Tim Healys Chutney Spoon Posted February 28 Author Posted February 28 Question is, if we have killed him then is the natural successor any better or would it be like if we got rid of Trumpy would anyone really want Vance taking over? Quote
Members SuperBacon Posted February 28 Members Posted February 28 1 minute ago, Tim Healys Chutney Spoon said: we Excuse me? Quote
Paid Members Lion_of_the_Midlands Posted February 28 Paid Members Posted February 28 1 minute ago, SuperBacon said: Excuse me? I know you were involved Rashers. You thought the Ayatollah was an Arsenal fan, but it turns out he just had a massive arsenal of weapons. Quote
Paid Members LaGoosh Posted February 28 Paid Members Posted February 28 16 minutes ago, Tim Healys Chutney Spoon said: Question is, if we have killed him then is the natural successor any better or would it be like if we got rid of Trumpy would anyone really want Vance taking over? It doesn't quite work like that. Quote
Members SuperBacon Posted February 28 Members Posted February 28 13 minutes ago, Lion_of_the_Midlands said: You thought the Ayatollah was an Arsenal fan, It's plausible, Bin Laden was! Quote
Tim Healys Chutney Spoon Posted February 28 Author Posted February 28 1 hour ago, LaGoosh said: It doesn't quite work like that. It does if its election time. They didnt have an election when JFK was assinanated, the vice president continued until the next election. Appreciate that Iran doesn't really do democracy very well so not quite the same as the US, but the reason for which a new leader is required wont be the peaceful transition the US thinks it may be Quote
wordsfromlee Posted February 28 Posted February 28 2 minutes ago, Tim Healys Chutney Spoon said: It does if its election time. They didnt have an election when JFK was assinanated, the vice president continued until the next election. Appreciate that Iran doesn't really do democracy very well so not quite the same as the US, but the reason for which a new leader is required wont be the peaceful transition the US thinks it may be Just going to gloss over the whole "we" bit then? Quote
Tim Healys Chutney Spoon Posted February 28 Author Posted February 28 We as in the allied forces that have launched the attacks. As I am a staff member of the Air Cadets we are of course linked to the Royal Air Force who have been in action today, albeit in a defensive role. As such we are part of the wider organisation of the RAF and therfore, very distantly, our 'side' did the attacking. Quote
Tamura Posted February 28 Posted February 28 I think you'll find that "we" aren't on the same side as Trump and Netanyahu. Quote
Paid Members Lion_of_the_Midlands Posted February 28 Paid Members Posted February 28 As I understand it the UK were not involved in the attack. That was carried out by the US and Israel, which is not a "We" that we should be part of. The UK actually in a rare show of cojones from Starmer denied the US use of British airbases. The RAF were involved in defending against Iranian retaliatory strikes. As someone who lives two miles from the end of the runway of an RAF base I can tell you I'd be much happier if "We" weren't involved at all. Quote
Tim Healys Chutney Spoon Posted February 28 Author Posted February 28 (edited) The fact British forces have supported the operations today suggests 'we' are. Whether that involvement is supported by the mass public remains to be seen, however based on the recent opposition to the UKs support for Israel in Gaza, I cant see this being overly popular. I guess it all depends on who the 'opposition' is and how they are portrayed. Iran is well known not to be a good place and probably deserve to have regime change, but as usual there is ALWAYS an ulterior motive and frankly its going to end up being about oil. Who decides on how a country is run should only be decided at the ballot box or if the UN pass a resolution that a measured attack or response is required. The US should not be allowed to keep going into places just because they feel like it. The again, other than Russia or China, who can stop them? Like is said, Starmer has shown a bit of strength against Trump and his cronies, but I'm sure the outcome was probably the only compromise the US would accept. Even if the UK said 'no' to the US launching strikes, what realistically could the UK do if the US simply said to their pilots 'here's your mission for today, take off and do your thing in Iran'. Absolutely nothing. Edited February 28 by Tim Healys Chutney Spoon Quote
Paid Members Lion_of_the_Midlands Posted February 28 Paid Members Posted February 28 British forces haven't supported the operations today. What they've done is helped mitigate the consequences of the US/Israeli action. As for Trump or Israel paying any attention to the UN you can forget it. That time has passed. Trump is going to invade wherever he wants. For a man who claimed that he didn't want America to be involved in any more overseas wars he sure needs to distract from domestic issues a lot. It will be Cuba next. Quote
Paid Members johnnyboy Posted March 1 Paid Members Posted March 1 (edited) Have all the Dubai based grifters and tax-avoiders who moved their to escape the "warzone" that is Sadiq Khan's London asked the British taxpayer to evacuate and repatriate them yet? Edited March 1 by johnnyboy Quote
Paid Members LaGoosh Posted March 1 Paid Members Posted March 1 11 hours ago, Tim Healys Chutney Spoon said: It does if its election time. They didnt have an election when JFK was assinanated, the vice president continued until the next election. Appreciate that Iran doesn't really do democracy very well so not quite the same as the US, but the reason for which a new leader is required wont be the peaceful transition the US thinks it may be Not quite sure what you mean at all. Responding to the Ayatollah being killed with "well the next guy will probably be just as bad" is overlooking the seriousness of this completely. It's not a case of Iran just slotting in the next guy and cracking on. The Ayatollah is the HEAD OF STATE. Quote
Mr_Danger Posted March 1 Posted March 1 13 hours ago, SuperBacon said: Excuse me? Maybe he thinks it was the Ayatollah of Rock N Rollah in which case all of us on here played a part. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.