• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Israel/US Attacks Iran /Yet Another Country/Iran

No, you are not reading what I have written.

He often folds, which means he doesn't always.
You're portraying following the law as a bad thing. How often you think he folds is irrelevant to that.
 
Again, you are not reading what I wrote.

Ignoring 1/3 (the flip side of following 2/3 of the rulings) is appalling.
You have contradictory standards. Is following the law a good thing or a bad thing? You have said it's both.
 
These two quotes seem to exemplify the Schroedinger's theory for UK participation in the war with Iran...
And if the UK hadn't trashed their own hard power, they might actually have something useful to contribute.

Is keeping Hormuz open really participating in Trump's war?
The UK is unable to contribute something and also it's vitally important that they contribute something!

There is still no clear strategy. Everyone is in the dark about the purpose of the war.

You yourself have "suspected" that this is all about killing off the first layer of the regime and then negotiating with someone more pliant, whereas jts thinks it is about killing as many of the IRGC as possible. It's possible that you are going by what America wants whereas jts is going by what Israel wants.

I suspect the plan will be similar to Venezuela. A decapitation strike, followed by another round of negotiations with whoever is left in charge.

Disagree. Goal is full-scale regime change. We will bomb the IRGC relentlessly.
But either way, who wants to join a war with no clear strategy?

Why would Britain want to send its aricraft carriers or minesweepers into a place where they are just going to be shot to pieces if they don't even know what they are doing it for?
 
The UK is unable to contribute something and also it's vitally important that they contribute something!
I never said it was vital. They stand to benefit from opening Hormuz, but I never claimed they needed to.
There is still no clear strategy. Everyone is in the dark about the purpose of the war.
The purpose is very clear: destroy Iran's military power and nuclear program.
But either way, who wants to join a war with no clear strategy?
You didn't answer my earlier question: is keeping Hormuz open joining a war? I don't think it is. Do you feel otherwise?
Why would Britain want to send its aricraft carriers or minesweepers into a place where they are just going to be shot to pieces
Are you saying they aren't able to defend themselves from Iran? That's pretty damning.

But if you don't understand why it might be in the UK's interest to ensure freedom of navigation, even if just for non-belligerents, then I guess that's why the UK navy has fallen so far.
 
Why would Britain want to send its aricraft carriers or minesweepers into a place where they are just going to be shot to pieces if they don't even know what they are doing it for?
The whole point of a navy is to serve national interests by going in harm's way.

If opening the Strait of Hormuz serves UKian interests, why wouldn't they exercise naval power to that end? Because they can't, of course.
 
I think Trump had a clear final goal; Regime Change in Iran, but was totally mistaken about how much of a military effort it would take. He seemes t othink a few airstrikes would do the job.
 
So the UK is cutting off its own nose to spite Trump's face?
No. Sending ships sounds like an invitation to cut off its own nose to perform a futile gesture.

And yes, you may be right that the UK cannot open the Strait of Hormuz. All the more insane to send ships in there anyway.

Is that damning of the UK's naval abilities or military prowess? Yes, maybe it is.

But that only underlines the idiocy of sending ships to attempt something it is incapable of doing.
 
Are you saying they aren't able to defend themselves from Iran? That's pretty damning.
It may well be. So given the damning verdict, what do you think the UK should do?
But if you don't understand why it might be in the UK's interest to ensure freedom of navigation, even if just for non-belligerents, then I guess that's why the UK navy has fallen so far.
It may well be. So given the damning verdict, what do you think the UK should do?
 
And yes, you may be right that the UK cannot open the Strait of Hormuz. All the more insane to send ships in there anyway.

Is that damning of the UK's naval abilities or military prowess? Yes, maybe it is.
There’s no maybe about it. And it’s not just the UK.

Europe is weak. That weakness was a deliberate choice. Trump’s call puts a spotlight on that shameful weakness. They can lecture us all they want to, but they can’t defend themselves and their interests.
 
It may well be. So given the damning verdict, what do you think the UK should do?
The first step is to admit the error that they made in letting themselves become weak. That’s about all they can do in the short term. The second step is to start correcting that mistake by investing not only in their military but also their industrial capacity.
 
The first step is to admit the error that they made in letting themselves become weak. That’s about all they can do in the short term. The second step is to start correcting that mistake by investing not only in their military but also their industrial capacity.
That they should do, and also pursue an independent foreign policy, so that they don't get suckered into joining wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya which were not in their interests.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom