Iranian National Team

[kettering_baggie]

Nothing like a juicy thread Regis! How many virgins do you think are waiting for that old fart who was turned to ash? 10 or 100?

Not many, Epstein saw to that!

[regis80]

Nothing like a juicy thread Regis! How many virgins do you think are waiting for that old fart who was turned to ash? 10 or 100?

No idea Al, but all i’ll say is this.. hope you’re not peed off when the price of fuel rockets and we have an influx of asylum seekers coming our way. 90m population, surely they can fight their own government without the need for the western world to get involved. Not our business whatsoever neither is it Trumps.. he should focus more on what could be revealed in those epstein files.

Also didn’t Iran sign non proliferation pact? Heard that got ripped up.. by who I wonder? The war Iraq was based on lies.. are we falling for the same bull again. If so, then that’s a new low.

[baggieal]

No idea Al, but all i’ll say is this.. hope you’re not peed off when the price of fuel rockets and we have an influx of asylum seekers coming our way. 90m population, surely they can fight their own government without the need for the western world to get involved. Not our business whatsoever neither is it Trumps.. he should focus more on what could be revealed in those epstein files.

Also didn’t Iran sign non proliferation pact? Heard that got ripped up.. by who I wonder? The war Iraq was based on lies.. are we falling for the same bull again. If so, then that’s a new low.

Does it make any sense for all these countries to be sending Ukraine billions when Iran are sending billions of dollars worth of drones? Personally I hope the regime and Hezbollah are incinerated!

F uck my stocks and shares though Regis are taking a hit! B astards!

[WBA123]

Take your pick, almost anyone would be better than the awful Starmer. I?m no fan of Farage but he couldn?t be worse than Steer Clear Keir. Of the current party ?leaders?, in my opinion, Kemi is way more credible than the others; I doubt that she will make it into No.10, though.

Farage who has made this country around ?100bn per year worse off because of Brexit and whose Welsh leader accepted bribes from Russia. That Farage?

Kemi is probably too busy looking for the next bandwagon to jump on.

[Omegstrat6]

Nothing like a juicy thread Regis! How many virgins do you think are waiting for that old fart who was turned to ash? 10 or 100?

As either Kimmel or Colbert joked on Monday night, those virgins are going to be sadly disappointed when that 86 year old cleric turns up 😀

[Omegstrat6]

From the POTUS who sought to belittle Zelensky in the Oval Office and brought us such eloquent responses as "you're a stupid person" and "quiet piggy" to female reporters asking him questions he didn't like, the Toddler in Chief now mocks Starmer as being "no Churchill" simply because our tool makers son had the temerity to disagree with him on his attack on Iran and refused to brown nose him. It's a typical Trump reaction.

It was Churchill, of course, who first coined the term "special relationship" between the UK and the US, but if this is breaking down, it is not so much because the UK has changed as America has under Trump and his gang of sycophants. Starmer is certainly no Churchill but Trump is definitely no FDR.

The Iranian regime is hateful and repressive and allowed terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah to operate within its borders but there seems to be no evidence at all that Iran was planning any "imminent" attacks on either the US or Israel as Trump has claimed as justification for his actions. In fact, intelligence reports suggest quite the reverse. Some also state that it would be at least a decade before Iran would have the military capacity to pose any real threat while other reports felt that headway could still be made on negotiations over Iran's development of nuclear power.

Contradictory statements continue to come out of the White House regarding the decision to attack Iran, but at this stage it seems increasingly likely that Israel may have been the driver. Netanyahu has already publicly stated that he has waited decades to attack Iran and it is well known that in his several meetings with Trump, he has tried to persuade the US President to support such an attack. Clearly, Trump was no longer able to say no to Bibi.

Few will mourn the Iranian regime if it does collapse (as Al points out, it won't just be the West and Israel either as Ukrainians certainly won't ) but I personally would still argue that the concepts of international law or rules of engagement are not ones that should be so easily swept aside as Trump & co are doing (and that Putin, for example, has long done). They were born out of the harsh lessons to be leant from WW2. IMHO, we reject them at our peril.

Trump, winner of the first coveted Fifa Peace Prize, has made no bones about his desire to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of him "ending 8 wars" and only recently stated that he wanted to be remembered as the great US President who stood for "peace and unity". But having threatened Greenland, attacked Venezuela and kidnapped its president and having launched strikes on Iran's nuclear development facilities only two months ago, he has now ignited further conflict in the Middle East, the consequences of which he cannot predict or control. Is Starmer really so wrong to disagree with Trump on this one?

[regis80]

From the POTUS who sought to belittle Zelensky in the Oval Office and brought us such eloquent responses as "you're a stupid person" and "quiet piggy" to female reporters asking him questions he didn't like, the Toddler in Chief now mocks Starmer as being "no Churchill" simply because our tool makers son had the temerity to disagree with him on his attack on Iran and refused to brown nose him. It's a typical Trump reaction.

It was Churchill, of course, who first coined the term "special relationship" between the UK and the US, but if this is breaking down, it is not so much because the UK has changed as America has under Trump and his gang of sycophants. Starmer is certainly no Churchill but Trump is definitely no FDR.

The Iranian regime is hateful and repressive and allowed terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah to operate within its borders but there seems to be no evidence at all that Iran was planning any "imminent" attacks on either the US or Israel as Trump has claimed as justification for his actions. In fact, intelligence reports suggest quite the reverse. Some also state that it would be at least a decade before Iran would have the military capacity to pose any real threat while other reports felt that headway could still be made on negotiations over Iran's development of nuclear power.

Contradictory statements continue to come out of the White House regarding the decision to attack Iran, but at this stage it seems increasingly likely that Israel may have been the driver. Netanyahu has already publicly stated that he has waited decades to attack Iran and it is well known that in his several meetings with Trump, he has tried to persuade the US President to support such an attack. Clearly, Trump was no longer able to say no to Bibi.

Few will mourn the Iranian regime if it does collapse (as Al points out, it won't just be the West and Israel either as Ukrainians certainly won't ) but I personally would still argue that the concepts of international law or rules of engagement are not ones that should be so easily swept aside as Trump & co are doing (and that Putin, for example, has long done). They were born out of the harsh lessons to be leant from WW2. IMHO, we reject them at our peril.

Trump, winner of the first coveted Fifa Peace Prize, has made no bones about his desire to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of him "ending 8 wars" and only recently stated that he wanted to be remembered as the great US President who stood for "peace and unity". But having threatened Greenland, attacked Venezuela and kidnapped its president and having launched strikes on Iran's nuclear development facilities only two months ago, he has now ignited further conflict in the Middle East, the consequences of which he cannot predict or control. Is Starmer really so wrong to disagree with Trump on this one?

Great post Omegastrat.

Question for you as Al didn?t answer and never will when you go into detail. Who tore up that non proliferation agreement? and which country in the middle east actually has nuclear weapons and is actually developing them?

[baggieal]

Great post Omegastrat.

Question for you as Al didn?t answer and never will when you go into detail. Who tore up that non proliferation agreement? and which country in the middle east actually has nuclear weapons and is actually developing them?

In my opinion Starmer for a lawyer does not use his words wisely. Why would you p iss off the super power of the world? All he needed to have said was yes of course the USA can use our bases but we will not be joining in other than to protect our Cyprus base and our citizens. Another U turn! Did Germany say what this idiot did? No!

I still say f uck international law when it?s a clear fact they were enriching, murdering their own people and supplying Russia with mass weaponry to kill innocent Ukrainians.

Even my youngest Omeg said - why are NATO sending many billions to Ukraine and what?s the point when Iran are sending billions in ballistic missiles and drones. Stop the supply!

With the murdering scum like Hezbollah and Hamas - if the Iranians with their ideology had a nuclear bomb - do you think they would use it? Of course they would!

Personally I hope the regime, Hezbollah and Hamas have a truly awful and slow death in agony!

Back to Starmer - he?s a complete laughing stock on the world stage unlike strong leaders like the German and Italian leaders. Whether leaders like Trump or hate him to upset him will go against that particular country.

In comparison Kemi is careful with her wording and much more articulate and bright! No wonder the CPS was a mess with that idiot leading them!

[On Balance]

Great post Omegastrat.

Question for you as Al didn?t answer and never will when you go into detail. Who tore up that non proliferation agreement? and which country in the middle east actually has nuclear weapons and is actually developing them?

Trump tore it up or pulled out is probably the better description, I think it was around May 18 2018.

[On Balance]

From the POTUS who sought to belittle Zelensky in the Oval Office and brought us such eloquent responses as "you're a stupid person" and "quiet piggy" to female reporters asking him questions he didn't like, the Toddler in Chief now mocks Starmer as being "no Churchill" simply because our tool makers son had the temerity to disagree with him on his attack on Iran and refused to brown nose him. It's a typical Trump reaction.

It was Churchill, of course, who first coined the term "special relationship" between the UK and the US, but if this is breaking down, it is not so much because the UK has changed as America has under Trump and his gang of sycophants. Starmer is certainly no Churchill but Trump is definitely no FDR.

The Iranian regime is hateful and repressive and allowed terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah to operate within its borders but there seems to be no evidence at all that Iran was planning any "imminent" attacks on either the US or Israel as Trump has claimed as justification for his actions. In fact, intelligence reports suggest quite the reverse. Some also state that it would be at least a decade before Iran would have the military capacity to pose any real threat while other reports felt that headway could still be made on negotiations over Iran's development of nuclear power.

Contradictory statements continue to come out of the White House regarding the decision to attack Iran, but at this stage it seems increasingly likely that Israel may have been the driver. Netanyahu has already publicly stated that he has waited decades to attack Iran and it is well known that in his several meetings with Trump, he has tried to persuade the US President to support such an attack. Clearly, Trump was no longer able to say no to Bibi.

Few will mourn the Iranian regime if it does collapse (as Al points out, it won't just be the West and Israel either as Ukrainians certainly won't ) but I personally would still argue that the concepts of international law or rules of engagement are not ones that should be so easily swept aside as Trump & co are doing (and that Putin, for example, has long done). They were born out of the harsh lessons to be leant from WW2. IMHO, we reject them at our peril.

Trump, winner of the first coveted Fifa Peace Prize, has made no bones about his desire to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of him "ending 8 wars" and only recently stated that he wanted to be remembered as the great US President who stood for "peace and unity". But having threatened Greenland, attacked Venezuela and kidnapped its president and having launched strikes on Iran's nuclear development facilities only two months ago, he has now ignited further conflict in the Middle East, the consequences of which he cannot predict or control. Is Starmer really so wrong to disagree with Trump on this one?

Great post.