There is no war, but if there is, we’ll be important allies as we always have. It’s far better than appeasing a terrorist state with money and grovelling. Hopefully Boris will bring a spine back to what was once a powerful nation

Except it would be under duress, a kind of blackmail, nice.

Johnson would never have the support of, or mandate from the British people to go to war against Iran in these circumstances. If it were to happen, it would be under a cloak of deceit, like the way Tony Blair took us into Iraq.

You do realise, how Bush made Blair commit troops to Iraq, don't you?

Blair visited him on his ranch in the US, Bush invited him to pray with him in his private chapel and God told them to invade Iraq. After God said this and Bush nodded, Blair couldn't shake his head in denial, he had to nod too and the deal was done. Bush used God to hoodwink him into Iraq.

Then Blair hoodwinked parliament into Iraq with the dodgy dossier, which claimed that Saddam had WMD, which could be deployed directly against the UK in 45 minutes.

This time it will be blackmail.

It’s happening.

Iran launched more than a dozen missiles at two Iraqi bases that hold US troops in what appears to be retaliation for the American airstrike that killed a top Iranian general last week, the Pentagon said Tuesday.

A US official told CNN that there were no initial reports of any US casualties, but an assessment is underway. There are casualties among the Iraqis at Ain al-Asad airbase following the attack, an Iraqi security source tells CNN. The number of casualties and whether the individuals were killed or wounded was not immediately clear.

White House aides are making plans for a possible address to the nation by President Donald Trump, according to two officials.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/politics/rockets-us-airbase-iraq/index.html

Expect Trump to address the nation.

Expect Trump to address the nation. — NOS4A2

What's he going to say? How, because Israel and Saudi Arabia are such great friends, we should destroy Iran for them? Is doing to Iran what was done to Afghanistan and Iraq really the answer? If Trump declares war, won't he be demonstrating how unstable of a leader he is?

Apparently the generals gave him the option of killing Seulemani only as an "extreme option" to make the others seem more reasonable. Why did Trump undo the work Obama had done to make peace with Iran?

I think you will find Americans are decidedly against the notion of going to war with Iran...

Expect Trump to address the nation. — NOS4A2

Whatever comes out of his mouth is without meaning. Then again, maybe it's time for deniers to finally confront that simple fact

There are no facts in Trumpworld.

I think you will find Americans are decidedly against the notion of going to war with Iran...

That won't stop them, he will just tell them Iran's got to be stopped and they will all ( well enough for him to say it's the will of the people) bow down in praise of his greatness.

In the UK we are used to this now.

It’s happening. — NOS4A2

Congratulations! You got yourself the First Trump war.

Or not.

If Trump starts a war and attacks those 52 targets he promised to attack, you'll be for it.

If Trump doesn't start a war (has this huge weak-dick moment) you'll be for it.

Remember this Trump from 2011? Boy, does he accurately predict his own policies (and shows his stupidity).

Nice video, I was remembering this moment.

But remember Trump thinks Obama was a weak black foreigner, not the same.

Trump’s measured response, which included inviting Iran into the civilized world, was in line with Trump’s policy and past statements, directly contradicting the breathless fear-mongering of those fearing war.

How is the US going to prevent Iran becoming a nuclear power?

If Trump doesn't start a war (has this huge weak-dick moment) you'll be for it. — ssu

He's chosen the weak dick moment. Probably he was given little choice by those who know better.

He's chosen the weak dick moment. Probably he was given little choice by those who know better.

So weak dick that he blew up the Ayatollahs right-hand man.

Pushing Tehran into the hands of Russia. This is why they and the Iraqis want the US presence out of the region.

How is the US going to prevent Iran becoming a nuclear power?

Not nuclear power. Nuclear weapons.

What, like North Korea?

Are you going to answer the question about Iran becoming nuclear?

Are you going to answer the question about Iran becoming nuclear?

I believe Iran already has nuclear power. As for nuclear weapons, Trump just suggested a new deal, calling on the E3, China, NATO, Russia to help.

He's chosen the weak dick moment. Probably he was given little choice by those who know better. — Baden

:confused: I wonder if you will ever be able to give President Trump a chance. As "thinkers" we should be able to see both sides of a debate without fear of movement. As Aristotle taught us "It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain the ideas of others without accepting them as our own".

Has President Trump satisfied Aristotle's Challenge on Anger? "To become angry is easy - but to be angry at the right person, at the right time, for the right reason to right degree, that is not so easy."

In this particular case, with strike that killed Iranian Generalneral Qasem Soleimani, I think Aristotle's Challenge was satisfied long ago and was delayed justice.

So they're going to negotiate another deal, just not Obama's deal. By that point they will already have a bomb, then it's to late, and Trump will have to smooze with them.

Obama’s deal didn’t go far enough. The Iranians were allowed to speed up their ballistic missile program while co-signatories could only stand around and watch.

I dont see why Iran's ability to deploy weapons of mass destruction is a problem. It would create balance between Israel and Iran.

I doubt they will get a tighter deal, by that time Iran will be proped up by Russia, so they won't play ball. Trump has scuppered the only chance there was to prevent Iran getting a bomb.

Russia will see the opportunity to close a noose around the Middle East.

I'm arguing about the unnecessary negative affects/effects that several different pieces of legislation have had upon a very large swathe of American citizens lives and livelihoods, namely all those people whose best chance to live comfortably relies on a strong manufacturing sector.

Some of that legislation includes trade agreements. NAFTA is one. I've never claimed that NAFTA is solely responsible for the harm. You're arguing against straw men here. I'm not ignoring anything at all. I'm arguing that there is nothing in that report which can be used to show the financial ruin of many Americans as a result of elected officials acting on behalf of business interests over and above American workers' and consumers.

Having more things to choose from does not equate to being better. Having more jobs doe not equate to being better. You seem to want to call the effects of the questionable legislation 'a positive'. It has not been a positive for a very large swathe of American workers, business owners, and consumers. The workers have lost good jobs, and have been forced to take on more than one job in order to scrape by. The business owners have been forced to compete with companies whose business practices are not legal in the States. The consumers have more and more inferior quality products to choose from.

The GDP is not a measure of the quality of American life. It is not a measure of the quality of American jobs.

There are plenty of economists and other experts who support support exactly what I've been saying. These are facts. There are fewer good jobs with good benefits. Trade deals are one reason, not the only one. Robert Reich has done extensive work on this topic, as has Elizabeth Warren, and many other less famous people.

I've also no argument against the idea that automation inevitably eliminates jobs while creating new ones, albeit fewer. I've no issue with that, at all. Those things work themselves out so long as they are kept stateside. Your attempt to compare automation and with slave labor is telling of your own morality.

My issue is that American elected officials have enacted legislation that was not in the best interest of the overwhelming majority of Americans. This is best shown in the building trades and manufacturing sectors of the American marketplace as far as good paying jobs goes. All sectors show the horrible effects/affects of health insurance, which also affects the same people I'm talking about. The inferior quality of everyday household goods is also a negative impact which affects/effects all American consumers. All of these measures are profit driven.

When profit is the sole motive, to hell with what's best, what's good, what's moral, what's right...

American elected officials have the responsibility to act in the best interest of Americans. When there is a conflict between the many and few, in all cases aside from basic human rights, they ought act to err on the side of the many. When there is a conflict of interest between the wealthy and the poor, they always ought err on the side of the poor. These are basic fundamental beliefs that this country was founded upon. Several of the founding fathers and instrumental revolutionaries have said as much in the writings prior to and right after the revolution.

Perhaps you’re right. I think the only difference between the two is that Iran has explicitly stated its goal is to destroy Israel.

I doubt they will get a tighter deal, by that time Iran will be proped up by Russia, so they won't play ball. Trump has scuppered the only chance there was to prevent Iran getting a bomb.

Russia will see the opportunity to close a noose around the Middle East.

I doubt the entirety of your theorizing, but who knows?

Perhaps you’re right. I think the only difference between the two is that Iran has explicitly stated its goal is to destroy Israel. — NOS4A2

And I understand why they feel that way. I think allies of human potential would love to see them evolve out of theocracy into something a little more sane. And when I say "them' I mean both Iran and Israel.

I’m pretty sure Israel is a parliamentary democracy.

Sometimes.

If someone assassinated Bush Jr for his part in the Iraq war, would you consider that justice? What about stormin' Norman? Does he deserve to die? And can't we do away with Trump for his betrayal of the Kurds? Or is your rule that only American lives matter (because you can be sure that most Iranians have exactly the same view only in the inverse). For me as a neutral military leaders are in the same broad category⁠—people whose job is to kill in the interests of their country. Is there some reason I should think differently? You have to take a step back from your position on one side or the other to make a convincing moral argument. Otherwise, we're just talking about strategy, which is fine, but let's make that explicit.

Pacifism. I'd join you on that higher moral ground, but that hill isn't in this world.

I'm not a pacifist; sometimes the use of military force is justified. The main point I'm making above is that a moral argument would require looking at the full context in a neutral way. I don't expect that here. Strategically, things are simpler, your move should strengthen you and weaken the enemy (at least relatively). And I don't think killing Soleimani achieved that for the Americans. Though the damage on either side has thankfully been limited.