If anyone wants a pure dopamine hit of exquisite quality, try teaching Buddhism to several monks and nuns, fifteen regular attendees and half a dozen newbies on a Saturday morning. Paying. Then having a Q+A afterwards. Without mentioning politics even if they do. It's a delicious hit. Am doing tranquil abiding next.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
For every horror from Donald Trump you are somehow able to reach back into history and find something from the Dems to compare it favourably with. It really is pretty impressive.
True though isn't it.
Landslide Lyndon going through the photos with his magnifying glass.
At least with Trump's short attention span we are spared that.
The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...
Hopefully it won't come to that!
Any excuse to go full racist.
It's being restricted, not abolished.
Currently 3% of prosecutions go to trial by jury, MOJ estimated that under the proposals 25% of those wouldn't.
So reducing from 3% to 2.25% going to trial by Jury.
If this had been the law, none of the subpostmasters would have been able to opt for trial by jury. If this had been the law, protesters who have been let off by sympathetic juries after committing offences would have been convicted. The 97% currently heard by magistrates are minor offences such as minor assault, motoring offences, shoplifting, criminal damage, etc. This change dramatically expands the scope of offences where the accused cannot opt for a jury trial and, at the same time, reduces the chances of the innocent getting justice when wrongly accused of such offences. It is pretty much guaranteed that this change will see many more miscarriages of justice. And it is being sold to us on a false premise. It will not make any significant dent in the backlog in the criminal courts.
As I've posted below, I don't agree with the change and I don't think it will achieve the objective. They got an expert to review and recommend, there are no alternative recommendations, the system is failing currently so they're implementing the recommendation they have. The LDs and Conservatives created the problem and then the Conservatives did nothing to resolve it. Labour want to resolve it, other parties could engage constructively to find the best solution. It's not really a partisan issue, presumably all parties want more trials completed.
Except they have gone well beyond what the expert recommended. And bear in mind there are a huge number of other experts who deal with the courts on adaily basis - judges, barristers and others - who say this will not achieve the time savings that ahve been claimed and will lead to more miscarriages of justice.
The Bank of England is replacing Winston Churchill with a picture of a beaver on our bank notes.
This is the definition of woke.
The precise animals haven’t been chosen yet.
Are they interviewing or just going off C.V ?
I hope they will be thoroughly vetted.
They better be indigenous. Any fucking grey squirrels or signal crayfish get on and we riot
Surely it has to be a bulldog?
Sounds like an elegant compromise.
(Amongst all the hooh and hah, worth noting(!) that Churchill has only been on a banknote since 2016, and we're probably due a change anyway. Without looking, does anyone remember who came before him?)
There's a change every few years for security reasons apparently.
Animals will be selected down to a short list by "experts" and then public will vote.
This avoids the public voting on masse for the dodo or gungan for example.
Nah, the public would vote for a shag or a tit.
Thank god this is not New Zealand. Or it would be Leucocarbo carunculatus- the rough-faced shag.
The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...
Hopefully it won't come to that!
Any excuse to go full racist.
It's being restricted, not abolished.
OK, so I've been here since 2006/2007 and anybody who is a long term PB'er will know I haven't got a racist bone in my body... Indeed, I was always one of the "PB Tories" that "intensely relaxed" about immigration and although I voted LEAVE, it was for me, never anything to do with immigration.
So, lets cut the "racist" crap out right there!
So trial by jury is being "restricted" rather than abolished? Well, OK. Lets restrict it rather than abolish it. But we all know where this "restriction" is going don't we?
We'll "restrict" it.
But then, welllllll, as we've restricted it once we'll restrict it again. And then we'll restrict a little bit more... And then, eventually. we don't even need to talk about abolition , as the thing is basically dead anyway.
Like, do you think we're all fucking idiots? Do you think we're all fucking fools? We've lived through the Blair era, we know how this works. You salami slice everything we've known for hundreds years until there's nothing left [of it]
But you answer me this: Why does Labour and the "left" generally, so enjoy pissing on the ancient rights and traditions of this country?
The "right" to trial by jury was first established by Magna Carta, more than 800 years ago... But some useless, here today, gone tomorrow PM/government decides we're going to erode that right/freedom. Why?
I honestly don't understand why anyone with half a brain would ever want to even consider opening up this can of worms but as they have been stupid enough to open it up, it's now up to everyone else (left, right and center) to act accordingly!
And, just for the record, if I thought voting GREEN would bring back my right to be tried by a jury if I was ever accused of a crime, I probably would vote GREEN.
It's not a left/right issue it's a right/wrong issue. And for me, very, very, very fundamental!
Levinson has advocated for this for years. Why do you think he was chosen to lead the review?
The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...
Hopefully it won't come to that!
Any excuse to go full racist.
It's being restricted, not abolished.
Currently 3% of prosecutions go to trial by jury, MOJ estimated that under the proposals 25% of those wouldn't.
So reducing from 3% to 2.25% going to trial by Jury.
Yes, its only a *restriction* of ancient liberties - not a wholesale abolition - people are so f***ing touchy aren't they?
Well yes, it does seem so. Currently prosecutions are taking 4 years or longer to get to trial, which means that many of them fall apart because witnesses are lost contact with or their memory has faded, victims and accused have their lives put on hold, some are on remand for far longer than they'd be sentenced to if found guilty. That is unacceptable and it isn't a problem of Labour's making, it's the fault of the LDs and mainly the Conservatives, who did nothing to address it. Labour are trying to resolve the delays, I don't agree with their solution, I don't expect it will work, and I don't think a Judge was the right person to review the system and make recommendations. However, I think your objection is partisan rather than sincere. What would you propose to resolve the backlog?
The issue is there are too many moving parts and scheduling falls apart.
I forget the precise details but I believe a lot of the delay is down to the pre-sentence reports that are now required. They add an extra loop of court time that really isn’t necessary in most cases.
You also have issues with things like demanding translators and other limited services when they don’t necessarily need them plus the unwillingness to pay legal aid barristers a reasonable sum.
Basically the issue is that the treasury likes to run things at 103% capacity when they should really be running at 85% even if some spreadsheet somewhere says that’s inefficient
Pre-sentencing reports would be post-verdict and not on the critical path, the Judge can read them before / after court or in the breaks. The convicted prisoner would be remanded awaiting the reports and sentencing.
If the accused needs a translator, that would be arranged beforehand, there might be adjournments because a translator becomes unavailable but if you're on trial not in your first language then a translator is not a luxury, a basic tenet is the right to a fair trial, which means a right to understand fully what is being said.
There is definitely inefficiency in court preparation, both times there were adjournments for witness screens to be brought in. The professionals could be less verbose. My second stint, we got started about 11.30 on a Thursday, heard the opening statements, screen not prepared for 1st witness. Adjourn for lunch, and the week, Judge had something in the afternoon and Friday, Monday trooped in to court at 11am to be told by new Judge that original Judge had taken ill, so the case would have to be rescheduled but he'd felt the need to explain this to us in person blah blah blah. So nothing productive happening in that court with that Judge for the morning. Accused and plaintiff both having to wait months / years for another date, all for charges that based on the opening prosecution statement shouldn't have been brought.
I was just reporting what someone who has been intimately involved in the court system for decades told me (they were Starmer’s counterpart when he was DPP).
A lot of it is gaming the system and people not turning up. Each time you add - for example - and translator you add another point of failure. And the issue with translators specifically is people demanding them when they don’t need them (access to justice is important) in order to delay the process.
The general point is that there are many many things that could be done to improve efficiency before you start removing protections like trial by jury
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
For every horror from Donald Trump you are somehow able to reach back into history and find something from the Dems to compare it favourably with. It really is pretty impressive.
True though isn't it.
Landslide Lyndon going through the photos with his magnifying glass.
At least with Trump's short attention span we are spared that.
The difference being that Johnson's actions saw him ostracised by his party. Trump's party re-elected him and remains in thrall.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...
Hopefully it won't come to that!
Any excuse to go full racist.
It's being restricted, not abolished.
Currently 3% of prosecutions go to trial by jury, MOJ estimated that under the proposals 25% of those wouldn't.
So reducing from 3% to 2.25% going to trial by Jury.
If this had been the law, none of the subpostmasters would have been able to opt for trial by jury. If this had been the law, protesters who have been let off by sympathetic juries after committing offences would have been convicted. The 97% currently heard by magistrates are minor offences such as minor assault, motoring offences, shoplifting, criminal damage, etc. This change dramatically expands the scope of offences where the accused cannot opt for a jury trial and, at the same time, reduces the chances of the innocent getting justice when wrongly accused of such offences. It is pretty much guaranteed that this change will see many more miscarriages of justice. And it is being sold to us on a false premise. It will not make any significant dent in the backlog in the criminal courts.
As I've posted below, I don't agree with the change and I don't think it will achieve the objective. They got an expert to review and recommend, there are no alternative recommendations, the system is failing currently so they're implementing the recommendation they have. The LDs and Conservatives created the problem and then the Conservatives did nothing to resolve it. Labour want to resolve it, other parties could engage constructively to find the best solution. It's not really a partisan issue, presumably all parties want more trials completed.
Except they have gone well beyond what the expert recommended. And bear in mind there are a huge number of other experts who deal with the courts on adaily basis - judges, barristers and others - who say this will not achieve the time savings that ahve been claimed and will lead to more miscarriages of justice.
And there are other recommendations for resolving the courts backlog. They're just not made by Levison*, and would involve spending a bit more money (funding cuts being what precipitated the crisis in the first place). Even if you abolished all just trials, it wouldn't make a huge difference to the backlog.
*Actually Levison does make some suggestions other than restricting jury trials.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
Wouldnt you normally support higher petrol prices. Net zero and all that ?
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
Given we have had very little info on what has been bombed and the effects it's quite a stretch to claim anybody knows what is happening.
There is no open reporting from inside Iran and most of the coverage we get is from Gulf States fending off intermittent drones.
The only concrete info is the Hormuz strait and since we dont know the order in which military planners are planning to address this most of the reporting is just filling air time and lacks analysis.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
I agree as it stands it is a piss poor outcome so far, which is why the war should not be over yet.
I have been clear since day one that in my view ground troops will be required. To liberate Tehran and secure the uranium, and I would also take Kharg Island.
You don't need to seize the entire country. Take the capital and strategic locations like Kharg and the regime should collapse.
If Trump declares victory here, with such a piss poor outcome, then he is a terrible leader who has failed.
If he sends in ground troops, topples the regime and seizes the uranium then he will merely be a terrible leader who did one good thing at least in the time he blighted the Oval Office.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
Good morning
Really disturbing news this morning from the gulf with Iran lashing out in an attempt to turn the world economies upside down
I see no positives in this war and Trump is utterly deranged
The genie is out of the bottle and chaos abounds
I hope the gulf states act together to find an off ramp because it is very much their war which to be fair they did not want nor start
Unfortunately, I think we are in the Suez situation, where Churchill said, 'I would never have started, but once started I would not have dared stop.'
I do not see how the Gulf States or Israel can be secure while the regime Israel and the US have created is in power in Tehran. This is a geopolitical deterioration as Khamanei was old and weak and muddled, too much so for major warfare against an organised enemy, while his son is not. (Incidentally the outlook for the people of Iran has worsened considerably as well, bad though it was before.)
Therefore the grim conclusion is it will have to be removed, somehow. The snag is although I'm no military expert I do not see how that can be done without a full invasion which nobody is contemplating.
We've therefore ended up in exactly the worst place imaginable, and it was entirely avaiudable.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
I agree as it stands it is a piss poor outcome so far, which is why the war should not be over yet.
I have been clear since day one that in my view ground troops will be required. To liberate Tehran and secure the uranium, and I would also take Kharg Island.
You don't need to seize the entire country. Take the capital and strategic locations like Kharg and the regime should collapse.
If Trump declares victory here, with such a piss poor outcome, then he is a terrible leader who has failed.
If he sends in ground troops, topples the regime and seizes the uranium then he will merely be a terrible leader who did one good thing at least in the time he blighted the Oval Office.
We have what, 7 dead and 150 injured US troops.
Kharg Island is a special forces operation that utilises the same sonic/other weirdy weapons used in Caracas - with likely minimal casualties.
But put one foot on mainland Iran and you have a population that will see you as an aggressor. The regime will bind itself into the public rejection of the Great Satan, which as they hve always feared, would come for them.
I have zero confidence that the US would know what the fuck it would be doing in mainland Iran. It would be a cobbled together operation that would make Putin's SMO look organised in comparison.
Take Kharg Isand.
Bomb any vessel that moves from the Iranian coast. However small, however "innocent" It won't be. It will have a military mission.
Take out Iranian power. Overnight. Collapse the grid.
Tomorrow, it will be their water.
Leave them no option but to talk - to the GCC at least.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
Good morning
Really disturbing news this morning from the gulf with Iran lashing out in an attempt to turn the world economies upside down
I see no positives in this war and Trump is utterly deranged
The genie is out of the bottle and chaos abounds
I hope the gulf states act together to find an off ramp because it is very much their war which to be fair they did not want nor start
Unfortunately, I think we are in the Suez situation, where Churchill said, 'I would never have started, but once started I would not have dared stop.'
I do not see how the Gulf States or Israel can be secure while the regime Israel and the US have created is in power in Tehran. This is a geopolitical deterioration as Khamanei was old and weak and muddled, too much so for major warfare against an organised enemy, while his son is not. (Incidentally the outlook for the people of Iran has worsened considerably as well, bad though it was before.)
Therefore the grim conclusion is it will have to be removed, somehow. The snag is although I'm no military expert I do not see how that can be done without a full invasion which nobody is contemplating.
We've therefore ended up in exactly the worst place imaginable, and it was entirely avaiudable.
It is not over yet.
There absolutely does need to be a full invasion, I agree.
If button mushroom TACOs out without organising one, he is a failure.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
Good morning
Really disturbing news this morning from the gulf with Iran lashing out in an attempt to turn the world economies upside down
I see no positives in this war and Trump is utterly deranged
The genie is out of the bottle and chaos abounds
I hope the gulf states act together to find an off ramp because it is very much their war which to be fair they did not want nor start
Unfortunately, I think we are in the Suez situation, where Churchill said, 'I would never have started, but once started I would not have dared stop.'
I do not see how the Gulf States or Israel can be secure while the regime Israel and the US have created is in power in Tehran. This is a geopolitical deterioration as Khamanei was old and weak and muddled, too much so for major warfare against an organised enemy, while his son is not. (Incidentally the outlook for the people of Iran has worsened considerably as well, bad though it was before.)
Therefore the grim conclusion is it will have to be removed, somehow. The snag is although I'm no military expert I do not see how that can be done without a full invasion which nobody is contemplating.
We've therefore ended up in exactly the worst place imaginable, and it was entirely avaiudable.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
I agree as it stands it is a piss poor outcome so far, which is why the war should not be over yet.
I have been clear since day one that in my view ground troops will be required. To liberate Tehran and secure the uranium, and I would also take Kharg Island.
You don't need to seize the entire country. Take the capital and strategic locations like Kharg and the regime should collapse.
If Trump declares victory here, with such a piss poor outcome, then he is a terrible leader who has failed.
If he sends in ground troops, topples the regime and seizes the uranium then he will merely be a terrible leader who did one good thing at least in the time he blighted the Oval Office.
We have what, 7 dead and 150 injured US troops.
Kharg Island is a special forces operation that utilises the same sonic/other weirdy weapons used in Caracas - with likely minimal casualties.
But put one foot on mainland Iran and you have a population that will see you as an aggressor. The regime will bind itself into the public rejection of the Great Satan, which as they hve always feared, would come for them.
I have zero confidence that the US would know what the fuck it would be doing in mainland Iran. It would be a cobbled together operation that would make Putin's SMO look organised in comparison.
Take Kharg Isand.
Bomb any vessel that moves from the Iranian coast. However small, however "innocent" It won't be. It will have a military mission.
Take out Iranian power. Overnight. Collapse the grid.
Tomorrow, it will be their water.
Leave them no option but to talk - to the GCC at least.
Wouldn't the Iranians just close the pipeline to KI and send oil to $150?
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
I agree as it stands it is a piss poor outcome so far, which is why the war should not be over yet.
I have been clear since day one that in my view ground troops will be required. To liberate Tehran and secure the uranium, and I would also take Kharg Island.
You don't need to seize the entire country. Take the capital and strategic locations like Kharg and the regime should collapse.
If Trump declares victory here, with such a piss poor outcome, then he is a terrible leader who has failed.
If he sends in ground troops, topples the regime and seizes the uranium then he will merely be a terrible leader who did one good thing at least in the time he blighted the Oval Office.
Look at a bloody map and tell me how you'd go about that. You make George Bush look smart when it comes to war planning.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
I agree as it stands it is a piss poor outcome so far, which is why the war should not be over yet.
I have been clear since day one that in my view ground troops will be required. To liberate Tehran and secure the uranium, and I would also take Kharg Island.
You don't need to seize the entire country. Take the capital and strategic locations like Kharg and the regime should collapse.
If Trump declares victory here, with such a piss poor outcome, then he is a terrible leader who has failed.
If he sends in ground troops, topples the regime and seizes the uranium then he will merely be a terrible leader who did one good thing at least in the time he blighted the Oval Office.
Look at a bloody map and tell me how you'd go about that. You make George Bush look smart when it comes to war planning.
George Bush was awful when it came to war planning. He liberated Kuwait, then sent his troops home allowing Saddam to survive.
George W Bush was far better. He eliminated Saddam and got regime change. Mission accomplished.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
Good morning
Really disturbing news this morning from the gulf with Iran lashing out in an attempt to turn the world economies upside down
I see no positives in this war and Trump is utterly deranged
The genie is out of the bottle and chaos abounds
I hope the gulf states act together to find an off ramp because it is very much their war which to be fair they did not want nor start
Unfortunately, I think we are in the Suez situation, where Churchill said, 'I would never have started, but once started I would not have dared stop.'
I do not see how the Gulf States or Israel can be secure while the regime Israel and the US have created is in power in Tehran. This is a geopolitical deterioration as Khamanei was old and weak and muddled, too much so for major warfare against an organised enemy, while his son is not. (Incidentally the outlook for the people of Iran has worsened considerably as well, bad though it was before.)
Therefore the grim conclusion is it will have to be removed, somehow. The snag is although I'm no military expert I do not see how that can be done without a full invasion which nobody is contemplating.
We've therefore ended up in exactly the worst place imaginable, and it was entirely avaiudable.
And predicted by quite a few. The idea of building a coalition to deal with the problem after you've started a war at the behest of Netanyahu, and without consultation with a single ally, is absurd on its face.
The suggestion that the Gulf states have ground troops who could effect a large scale invasion of Iran is ridiculous.
The Reformygraph was very keen on taking Kharg the other day, quoting an article from some shady neo-con think tank fuckhead called Ian Bremmer saying how easy it would be. They neglected to quote his thoughts from the same article on holding the island. And seizing it is only half the battle. Say the US takes Kharg cleanly and holds it. Now you're stuck occupying critical infrastructure in the middle of the Persian Gulf indefinitely, defending against a hostile state with every incentive to take it back through drones, mines, sabotage, proxy attacks, terrorism, and slow attrition that bleeds you for years. And the leverage the US gets in exchange could turn out to be less than meets the eye. Iran can survive on dramatically reduced revenue. They'll impose austerity, crack down on dissent, blame America for economic suffering, and rally nationalist sentiment around resisting occupation. Tehran might calculate that enduring deprivation beats accepting American terms that amount to regime suicide.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
I agree as it stands it is a piss poor outcome so far, which is why the war should not be over yet.
I have been clear since day one that in my view ground troops will be required. To liberate Tehran and secure the uranium, and I would also take Kharg Island.
You don't need to seize the entire country. Take the capital and strategic locations like Kharg and the regime should collapse.
If Trump declares victory here, with such a piss poor outcome, then he is a terrible leader who has failed.
If he sends in ground troops, topples the regime and seizes the uranium then he will merely be a terrible leader who did one good thing at least in the time he blighted the Oval Office.
We have what, 7 dead and 150 injured US troops.
Kharg Island is a special forces operation that utilises the same sonic/other weirdy weapons used in Caracas - with likely minimal casualties.
But put one foot on mainland Iran and you have a population that will see you as an aggressor. The regime will bind itself into the public rejection of the Great Satan, which as they hve always feared, would come for them.
I have zero confidence that the US would know what the fuck it would be doing in mainland Iran. It would be a cobbled together operation that would make Putin's SMO look organised in comparison.
Take Kharg Isand.
Bomb any vessel that moves from the Iranian coast. However small, however "innocent" It won't be. It will have a military mission.
Take out Iranian power. Overnight. Collapse the grid.
Tomorrow, it will be their water.
Leave them no option but to talk - to the GCC at least.
Taking out electricity and water is the sort of thing that the West (rightly) condemns Putin for.
As for Stopping The Boats, there are plenty of examples of that being trickier than it sounds.
And if No Holds Are Barred at all, it doesn't take much to dump enough mines in the straits to render them fairly useless for years/ever.
They only have to succeed once, America/Israel have to succeed every time. Asymmetric warfare is a bugger.
The Reformygraph was very keen on taking Kharg the other day, quoting an article from some shady neo-con think tank fuckhead called Ian Bremmer saying how easy it would be. They neglected to quote his thoughts from the same article on holding the island. And seizing it is only half the battle. Say the US takes Kharg cleanly and holds it. Now you're stuck occupying critical infrastructure in the middle of the Persian Gulf indefinitely, defending against a hostile state with every incentive to take it back through drones, mines, sabotage, proxy attacks, terrorism, and slow attrition that bleeds you for years. And the leverage the US gets in exchange could turn out to be less than meets the eye. Iran can survive on dramatically reduced revenue. They'll impose austerity, crack down on dissent, blame America for economic suffering, and rally nationalist sentiment around resisting occupation. Tehran might calculate that enduring deprivation beats accepting American terms that amount to regime suicide.
Iran was already broke and austere before this began. Cripple them economically to the point they can't.pay the IRGC grunts and see how long the regime survives.
Iran doing the only thing they can which is to fxck the global economy !
The so called great master plan of Trump seemed to ignore the obvious . Iran can take huge amounts of economic pain whereas the west can’t after Covid and Ukraine.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
Good morning
Really disturbing news this morning from the gulf with Iran lashing out in an attempt to turn the world economies upside down
I see no positives in this war and Trump is utterly deranged
The genie is out of the bottle and chaos abounds
I hope the gulf states act together to find an off ramp because it is very much their war which to be fair they did not want nor start
Unfortunately, I think we are in the Suez situation, where Churchill said, 'I would never have started, but once started I would not have dared stop.'
I do not see how the Gulf States or Israel can be secure while the regime Israel and the US have created is in power in Tehran. This is a geopolitical deterioration as Khamanei was old and weak and muddled, too much so for major warfare against an organised enemy, while his son is not. (Incidentally the outlook for the people of Iran has worsened considerably as well, bad though it was before.)
Therefore the grim conclusion is it will have to be removed, somehow. The snag is although I'm no military expert I do not see how that can be done without a full invasion which nobody is contemplating.
We've therefore ended up in exactly the worst place imaginable, and it was entirely avaiudable.
And predicted by quite a few. The idea of building a coalition to deal with the problem after you've started a war at the behest of Netanyahu, and without consultation with a single ally, is absurd on its face.
The suggestion that the Gulf states have ground troops who could effect a large scale invasion of Iran is ridiculous.
The gulf states are key to a solution but not by ground troops into Iran
US are the only military who could provide the skill and ability but as ever with what consequences ?
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
I agree as it stands it is a piss poor outcome so far, which is why the war should not be over yet.
I have been clear since day one that in my view ground troops will be required. To liberate Tehran and secure the uranium, and I would also take Kharg Island.
You don't need to seize the entire country. Take the capital and strategic locations like Kharg and the regime should collapse.
If Trump declares victory here, with such a piss poor outcome, then he is a terrible leader who has failed.
If he sends in ground troops, topples the regime and seizes the uranium then he will merely be a terrible leader who did one good thing at least in the time he blighted the Oval Office.
Look at a bloody map and tell me how you'd go about that. You make George Bush look smart when it comes to war planning.
Tehran has a population of about 15 million. The British Army struggled to hold down Sangin, population 20,000.
Fallujah 300,000, Mosul 1.5 million, Basra 2 million, Gaza 2 million. The idea that US army could hold down Tehran is ridiculous. If even only 1% of that city are religious, aggro nutters, you're dealing with 150,000 insurgents with nothing to lose.
Unless you level it, of course, which is where I suspect BartholomewRoberts will end up given his record of bloodlust on Gaza.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
Good morning
Really disturbing news this morning from the gulf with Iran lashing out in an attempt to turn the world economies upside down
I see no positives in this war and Trump is utterly deranged
The genie is out of the bottle and chaos abounds
I hope the gulf states act together to find an off ramp because it is very much their war which to be fair they did not want nor start
Unfortunately, I think we are in the Suez situation, where Churchill said, 'I would never have started, but once started I would not have dared stop.'
I do not see how the Gulf States or Israel can be secure while the regime Israel and the US have created is in power in Tehran. This is a geopolitical deterioration as Khamanei was old and weak and muddled, too much so for major warfare against an organised enemy, while his son is not. (Incidentally the outlook for the people of Iran has worsened considerably as well, bad though it was before.)
Therefore the grim conclusion is it will have to be removed, somehow. The snag is although I'm no military expert I do not see how that can be done without a full invasion which nobody is contemplating.
We've therefore ended up in exactly the worst place imaginable, and it was entirely avaiudable.
It's not the worst place imaginable. Imagine if Johnson or Truss had been PM if this had kicked off. Fucking hell. They would have both had UK forces in the thick of it.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
I agree as it stands it is a piss poor outcome so far, which is why the war should not be over yet.
I have been clear since day one that in my view ground troops will be required. To liberate Tehran and secure the uranium, and I would also take Kharg Island.
You don't need to seize the entire country. Take the capital and strategic locations like Kharg and the regime should collapse.
If Trump declares victory here, with such a piss poor outcome, then he is a terrible leader who has failed.
If he sends in ground troops, topples the regime and seizes the uranium then he will merely be a terrible leader who did one good thing at least in the time he blighted the Oval Office.
Look at a bloody map and tell me how you'd go about that. You make George Bush look smart when it comes to war planning.
Tehran has a population of about 15 million. The British Army struggled to hold down Sangin, population 20,000.
Fallujah 300,000, Mosul 1.5 million, Basra 2 million, Gaza 2 million. The idea that US army could hold down Tehran is ridiculous. If even only 1% of that city are religious, aggro nutters, you're dealing with 150,000 insurgents with nothing to lose.
Unless you level it, of course, which is where I suspect BartholomewRoberts will end up given his record of bloodlust on Gaza.
Again, look at a map. How would you even start to go about that anyway ?
It's possibly the most ridiculous thing Barty has ever suggested.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
Good morning
Really disturbing news this morning from the gulf with Iran lashing out in an attempt to turn the world economies upside down
I see no positives in this war and Trump is utterly deranged
The genie is out of the bottle and chaos abounds
I hope the gulf states act together to find an off ramp because it is very much their war which to be fair they did not want nor start
Unfortunately, I think we are in the Suez situation, where Churchill said, 'I would never have started, but once started I would not have dared stop.'
I do not see how the Gulf States or Israel can be secure while the regime Israel and the US have created is in power in Tehran. This is a geopolitical deterioration as Khamanei was old and weak and muddled, too much so for major warfare against an organised enemy, while his son is not. (Incidentally the outlook for the people of Iran has worsened considerably as well, bad though it was before.)
Therefore the grim conclusion is it will have to be removed, somehow. The snag is although I'm no military expert I do not see how that can be done without a full invasion which nobody is contemplating.
We've therefore ended up in exactly the worst place imaginable, and it was entirely avaiudable.
It's not the worst place imaginable. Imagine if Johnson or Truss had been PM if this had kicked off. Fucking hell. They would have both had UK forces in the thick of it.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
I agree as it stands it is a piss poor outcome so far, which is why the war should not be over yet.
I have been clear since day one that in my view ground troops will be required. To liberate Tehran and secure the uranium, and I would also take Kharg Island.
You don't need to seize the entire country. Take the capital and strategic locations like Kharg and the regime should collapse.
If Trump declares victory here, with such a piss poor outcome, then he is a terrible leader who has failed.
If he sends in ground troops, topples the regime and seizes the uranium then he will merely be a terrible leader who did one good thing at least in the time he blighted the Oval Office.
Look at a bloody map and tell me how you'd go about that. You make George Bush look smart when it comes to war planning.
Tehran has a population of about 15 million. The British Army struggled to hold down Sangin, population 20,000.
Fallujah 300,000, Mosul 1.5 million, Basra 2 million, Gaza 2 million. The idea that US army could hold down Tehran is ridiculous. If even only 1% of that city are religious, aggro nutters, you're dealing with 150,000 insurgents with nothing to lose.
Unless you level it, of course, which is where I suspect BartholomewRoberts will end up given his record of bloodlust on Gaza.
Again, look at a map. How would you even start to go about that anyway ?
It's possibly the most ridiculous thing Barty has ever suggested.
He did once describe the prospect of nuclear war with Russia as "fine" so maybe not.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
Good morning
Really disturbing news this morning from the gulf with Iran lashing out in an attempt to turn the world economies upside down
I see no positives in this war and Trump is utterly deranged
The genie is out of the bottle and chaos abounds
I hope the gulf states act together to find an off ramp because it is very much their war which to be fair they did not want nor start
Unfortunately, I think we are in the Suez situation, where Churchill said, 'I would never have started, but once started I would not have dared stop.'
I do not see how the Gulf States or Israel can be secure while the regime Israel and the US have created is in power in Tehran. This is a geopolitical deterioration as Khamanei was old and weak and muddled, too much so for major warfare against an organised enemy, while his son is not. (Incidentally the outlook for the people of Iran has worsened considerably as well, bad though it was before.)
Therefore the grim conclusion is it will have to be removed, somehow. The snag is although I'm no military expert I do not see how that can be done without a full invasion which nobody is contemplating.
We've therefore ended up in exactly the worst place imaginable, and it was entirely avaiudable.
It's not the worst place imaginable. Imagine if Johnson or Truss had been PM if this had kicked off. Fucking hell. They would have both had UK forces in the thick of it.
That might not have made much difference given how little ability we have currently to deploy significant forces at that distance.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
Good morning
Really disturbing news this morning from the gulf with Iran lashing out in an attempt to turn the world economies upside down
I see no positives in this war and Trump is utterly deranged
The genie is out of the bottle and chaos abounds
I hope the gulf states act together to find an off ramp because it is very much their war which to be fair they did not want nor start
Unfortunately, I think we are in the Suez situation, where Churchill said, 'I would never have started, but once started I would not have dared stop.'
I do not see how the Gulf States or Israel can be secure while the regime Israel and the US have created is in power in Tehran. This is a geopolitical deterioration as Khamanei was old and weak and muddled, too much so for major warfare against an organised enemy, while his son is not. (Incidentally the outlook for the people of Iran has worsened considerably as well, bad though it was before.)
Therefore the grim conclusion is it will have to be removed, somehow. The snag is although I'm no military expert I do not see how that can be done without a full invasion which nobody is contemplating.
We've therefore ended up in exactly the worst place imaginable, and it was entirely avaiudable.
It's not the worst place imaginable. Imagine if Johnson or Truss had been PM if this had kicked off. Fucking hell. They would have both had UK forces in the thick of it.
What a shame they weren't.
What exactly would UK forces add ? I expect UK public support for this war to fall even more . There’s no plan , never was and unless ground troops go in then this is going to drag on . Trump sending in the ground troops will terrify most of the GOP with the mid-terms coming .
Trump derangement syndrome :- the mistaken, complacent belief that people are getting hysterical about a Trump second term because nothing really bad happened in his first term
Fair play lads, not even the doomsayers expected it to be this unhinged! Only another 34 months, hopefully.
The Reformygraph was very keen on taking Kharg the other day, quoting an article from some shady neo-con think tank fuckhead called Ian Bremmer saying how easy it would be. They neglected to quote his thoughts from the same article on holding the island. And seizing it is only half the battle. Say the US takes Kharg cleanly and holds it. Now you're stuck occupying critical infrastructure in the middle of the Persian Gulf indefinitely, defending against a hostile state with every incentive to take it back through drones, mines, sabotage, proxy attacks, terrorism, and slow attrition that bleeds you for years. And the leverage the US gets in exchange could turn out to be less than meets the eye. Iran can survive on dramatically reduced revenue. They'll impose austerity, crack down on dissent, blame America for economic suffering, and rally nationalist sentiment around resisting occupation. Tehran might calculate that enduring deprivation beats accepting American terms that amount to regime suicide.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
Good morning
Really disturbing news this morning from the gulf with Iran lashing out in an attempt to turn the world economies upside down
I see no positives in this war and Trump is utterly deranged
The genie is out of the bottle and chaos abounds
I hope the gulf states act together to find an off ramp because it is very much their war which to be fair they did not want nor start
Unfortunately, I think we are in the Suez situation, where Churchill said, 'I would never have started, but once started I would not have dared stop.'
I do not see how the Gulf States or Israel can be secure while the regime Israel and the US have created is in power in Tehran. This is a geopolitical deterioration as Khamanei was old and weak and muddled, too much so for major warfare against an organised enemy, while his son is not. (Incidentally the outlook for the people of Iran has worsened considerably as well, bad though it was before.)
Therefore the grim conclusion is it will have to be removed, somehow. The snag is although I'm no military expert I do not see how that can be done without a full invasion which nobody is contemplating.
We've therefore ended up in exactly the worst place imaginable, and it was entirely avaiudable.
It's not the worst place imaginable. Imagine if Johnson or Truss had been PM if this had kicked off. Fucking hell. They would have both had UK forces in the thick of it.
Johnson would have allowed US forces to launch offensive strikes from UK bases but I doubt he would have deployed the RAF, Truss might and Kemi has said she would launch the RAF on Iran to attack their missile launchers
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
I agree as it stands it is a piss poor outcome so far, which is why the war should not be over yet.
I have been clear since day one that in my view ground troops will be required. To liberate Tehran and secure the uranium, and I would also take Kharg Island.
You don't need to seize the entire country. Take the capital and strategic locations like Kharg and the regime should collapse.
If Trump declares victory here, with such a piss poor outcome, then he is a terrible leader who has failed.
If he sends in ground troops, topples the regime and seizes the uranium then he will merely be a terrible leader who did one good thing at least in the time he blighted the Oval Office.
Look at a bloody map and tell me how you'd go about that. You make George Bush look smart when it comes to war planning.
Tehran has a population of about 15 million. The British Army struggled to hold down Sangin, population 20,000.
Fallujah 300,000, Mosul 1.5 million, Basra 2 million, Gaza 2 million. The idea that US army could hold down Tehran is ridiculous. If even only 1% of that city are religious, aggro nutters, you're dealing with 150,000 insurgents with nothing to lose.
Unless you level it, of course, which is where I suspect BartholomewRoberts will end up given his record of bloodlust on Gaza.
Again, look at a map. How would you even start to go about that anyway ?
It's possibly the most ridiculous thing Barty has ever suggested.
I also like the idea that the IRGC (a group of religious fanatics) won't engage in warfare unless they are paid the National Living Wage, and have access to statutory sick pay and paternity leave.
"Dead keen on mining the straits boss but I I'd appreciate 1.5x given it's outside my core business hours".
Iran doing the only thing they can which is to fxck the global economy !
The so called great master plan of Trump seemed to ignore the obvious . Iran can take huge amounts of economic pain whereas the west can’t after Covid and Ukraine.
I'm not sure we have yet tested the level of economic pain Iran can take. If they want to fuck about with the world economy, they should be made to find out.
But not with boots on the ground (bar a properly devised plan to take and hold Kharg Island).
'House Speaker Mike Johnson said the United States should not be "nation-building" or intervening around the world, casting a stark contrast to President Donald Trump's recent framing of the international war he had hoped would be an opportunity for "building a new country" in Iran.
Iran doing the only thing they can which is to fxck the global economy !
The so called great master plan of Trump seemed to ignore the obvious . Iran can take huge amounts of economic pain whereas the west can’t after Covid and Ukraine.
I'm not sure we have yet tested the level of economic pain Iran can take. If they want to fuck about with the world economy, they should be made to find out.
But not with boots on the ground (bar a properly devised plan to take and hold Kharg Island).
So Hormuz generally saw 20m barrels per day, so the combined release of 400m by the IEA and 172 from the US SPR buys them just about a month or so, right?
Except the oil in the reserves probably can't come out at 20m per day, so an incomplete solution for slightly longer?
I ask because I assume Iran can do math as well as me and if they know 'global economic catastrophe in roughly 40 days' that's a big incentive to hold out for 41 days if they can.
Trump derangement syndrome :- the mistaken, complacent belief that people are getting hysterical about a Trump second term because nothing really bad happened in his first term
Fair play lads, not even the doomsayers expected it to be this unhinged! Only another 34 months, hopefully.
Trump sanewashing remains at fever pitch on news reporting. We hear one thing: a deranged, narcissistic arsehole surrounded with a coterie of loons and teenage boys; then we get the interpretation by journalists and commentators, who treat him like a normal rational politician in charge of a competent administration.
We know what our eyes and ears are telling us. I don’t know why they continue to attempt to paint this picture of rationality, because it doesn’t work.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
I agree as it stands it is a piss poor outcome so far, which is why the war should not be over yet.
I have been clear since day one that in my view ground troops will be required. To liberate Tehran and secure the uranium, and I would also take Kharg Island.
You don't need to seize the entire country. Take the capital and strategic locations like Kharg and the regime should collapse.
If Trump declares victory here, with such a piss poor outcome, then he is a terrible leader who has failed.
If he sends in ground troops, topples the regime and seizes the uranium then he will merely be a terrible leader who did one good thing at least in the time he blighted the Oval Office.
Look at a bloody map and tell me how you'd go about that. You make George Bush look smart when it comes to war planning.
George Bush was awful when it came to war planning. He liberated Kuwait, then sent his troops home allowing Saddam to survive.
George W Bush was far better. He eliminated Saddam and got regime change. Mission accomplished.
I'm not sure that replacing Saddam with IS in half of Iraq is what W had in mind.
Israeli elections in October could be a turning point. If Bibi wins, he may feel more secure and that he can claim war has achieved his objectives. If he loses, maybe opposition can start to de escalate.
Until then its hard to see how US could de escalate even if they wanted to. Israel can always fire another missile and get the war back on.
The Reformygraph was very keen on taking Kharg the other day, quoting an article from some shady neo-con think tank fuckhead called Ian Bremmer saying how easy it would be. They neglected to quote his thoughts from the same article on holding the island. And seizing it is only half the battle. Say the US takes Kharg cleanly and holds it. Now you're stuck occupying critical infrastructure in the middle of the Persian Gulf indefinitely, defending against a hostile state with every incentive to take it back through drones, mines, sabotage, proxy attacks, terrorism, and slow attrition that bleeds you for years. And the leverage the US gets in exchange could turn out to be less than meets the eye. Iran can survive on dramatically reduced revenue. They'll impose austerity, crack down on dissent, blame America for economic suffering, and rally nationalist sentiment around resisting occupation. Tehran might calculate that enduring deprivation beats accepting American terms that amount to regime suicide.
You'd be looking at handing Kharg Island over to GCC troops as soon as the US "Mission Accomplished" banner was dragged out of storage.
GCC has considerable leverage over Iran - not least the billions of Iranian money banked there.
I think before any big moves are made, it's important to establish what the goal is. You can't blackmail a regime if you don't know what you want the regime to do in response to the blackmail. What is an acceptable result here to claim victory and call it off?
"In a superficial sense, the smartphone is quite a good cigarette replacement, and certainly a less carcinogenic one. It offers us something to do with our hands, and a way of feeling legitimately alone in public spaces like cafes. It fits into the pocket. For some people, it’s the first personal item that they reach for after a meal or after sex, just like a cigarette (the challenge with smart phones is to resist looking at them during these activities). Adults need objects that travel around with them, confirming their identities from place to place, not unlike children."
There might be something in the comparison but there is a big fundamental difference. Cigarettes are a delivery mechanism for the drug (nicotine) which all smokers are addicted to and is why they smoke. It's often described as a habit but it isn't a habit, it's a drug addiction. As such a smartphone, for a smoker, will never replace cigarettes. Not unless they design one that delivers nicotine into the bloodstream.
Hang on. Smartphones are a delivery mechanism for the drug (PB) which all right-thinking people are addicted to and is why they post. It's often described as a habit but it isn't a habit, it's an addiction.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
Good morning
Really disturbing news this morning from the gulf with Iran lashing out in an attempt to turn the world economies upside down
I see no positives in this war and Trump is utterly deranged
The genie is out of the bottle and chaos abounds
I hope the gulf states act together to find an off ramp because it is very much their war which to be fair they did not want nor start
Unfortunately, I think we are in the Suez situation, where Churchill said, 'I would never have started, but once started I would not have dared stop.'
I do not see how the Gulf States or Israel can be secure while the regime Israel and the US have created is in power in Tehran. This is a geopolitical deterioration as Khamanei was old and weak and muddled, too much so for major warfare against an organised enemy, while his son is not. (Incidentally the outlook for the people of Iran has worsened considerably as well, bad though it was before.)
Therefore the grim conclusion is it will have to be removed, somehow. The snag is although I'm no military expert I do not see how that can be done without a full invasion which nobody is contemplating.
We've therefore ended up in exactly the worst place imaginable, and it was entirely avaiudable.
It's not the worst place imaginable. Imagine if Johnson or Truss had been PM if this had kicked off. Fucking hell. They would have both had UK forces in the thick of it.
What a shame they weren't.
This was not a war of our making. It was planned by gung-ho fuckwits (although "planned" might well be overstating it).
We had nothing to do with the initial attacks. Which I believe was correct. However, there were consequences which we should have been prepared for. It was hardly a state secret that the US was moving vast amounts of military materiel to the ME. It was hardly a surprise when it kicked off (other than it being a daylight attack, which surprised the Iranian ex-top leadership).
When it kicked off, it was hardly a surprise when Iran lashed out. We should have been better prepared to
1) protect our interests in Cyprus; and
2) protect the interests of our friends (commercial partners) in the Gulf.
Irrespective of the use of our strategic bases, Starmer has been lamentable in putting in place 1) or 2).
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
So, 1800+ civilians killed, global economy badly damaged, billions spent on missiles and drones, that was all worth it because an 86-year old dictator was killed, someone who would otherwise have survived maybe another 4 years, and his regime remains intact.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
I agree as it stands it is a piss poor outcome so far, which is why the war should not be over yet.
I have been clear since day one that in my view ground troops will be required. To liberate Tehran and secure the uranium, and I would also take Kharg Island.
You don't need to seize the entire country. Take the capital and strategic locations like Kharg and the regime should collapse.
If Trump declares victory here, with such a piss poor outcome, then he is a terrible leader who has failed.
If he sends in ground troops, topples the regime and seizes the uranium then he will merely be a terrible leader who did one good thing at least in the time he blighted the Oval Office.
Look at a bloody map and tell me how you'd go about that. You make George Bush look smart when it comes to war planning.
George Bush was awful when it came to war planning. He liberated Kuwait, then sent his troops home allowing Saddam to survive.
George W Bush was far better. He eliminated Saddam and got regime change. Mission accomplished.
I'm not sure that replacing Saddam with IS in half of Iraq is what W had in mind.
Apart from a few IS cells in rural areas, Iraq is now largely IS free and Assad has been removed from Syria too
Iran doing the only thing they can which is to fxck the global economy !
The so called great master plan of Trump seemed to ignore the obvious . Iran can take huge amounts of economic pain whereas the west can’t after Covid and Ukraine.
I'm not sure we have yet tested the level of economic pain Iran can take. If they want to fuck about with the world economy, they should be made to find out.
But not with boots on the ground (bar a properly devised plan to take and hold Kharg Island).
Which is probably the approach the US should have taken in the first place. Given their failure to provide any kind of support to the protestors, who were massacred in their tens of thousands, the regime was never going to fall quickly.
What the plan is now, I don't know - and given what senators who have been briefed on the war have said, neither does the administration.
'House Speaker Mike Johnson said the United States should not be "nation-building" or intervening around the world, casting a stark contrast to President Donald Trump's recent framing of the international war he had hoped would be an opportunity for "building a new country" in Iran.
Trump derangement syndrome :- the mistaken, complacent belief that people are getting hysterical about a Trump second term because nothing really bad happened in his first term
Fair play lads, not even the doomsayers expected it to be this unhinged! Only another 34 months, hopefully.
Trump sanewashing remains at fever pitch on news reporting. We hear one thing: a deranged, narcissistic arsehole surrounded with a coterie of loons and teenage boys; then we get the interpretation by journalists and commentators, who treat him like a normal rational politician in charge of a competent administration.
We know what our eyes and ears are telling us. I don’t know why they continue to attempt to paint this picture of rationality, because it doesn’t work.
But interestingly, traditional MAGA Trump has always muddled through. This is George W Trump we're seeing just now, who has listened to traditional neocon Republicans like Rubio and Bolton and Lindsey Graham. Perhaps those who frequently pine for conventional Republicanism from Trump should be careful what they wish for.
He later said the US would "look very strongly" at the Strait of Hormuz, adding: "The straits are in great shape. We've knocked out all of their boats. They have some missiles, but not very many."
The Reformygraph was very keen on taking Kharg the other day, quoting an article from some shady neo-con think tank fuckhead called Ian Bremmer saying how easy it would be. They neglected to quote his thoughts from the same article on holding the island. And seizing it is only half the battle. Say the US takes Kharg cleanly and holds it. Now you're stuck occupying critical infrastructure in the middle of the Persian Gulf indefinitely, defending against a hostile state with every incentive to take it back through drones, mines, sabotage, proxy attacks, terrorism, and slow attrition that bleeds you for years. And the leverage the US gets in exchange could turn out to be less than meets the eye. Iran can survive on dramatically reduced revenue. They'll impose austerity, crack down on dissent, blame America for economic suffering, and rally nationalist sentiment around resisting occupation. Tehran might calculate that enduring deprivation beats accepting American terms that amount to regime suicide.
You'd be looking at handing Kharg Island over to GCC troops as soon as the US "Mission Accomplished" banner was dragged out of storage.
GCC has considerable leverage over Iran - not least the billions of Iranian money banked there.
I think before any big moves are made, it's important to establish what the goal is. You can't blackmail a regime if you don't know what you want the regime to do in response to the blackmail. What is an acceptable result here to claim victory and call it off?
Allowing trade to recommence through the Straits of Hormuz, unhindered by missiles or mines. The amount of Iranian oil passing through Kharg Island will be limited, with some of it sold for reparation for the damage done to, for example, the Omani facilities destroyed overnight by Iran.
Play nice, and we will assist in getting the electricity grid back up in Iran.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
I agree as it stands it is a piss poor outcome so far, which is why the war should not be over yet.
I have been clear since day one that in my view ground troops will be required. To liberate Tehran and secure the uranium, and I would also take Kharg Island.
You don't need to seize the entire country. Take the capital and strategic locations like Kharg and the regime should collapse.
If Trump declares victory here, with such a piss poor outcome, then he is a terrible leader who has failed.
If he sends in ground troops, topples the regime and seizes the uranium then he will merely be a terrible leader who did one good thing at least in the time he blighted the Oval Office.
Look at a bloody map and tell me how you'd go about that. You make George Bush look smart when it comes to war planning.
George Bush was awful when it came to war planning. He liberated Kuwait, then sent his troops home allowing Saddam to survive.
George W Bush was far better. He eliminated Saddam and got regime change. Mission accomplished.
I'm not sure that replacing Saddam with IS in half of Iraq is what W had in mind.
Apart from a few IS cells in rural areas, Iraq is now largely IS free and Assad has been removed from Syria too
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
So, 1800+ civilians killed, global economy badly damaged, billions spent on missiles and drones, that was all worth it because an 86-year old dictator was killed, someone who would otherwise have survived maybe another 4 years, and his regime remains intact.
You should both be pleased - it is a great stride forward for assisted dying.
The Reformygraph was very keen on taking Kharg the other day, quoting an article from some shady neo-con think tank fuckhead called Ian Bremmer saying how easy it would be. They neglected to quote his thoughts from the same article on holding the island. And seizing it is only half the battle. Say the US takes Kharg cleanly and holds it. Now you're stuck occupying critical infrastructure in the middle of the Persian Gulf indefinitely, defending against a hostile state with every incentive to take it back through drones, mines, sabotage, proxy attacks, terrorism, and slow attrition that bleeds you for years. And the leverage the US gets in exchange could turn out to be less than meets the eye. Iran can survive on dramatically reduced revenue. They'll impose austerity, crack down on dissent, blame America for economic suffering, and rally nationalist sentiment around resisting occupation. Tehran might calculate that enduring deprivation beats accepting American terms that amount to regime suicide.
You'd be looking at handing Kharg Island over to GCC troops as soon as the US "Mission Accomplished" banner was dragged out of storage.
GCC has considerable leverage over Iran - not least the billions of Iranian money banked there.
The armed forces of the GCC could not occupy Canvey Island never mind Kharg Island without US participation. It would not surprise me if they just refused the orders.
The UAE haven't dared take back Abu Musa/Greater and Lesser Tunbs which are much closer and smaller despite crying about it for 40 fucking years.
Trump derangement syndrome :- the mistaken, complacent belief that people are getting hysterical about a Trump second term because nothing really bad happened in his first term
Fair play lads, not even the doomsayers expected it to be this unhinged! Only another 34 months, hopefully.
Trump sanewashing remains at fever pitch on news reporting. We hear one thing: a deranged, narcissistic arsehole surrounded with a coterie of loons and teenage boys; then we get the interpretation by journalists and commentators, who treat him like a normal rational politician in charge of a competent administration.
We know what our eyes and ears are telling us. I don’t know why they continue to attempt to paint this picture of rationality, because it doesn’t work.
In the midst of a growing military disaster, Disaster Don is now launching an "investigation" into China, India and all its *western* trading partners in order to provide evidence to justify restoring the punitive tariffs that the Supreme Court just struck down. All this comes after failing even to consult with NATO allies before this reckless and inadequate attack on Iran.
Barty- your guy has fucked this up so badly: its not Iraq here, its Afganistan, if you are lucky, and quite possibly Vietnam. The drunken twat Hegseth makes McNamara look like Wellington. Trump is going down in history as the worst President and the worst man to hold the office.
The Reformygraph was very keen on taking Kharg the other day, quoting an article from some shady neo-con think tank fuckhead called Ian Bremmer saying how easy it would be. They neglected to quote his thoughts from the same article on holding the island. And seizing it is only half the battle. Say the US takes Kharg cleanly and holds it. Now you're stuck occupying critical infrastructure in the middle of the Persian Gulf indefinitely, defending against a hostile state with every incentive to take it back through drones, mines, sabotage, proxy attacks, terrorism, and slow attrition that bleeds you for years. And the leverage the US gets in exchange could turn out to be less than meets the eye. Iran can survive on dramatically reduced revenue. They'll impose austerity, crack down on dissent, blame America for economic suffering, and rally nationalist sentiment around resisting occupation. Tehran might calculate that enduring deprivation beats accepting American terms that amount to regime suicide.
You'd be looking at handing Kharg Island over to GCC troops as soon as the US "Mission Accomplished" banner was dragged out of storage.
GCC has considerable leverage over Iran - not least the billions of Iranian money banked there.
I think before any big moves are made, it's important to establish what the goal is. You can't blackmail a regime if you don't know what you want the regime to do in response to the blackmail. What is an acceptable result here to claim victory and call it off?
Allowing trade to recommence through the Straits of Hormuz, unhindered by missiles or mines. The amount of Iranian oil passing through Kharg Island will be limited, with some of it sold for reparation for the damage done to, for example, the Omani facilities destroyed overnight by Iran.
Play nice, and we will assist in getting the electricity grid back up in Iran.
Is that it? So the people of Iran just suck it up? I'm not saying there should be a political dimension, but it's certainly disappointing for the Iranians.
Reuters) - U.S. intelligence indicates that Iran's leadership is still largely intact and is not at risk of collapse any time soon after nearly two weeks of relentless U.S. and Israeli bombardment, according to three sources familiar with the matter.
Iran doing the only thing they can which is to fxck the global economy !
The so called great master plan of Trump seemed to ignore the obvious . Iran can take huge amounts of economic pain whereas the west can’t after Covid and Ukraine.
I'm not sure we have yet tested the level of economic pain Iran can take. If they want to fuck about with the world economy, they should be made to find out.
But not with boots on the ground (bar a properly devised plan to take and hold Kharg Island).
So Hormuz generally saw 20m barrels per day, so the combined release of 400m by the IEA and 172 from the US SPR buys them just about a month or so, right?
Except the oil in the reserves probably can't come out at 20m per day, so an incomplete solution for slightly longer?
I ask because I assume Iran can do math as well as me and if they know 'global economic catastrophe in roughly 40 days' that's a big incentive to hold out for 41 days if they can.
Trump derangement syndrome :- the mistaken, complacent belief that people are getting hysterical about a Trump second term because nothing really bad happened in his first term
Fair play lads, not even the doomsayers expected it to be this unhinged! Only another 34 months, hopefully.
Trump sanewashing remains at fever pitch on news reporting. We hear one thing: a deranged, narcissistic arsehole surrounded with a coterie of loons and teenage boys; then we get the interpretation by journalists and commentators, who treat him like a normal rational politician in charge of a competent administration.
We know what our eyes and ears are telling us. I don’t know why they continue to attempt to paint this picture of rationality, because it doesn’t work.
But interestingly, traditional MAGA Trump has always muddled through. This is George W Trump we're seeing just now, who has listened to traditional neocon Republicans like Rubio and Bolton and Lindsey Graham. Perhaps those who frequently pine for conventional Republicanism from Trump should be careful what they wish for.
Him muddling through before is where we part ways. He’s been a deranged narcissistic arsehole, furiously sanewashed by the broadcast news, since the start. The sanewashing was at its frantic peak during his cackhanded tariff campaign last year. Now he has the mad neocons on board too, the cocktail just got added toxicity.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
Good morning
Really disturbing news this morning from the gulf with Iran lashing out in an attempt to turn the world economies upside down
I see no positives in this war and Trump is utterly deranged
The genie is out of the bottle and chaos abounds
I hope the gulf states act together to find an off ramp because it is very much their war which to be fair they did not want nor start
Unfortunately, I think we are in the Suez situation, where Churchill said, 'I would never have started, but once started I would not have dared stop.'
I do not see how the Gulf States or Israel can be secure while the regime Israel and the US have created is in power in Tehran. This is a geopolitical deterioration as Khamanei was old and weak and muddled, too much so for major warfare against an organised enemy, while his son is not. (Incidentally the outlook for the people of Iran has worsened considerably as well, bad though it was before.)
Therefore the grim conclusion is it will have to be removed, somehow. The snag is although I'm no military expert I do not see how that can be done without a full invasion which nobody is contemplating.
We've therefore ended up in exactly the worst place imaginable, and it was entirely avaiudable.
It's not the worst place imaginable. Imagine if Johnson or Truss had been PM if this had kicked off. Fucking hell. They would have both had UK forces in the thick of it.
What a shame they weren't.
This was not a war of our making. It was planned by gung-ho fuckwits (although "planned" might well be overstating it).
We had nothing to do with the initial attacks. Which I believe was correct. However, there were consequences which we should have been prepared for. It was hardly a state secret that the US was moving vast amounts of military materiel to the ME. It was hardly a surprise when it kicked off (other than it being a daylight attack, which surprised the Iranian ex-top leadership).
When it kicked off, it was hardly a surprise when Iran lashed out. We should have been better prepared to
1) protect our interests in Cyprus; and
2) protect the interests of our friends (commercial partners) in the Gulf.
Irrespective of the use of our strategic bases, Starmer has been lamentable in putting in place 1) or 2).
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
Good morning
Really disturbing news this morning from the gulf with Iran lashing out in an attempt to turn the world economies upside down
I see no positives in this war and Trump is utterly deranged
The genie is out of the bottle and chaos abounds
I hope the gulf states act together to find an off ramp because it is very much their war which to be fair they did not want nor start
Unfortunately, I think we are in the Suez situation, where Churchill said, 'I would never have started, but once started I would not have dared stop.'
I do not see how the Gulf States or Israel can be secure while the regime Israel and the US have created is in power in Tehran. This is a geopolitical deterioration as Khamanei was old and weak and muddled, too much so for major warfare against an organised enemy, while his son is not. (Incidentally the outlook for the people of Iran has worsened considerably as well, bad though it was before.)
Therefore the grim conclusion is it will have to be removed, somehow. The snag is although I'm no military expert I do not see how that can be done without a full invasion which nobody is contemplating.
We've therefore ended up in exactly the worst place imaginable, and it was entirely avaiudable.
It's not the worst place imaginable. Imagine if Johnson or Truss had been PM if this had kicked off. Fucking hell. They would have both had UK forces in the thick of it.
What a shame they weren't.
This was not a war of our making. It was planned by gung-ho fuckwits (although "planned" might well be overstating it).
We had nothing to do with the initial attacks. Which I believe was correct. However, there were consequences which we should have been prepared for. It was hardly a state secret that the US was moving vast amounts of military materiel to the ME. It was hardly a surprise when it kicked off (other than it being a daylight attack, which surprised the Iranian ex-top leadership).
When it kicked off, it was hardly a surprise when Iran lashed out. We should have been better prepared to
1) protect our interests in Cyprus; and
2) protect the interests of our friends (commercial partners) in the Gulf.
Irrespective of the use of our strategic bases, Starmer has been lamentable in putting in place 1) or 2).
Cyprus was hit by one drone that caused minimal damage. I’m not convinced that we needed to do more to protect our interests in Cyprus.
He later said the US would "look very strongly" at the Strait of Hormuz, adding: "The straits are in great shape. We've knocked out all of their boats. They have some missiles, but not very many."
Winning biggly !
Trump needs to STFU !
The more he says this shit...
As Pottery Barn says "You break it, you own it..."
Iran doing the only thing they can which is to fxck the global economy !
The so called great master plan of Trump seemed to ignore the obvious . Iran can take huge amounts of economic pain whereas the west can’t after Covid and Ukraine.
I'm not sure we have yet tested the level of economic pain Iran can take. If they want to fuck about with the world economy, they should be made to find out.
But not with boots on the ground (bar a properly devised plan to take and hold Kharg Island).
We've learnt absolutely nothing from Ukraine.
1) People are incredibly resilient. Ukraine is a corrupt, poor, undeveloped country that is currently putting up an unbelievable fight against the Russians despite weeks of power cuts in mid-winter. If they can do it, so can the Iranians. 2) Drones are basically unstoppable and it's trivially easy for quite a basic economy to generate an endless supply of them (or to import them other countries) 3) Our economy was shafted by our exposure to fossil fuels in 2022, and again in 2026, and yet we're still pissing about. Imagine if the £40 billion on energy support had instead gone on batteries, wind, EV chargers etc etc - we'd be much better placed than we are now to ride this out. And it's a permanent investment.
The Reformygraph was very keen on taking Kharg the other day, quoting an article from some shady neo-con think tank fuckhead called Ian Bremmer saying how easy it would be. They neglected to quote his thoughts from the same article on holding the island. And seizing it is only half the battle. Say the US takes Kharg cleanly and holds it. Now you're stuck occupying critical infrastructure in the middle of the Persian Gulf indefinitely, defending against a hostile state with every incentive to take it back through drones, mines, sabotage, proxy attacks, terrorism, and slow attrition that bleeds you for years. And the leverage the US gets in exchange could turn out to be less than meets the eye. Iran can survive on dramatically reduced revenue. They'll impose austerity, crack down on dissent, blame America for economic suffering, and rally nationalist sentiment around resisting occupation. Tehran might calculate that enduring deprivation beats accepting American terms that amount to regime suicide.
You'd be looking at handing Kharg Island over to GCC troops as soon as the US "Mission Accomplished" banner was dragged out of storage.
GCC has considerable leverage over Iran - not least the billions of Iranian money banked there.
I think before any big moves are made, it's important to establish what the goal is. You can't blackmail a regime if you don't know what you want the regime to do in response to the blackmail. What is an acceptable result here to claim victory and call it off?
Allowing trade to recommence through the Straits of Hormuz, unhindered by missiles or mines. The amount of Iranian oil passing through Kharg Island will be limited, with some of it sold for reparation for the damage done to, for example, the Omani facilities destroyed overnight by Iran.
Play nice, and we will assist in getting the electricity grid back up in Iran.
Is that it? So the people of Iran just suck it up? I'm not saying there should be a political dimension, but it's certainly disappointing for the Iranians.
I see nothing we can do to assist them. Our problem is world trade and the health of the world economy. The misery of Iranians is terrible, but cannot be alleviated by external force.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
Good morning
Really disturbing news this morning from the gulf with Iran lashing out in an attempt to turn the world economies upside down
I see no positives in this war and Trump is utterly deranged
The genie is out of the bottle and chaos abounds
I hope the gulf states act together to find an off ramp because it is very much their war which to be fair they did not want nor start
Unfortunately, I think we are in the Suez situation, where Churchill said, 'I would never have started, but once started I would not have dared stop.'
I do not see how the Gulf States or Israel can be secure while the regime Israel and the US have created is in power in Tehran. This is a geopolitical deterioration as Khamanei was old and weak and muddled, too much so for major warfare against an organised enemy, while his son is not. (Incidentally the outlook for the people of Iran has worsened considerably as well, bad though it was before.)
Therefore the grim conclusion is it will have to be removed, somehow. The snag is although I'm no military expert I do not see how that can be done without a full invasion which nobody is contemplating.
We've therefore ended up in exactly the worst place imaginable, and it was entirely avaiudable.
It's not the worst place imaginable. Imagine if Johnson or Truss had been PM if this had kicked off. Fucking hell. They would have both had UK forces in the thick of it.
What a shame they weren't.
This was not a war of our making. It was planned by gung-ho fuckwits (although "planned" might well be overstating it).
We had nothing to do with the initial attacks. Which I believe was correct. However, there were consequences which we should have been prepared for. It was hardly a state secret that the US was moving vast amounts of military materiel to the ME. It was hardly a surprise when it kicked off (other than it being a daylight attack, which surprised the Iranian ex-top leadership).
When it kicked off, it was hardly a surprise when Iran lashed out. We should have been better prepared to
1) protect our interests in Cyprus; and
2) protect the interests of our friends (commercial partners) in the Gulf.
Irrespective of the use of our strategic bases, Starmer has been lamentable in putting in place 1) or 2).
Um 1 drone got through and managed to generate a lot of news reports.
I suspect that drone or another one would have got through regardless of how much we had there.
I do believe a lot of the story has been very bad reporting from people with vested interests in making SKS look bad
Trump derangement syndrome :- the mistaken, complacent belief that people are getting hysterical about a Trump second term because nothing really bad happened in his first term
Fair play lads, not even the doomsayers expected it to be this unhinged! Only another 34 months, hopefully.
Trump sanewashing remains at fever pitch on news reporting. We hear one thing: a deranged, narcissistic arsehole surrounded with a coterie of loons and teenage boys; then we get the interpretation by journalists and commentators, who treat him like a normal rational politician in charge of a competent administration.
We know what our eyes and ears are telling us. I don’t know why they continue to attempt to paint this picture of rationality, because it doesn’t work.
But interestingly, traditional MAGA Trump has always muddled through. This is George W Trump we're seeing just now, who has listened to traditional neocon Republicans like Rubio and Bolton and Lindsey Graham. Perhaps those who frequently pine for conventional Republicanism from Trump should be careful what they wish for.
Him muddling through before is where we part ways. He’s been a deranged narcissistic arsehole, furiously sanewashed by the broadcast news, since the start. The sanewashing was at its frantic peak during his cackhanded tariff campaign last year. Now he has the mad neocons on board too, the cocktail just got added toxicity.
I'd call their economic growth vs. ours muddling through, yes.
Reuters) - U.S. intelligence indicates that Iran's leadership is still largely intact and is not at risk of collapse any time soon after nearly two weeks of relentless U.S. and Israeli bombardment, according to three sources familiar with the matter.
Well done Trump and Bibi. Playing a blinder there.
Iran doing the only thing they can which is to fxck the global economy !
The so called great master plan of Trump seemed to ignore the obvious . Iran can take huge amounts of economic pain whereas the west can’t after Covid and Ukraine.
I'm not sure we have yet tested the level of economic pain Iran can take. If they want to fuck about with the world economy, they should be made to find out.
But not with boots on the ground (bar a properly devised plan to take and hold Kharg Island).
We've learnt absolutely nothing from Ukraine.
1) People are incredibly resilient. Ukraine is a corrupt, poor, undeveloped country that is currently putting up an unbelievable fight against the Russians despite weeks of power cuts in mid-winter. If they can do it, so can the Iranians. 2) Drones are basically unstoppable and it's trivially easy for quite a basic economy to generate an endless supply of them (or to import them other countries) 3) Our economy was shafted by our exposure to fossil fuels in 2022, and again in 2026, and yet we're still pissing about. Imagine if the £40 billion on energy support had instead gone on batteries, wind, EV chargers etc etc - we'd be much better placed than we are now to ride this out. And it's a permanent investment.
We still need oil based products even if we were 100% renewable. Which we never will be due to their intermittence.
Indeed oil based products are essential for producing and maintaining renewables.
We may reduce one dependency but simply create others.
The Reformygraph was very keen on taking Kharg the other day, quoting an article from some shady neo-con think tank fuckhead called Ian Bremmer saying how easy it would be. They neglected to quote his thoughts from the same article on holding the island. And seizing it is only half the battle. Say the US takes Kharg cleanly and holds it. Now you're stuck occupying critical infrastructure in the middle of the Persian Gulf indefinitely, defending against a hostile state with every incentive to take it back through drones, mines, sabotage, proxy attacks, terrorism, and slow attrition that bleeds you for years. And the leverage the US gets in exchange could turn out to be less than meets the eye. Iran can survive on dramatically reduced revenue. They'll impose austerity, crack down on dissent, blame America for economic suffering, and rally nationalist sentiment around resisting occupation. Tehran might calculate that enduring deprivation beats accepting American terms that amount to regime suicide.
You'd be looking at handing Kharg Island over to GCC troops as soon as the US "Mission Accomplished" banner was dragged out of storage.
GCC has considerable leverage over Iran - not least the billions of Iranian money banked there.
The armed forces of the GCC could not occupy Canvey Island never mind Kharg Island without US participation. It would not surprise me if they just refused the orders.
The UAE haven't dared take back Abu Musa/Greater and Lesser Tunbs which are much closer and smaller despite crying about it for 40 fucking years.
Doubtless the US would still have some "advisors" undertaking "training".
Although I'm not sure Seal Team 6 would fancy their chances on Canvey of a Friday night...
The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...
Hopefully it won't come to that!
Any excuse to go full racist.
It's being restricted, not abolished.
Currently 3% of prosecutions go to trial by jury, MOJ estimated that under the proposals 25% of those wouldn't.
So reducing from 3% to 2.25% going to trial by Jury.
If this had been the law, none of the subpostmasters would have been able to opt for trial by jury. If this had been the law, protesters who have been let off by sympathetic juries after committing offences would have been convicted. The 97% currently heard by magistrates are minor offences such as minor assault, motoring offences, shoplifting, criminal damage, etc. This change dramatically expands the scope of offences where the accused cannot opt for a jury trial and, at the same time, reduces the chances of the innocent getting justice when wrongly accused of such offences. It is pretty much guaranteed that this change will see many more miscarriages of justice. And it is being sold to us on a false premise. It will not make any significant dent in the backlog in the criminal courts.
As I've posted below, I don't agree with the change and I don't think it will achieve the objective. They got an expert to review and recommend, there are no alternative recommendations, the system is failing currently so they're implementing the recommendation they have. The LDs and Conservatives created the problem and then the Conservatives did nothing to resolve it. Labour want to resolve it, other parties could engage constructively to find the best solution. It's not really a partisan issue, presumably all parties want more trials completed.
Except they have gone well beyond what the expert recommended. And bear in mind there are a huge number of other experts who deal with the courts on adaily basis - judges, barristers and others - who say this will not achieve the time savings that ahve been claimed and will lead to more miscarriages of justice.
And there are other recommendations for resolving the courts backlog. They're just not made by Levison*, and would involve spending a bit more money (funding cuts being what precipitated the crisis in the first place). Even if you abolished all just trials, it wouldn't make a huge difference to the backlog.
*Actually Levison does make some suggestions other than restricting jury trials.
I suppose abolishing just trials [sic] would speed things up!
Iran doing the only thing they can which is to fxck the global economy !
The so called great master plan of Trump seemed to ignore the obvious . Iran can take huge amounts of economic pain whereas the west can’t after Covid and Ukraine.
I'm not sure we have yet tested the level of economic pain Iran can take. If they want to fuck about with the world economy, they should be made to find out.
But not with boots on the ground (bar a properly devised plan to take and hold Kharg Island).
We've learnt absolutely nothing from Ukraine.
1) People are incredibly resilient. Ukraine is a corrupt, poor, undeveloped country that is currently putting up an unbelievable fight against the Russians despite weeks of power cuts in mid-winter. If they can do it, so can the Iranians. 2) Drones are basically unstoppable and it's trivially easy for quite a basic economy to generate an endless supply of them (or to import them other countries) 3) Our economy was shafted by our exposure to fossil fuels in 2022, and again in 2026, and yet we're still pissing about. Imagine if the £40 billion on energy support had instead gone on batteries, wind, EV chargers etc etc - we'd be much better placed than we are now to ride this out. And it's a permanent investment.
3 is another sunk cost fallacy amongst the many that came into this Govt.
The impression I get is that the current Govt is moving as fast as they possibly can on energy security by the shift to renewables, and that is probably the best we can get.
My only add on would be to change the terms of the Covid tax regime to tip it towards maintaining current production.
Reuters) - U.S. intelligence indicates that Iran's leadership is still largely intact and is not at risk of collapse any time soon after nearly two weeks of relentless U.S. and Israeli bombardment, according to three sources familiar with the matter.
How does AI perform on renewables as compared to coal and oil? Or will they just fill the boilers with paper dollars.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
No it is not.
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.
If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.
Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
I agree as it stands it is a piss poor outcome so far, which is why the war should not be over yet.
I have been clear since day one that in my view ground troops will be required. To liberate Tehran and secure the uranium, and I would also take Kharg Island.
You don't need to seize the entire country. Take the capital and strategic locations like Kharg and the regime should collapse.
If Trump declares victory here, with such a piss poor outcome, then he is a terrible leader who has failed.
If he sends in ground troops, topples the regime and seizes the uranium then he will merely be a terrible leader who did one good thing at least in the time he blighted the Oval Office.
Look at a bloody map and tell me how you'd go about that. You make George Bush look smart when it comes to war planning.
George Bush was awful when it came to war planning. He liberated Kuwait, then sent his troops home allowing Saddam to survive.
George W Bush was far better. He eliminated Saddam and got regime change. Mission accomplished.
I'm not sure that replacing Saddam with IS in half of Iraq is what W had in mind.
Apart from a few IS cells in rural areas, Iraq is now largely IS free and Assad has been removed from Syria too
Only took 20 years.
Plus several trillion dollars (it's a significant contributor to the current US debt), and many millions of refugees - a fair proportion of whom ended up in Europe and gave the far right (and our own Nigel Farage) a turbo boost.
Comments
Paying.
Then having a Q+A afterwards.
Without mentioning politics even if they do.
It's a delicious hit.
Am doing tranquil abiding next.
I was in the Gardeners Arms 1987-90.
He never reciprocated. Bastard.
Landslide Lyndon going through the photos with his magnifying glass.
At least with Trump's short attention span we are spared that.
It will stop.
A lot of it is gaming the system and people not turning up. Each time you add - for example - and translator you add another point of failure. And the issue with translators specifically is people demanding them when they don’t need them (access to justice is important) in order to delay the process.
The general point is that there are many many things that could be done to improve efficiency before you start removing protections like trial by jury
That’s the point that it -… er… jumped the…
* I’m with @SandyRentool
How long before Hegseth threatens to nuke 'em?
The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.
For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.
Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.
Trump's party re-elected him and remains in thrall.
I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.
And failing in its objectives:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-us-intelligence-says-iran-230717678.html
Even if you abolished all just trials, it wouldn't make a huge difference to the backlog.
*Actually Levison does make some suggestions other than restricting jury trials.
I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.
And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.
And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.
Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.
There is no open reporting from inside Iran and most of the coverage we get is from Gulf States fending off intermittent drones.
The only concrete info is the Hormuz strait and since we dont know the order in which military planners are planning to address this most of the reporting is just filling air time and lacks analysis.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/4/analyst-says-interest-in-epstein-files-plummeted-after-war-on-iran-launched
I have been clear since day one that in my view ground troops will be required. To liberate Tehran and secure the uranium, and I would also take Kharg Island.
You don't need to seize the entire country. Take the capital and strategic locations like Kharg and the regime should collapse.
If Trump declares victory here, with such a piss poor outcome, then he is a terrible leader who has failed.
If he sends in ground troops, topples the regime and seizes the uranium then he will merely be a terrible leader who did one good thing at least in the time he blighted the Oval Office.
Really disturbing news this morning from the gulf with Iran lashing out in an attempt to turn the world economies upside down
I see no positives in this war and Trump is utterly deranged
The genie is out of the bottle and chaos abounds
I hope the gulf states act together to find an off ramp because it is very much their war which to be fair they did not want nor start
I do not see how the Gulf States or Israel can be secure while the regime Israel and the US have created is in power in Tehran. This is a geopolitical deterioration as Khamanei was old and weak and muddled, too much so for major warfare against an organised enemy, while his son is not. (Incidentally the outlook for the people of Iran has worsened considerably as well, bad though it was before.)
Therefore the grim conclusion is it will have to be removed, somehow. The snag is although I'm no military expert I do not see how that can be done without a full invasion which nobody is contemplating.
We've therefore ended up in exactly the worst place imaginable, and it was entirely avaiudable.
Thanks a fucking bunch again Button Mushroom.
Somebody needs to.
Kharg Island is a special forces operation that utilises the same sonic/other weirdy weapons used in Caracas - with likely minimal casualties.
But put one foot on mainland Iran and you have a population that will see you as an aggressor. The regime will bind itself into the public rejection of the Great Satan, which as they hve always feared, would come for them.
I have zero confidence that the US would know what the fuck it would be doing in mainland Iran. It would be a cobbled together operation that would make Putin's SMO look organised in comparison.
Take Kharg Isand.
Bomb any vessel that moves from the Iranian coast. However small, however "innocent" It won't be. It will have a military mission.
Take out Iranian power. Overnight. Collapse the grid.
Tomorrow, it will be their water.
Leave them no option but to talk - to the GCC at least.
There absolutely does need to be a full invasion, I agree.
If button mushroom TACOs out without organising one, he is a failure.
You make George Bush look smart when it comes to war planning.
George W Bush was far better. He eliminated Saddam and got regime change. Mission accomplished.
The idea of building a coalition to deal with the problem after you've started a war at the behest of Netanyahu, and without consultation with a single ally, is absurd on its face.
The suggestion that the Gulf states have ground troops who could effect a large scale invasion of Iran is ridiculous.
And seizing it is only half the battle. Say the US takes Kharg cleanly and holds it. Now you're stuck occupying critical infrastructure in the middle of the Persian Gulf indefinitely, defending against a hostile state with every incentive to take it back through drones, mines, sabotage, proxy attacks, terrorism, and slow attrition that bleeds you for years. And the leverage the US gets in exchange could turn out to be less than meets the eye. Iran can survive on dramatically reduced revenue. They'll impose austerity, crack down on dissent, blame America for economic suffering, and rally nationalist sentiment around resisting occupation. Tehran might calculate that enduring deprivation beats accepting American terms that amount to regime suicide.
https://www.gzeromedia.com/by-ian-bremmer/after-decapitation-whats-next
As for Stopping The Boats, there are plenty of examples of that being trickier than it sounds.
And if No Holds Are Barred at all, it doesn't take much to dump enough mines in the straits to render them fairly useless for years/ever.
They only have to succeed once, America/Israel have to succeed every time. Asymmetric warfare is a bugger.
Iran was already broke and austere before this began. Cripple them economically to the point they can't.pay the IRGC grunts and see how long the regime survives.
The so called great master plan of Trump seemed to ignore the obvious . Iran can take huge amounts of economic pain whereas the west can’t after Covid and Ukraine.
US are the only military who could provide the skill and ability but as ever with what consequences ?
Fallujah 300,000, Mosul 1.5 million, Basra 2 million, Gaza 2 million. The idea that US army could hold down Tehran is ridiculous. If even only 1% of that city are religious, aggro nutters, you're dealing with 150,000 insurgents with nothing to lose.
Unless you level it, of course, which is where I suspect BartholomewRoberts will end up given his record of bloodlust on Gaza.
How would you even start to go about that anyway ?
It's possibly the most ridiculous thing Barty has ever suggested.
Fair play lads, not even the doomsayers expected it to be this unhinged! Only another 34 months, hopefully.
GCC has considerable leverage over Iran - not least the billions of Iranian money banked there.
"Dead keen on mining the straits boss but I I'd appreciate 1.5x given it's outside my core business hours".
But not with boots on the ground (bar a properly devised plan to take and hold Kharg Island).
The Republican House leader made the comments during an annual policy conference held in Florida on Tuesday, March 10. When asked by NBC News reporter Scott Wong whether he supported nation-building in Iran, Johnson responded: "I don't."
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/03/11/mike-johnson-iran-nation-build-trump/89101640007/
So Hormuz generally saw 20m barrels per day, so the combined release of 400m by the IEA and 172 from the US SPR buys them just about a month or so, right?
Except the oil in the reserves probably can't come out at 20m per day, so an incomplete solution for slightly longer?
I ask because I assume Iran can do math as well as me and if they know 'global economic catastrophe in roughly 40 days' that's a big incentive to hold out for 41 days if they can.
And I suspect they can.
https://bsky.app/profile/bretdevereaux.bsky.social/post/3mgt2tgwbjs2v
We know what our eyes and ears are telling us. I don’t know why they continue to attempt to paint this picture of rationality, because it doesn’t work.
Until then its hard to see how US could de escalate even if they wanted to. Israel can always fire another missile and get the war back on.
We had nothing to do with the initial attacks. Which I believe was correct. However, there were consequences which we should have been prepared for. It was hardly a state secret that the US was moving vast amounts of military materiel to the ME. It was hardly a surprise when it kicked off (other than it being a daylight attack, which surprised the Iranian ex-top leadership).
When it kicked off, it was hardly a surprise when Iran lashed out. We should have been better prepared to
1) protect our interests in Cyprus; and
2) protect the interests of our friends (commercial partners) in the Gulf.
Irrespective of the use of our strategic bases, Starmer has been lamentable in putting in place 1) or 2).
Given their failure to provide any kind of support to the protestors, who were massacred in their tens of thousands, the regime was never going to fall quickly.
What the plan is now, I don't know - and given what senators who have been briefed on the war have said, neither does the administration.
Insufficient sleep.
Winning biggly !
Trump needs to STFU !
Play nice, and we will assist in getting the electricity grid back up in Iran.
The UAE haven't dared take back Abu Musa/Greater and Lesser Tunbs which are much closer and smaller despite crying about it for 40 fucking years.
Barty- your guy has fucked this up so badly: its not Iraq here, its Afganistan, if you are lucky, and quite possibly Vietnam. The drunken twat Hegseth makes McNamara look like Wellington. Trump is going down in history as the worst President and the worst man to hold the office.
As Pottery Barn says "You break it, you own it..."
1) People are incredibly resilient. Ukraine is a corrupt, poor, undeveloped country that is currently putting up an unbelievable fight against the Russians despite weeks of power cuts in mid-winter. If they can do it, so can the Iranians.
2) Drones are basically unstoppable and it's trivially easy for quite a basic economy to generate an endless supply of them (or to import them other countries)
3) Our economy was shafted by our exposure to fossil fuels in 2022, and again in 2026, and yet we're still pissing about. Imagine if the £40 billion on energy support had instead gone on batteries, wind, EV chargers etc etc - we'd be much better placed than we are now to ride this out. And it's a permanent investment.
I suspect that drone or another one would have got through regardless of how much we had there.
I do believe a lot of the story has been very bad reporting from people with vested interests in making SKS look bad
NEW THREAD
Indeed oil based products are essential for producing and maintaining renewables.
We may reduce one dependency but simply create others.
Although I'm not sure Seal Team 6 would fancy their chances on Canvey of a Friday night...
Judge Starmer. I am the Law!
The impression I get is that the current Govt is moving as fast as they possibly can on energy security by the shift to renewables, and that is probably the best we can get.
My only add on would be to change the terms of the Covid tax regime to tip it towards maintaining current production.