran with relatively little comeback. Whereas if it strikes back it gets into a shooting war with one of the few near neighbours with both the firepower and the craziness to mean it really is in an existential struggle.
The issue is if each side feels the need to retaliate at every moment.
And Iran - let's not forget - sent a storm of missiles into Israel targeting civilians.
If someone sent a storm of missiles at the UK, would you not feel a teensy weensy bit of a desire to show your determination to resist such attacks? Of course, the goal is to avoid escalating. But who doesn't want the last word?
That is the problem. Peace came to Northern Ireland when the hard men on each side were persuaded not to be provoked, not to seek the last word. There is no sign of this in the Middle East.
Actually a big part* of it was lifting the sons of the Men Of Violence. For various crimes they had committed. Then telling the MoV that either they (the MoV) started liking the peace process. Or little Bobby would get a decade of free accommodation.
It turned out that quite a few MoV were AOL with sacrificing other peoples sons, not their own
*aside from actually recruiting the MoV to work for the government out right.
She has gone full on Trumpite saying Trump must win in November. Other Tories saying Trump must not win and some saying nothing to do with us guv.
The Tories are really idiotic if they think November is a good time to hold an election here. The main attention will go to Trump. The Tories are deeply and irreconcilably divided on Trump, so they will inevitably look like the divided party they are. And the Tories need attention domestically to somehow catch up in the polling.
As they are indeed idiotic expect a November election.
Trump is the Republican candidate, and the Republicans are the right of centre party. Furthermore, it is true that Biden has been one of the least supportive leaders to the UK, and that Trump has always been well-disposed toward the UK and has friends, business interests, and familial ties here. It seems a mark of polite society that we should all clutch our pearls at the very thought of him gaining the White House again - well that can fuck off.
Not a question of politeness, more an indication of either a disdain for democratic norms or a lack of intelligence, or both, they often go together.
Democratic norms dictate to me that we should accept whoever the Americans choose, not leave a puddle on the floor about how awful it all is.
Furthermore Liz Truss is absolutely right to bring the argument back to who has been more supportive to the UK - that's the only dog we have in this fight, and something too many of us are utterly blind to, either because we feel the national interest is a dirty concept, or because we're the sort of thicko who defaces the cenotaph because an American policman killed someone.
Bollocks. Should we accept whomever the Russians choose? Should we have accepted whom the 1930s Germans chose?
FFS, the man is a genuine fascist, we have every right to condemn the vile piece of shite. As for him being "more supportive to the UK" that is highly arguable, and even if it were true it does not make him remotely appropriate.
Oh, and I forgot to add that to his very long list of puke inducing vileness we should add that he sucks up to Putin. For what reasons, we can only guess.
Yes, and yes - if they're elected legitimately.
I guess it depends on your definition of "accept". It seems that you and the lettuce do not "accept" Joe Biden. Although perhaps as an apologist for the orange Mussolini maybe you buy the Big Lie that Biden isn't legit?
Personally I do not and never will "accept" fascists, whether they have hoodwinked their electorates or not. I do not "accept" racists. I do not "accept" rapists. If politicians this side of the Atlantic wish to accept such scumbags then they are, in effect, endorsing their vile behaviour, and are low-life human beings.
It has not been proven in a court of law that Trump raped anyone, and the circumstances detailed in the allegation seem exceedingly improbable.
The BBC Makes me feel sick. Nick Robinson claims he should have been clearer when accusing Israel of murdering Palestinians.... but you would never have heard him accuse Hamas of killing Jews.. oh no.. double standards. The BBC stinks in its appalling bias against Israel.
"Bias", you say? When did the BBC last interview someone from the Palestinian authorities in Gaza? In the past they have practically handed over coverage of Gaza affairs to Mark Regev, with questions amounting to "How can you be sure you've killed enough Palestinians to stop the occupation from being attacked with the occasional rocket, Sir?" The BBC is a disgrace all right. I haven't read any of their output for a few years now.
The BBC does a decent job of finding a balance. Both sides attack it passionately...
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
It's totally fair. Israel doing another strike against Iran in response to the one against them which was in response to theirs against the Iranian consulate in Syria would have nothing to do with deterrence. It would be an escalation calculated to shore up the position of Netanyahu inside Israel.
To be clear, I don't want Israel to strike back. I want everyone to calm down and back off. But I think it would take heroic restraint for Israel to do so, and I don't see strategically why it would. And just because such a move might be electorally popular doesn't make it wrong.
Israel knows now it is in an existential struggle and that Iran, and others, are out to destroy it. It seems very hard to me to make a case for inaction. If they do nothing, they know the bomb which will destroy them is coming soon anyway.
I don't think I really understand this logic.
As I understand it, the strike was in response to a bombing of an Iranian consulate in Damascus, which any diplomat would recognise as an attack on sovereign Iranian territory. AIUI this attack was relatively unprovoked.
If my understanding is correct, then putting everything else aside (not least what a brutally evil regime holds sway in Tehran) Iran's response seems quite well calibrated. Fire large numbers of missiles and drones to show your displeasure, but do very little actual damage.
If Israel shows restraint now, it has scored a strategic victory in my view as, publicly at least, they have directly attacked Iran with relatively little comeback. Whereas if it strikes back it gets into a shooting war with one of the few near neighbours with both the firepower and the craziness to mean it really is in an existential struggle.
da
300+ missiles isn't relatively little comback, even if the attack from Iran was unsuccessful.
Yes I didn't mean to imply that the lack of comeback was deliberate. I just mean it shows Iranian weakness. In reality, if not in intent, Israel suffered little in retaliation.
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
I greatly dislike Netanyahu and think he is disastrous for Israel, but on this narrow point the Israelis probably don't have much choice. They can't allow a big nasty country like Iran, on the threshold of nukes, to lob 300 missiles at them without any comeback, especially when they know Iran wants Israel destroyed. It means Iran could do more missile attacks every week, making life in Israel intolerable, destroying the economy, making everyone emigrate. Israel has to deter Tehran NOW
It's sod all to do with Bibi, this time
However the Israelis have to get it exactly right. Enough to give Tehran a telling slap, but not so much that it means Iran must strike back, because that is a certain route to a terrible war. I am not sure they can be that exact. Which is why this is so perilous
It wouldn't mean Iran could or would do missile attacks every week. This one was a response to the Consulate and was calibrated to be the end of it. To respond again would be an escalation done principally for domestic reasons.
"calibrated"
lol
You're a fricking idiot. Iran sent 300 drones/missiles with no idea how many would get through, if half of them had got through thousands might have died. Spectacular stupidity
*calibrated*
Israeli Imperialists versus Inept, Ineffectual Iran
Your fellow Hamas apologists were out in force at Leeds Railway Station this morning.
Perhaps I missed the bit where they demanded that the terrorists release the hostages and renounce violence. But I doubt it.
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
I greatly dislike Netanyahu and think he is disastrous for Israel, but on this narrow point the Israelis probably don't have much choice. They can't allow a big nasty country like Iran, on the threshold of nukes, to lob 300 missiles at them without any comeback, especially when they know Iran wants Israel destroyed. It means Iran could do more missile attacks every week, making life in Israel intolerable, destroying the economy, making everyone emigrate. Israel has to deter Tehran NOW
It's sod all to do with Bibi, this time
However the Israelis have to get it exactly right. Enough to give Tehran a telling slap, but not so much that it means Iran must strike back, because that is a certain route to a terrible war. I am not sure they can be that exact. Which is why this is so perilous
But surely the way this works is that however measured the retaliation, the other side will deem it necessary to strike back?
As if to prove my point, it would be hard to conceive a less effective retaliation than the one the Iranians launched on Saturday, yet the Israelis feel they must retaliate back.
That's why I think an all-out war is now more likely than not, this is the logic of war once it gets going. The guns of August and all that
Yes, you may be right.
I really really really hope I am wrong and this is worse than what3words
You were massively wrong in the autumn of 2022 when you were convinced Putin was going to use nukes ASAP.
No. I feared it was highly possible and as we now know from pentagon leaks and White House insiders - the Americans thought exactly the same
Biden should make me his National Security Adviser, I would have given him better advice.
What would your advice have been? To hire David Cameron as Secretary of State?
No.
I would have advised him to nuke France, which is the same reason Lord Cameron didn’t appoint me his SPAD because my solution to every foreign policy crisis would have been to suggest we invaded/nuked France.
Amount of unfunded tax cuts in Truss's minibudget: £45bn
Amount that the Treasury has spent so far paying the Bank of England's losses on its disastrous bond selloff: £50bn, could be further £40bn spent this year.
Amount of PBers furiously wanking themselves off about how disastrously awful Truss was and what personality disorders she must have not to realise it and go into permanent hiding: 534
Amount of PBers questioning the Bank's actions and the Treasury's bizarre policy of indemnifying them: 3
I have worked in banking/financial services for over a decade, during the Liz Truss premiership it is the closest we came to activating Project Dynamo which was anticipating the full scale disaster for the UK financially. The Bank of England intervention stopped disaster, we were perilously close to the pension funds collapsing.
Even Covid-19 didn't trigger that.
If Liz Truss was so awesome why did she panic, sack her Chancellor, and reversed her policies?
The Bank of England 'intervention' was to reverse its bond selloff, and buy some back (making a profit in the process btw) - why is it that halting the selloff and buying some back steadied the markets do you think, if the market crash was nothing to do with the selloff and everything to do with the growth plan?
Why was it catastrophically incompetent for Liz Truss to propose £45bn of unfunded tax cuts to get the economy moving without an OBR forecast, but it was a stroke of genius for Rishi Sunak to propose £70bn of furlough scheme to get the economy stopping without an OBR forecast?
Nobody is saying Liz Truss was awesome - she badly mistimed her policies, put the wrong people in some key positions, went off half-cocked, and seriously blew a vital opportunity to reverse years of economic stagnation. I am however saying that her demerits have been and are being ludicrously exaggerated, and that she was right to attempt radical action to get the economy going, with the managerial approach that preceded and followed her proving an utter failure.
Yanis Varoufakis has been banned from entering Germany, with the Interior Ministry answering: “Anyone who spreads Islamist propaganda & hatred against Jews must know that such crimes will be prosecuted quickly and consistently. Antisemitic & Islamist crimes will not be tolerated”
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
It's totally fair. Israel doing another strike against Iran in response to the one against them which was in response to theirs against the Iranian consulate in Syria would have nothing to do with deterrence. It would be an escalation calculated to shore up the position of Netanyahu inside Israel.
To be clear, I don't want Israel to strike back. I want everyone to calm down and back off. But I think it would take heroic restraint for Israel to do so, and I don't see strategically why it would. And just because such a move might be electorally popular doesn't make it wrong.
Israel knows now it is in an existential struggle and that Iran, and others, are out to destroy it. It seems very hard to me to make a case for inaction. If they do nothing, they know the bomb which will destroy them is coming soon anyway.
You don't think MAD will work in the Middle East?
No, because the cold war was essentially defensive. Neither side really wanted to wipe the other off the map; they just feared the other wiping them off the map. The only reason for striking first was to make yourself safer - and as cold war tech developed, that seemed unlikely to be the case. Whereas Iran actively wants to wipe Israel off the map. If it can do so and largely survive itself, even better. And because Israel knows this, it knows there's no real point appealing to these people's better nature.
The best hope for the world is that the war can be largely confined to the Middle East.
I would say that The Iranian Regime wants to wipe Israel off the map. But as far as Maslow's hierarchy of needs goes, most Iranians don't give a shit.
Don't they? ISTR a survey quite recently which showed quite a lot of Iranians (can't remember how many) would also like to see Israel wiped off the map. Though I really can't remember the details so may be well out.
Are there really reputable polling companies in Iran? It doesn't seem like the kind of place that would be keen to have the Supreme Leader's views publicly critiqued.
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
It's totally fair. Israel doing another strike against Iran in response to the one against them which was in response to theirs against the Iranian consulate in Syria would have nothing to do with deterrence. It would be an escalation calculated to shore up the position of Netanyahu inside Israel.
To be clear, I don't want Israel to strike back. I want everyone to calm down and back off. But I think it would take heroic restraint for Israel to do so, and I don't see strategically why it would. And just because such a move might be electorally popular doesn't make it wrong.
Israel knows now it is in an existential struggle and that Iran, and others, are out to destroy it. It seems very hard to me to make a case for inaction. If they do nothing, they know the bomb which will destroy them is coming soon anyway.
I don't think I really understand this logic.
As I understand it, the strike was in response to a bombing of an Iranian consulate in Damascus, which any diplomat would recognise as an attack on sovereign Iranian territory. AIUI this attack was relatively unprovoked.
If my understanding is correct, then putting everything else aside (not least what a brutally evil regime holds sway in Tehran) Iran's response seems quite well calibrated. Fire large numbers of missiles and drones to show your displeasure, but do very little actual damage.
If Israel shows restraint now, it has scored a strategic victory in my view as, publicly at least, they have directly attacked Iran with relatively little comeback. Whereas if it strikes back it gets into a shooting war with one of the few near neighbours with both the firepower and the craziness to mean it really is in an existential struggle.
The issue is if each side feels the need to retaliate at every moment.
And Iran - let's not forget - sent a storm of missiles into Israel targeting civilians.
If someone sent a storm of missiles at the UK, would you not feel a teensy weensy bit of a desire to show your determination to resist such attacks? Of course, the goal is to avoid escalating. But who doesn't want the last word?
Yanis Varoufakis has been banned from entering Germany, with the Interior Ministry answering: “Anyone who spreads Islamist propaganda & hatred against Jews must know that such crimes will be prosecuted quickly and consistently. Antisemitic & Islamist crimes will not be tolerated”
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
I greatly dislike Netanyahu and think he is disastrous for Israel, but on this narrow point the Israelis probably don't have much choice. They can't allow a big nasty country like Iran, on the threshold of nukes, to lob 300 missiles at them without any comeback, especially when they know Iran wants Israel destroyed. It means Iran could do more missile attacks every week, making life in Israel intolerable, destroying the economy, making everyone emigrate. Israel has to deter Tehran NOW
It's sod all to do with Bibi, this time
However the Israelis have to get it exactly right. Enough to give Tehran a telling slap, but not so much that it means Iran must strike back, because that is a certain route to a terrible war. I am not sure they can be that exact. Which is why this is so perilous
It wouldn't mean Iran could or would do missile attacks every week. This one was a response to the Consulate and was calibrated to be the end of it. To respond again would be an escalation done principally for domestic reasons.
"calibrated"
lol
You're a fricking idiot. Iran sent 300 drones/missiles with no idea how many would get through, if half of them had got through thousands might have died. Spectacular stupidity
*calibrated*
Israeli Imperialists versus Inept, Ineffectual Iran
Your fellow Hamas apologists were out in force at Leeds Railway Station this morning.
Perhaps I missed the bit where they demanded that the terrorists release the hostages and renounce violence. But I doubt it.
The Mid-East conflict is basically a civil war between opposing sets of ritual animal-slaughtering penis-mutilators.
Yanis Varoufakis has been banned from entering Germany, with the Interior Ministry answering: “Anyone who spreads Islamist propaganda & hatred against Jews must know that such crimes will be prosecuted quickly and consistently. Antisemitic & Islamist crimes will not be tolerated”
Hero to zero.
He spread an awful lot of bullshit during the Eurozone crisis too.
Without trying to sound like Leon, Bibi is going to take out this nuclear installation isn't he? Double bubble for him, he reduces the threat of an Iranian nuclear attack and kills thousands of Arabs too. Which according to Max Hastings's book on Bibi's brother, is something that floats his boat.
They might attack the nuclear facilities, but they are a very difficult target. I am also sure they will TRY and minimise casualties, that does not mean they will succeed
I reckon the chances of an all out Israel-Iran war are now greater than 50%
Let’s hope the Israelis try a bit harder to minimise casualties than they have thus far in Gaza, and are more successful in their tactical aim of taking out the nuclear facilities than they were in their stated purpose of recovering their hostages.
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
It's totally fair. Israel doing another strike against Iran in response to the one against them which was in response to theirs against the Iranian consulate in Syria would have nothing to do with deterrence. It would be an escalation calculated to shore up the position of Netanyahu inside Israel.
To be clear, I don't want Israel to strike back. I want everyone to calm down and back off. But I think it would take heroic restraint for Israel to do so, and I don't see strategically why it would. And just because such a move might be electorally popular doesn't make it wrong.
Israel knows now it is in an existential struggle and that Iran, and others, are out to destroy it. It seems very hard to me to make a case for inaction. If they do nothing, they know the bomb which will destroy them is coming soon anyway.
You don't think MAD will work in the Middle East?
No, because the cold war was essentially defensive. Neither side really wanted to wipe the other off the map; they just feared the other wiping them off the map. The only reason for striking first was to make yourself safer - and as cold war tech developed, that seemed unlikely to be the case. Whereas Iran actively wants to wipe Israel off the map. If it can do so and largely survive itself, even better. And because Israel knows this, it knows there's no real point appealing to these people's better nature.
The best hope for the world is that the war can be largely confined to the Middle East.
I would say that The Iranian Regime wants to wipe Israel off the map. But as far as Maslow's hierarchy of needs goes, most Iranians don't give a shit.
Don't they? ISTR a survey quite recently which showed quite a lot of Iranians (can't remember how many) would also like to see Israel wiped off the map. Though I really can't remember the details so may be well out.
Opinion polling in Iran must be, er, challenging...
She has gone full on Trumpite saying Trump must win in November. Other Tories saying Trump must not win and some saying nothing to do with us guv.
The Tories are really idiotic if they think November is a good time to hold an election here. The main attention will go to Trump. The Tories are deeply and irreconcilably divided on Trump, so they will inevitably look like the divided party they are. And the Tories need attention domestically to somehow catch up in the polling.
As they are indeed idiotic expect a November election.
Trump is the Republican candidate, and the Republicans are the right of centre party. Furthermore, it is true that Biden has been one of the least supportive leaders to the UK, and that Trump has always been well-disposed toward the UK and has friends, business interests, and familial ties here. It seems a mark of polite society that we should all clutch our pearls at the very thought of him gaining the White House again - well that can fuck off.
Not a question of politeness, more an indication of either a disdain for democratic norms or a lack of intelligence, or both, they often go together.
Democratic norms dictate to me that we should accept whoever the Americans choose, not leave a puddle on the floor about how awful it all is.
Furthermore Liz Truss is absolutely right to bring the argument back to who has been more supportive to the UK - that's the only dog we have in this fight, and something too many of us are utterly blind to, either because we feel the national interest is a dirty concept, or because we're the sort of thicko who defaces the cenotaph because an American policman killed someone.
Bollocks. Should we accept whomever the Russians choose? Should we have accepted whom the 1930s Germans chose?
FFS, the man is a genuine fascist, we have every right to condemn the vile piece of shite. As for him being "more supportive to the UK" that is highly arguable, and even if it were true it does not make him remotely appropriate.
Oh, and I forgot to add that to his very long list of puke inducing vileness we should add that he sucks up to Putin. For what reasons, we can only guess.
Yes, and yes - if they're elected legitimately.
I guess it depends on your definition of "accept". It seems that you and the lettuce do not "accept" Joe Biden. Although perhaps as an apologist for the orange Mussolini maybe you buy the Big Lie that Biden isn't legit?
Personally I do not and never will "accept" fascists, whether they have hoodwinked their electorates or not. I do not "accept" racists. I do not "accept" rapists. If politicians this side of the Atlantic wish to accept such scumbags then they are, in effect, endorsing their vile behaviour, and are low-life human beings.
It has not been proven in a court of law that Trump raped anyone, and the circumstances detailed in the allegation seem exceedingly improbable.
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
It's totally fair. Israel doing another strike against Iran in response to the one against them which was in response to theirs against the Iranian consulate in Syria would have nothing to do with deterrence. It would be an escalation calculated to shore up the position of Netanyahu inside Israel.
The exchange didn't just start the day before yesterday. Iran has been actively opposing Israel via proxies for decades.
No matter how much of a shit you think Bibi might be.
Iran was quick to try to draw a line under the exchange yesterday and I'm guessing that the current back channel negotiations concern the extent to which Israel will be "allowed" to re-retaliate.
Israel has been hitting Iran for years, both inside and outside Iran. "Proxy" is one of those terms, like "regime". The IRM isn't particularly closely allied to Iran. Hezbollah is allied to Iran in some sense. Are the "settler" thugs on the West Bank anybody's "proxy"?
I eventually got past the Daily Mail pay wall to Truss' take on her premiership. It's a revelation.
People have focused on her tales of fleas in Downing Street from the previous occupant's dog and the difficulty of getting Ocado orders delivered to No 10. These are mildly interesting in an anecdotal way.
It's when she gets onto her retelling of the Trusterfuck budget it strikes home how utterly demented she is - I don't use that word casually. She and Kwarteng refused to deal with any of the Bank of England, the Office of Budget Responsibility and the Treasury - all the people paid to know something about the nation's finances - because they are the "enemy", the "blob" and the "establishment", unlike the mere prime minister who was always right but perhaps lacked her predecessor's mastery of upbeat comms.
I previously rated Truss and Johnson similarly but now I think she's a different level of bad. And that's compared with the most egregiously dishonest prime minister of recent times
If the jews as a people see themselves as fighting for survival they will be willing to go up the escalation ladder faster than the west is comfortable with. Think of how antisemitism has exploded in the last 6 months since the Israeli invasion of gaza. This makes the situation very unstable.
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
It's totally fair. Israel doing another strike against Iran in response to the one against them which was in response to theirs against the Iranian consulate in Syria would have nothing to do with deterrence. It would be an escalation calculated to shore up the position of Netanyahu inside Israel.
The exchange didn't just start the day before yesterday. Iran has been actively opposing Israel via proxies for decades.
No matter how much of a shit you think Bibi might be.
Iran was quick to try to draw a line under the exchange yesterday and I'm guessing that the current back channel negotiations concern the extent to which Israel will be "allowed" to re-retaliate.
Israel has been hitting Iran for years, both inside and outside Iran. "Proxy" is one of those terms, like "regime". The IRM isn't particularly closely allied to Iran. Hezbollah is allied to Iran in some sense. Are the "settler" thugs on the West Bank anybody's "proxy"?
Without trying to sound like Leon, Bibi is going to take out this nuclear installation isn't he? Double bubble for him, he reduces the threat of an Iranian nuclear attack and kills thousands of Arabs too. Which according to Max Hastings's book on Bibi's brother, is something that floats his boat.
They might attack the nuclear facilities, but they are a very difficult target. I am also sure they will TRY and minimise casualties, that does not mean they will succeed
I reckon the chances of an all out Israel-Iran war are now greater than 50%
Let’s hope the Israelis try a bit harder to minimise casualties than they have thus far in Gaza, and are more successful in their tactical aim of taking out the nuclear facilities than they were in their stated purpose of recovering their hostages.
Yanis Varoufakis has been banned from entering Germany, with the Interior Ministry answering: “Anyone who spreads Islamist propaganda & hatred against Jews must know that such crimes will be prosecuted quickly and consistently. Antisemitic & Islamist crimes will not be tolerated”
I'm sure he can rev up his bike and jump the fence Steve McQueen style.
Amount of unfunded tax cuts in Truss's minibudget: £45bn
Amount that the Treasury has spent so far paying the Bank of England's losses on its disastrous bond selloff: £50bn, could be further £40bn spent this year.
Amount of PBers furiously wanking themselves off about how disastrously awful Truss was and what personality disorders she must have not to realise it and go into permanent hiding: 534
Amount of PBers questioning the Bank's actions and the Treasury's bizarre policy of indemnifying them: 3
I have worked in banking/financial services for over a decade, during the Liz Truss premiership it is the closest we came to activating Project Dynamo which was anticipating the full scale disaster for the UK financially. The Bank of England intervention stopped disaster, we were perilously close to the pension funds collapsing.
Even Covid-19 didn't trigger that.
If Liz Truss was so awesome why did she panic, sack her Chancellor, and reversed her policies?
The Bank of England 'intervention' was to reverse its bond selloff, and buy some back (making a profit in the process btw) - why is it that halting the selloff and buying some back steadied the markets do you think, if the market crash was nothing to do with the selloff and everything to do with the growth plan?
Why was it catastrophically incompetent for Liz Truss to propose £45bn of unfunded tax cuts to get the economy moving without an OBR forecast, but it was a stroke of genius for Rishi Sunak to propose £70bn of furlough scheme to get the economy stopping without an OBR forecast?
Nobody is saying Liz Truss was awesome - she badly mistimed her policies, put the wrong people in some key positions, went off half-cocked, and seriously blew a vital opportunity to reverse years of economic stagnation. I am however saying that her demerits have been and are being ludicrously exaggerated, and that she was right to attempt radical action to get the economy going, with the managerial approach that preceded and followed her proving an utter failure.
Liz Truss sent all the adults out of the room. She sacked the Treasury boss and bypassed the OBR and Bank of England. This meant when she implemented radical policies, the markets could not reassure themselves that the adults were still in control, had seen the books, and would stop anything truly dangerous. The markets could not give Truss's Britain the benefit of the doubt.
And that, boys and girls, is why Gordon Brown made the Bank of England independent.
Yanis Varoufakis has been banned from entering Germany, with the Interior Ministry answering: “Anyone who spreads Islamist propaganda & hatred against Jews must know that such crimes will be prosecuted quickly and consistently. Antisemitic & Islamist crimes will not be tolerated”
Yanis Varoufakis has been banned from entering Germany, with the Interior Ministry answering: “Anyone who spreads Islamist propaganda & hatred against Jews must know that such crimes will be prosecuted quickly and consistently. Antisemitic & Islamist crimes will not be tolerated”
Amount of unfunded tax cuts in Truss's minibudget: £45bn
Amount that the Treasury has spent so far paying the Bank of England's losses on its disastrous bond selloff: £50bn, could be further £40bn spent this year.
Amount of PBers furiously wanking themselves off about how disastrously awful Truss was and what personality disorders she must have not to realise it and go into permanent hiding: 534
Amount of PBers questioning the Bank's actions and the Treasury's bizarre policy of indemnifying them: 3
I have worked in banking/financial services for over a decade, during the Liz Truss premiership it is the closest we came to activating Project Dynamo which was anticipating the full scale disaster for the UK financially. The Bank of England intervention stopped disaster, we were perilously close to the pension funds collapsing.
Even Covid-19 didn't trigger that.
If Liz Truss was so awesome why did she panic, sack her Chancellor, and reversed her policies?
The Bank of England 'intervention' was to reverse its bond selloff, and buy some back (making a profit in the process btw) - why is it that halting the selloff and buying some back steadied the markets do you think, if the market crash was nothing to do with the selloff and everything to do with the growth plan?
Why was it catastrophically incompetent for Liz Truss to propose £45bn of unfunded tax cuts to get the economy moving without an OBR forecast, but it was a stroke of genius for Rishi Sunak to propose £70bn of furlough scheme to get the economy stopping without an OBR forecast?
Nobody is saying Liz Truss was awesome - she badly mistimed her policies, put the wrong people in some key positions, went off half-cocked, and seriously blew a vital opportunity to reverse years of economic stagnation. I am however saying that her demerits have been and are being ludicrously exaggerated, and that she was right to attempt radical action to get the economy going, with the managerial approach that preceded and followed her proving an utter failure.
Liz Truss sent all the adults out of the room. She sacked the Treasury boss and bypassed the OBR and Bank of England. This meant when she implemented radical policies, the markets could not reassure themselves that the adults were still in control, had seen the books, and would stop anything truly dangerous. The markets could not give Truss's Britain the benefit of the doubt.
And that, boys and girls, is why Gordon Brown made the Bank of England independent.
I think there was also the aspect that - apart from the actions themselves - she came across as an inept muppet. I don't think many people could watch a Truss speech and think "At last! A competent leader!".
Yanis Varoufakis has been banned from entering Germany, with the Interior Ministry answering: “Anyone who spreads Islamist propaganda & hatred against Jews must know that such crimes will be prosecuted quickly and consistently. Antisemitic & Islamist crimes will not be tolerated”
Hero to zero.
Germany from zeros to heros with the PB herd.
I’ve been telling people Yanis Verruca was a shit for years.
A couple of years before the Greek crisis a prof of Economics at Athens University suggested that the government borrowing needed reducing. Not eliminating - just slowing the speed of the run to the off edge
This produced an instant, viscous reaction, prompted by politicians worried about the gravy train. He was hounded out of the university and death threats were made by some of the terrorist organisations that still hard around like a bad smell.
Verruca said this was all justified because the prof in question had been “opposing the will of the people”.
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
It's totally fair. Israel doing another strike against Iran in response to the one against them which was in response to theirs against the Iranian consulate in Syria would have nothing to do with deterrence. It would be an escalation calculated to shore up the position of Netanyahu inside Israel.
To be clear, I don't want Israel to strike back. I want everyone to calm down and back off. But I think it would take heroic restraint for Israel to do so, and I don't see strategically why it would. And just because such a move might be electorally popular doesn't make it wrong.
Israel knows now it is in an existential struggle and that Iran, and others, are out to destroy it. It seems very hard to me to make a case for inaction. If they do nothing, they know the bomb which will destroy them is coming soon anyway.
You don't think MAD will work in the Middle East?
No, because the cold war was essentially defensive. Neither side really wanted to wipe the other off the map; they just feared the other wiping them off the map. The only reason for striking first was to make yourself safer - and as cold war tech developed, that seemed unlikely to be the case. Whereas Iran actively wants to wipe Israel off the map. If it can do so and largely survive itself, even better. And because Israel knows this, it knows there's no real point appealing to these people's better nature.
The best hope for the world is that the war can be largely confined to the Middle East.
I would say that The Iranian Regime wants to wipe Israel off the map. But as far as Maslow's hierarchy of needs goes, most Iranians don't give a shit.
Don't they? ISTR a survey quite recently which showed quite a lot of Iranians (can't remember how many) would also like to see Israel wiped off the map. Though I really can't remember the details so may be well out.
Opinion polling in Iran must be, er, challenging...
"Q1, Do you now, or have you ever, held any opinion that might get you stoned to death by a hired mob?"
Amount of unfunded tax cuts in Truss's minibudget: £45bn
Amount that the Treasury has spent so far paying the Bank of England's losses on its disastrous bond selloff: £50bn, could be further £40bn spent this year.
Amount of PBers furiously wanking themselves off about how disastrously awful Truss was and what personality disorders she must have not to realise it and go into permanent hiding: 534
Amount of PBers questioning the Bank's actions and the Treasury's bizarre policy of indemnifying them: 3
I have worked in banking/financial services for over a decade, during the Liz Truss premiership it is the closest we came to activating Project Dynamo which was anticipating the full scale disaster for the UK financially. The Bank of England intervention stopped disaster, we were perilously close to the pension funds collapsing.
Even Covid-19 didn't trigger that.
If Liz Truss was so awesome why did she panic, sack her Chancellor, and reversed her policies?
The Bank of England 'intervention' was to reverse its bond selloff, and buy some back (making a profit in the process btw) - why is it that halting the selloff and buying some back steadied the markets do you think, if the market crash was nothing to do with the selloff and everything to do with the growth plan?
Why was it catastrophically incompetent for Liz Truss to propose £45bn of unfunded tax cuts to get the economy moving without an OBR forecast, but it was a stroke of genius for Rishi Sunak to propose £70bn of furlough scheme to get the economy stopping without an OBR forecast?
Nobody is saying Liz Truss was awesome - she badly mistimed her policies, put the wrong people in some key positions, went off half-cocked, and seriously blew a vital opportunity to reverse years of economic stagnation. I am however saying that her demerits have been and are being ludicrously exaggerated, and that she was right to attempt radical action to get the economy going, with the managerial approach that preceded and followed her proving an utter failure.
Liz Truss sent all the adults out of the room. She sacked the Treasury boss and bypassed the OBR and Bank of England. This meant when she implemented radical policies, the markets could not reassure themselves that the adults were still in control, had seen the books, and would stop anything truly dangerous. The markets could not give Truss's Britain the benefit of the doubt.
And that, boys and girls, is why Gordon Brown made the Bank of England independent.
What's sad is that we persist in the belief that these people are 'the adults', when they are, for the most part, promoting damaging, extreme, and deeply stupid ideas that are the polar opposite of 'dull competence'.
The Bank of England went on a money printing spree that took inflation three times over target before anything happened in Ukraine. They have now veered dramatically the other way swerving into a recession and burning £50bn of public money in the process, a course that no other central bank has followed.
The OBR have never made an accurate forecast. They have also never to my knowledge classified a public spending increase as 'unaffordable' - only tax cuts get that designation. They never objected to being out of the loop when Rishi brought in furlough; there were no leaks about black holes when that happened.
There was also no institutional or political opposition to Liz Truss spending billions on energy bill support - by far the least affordable part of her programme. It was just the far smaller tax cuts that were apparently unacceptable.
Amount of unfunded tax cuts in Truss's minibudget: £45bn
Amount that the Treasury has spent so far paying the Bank of England's losses on its disastrous bond selloff: £50bn, could be further £40bn spent this year.
Amount of PBers furiously wanking themselves off about how disastrously awful Truss was and what personality disorders she must have not to realise it and go into permanent hiding: 534
Amount of PBers questioning the Bank's actions and the Treasury's bizarre policy of indemnifying them: 3
I have worked in banking/financial services for over a decade, during the Liz Truss premiership it is the closest we came to activating Project Dynamo which was anticipating the full scale disaster for the UK financially. The Bank of England intervention stopped disaster, we were perilously close to the pension funds collapsing.
Even Covid-19 didn't trigger that.
If Liz Truss was so awesome why did she panic, sack her Chancellor, and reversed her policies?
The Bank of England 'intervention' was to reverse its bond selloff, and buy some back (making a profit in the process btw) - why is it that halting the selloff and buying some back steadied the markets do you think, if the market crash was nothing to do with the selloff and everything to do with the growth plan?
Why was it catastrophically incompetent for Liz Truss to propose £45bn of unfunded tax cuts to get the economy moving without an OBR forecast, but it was a stroke of genius for Rishi Sunak to propose £70bn of furlough scheme to get the economy stopping without an OBR forecast?
Nobody is saying Liz Truss was awesome - she badly mistimed her policies, put the wrong people in some key positions, went off half-cocked, and seriously blew a vital opportunity to reverse years of economic stagnation. I am however saying that her demerits have been and are being ludicrously exaggerated, and that she was right to attempt radical action to get the economy going, with the managerial approach that preceded and followed her proving an utter failure.
Amount of unfunded tax cuts in Truss's minibudget: £45bn
Amount that the Treasury has spent so far paying the Bank of England's losses on its disastrous bond selloff: £50bn, could be further £40bn spent this year.
Amount of PBers furiously wanking themselves off about how disastrously awful Truss was and what personality disorders she must have not to realise it and go into permanent hiding: 534
Amount of PBers questioning the Bank's actions and the Treasury's bizarre policy of indemnifying them: 3
I have worked in banking/financial services for over a decade, during the Liz Truss premiership it is the closest we came to activating Project Dynamo which was anticipating the full scale disaster for the UK financially. The Bank of England intervention stopped disaster, we were perilously close to the pension funds collapsing.
Even Covid-19 didn't trigger that.
If Liz Truss was so awesome why did she panic, sack her Chancellor, and reversed her policies?
The Bank of England 'intervention' was to reverse its bond selloff, and buy some back (making a profit in the process btw) - why is it that halting the selloff and buying some back steadied the markets do you think, if the market crash was nothing to do with the selloff and everything to do with the growth plan?
Why was it catastrophically incompetent for Liz Truss to propose £45bn of unfunded tax cuts to get the economy moving without an OBR forecast, but it was a stroke of genius for Rishi Sunak to propose £70bn of furlough scheme to get the economy stopping without an OBR forecast?
Nobody is saying Liz Truss was awesome - she badly mistimed her policies, put the wrong people in some key positions, went off half-cocked, and seriously blew a vital opportunity to reverse years of economic stagnation. I am however saying that her demerits have been and are being ludicrously exaggerated, and that she was right to attempt radical action to get the economy going, with the managerial approach that preceded and followed her proving an utter failure.
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
It's totally fair. Israel doing another strike against Iran in response to the one against them which was in response to theirs against the Iranian consulate in Syria would have nothing to do with deterrence. It would be an escalation calculated to shore up the position of Netanyahu inside Israel.
To be clear, I don't want Israel to strike back. I want everyone to calm down and back off. But I think it would take heroic restraint for Israel to do so, and I don't see strategically why it would. And just because such a move might be electorally popular doesn't make it wrong.
Israel knows now it is in an existential struggle and that Iran, and others, are out to destroy it. It seems very hard to me to make a case for inaction. If they do nothing, they know the bomb which will destroy them is coming soon anyway.
I don't think I really understand this logic.
As I understand it, the strike was in response to a bombing of an Iranian consulate in Damascus, which any diplomat would recognise as an attack on sovereign Iranian territory. AIUI this attack was relatively unprovoked.
If my understanding is correct, then putting everything else aside (not least what a brutally evil regime holds sway in Tehran) Iran's response seems quite well calibrated. Fire large numbers of missiles and drones to show your displeasure, but do very little actual damage.
If Israel shows restraint now, it has scored a strategic victory in my view as, publicly at least, they have directly attacked Iran with relatively little comeback. Whereas if it strikes back it gets into a shooting war with one of the few near neighbours with both the firepower and the craziness to mean it really is in an existential struggle.
da
300+ missiles isn't relatively little comback, even if the attack from Iran was unsuccessful.
Yes I didn't mean to imply that the lack of comeback was deliberate. I just mean it shows Iranian weakness. In reality, if not in intent, Israel suffered little in retaliation.
On the plus side - it's 300 less munitions they can flog to Putin.
Amount of unfunded tax cuts in Truss's minibudget: £45bn
Amount that the Treasury has spent so far paying the Bank of England's losses on its disastrous bond selloff: £50bn, could be further £40bn spent this year.
Amount of PBers furiously wanking themselves off about how disastrously awful Truss was and what personality disorders she must have not to realise it and go into permanent hiding: 534
Amount of PBers questioning the Bank's actions and the Treasury's bizarre policy of indemnifying them: 3
I have worked in banking/financial services for over a decade, during the Liz Truss premiership it is the closest we came to activating Project Dynamo which was anticipating the full scale disaster for the UK financially. The Bank of England intervention stopped disaster, we were perilously close to the pension funds collapsing.
Even Covid-19 didn't trigger that.
If Liz Truss was so awesome why did she panic, sack her Chancellor, and reversed her policies?
The Bank of England 'intervention' was to reverse its bond selloff, and buy some back (making a profit in the process btw) - why is it that halting the selloff and buying some back steadied the markets do you think, if the market crash was nothing to do with the selloff and everything to do with the growth plan?
Why was it catastrophically incompetent for Liz Truss to propose £45bn of unfunded tax cuts to get the economy moving without an OBR forecast, but it was a stroke of genius for Rishi Sunak to propose £70bn of furlough scheme to get the economy stopping without an OBR forecast?
Nobody is saying Liz Truss was awesome - she badly mistimed her policies, put the wrong people in some key positions, went off half-cocked, and seriously blew a vital opportunity to reverse years of economic stagnation. I am however saying that her demerits have been and are being ludicrously exaggerated, and that she was right to attempt radical action to get the economy going, with the managerial approach that preceded and followed her proving an utter failure.
Truss was one in a billion.
A truly special figure.
So are you ducks.
But she was something else, quite unique among leaders. She broke the mould.
She has gone full on Trumpite saying Trump must win in November. Other Tories saying Trump must not win and some saying nothing to do with us guv.
The Tories are really idiotic if they think November is a good time to hold an election here. The main attention will go to Trump. The Tories are deeply and irreconcilably divided on Trump, so they will inevitably look like the divided party they are. And the Tories need attention domestically to somehow catch up in the polling.
As they are indeed idiotic expect a November election.
Trump is the Republican candidate, and the Republicans are the right of centre party. Furthermore, it is true that Biden has been one of the least supportive leaders to the UK, and that Trump has always been well-disposed toward the UK and has friends, business interests, and familial ties here. It seems a mark of polite society that we should all clutch our pearls at the very thought of him gaining the White House again - well that can fuck off.
Not a question of politeness, more an indication of either a disdain for democratic norms or a lack of intelligence, or both, they often go together.
Democratic norms dictate to me that we should accept whoever the Americans choose, not leave a puddle on the floor about how awful it all is.
Furthermore Liz Truss is absolutely right to bring the argument back to who has been more supportive to the UK - that's the only dog we have in this fight, and something too many of us are utterly blind to, either because we feel the national interest is a dirty concept, or because we're the sort of thicko who defaces the cenotaph because an American policman killed someone.
Bollocks. Should we accept whomever the Russians choose? Should we have accepted whom the 1930s Germans chose?
FFS, the man is a genuine fascist, we have every right to condemn the vile piece of shite. As for him being "more supportive to the UK" that is highly arguable, and even if it were true it does not make him remotely appropriate.
Oh, and I forgot to add that to his very long list of puke inducing vileness we should add that he sucks up to Putin. For what reasons, we can only guess.
Yes, and yes - if they're elected legitimately.
I guess it depends on your definition of "accept". It seems that you and the lettuce do not "accept" Joe Biden. Although perhaps as an apologist for the orange Mussolini maybe you buy the Big Lie that Biden isn't legit?
Personally I do not and never will "accept" fascists, whether they have hoodwinked their electorates or not. I do not "accept" racists. I do not "accept" rapists. If politicians this side of the Atlantic wish to accept such scumbags then they are, in effect, endorsing their vile behaviour, and are low-life human beings.
It has not been proven in a court of law that Trump raped anyone, and the circumstances detailed in the allegation seem exceedingly improbable.
So balance of probability = exceedingly improbable?
I must not have been concentrating in my maths lectures.
Yanis Varoufakis has been banned from entering Germany, with the Interior Ministry answering: “Anyone who spreads Islamist propaganda & hatred against Jews must know that such crimes will be prosecuted quickly and consistently. Antisemitic & Islamist crimes will not be tolerated”
Hero to zero.
Germany from zeros to heros with the PB herd.
I’ve been telling people Yanis Verruca was a shit for years.
A couple of years before the Greek crisis a prof of Economics at Athens University suggested that the government borrowing needed reducing. Not eliminating - just slowing the speed of the run to the off edge
This produced an instant, viscous reaction, prompted by politicians worried about the gravy train. He was hounded out of the university and death threats were made by some of the terrorist organisations that still hard around like a bad smell.
Verruca said this was all justified because the prof in question had been “opposing the will of the people”.
Thanks to @TSE for putting up my first dribblings on the local elections. A couple more to come I think.
Tonight's polling - Deltapoll 59-36, R&W 59-37 so no great change and what there is probably noise.
On other matters - I think we can argue the only group driving the agenda in the Middle East since October 7th has been "the bad guys". Among the many strategic objectives of their incursion into Israel would have been the increased likelihood of a direct confrontation between Israel and Iran and the impact that would have on the wider arab world and on that world's relations with the West.
As to last night, Iran did the equivalent of putting an ad in The Times - we all knew it was going to happen, the drones and missiles were tracked from the start and a mixed bag of low and medium tech against the most sophisticated air defence system in the world augmented by strong fighter coverage was only giving to have one result of which Iran was well aware.
It was a gesture - a reminder the enemy could still strike but more of psychological than obvious military significance. After the events of October 7th, the Israelis doubtless feel even more threatened and besieged and the idea of drones and missiles flying over the country makes them understandably nervous.
It's how they come to terms with that which will determine the path ahead.
Thanks to @TSE for putting up my first dribblings on the local elections. A couple more to come I think.
Tonight's polling - Deltapoll 59-36, R&W 59-37 so no great change and what there is probably noise.
On other matters - I think we can argue the only group driving the agenda in the Middle East since October 7th has been "the bad guys". Among the many strategic objectives of their incursion into Israel would have been the increased likelihood of a direct confrontation between Israel and Iran and the impact that would have on the wider arab world and on that world's relations with the West.
As to last night, Iran did the equivalent of putting an ad in The Times - we all knew it was going to happen, the drones and missiles were tracked from the start and a mixed bag of low and medium tech against the most sophisticated air defence system in the world augmented by strong fighter coverage was only giving to have one result of which Iran was well aware.
It was a gesture - a reminder the enemy could still strike but more of psychological than obvious military significance. After the events of October 7th, the Israelis doubtless feel even more threatened and besieged and the idea of drones and missiles flying over the country makes them understandably nervous.
It's how they come to terms with that which will determine the path ahead.
Yes in many ways a clever psychological move by Iran. Do enough to increase the fear in Israel greatly but not enough to provoke massive international condemnation. Now they wait for a mistake from israel.
Amount of unfunded tax cuts in Truss's minibudget: £45bn
Amount that the Treasury has spent so far paying the Bank of England's losses on its disastrous bond selloff: £50bn, could be further £40bn spent this year.
Amount of PBers furiously wanking themselves off about how disastrously awful Truss was and what personality disorders she must have not to realise it and go into permanent hiding: 534
Amount of PBers questioning the Bank's actions and the Treasury's bizarre policy of indemnifying them: 3
You don’t understand accounting do you?
I’m surprised that you want an inflated money supply given you appear to be a redwood fan.
She has gone full on Trumpite saying Trump must win in November. Other Tories saying Trump must not win and some saying nothing to do with us guv.
The Tories are really idiotic if they think November is a good time to hold an election here. The main attention will go to Trump. The Tories are deeply and irreconcilably divided on Trump, so they will inevitably look like the divided party they are. And the Tories need attention domestically to somehow catch up in the polling.
As they are indeed idiotic expect a November election.
Trump is the Republican candidate, and the Republicans are the right of centre party. Furthermore, it is true that Biden has been one of the least supportive leaders to the UK, and that Trump has always been well-disposed toward the UK and has friends, business interests, and familial ties here. It seems a mark of polite society that we should all clutch our pearls at the very thought of him gaining the White House again - well that can fuck off.
Not a question of politeness, more an indication of either a disdain for democratic norms or a lack of intelligence, or both, they often go together.
Democratic norms dictate to me that we should accept whoever the Americans choose, not leave a puddle on the floor about how awful it all is.
Furthermore Liz Truss is absolutely right to bring the argument back to who has been more supportive to the UK - that's the only dog we have in this fight, and something too many of us are utterly blind to, either because we feel the national interest is a dirty concept, or because we're the sort of thicko who defaces the cenotaph because an American policman killed someone.
Bollocks. Should we accept whomever the Russians choose? Should we have accepted whom the 1930s Germans chose?
FFS, the man is a genuine fascist, we have every right to condemn the vile piece of shite. As for him being "more supportive to the UK" that is highly arguable, and even if it were true it does not make him remotely appropriate.
Oh, and I forgot to add that to his very long list of puke inducing vileness we should add that he sucks up to Putin. For what reasons, we can only guess.
Yes, and yes - if they're elected legitimately.
I guess it depends on your definition of "accept". It seems that you and the lettuce do not "accept" Joe Biden. Although perhaps as an apologist for the orange Mussolini maybe you buy the Big Lie that Biden isn't legit?
Personally I do not and never will "accept" fascists, whether they have hoodwinked their electorates or not. I do not "accept" racists. I do not "accept" rapists. If politicians this side of the Atlantic wish to accept such scumbags then they are, in effect, endorsing their vile behaviour, and are low-life human beings.
It has not been proven in a court of law that Trump raped anyone, and the circumstances detailed in the allegation seem exceedingly improbable.
So balance of probability = exceedingly improbable?
I must not have been concentrating in my maths lectures.
No, I came up with 'exceedingly improbable' by actually reading the allegations and using my own brain to see if I believed them to be probable or not. Thinking - it may have been a while but I'm sure you can remember doing it.
She has gone full on Trumpite saying Trump must win in November. Other Tories saying Trump must not win and some saying nothing to do with us guv.
The Tories are really idiotic if they think November is a good time to hold an election here. The main attention will go to Trump. The Tories are deeply and irreconcilably divided on Trump, so they will inevitably look like the divided party they are. And the Tories need attention domestically to somehow catch up in the polling.
As they are indeed idiotic expect a November election.
Trump is the Republican candidate, and the Republicans are the right of centre party. Furthermore, it is true that Biden has been one of the least supportive leaders to the UK, and that Trump has always been well-disposed toward the UK and has friends, business interests, and familial ties here. It seems a mark of polite society that we should all clutch our pearls at the very thought of him gaining the White House again - well that can fuck off.
Not a question of politeness, more an indication of either a disdain for democratic norms or a lack of intelligence, or both, they often go together.
Democratic norms dictate to me that we should accept whoever the Americans choose, not leave a puddle on the floor about how awful it all is.
Furthermore Liz Truss is absolutely right to bring the argument back to who has been more supportive to the UK - that's the only dog we have in this fight, and something too many of us are utterly blind to, either because we feel the national interest is a dirty concept, or because we're the sort of thicko who defaces the cenotaph because an American policman killed someone.
Bollocks. Should we accept whomever the Russians choose? Should we have accepted whom the 1930s Germans chose?
FFS, the man is a genuine fascist, we have every right to condemn the vile piece of shite. As for him being "more supportive to the UK" that is highly arguable, and even if it were true it does not make him remotely appropriate.
Oh, and I forgot to add that to his very long list of puke inducing vileness we should add that he sucks up to Putin. For what reasons, we can only guess.
Yes, and yes - if they're elected legitimately.
I guess it depends on your definition of "accept". It seems that you and the lettuce do not "accept" Joe Biden. Although perhaps as an apologist for the orange Mussolini maybe you buy the Big Lie that Biden isn't legit?
Personally I do not and never will "accept" fascists, whether they have hoodwinked their electorates or not. I do not "accept" racists. I do not "accept" rapists. If politicians this side of the Atlantic wish to accept such scumbags then they are, in effect, endorsing their vile behaviour, and are low-life human beings.
It has not been proven in a court of law that Trump raped anyone, and the circumstances detailed in the allegation seem exceedingly improbable.
So balance of probability = exceedingly improbable?
I must not have been concentrating in my maths lectures.
Trump was found guilty of sexual assault by a jury of having penetrated E Jean Carroll. The jury couldn't decide whether it was a finger or a penis that penetrated her.
They awarded her $5m damages for whichever it was.
Subsequently, a judge clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.
Trump then went and defamed E Jean Carroll about this "rape" event. A subsequent jury awarded her $83.3m for this defamation.
Trump has a great way about him of pissing off juries.
Amount of unfunded tax cuts in Truss's minibudget: £45bn
Amount that the Treasury has spent so far paying the Bank of England's losses on its disastrous bond selloff: £50bn, could be further £40bn spent this year.
Amount of PBers furiously wanking themselves off about how disastrously awful Truss was and what personality disorders she must have not to realise it and go into permanent hiding: 534
Amount of PBers questioning the Bank's actions and the Treasury's bizarre policy of indemnifying them: 3
I have worked in banking/financial services for over a decade, during the Liz Truss premiership it is the closest we came to activating Project Dynamo which was anticipating the full scale disaster for the UK financially. The Bank of England intervention stopped disaster, we were perilously close to the pension funds collapsing.
Even Covid-19 didn't trigger that.
If Liz Truss was so awesome why did she panic, sack her Chancellor, and reversed her policies?
The Bank of England 'intervention' was to reverse its bond selloff, and buy some back (making a profit in the process btw) - why is it that halting the selloff and buying some back steadied the markets do you think, if the market crash was nothing to do with the selloff and everything to do with the growth plan?
Why was it catastrophically incompetent for Liz Truss to propose £45bn of unfunded tax cuts to get the economy moving without an OBR forecast, but it was a stroke of genius for Rishi Sunak to propose £70bn of furlough scheme to get the economy stopping without an OBR forecast?
Nobody is saying Liz Truss was awesome - she badly mistimed her policies, put the wrong people in some key positions, went off half-cocked, and seriously blew a vital opportunity to reverse years of economic stagnation. I am however saying that her demerits have been and are being ludicrously exaggerated, and that she was right to attempt radical action to get the economy going, with the managerial approach that preceded and followed her proving an utter failure.
Truss was one in a billion.
A truly special figure.
That still means there are seven more of her ilk walking the planet....
Victoria Atkins tearing into the extreme trans sex change for kids lobby in Commons at moment.
Indeed. You can see the way this is going. It's massive scandal and a matter of time until the NHS is sued over the treatment it gave in the first place (a double whammy for taxpayers).
Joanna Cherry talking a lot of sense too ('NHS has be ideologically captured and it must never happen again').
The Cass report is a game changer and I expect many parents will be taking on the NHS and education establishments over the treatment of their children without their consent
Have you read the actual report? That's not what Cass said at all.
It is a far more interesting and nuanced report than is being suggested by the usual suspects.
Indeed. I had to double check that there weren't two separate Cass Reports.
Yanis Varoufakis has been banned from entering Germany, with the Interior Ministry answering: “Anyone who spreads Islamist propaganda & hatred against Jews must know that such crimes will be prosecuted quickly and consistently. Antisemitic & Islamist crimes will not be tolerated”
Amount of unfunded tax cuts in Truss's minibudget: £45bn
Amount that the Treasury has spent so far paying the Bank of England's losses on its disastrous bond selloff: £50bn, could be further £40bn spent this year.
Amount of PBers furiously wanking themselves off about how disastrously awful Truss was and what personality disorders she must have not to realise it and go into permanent hiding: 534
Amount of PBers questioning the Bank's actions and the Treasury's bizarre policy of indemnifying them: 3
I have worked in banking/financial services for over a decade, during the Liz Truss premiership it is the closest we came to activating Project Dynamo which was anticipating the full scale disaster for the UK financially. The Bank of England intervention stopped disaster, we were perilously close to the pension funds collapsing.
Even Covid-19 didn't trigger that.
If Liz Truss was so awesome why did she panic, sack her Chancellor, and reversed her policies?
The Bank of England 'intervention' was to reverse its bond selloff, and buy some back (making a profit in the process btw) - why is it that halting the selloff and buying some back steadied the markets do you think, if the market crash was nothing to do with the selloff and everything to do with the growth plan?
Why was it catastrophically incompetent for Liz Truss to propose £45bn of unfunded tax cuts to get the economy moving without an OBR forecast, but it was a stroke of genius for Rishi Sunak to propose £70bn of furlough scheme to get the economy stopping without an OBR forecast?
Nobody is saying Liz Truss was awesome - she badly mistimed her policies, put the wrong people in some key positions, went off half-cocked, and seriously blew a vital opportunity to reverse years of economic stagnation. I am however saying that her demerits have been and are being ludicrously exaggerated, and that she was right to attempt radical action to get the economy going, with the managerial approach that preceded and followed her proving an utter failure.
Truss was one in a billion.
A truly special figure.
That still means there are seven more of her ilk walking the planet....
Amount of unfunded tax cuts in Truss's minibudget: £45bn
Amount that the Treasury has spent so far paying the Bank of England's losses on its disastrous bond selloff: £50bn, could be further £40bn spent this year.
Amount of PBers furiously wanking themselves off about how disastrously awful Truss was and what personality disorders she must have not to realise it and go into permanent hiding: 534
Amount of PBers questioning the Bank's actions and the Treasury's bizarre policy of indemnifying them: 3
I have worked in banking/financial services for over a decade, during the Liz Truss premiership it is the closest we came to activating Project Dynamo which was anticipating the full scale disaster for the UK financially. The Bank of England intervention stopped disaster, we were perilously close to the pension funds collapsing.
Even Covid-19 didn't trigger that.
If Liz Truss was so awesome why did she panic, sack her Chancellor, and reversed her policies?
The Bank of England 'intervention' was to reverse its bond selloff, and buy some back (making a profit in the process btw) - why is it that halting the selloff and buying some back steadied the markets do you think, if the market crash was nothing to do with the selloff and everything to do with the growth plan?
Why was it catastrophically incompetent for Liz Truss to propose £45bn of unfunded tax cuts to get the economy moving without an OBR forecast, but it was a stroke of genius for Rishi Sunak to propose £70bn of furlough scheme to get the economy stopping without an OBR forecast?
Nobody is saying Liz Truss was awesome - she badly mistimed her policies, put the wrong people in some key positions, went off half-cocked, and seriously blew a vital opportunity to reverse years of economic stagnation. I am however saying that her demerits have been and are being ludicrously exaggerated, and that she was right to attempt radical action to get the economy going, with the managerial approach that preceded and followed her proving an utter failure.
Truss was one in a billion.
A truly special figure.
That still means there are seven more of her ilk walking the planet....
We must find these seven!
Some will be under 21, some will be away with the fairies, some will be on better salaries already, one went to Cambridge by mistake, and the last one will be washing her hair.
Amount of unfunded tax cuts in Truss's minibudget: £45bn
Amount that the Treasury has spent so far paying the Bank of England's losses on its disastrous bond selloff: £50bn, could be further £40bn spent this year.
Amount of PBers furiously wanking themselves off about how disastrously awful Truss was and what personality disorders she must have not to realise it and go into permanent hiding: 534
Amount of PBers questioning the Bank's actions and the Treasury's bizarre policy of indemnifying them: 3
I have worked in banking/financial services for over a decade, during the Liz Truss premiership it is the closest we came to activating Project Dynamo which was anticipating the full scale disaster for the UK financially. The Bank of England intervention stopped disaster, we were perilously close to the pension funds collapsing.
Even Covid-19 didn't trigger that.
If Liz Truss was so awesome why did she panic, sack her Chancellor, and reversed her policies?
The Bank of England 'intervention' was to reverse its bond selloff, and buy some back (making a profit in the process btw) - why is it that halting the selloff and buying some back steadied the markets do you think, if the market crash was nothing to do with the selloff and everything to do with the growth plan?
Why was it catastrophically incompetent for Liz Truss to propose £45bn of unfunded tax cuts to get the economy moving without an OBR forecast, but it was a stroke of genius for Rishi Sunak to propose £70bn of furlough scheme to get the economy stopping without an OBR forecast?
Nobody is saying Liz Truss was awesome - she badly mistimed her policies, put the wrong people in some key positions, went off half-cocked, and seriously blew a vital opportunity to reverse years of economic stagnation. I am however saying that her demerits have been and are being ludicrously exaggerated, and that she was right to attempt radical action to get the economy going, with the managerial approach that preceded and followed her proving an utter failure.
Truss was one in a billion.
A truly special figure.
That still means there are seven more of her ilk walking the planet....
We must find these seven!
This sounds like the makings of a very, very poor Netflix show.
Amount of unfunded tax cuts in Truss's minibudget: £45bn
Amount that the Treasury has spent so far paying the Bank of England's losses on its disastrous bond selloff: £50bn, could be further £40bn spent this year.
Amount of PBers furiously wanking themselves off about how disastrously awful Truss was and what personality disorders she must have not to realise it and go into permanent hiding: 534
Amount of PBers questioning the Bank's actions and the Treasury's bizarre policy of indemnifying them: 3
You don’t understand accounting do you?
I’m surprised that you want an inflated money supply given you appear to be a redwood fan.
I was against the Bank printing far too much money when it didn't need to. I am now against taking an equally reckless swerve in the other direction when we are staring into the barrel of a recession.
I'll hold my hand up to not wanting £50bn to be disappeared from the public accounts whilst our finances are so severely constrained - I'm sure you have a great reasons for thinking it's a wonderful idea.
I think I'm in good company not understanding accounting, given that the US Government is not indemnifying the Fed's losses on its bond sell-off, and the ECB is not selling off bonds before they reach maturity at all. I'm sure you and Andrew Bailey know much better.
All Truss needed was for someone, the IFS, someone, anyone, to take a look at the figures and opine on a funding pathway. More unforgiveable is Kwasi who did an effing PhD about currency runs.
The numbers would have been "brave" but the markets could at least have seen their working in the margin.
She has gone full on Trumpite saying Trump must win in November. Other Tories saying Trump must not win and some saying nothing to do with us guv.
The Tories are really idiotic if they think November is a good time to hold an election here. The main attention will go to Trump. The Tories are deeply and irreconcilably divided on Trump, so they will inevitably look like the divided party they are. And the Tories need attention domestically to somehow catch up in the polling.
As they are indeed idiotic expect a November election.
Trump is the Republican candidate, and the Republicans are the right of centre party. Furthermore, it is true that Biden has been one of the least supportive leaders to the UK, and that Trump has always been well-disposed toward the UK and has friends, business interests, and familial ties here. It seems a mark of polite society that we should all clutch our pearls at the very thought of him gaining the White House again - well that can fuck off.
Not a question of politeness, more an indication of either a disdain for democratic norms or a lack of intelligence, or both, they often go together.
Democratic norms dictate to me that we should accept whoever the Americans choose, not leave a puddle on the floor about how awful it all is.
Furthermore Liz Truss is absolutely right to bring the argument back to who has been more supportive to the UK - that's the only dog we have in this fight, and something too many of us are utterly blind to, either because we feel the national interest is a dirty concept, or because we're the sort of thicko who defaces the cenotaph because an American policman killed someone.
Bollocks. Should we accept whomever the Russians choose? Should we have accepted whom the 1930s Germans chose?
FFS, the man is a genuine fascist, we have every right to condemn the vile piece of shite. As for him being "more supportive to the UK" that is highly arguable, and even if it were true it does not make him remotely appropriate.
Oh, and I forgot to add that to his very long list of puke inducing vileness we should add that he sucks up to Putin. For what reasons, we can only guess.
Yes, and yes - if they're elected legitimately.
I guess it depends on your definition of "accept". It seems that you and the lettuce do not "accept" Joe Biden. Although perhaps as an apologist for the orange Mussolini maybe you buy the Big Lie that Biden isn't legit?
Personally I do not and never will "accept" fascists, whether they have hoodwinked their electorates or not. I do not "accept" racists. I do not "accept" rapists. If politicians this side of the Atlantic wish to accept such scumbags then they are, in effect, endorsing their vile behaviour, and are low-life human beings.
It has not been proven in a court of law that Trump raped anyone, and the circumstances detailed in the allegation seem exceedingly improbable.
So balance of probability = exceedingly improbable?
I must not have been concentrating in my maths lectures.
No, I came up with 'exceedingly improbable' by actually reading the allegations and using my own brain to see if I believed them to be probable or not. Thinking - it may have been a while but I'm sure you can remember doing it.
"Reading the allegations" is NOT the same thing as being on a jury that saw a LOT more than just that.
You are WAY more persuasive defending Liz Truss . . . relatively speaking that is . . .
All Truss needed was for someone, the IFS, someone, anyone, to take a look at the figures and opine on a funding pathway. More unforgiveable is Kwasi who did an effing PhD about currency runs.
The numbers would have been "brave" but the markets could at least have seen their working in the margin.
But that's just what the Blob wanted her to do. She outsmarted them.
Yanis Varoufakis has been banned from entering Germany, with the Interior Ministry answering: “Anyone who spreads Islamist propaganda & hatred against Jews must know that such crimes will be prosecuted quickly and consistently. Antisemitic & Islamist crimes will not be tolerated”
Hero to zero.
Germany from zeros to heros with the PB herd.
Is that you, tim?
It was one of his finest creations, so fine that certain snowflakes had to get its use banned.
TwiX is utter crap since Musky took over. I hardly works a lot of the time and every thread is swamped in spam. Anyone who pays to use it must have taken leave of their senses.
The BBC Makes me feel sick. Nick Robinson claims he should have been clearer when accusing Israel of murdering Palestinians.... but you would never have heard him accuse Hamas of killing Jews.. oh no.. double standards. The BBC stinks in its appalling bias against Israel.
"Bias", you say? When did the BBC last interview someone from the Palestinian authorities in Gaza? In the past they have practically handed over coverage of Gaza affairs to Mark Regev, with questions amounting to "How can you be sure you've killed enough Palestinians to stop the occupation from being attacked with the occasional rocket, Sir?" The BBC is a disgrace all right. I haven't read any of their output for a few years now.
The BBC does a decent job of finding a balance. Both sides attack it passionately...
TheBBC has long given up.on balance. it has its agenda.....
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Pentagon: No choice but to retaliate against Iran
That's the logic I worked through this morning, They have to attack Iran to deter further Iranian assaults
Fucking perilous moment. Probably happen tonight? Let's hope it is just that "surgical" strike and not some disastrous carpet bombing by mistake
It would be to help Netanyahu not deter Iran.
I don't think that's fair. If there is electoral advantage to doing so, it's because the Israeli electorate recognise the threat of Iran. I was going to contrast the democratically constrained Netanyahu with the unanswerable leaders of Iran, but as we are led to understand that much of the Iranian population would be quite happy to wipe every Jew from the face of the earth I'm not sure it makes much difference in this case.
It's totally fair. Israel doing another strike against Iran in response to the one against them which was in response to theirs against the Iranian consulate in Syria would have nothing to do with deterrence. It would be an escalation calculated to shore up the position of Netanyahu inside Israel.
To be clear, I don't want Israel to strike back. I want everyone to calm down and back off. But I think it would take heroic restraint for Israel to do so, and I don't see strategically why it would. And just because such a move might be electorally popular doesn't make it wrong.
Israel knows now it is in an existential struggle and that Iran, and others, are out to destroy it. It seems very hard to me to make a case for inaction. If they do nothing, they know the bomb which will destroy them is coming soon anyway.
You don't think MAD will work in the Middle East?
No, because the cold war was essentially defensive. Neither side really wanted to wipe the other off the map; they just feared the other wiping them off the map. The only reason for striking first was to make yourself safer - and as cold war tech developed, that seemed unlikely to be the case. Whereas Iran actively wants to wipe Israel off the map. If it can do so and largely survive itself, even better. And because Israel knows this, it knows there's no real point appealing to these people's better nature.
The best hope for the world is that the war can be largely confined to the Middle East.
I would say that The Iranian Regime wants to wipe Israel off the map. But as far as Maslow's hierarchy of needs goes, most Iranians don't give a shit.
Don't they? ISTR a survey quite recently which showed quite a lot of Iranians (can't remember how many) would also like to see Israel wiped off the map. Though I really can't remember the details so may be well out.
Opinion polling in Iran must be, er, challenging...
"Q1, Do you now, or have you ever, held any opinion that might get you stoned to death by a hired mob?"
She has gone full on Trumpite saying Trump must win in November. Other Tories saying Trump must not win and some saying nothing to do with us guv.
The Tories are really idiotic if they think November is a good time to hold an election here. The main attention will go to Trump. The Tories are deeply and irreconcilably divided on Trump, so they will inevitably look like the divided party they are. And the Tories need attention domestically to somehow catch up in the polling.
As they are indeed idiotic expect a November election.
Trump is the Republican candidate, and the Republicans are the right of centre party. Furthermore, it is true that Biden has been one of the least supportive leaders to the UK, and that Trump has always been well-disposed toward the UK and has friends, business interests, and familial ties here. It seems a mark of polite society that we should all clutch our pearls at the very thought of him gaining the White House again - well that can fuck off.
Not a question of politeness, more an indication of either a disdain for democratic norms or a lack of intelligence, or both, they often go together.
Democratic norms dictate to me that we should accept whoever the Americans choose, not leave a puddle on the floor about how awful it all is.
Furthermore Liz Truss is absolutely right to bring the argument back to who has been more supportive to the UK - that's the only dog we have in this fight, and something too many of us are utterly blind to, either because we feel the national interest is a dirty concept, or because we're the sort of thicko who defaces the cenotaph because an American policman killed someone.
Bollocks. Should we accept whomever the Russians choose? Should we have accepted whom the 1930s Germans chose?
FFS, the man is a genuine fascist, we have every right to condemn the vile piece of shite. As for him being "more supportive to the UK" that is highly arguable, and even if it were true it does not make him remotely appropriate.
Oh, and I forgot to add that to his very long list of puke inducing vileness we should add that he sucks up to Putin. For what reasons, we can only guess.
Yes, and yes - if they're elected legitimately.
I guess it depends on your definition of "accept". It seems that you and the lettuce do not "accept" Joe Biden. Although perhaps as an apologist for the orange Mussolini maybe you buy the Big Lie that Biden isn't legit?
Personally I do not and never will "accept" fascists, whether they have hoodwinked their electorates or not. I do not "accept" racists. I do not "accept" rapists. If politicians this side of the Atlantic wish to accept such scumbags then they are, in effect, endorsing their vile behaviour, and are low-life human beings.
It has not been proven in a court of law that Trump raped anyone, and the circumstances detailed in the allegation seem exceedingly improbable.
So balance of probability = exceedingly improbable?
I must not have been concentrating in my maths lectures.
No, I came up with 'exceedingly improbable' by actually reading the allegations and using my own brain to see if I believed them to be probable or not. Thinking - it may have been a while but I'm sure you can remember doing it.
"Reading the allegations" is NOT the same thing as being on a jury that saw a LOT more than just that.
You are WAY more persuasive defending Liz Truss . . . relatively speaking that is . . .
I'm not getting into this argument again. I'm glad we don't have to choose between Trump and Biden to lead our country. But we do apparently have to pick between Sunak and Starmer, who are shite without the excuse of senility. So there's that.
The BBC Makes me feel sick. Nick Robinson claims he should have been clearer when accusing Israel of murdering Palestinians.... but you would never have heard him accuse Hamas of killing Jews.. oh no.. double standards. The BBC stinks in its appalling bias against Israel.
"Bias", you say? When did the BBC last interview someone from the Palestinian authorities in Gaza? In the past they have practically handed over coverage of Gaza affairs to Mark Regev, with questions amounting to "How can you be sure you've killed enough Palestinians to stop the occupation from being attacked with the occasional rocket, Sir?" The BBC is a disgrace all right. I haven't read any of their output for a few years now.
The BBC does a decent job of finding a balance. Both sides attack it passionately...
TheBBC has long given up.on balance. it has its agenda.....
Exactly. Consistently arselicking this government to avoid its licence fee model being savaged.
She has gone full on Trumpite saying Trump must win in November. Other Tories saying Trump must not win and some saying nothing to do with us guv.
The Tories are really idiotic if they think November is a good time to hold an election here. The main attention will go to Trump. The Tories are deeply and irreconcilably divided on Trump, so they will inevitably look like the divided party they are. And the Tories need attention domestically to somehow catch up in the polling.
As they are indeed idiotic expect a November election.
Trump is the Republican candidate, and the Republicans are the right of centre party. Furthermore, it is true that Biden has been one of the least supportive leaders to the UK, and that Trump has always been well-disposed toward the UK and has friends, business interests, and familial ties here. It seems a mark of polite society that we should all clutch our pearls at the very thought of him gaining the White House again - well that can fuck off.
Not a question of politeness, more an indication of either a disdain for democratic norms or a lack of intelligence, or both, they often go together.
Democratic norms dictate to me that we should accept whoever the Americans choose, not leave a puddle on the floor about how awful it all is.
Furthermore Liz Truss is absolutely right to bring the argument back to who has been more supportive to the UK - that's the only dog we have in this fight, and something too many of us are utterly blind to, either because we feel the national interest is a dirty concept, or because we're the sort of thicko who defaces the cenotaph because an American policman killed someone.
Bollocks. Should we accept whomever the Russians choose? Should we have accepted whom the 1930s Germans chose?
FFS, the man is a genuine fascist, we have every right to condemn the vile piece of shite. As for him being "more supportive to the UK" that is highly arguable, and even if it were true it does not make him remotely appropriate.
Oh, and I forgot to add that to his very long list of puke inducing vileness we should add that he sucks up to Putin. For what reasons, we can only guess.
Yes, and yes - if they're elected legitimately.
I guess it depends on your definition of "accept". It seems that you and the lettuce do not "accept" Joe Biden. Although perhaps as an apologist for the orange Mussolini maybe you buy the Big Lie that Biden isn't legit?
Personally I do not and never will "accept" fascists, whether they have hoodwinked their electorates or not. I do not "accept" racists. I do not "accept" rapists. If politicians this side of the Atlantic wish to accept such scumbags then they are, in effect, endorsing their vile behaviour, and are low-life human beings.
It has not been proven in a court of law that Trump raped anyone, and the circumstances detailed in the allegation seem exceedingly improbable.
So balance of probability = exceedingly improbable?
I must not have been concentrating in my maths lectures.
No, I came up with 'exceedingly improbable' by actually reading the allegations and using my own brain to see if I believed them to be probable or not. Thinking - it may have been a while but I'm sure you can remember doing it.
That's a completely ridiculous position to take based on the evidence presented, even without taking into account Trump's boasts about sexually assaulting people.
And it wasn't Joe Biden that raised tariffs on UK exports to the US.
The OBR have never made an accurate forecast. They have also never to my knowledge classified a public spending increase as 'unaffordable' - only tax cuts get that designation. They never objected to being out of the loop when Rishi brought in furlough; there were no leaks about black holes when that happened. .
I don’t think they’ve ever said Tax cuts are unaffordable. I think they’ve previously said planned borrowing was unaffordable.
What publication / statement are you thinking of?aa
I pay for TwiX, because it is still the best place to get news, by a distance. Trouble is, most people don't know how to use it, how to balance their TwiX-stream between left and right, between mad and sane, between Russia and Ukraine, Jew and Arab, AI savant and PB midwit
If you get that wrong your timeline will be flooded with crapola. Get it right and it is brilliant. It is social media as IQ test and unfortunately most people are dumb as fuck
Comments
People in the Middle East, OTOH, are nutters.
Off topic. Press reports out if Istarl is that they arent going to 'take the win' or do the tough thing and not retaliate.
They were always going to retaliate. The question is when, rumours suggest quickly, and what. Stories have suggested an attack on Iranian territory against something worth hitting but with low casualty risk....
I wouldn't put it past them to keep the stories of a near immediate response to wind Iran up.
No matter how much of a shit you think Bibi might be.
Iran was quick to try to draw a line under the exchange yesterday and I'm guessing that the current back channel negotiations concern the extent to which Israel will be "allowed" to re-retaliate.
Nuke France? Why would we nuke our own possessions? Would dent all those peasants as well. One simply doesn’t dent one’s peasants. Not Done, old chap.
Firstly, Wor Lass has received an email inviting her to get a Covid jab. High risk groups getting another shot.
Secondly, I can confirm that the bottle sharing a shelf with three types of balsamic is indeed pomegranate molasses. Organic pomegranate molasses.
But there us also Sarsons vinegar, HP Sauce, and Heinz Tomato Ketchup in there. So all is not lost.
Of course, France is not Iran and the extremist nature of the Iranian regime must be a terrifying neighbour to have. As has been true for some time Israel appears to have no good options, but not escalating further seems the least worst option at the moment. Not least because their worst case scenario is losing the unqualified support of USA, and attacking Iran again must risk that surely?
It turned out that quite a few MoV were AOL with sacrificing other peoples sons, not their own
*aside from actually recruiting the MoV to work for the government out right.
Perhaps I missed the bit where they demanded that the terrorists release the hostages and renounce violence. But I doubt it.
Why should Spain get off lightly?
Why was it catastrophically incompetent for Liz Truss to propose £45bn of unfunded tax cuts to get the economy moving without an OBR forecast, but it was a stroke of genius for Rishi Sunak to propose £70bn of furlough scheme to get the economy stopping without an OBR forecast?
Nobody is saying Liz Truss was awesome - she badly mistimed her policies, put the wrong people in some key positions, went off half-cocked, and seriously blew a vital opportunity to reverse years of economic stagnation. I am however saying that her demerits have been and are being ludicrously exaggerated, and that she was right to attempt radical action to get the economy going, with the managerial approach that preceded and followed her proving an utter failure.
Yanis Varoufakis has been banned from entering Germany, with the Interior Ministry answering: “Anyone who spreads Islamist propaganda & hatred against Jews must know that such crimes will be prosecuted quickly and consistently. Antisemitic & Islamist crimes will not be tolerated”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/15/israel-ballistic-missiles-iran-military-bases-nevatim-negev/
https://x.com/Megatron_ron/status/1779939539701620884
"Proxy" is one of those terms, like "regime".
The IRM isn't particularly closely allied to Iran.
Hezbollah is allied to Iran in some sense.
Are the "settler" thugs on the West Bank anybody's "proxy"?
People have focused on her tales of fleas in Downing Street from the previous occupant's dog and the difficulty of getting Ocado orders delivered to No 10. These are mildly interesting in an anecdotal way.
It's when she gets onto her retelling of the Trusterfuck budget it strikes home how utterly demented she is - I don't use that word casually. She and Kwarteng refused to deal with any of the Bank of England, the Office of Budget Responsibility and the Treasury - all the people paid to know something about the nation's finances - because they are the "enemy", the "blob" and the "establishment", unlike the mere prime minister who was always right but perhaps lacked her predecessor's mastery of upbeat comms.
I previously rated Truss and Johnson similarly but now I think she's a different level of bad. And that's compared with the most egregiously dishonest prime minister of recent times
https://x.com/Sprinterfactory/status/1779948465826787552
And that, boys and girls, is why Gordon Brown made the Bank of England independent.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0klndnq49lo
A couple of years before the Greek crisis a prof of Economics at Athens University suggested that the government borrowing needed reducing. Not eliminating - just slowing the speed of the run to the off edge
This produced an instant, viscous reaction, prompted by politicians worried about the gravy train. He was hounded out of the university and death threats were made by some of the terrorist organisations that still hard around like a bad smell.
Verruca said this was all justified because the prof in question had been “opposing the will of the people”.
The Bank of England went on a money printing spree that took inflation three times over target before anything happened in Ukraine. They have now veered dramatically the other way swerving into a recession and burning £50bn of public money in the process, a course that no other central bank has followed.
The OBR have never made an accurate forecast. They have also never to my knowledge classified a public spending increase as 'unaffordable' - only tax cuts get that designation. They never objected to being out of the loop when Rishi brought in furlough; there were no leaks about black holes when that happened.
There was also no institutional or political opposition to Liz Truss spending billions on energy bill support - by far the least affordable part of her programme. It was just the far smaller tax cuts that were apparently unacceptable.
A truly special figure.
I must not have been concentrating in my maths lectures.
Thanks to @TSE for putting up my first dribblings on the local elections. A couple more to come I think.
Tonight's polling - Deltapoll 59-36, R&W 59-37 so no great change and what there is probably noise.
On other matters - I think we can argue the only group driving the agenda in the Middle East since October 7th has been "the bad guys". Among the many strategic objectives of their incursion into Israel would have been the increased likelihood of a direct confrontation between Israel and Iran and the impact that would have on the wider arab world and on that world's relations with the West.
As to last night, Iran did the equivalent of putting an ad in The Times - we all knew it was going to happen, the drones and missiles were tracked from the start and a mixed bag of low and medium tech against the most sophisticated air defence system in the world augmented by strong fighter coverage was only giving to have one result of which Iran was well aware.
It was a gesture - a reminder the enemy could still strike but more of psychological than obvious military significance. After the events of October 7th, the Israelis doubtless feel even more threatened and besieged and the idea of drones and missiles flying over the country makes them understandably nervous.
It's how they come to terms with that which will determine the path ahead.
I’m surprised that you want an inflated money supply given you appear to be a redwood fan.
They awarded her $5m damages for whichever it was.
Subsequently, a judge clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.
Trump then went and defamed E Jean Carroll about this "rape" event. A subsequent jury awarded her $83.3m for this defamation.
Trump has a great way about him of pissing off juries.
We must find these seven!
I'll hold my hand up to not wanting £50bn to be disappeared from the public accounts whilst our finances are so severely constrained - I'm sure you have a great reasons for thinking it's a wonderful idea.
I think I'm in good company not understanding accounting, given that the US Government is not indemnifying the Fed's losses on its bond sell-off, and the ECB is not selling off bonds before they reach maturity at all. I'm sure you and Andrew Bailey know much better.
The numbers would have been "brave" but the markets could at least have seen their working in the margin.
You are WAY more persuasive defending Liz Truss . . . relatively speaking that is . . .
https://twitter.com/akellyucc/status/1779956437550002669
ANC 37%
DA 25%
MK 13%
EFF 11%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_South_African_general_election#Opinion_polls
Maybe chumming up to Putin and Trump isn't a sign of a great mind.
And it wasn't Joe Biden that raised tariffs on UK exports to the US.
What publication / statement are you thinking of?aa
S
***Chortle***
If you get that wrong your timeline will be flooded with crapola. Get it right and it is brilliant. It is social media as IQ test and unfortunately most people are dumb as fuck
(Along with another 141m shares from existing shareholders.)
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/apr/15/trump-media-stock-price-fall
Will anyone want to buy them ?