And in the end we'll talk about Iranian nukes as we do about North Korean nukes. And life goes on.

And what will Israel talk about?

I answered the point in the first sentence. The second paragraph was an off topic criticism of a newspaper.

Going back to the point. I know what Iran used to be like and I felt the pain in 1979. But the US had become involved by that point and it may have been unsustainable, the imposition of western values in these countries. If the US had treated the Iranians with respect in the interim as they deserved, they might be best of friends by now, I know this is a big if. But the distrust, duplicity and superior arrogance of the US has not gone down well in the region. This may now be the end game.

The problem being what happens next if the US pulls out?

I know the Shah wasn’t too popular, but people forget what Iran was once like.

This is geopolitics, America shouldn't have meddled in Iran in the first place.

I noticed you linked to The Daily Mail, one of the worst bigoted racist gutter rags in Britain, it should be burnt in the streets. I appreciate you probably didn't know this, my rant was not personal, or directed at you. People who don't live in the UK should be aware of the gutter press we have to put up with. I note Meghan Markle is moving to Canada now.

The winner here is the developing Russia/China axis with Iran and North Korea as untouchable assets harassing and undermining US interests

Yes Trump is pushing Iran over to the other side, a tragic miscalculation. Iran was key to the whole region, it straddles the underbelly of Russia. So with a ring of client states across the Middle East and into Asia, Russia will bare down on all the other small states in the region. Eventually the US will retreat and bury their head in the sand back home.

Iran is incompetent

Imagine if they had nuclear weapons.

For what it's worth I supported Obama's Iran deal, imperfect as it was. For someone who wants to get us out of the wars

Agreed, it was imperfect and did perhaps give Iran to much space to get involved in the proxy wars and enrich some uranium. But I thought it was as good as it was going to get. Iran was become more prosperous again and would at some point become more moderate on their own. Rubbing them up the wrong way as Trump is doing is uniting them against him. The US may now have to withdraw from the region.

Have you ever considered the events of the last few days between America and Iran showing a greater understanding and appreciation of each other than ever before?

I must admit, I really don't know what to say now.

It now seems that it was the air defence system that mis-identified the flight as a hostile, which does seem plausible

Plausible until one considers that the missiles where positioned, or at least covering the flight path of domestic flights in and out of the airport.

I agree, that it was Bush and Blair who ramped it up over there. But the meddling in the region goes back a long way. As I see it, the US has always taken to hard a line, had they worked more constructively with Iran following the gulf war and with some respect things would be just fine by now. It was always going to be a struggle to prevent them getting a nuclear bomb, but I do think the region could have been calmed down and the way forward positive by now. But the US always takes this tough line and rubs proud leaders in the region up the wrong way. Now Trump has lobbed a stink bomb in there for what appears to be purposes of electioneering. Also he is endorsing Israel which is getting increasing paranoid and tetchy.

I dont see the point, I can't see any way out of this for Trump. Well apart from his accepting that Iran will become a nuclear power, perhaps he can live with that. I doubt Israel can.

So you've seen the light, that's a weight off my mind.

I have already answered this in reply to your questions and NOS4A2 yesterday.

To summarise, any curb on Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb has now been removed and an incentive (numerous incentives) put in its place to acquire it more quickly. Also by taking such a hard line Trump is in danger of pushing Iran into the hands of the Russians. An outcome which probably won't end well.

He probably didn't answer because it's a stupid question. How could we possibly know?

NOS4A2's answer to the question was that Trump is now going to strike a tougher deal with the Iranians.

Fat chance of that, sounds like he's got as little idea about what to do next, as Trump.

I'm not partisan, I'm over the pond. My interest is how the Middle East is going to kick off. My only concern is that there isn't a nuclear conflagration in the region. Its looking more likely now. Especially if this is the beginning of the US moving out of the region.

I wonder why, today, Trump is insisting that the Boeing 737 was shot down over Tehran 'by mistake'? How does he know that? Would it be because if it was actually some hothead with a shoulder-launched missile avenging Suleiman's death, then it suggests unwanted consequences from the assassination?

Good point, I saw that press conference. Trump was at pains to say that it was not a US operation that brought down the plane, not our mistake, that it was probably an accident by the other side. It's a rough neighbourhood. He did look a bit guilty to me, I think he knew by that point that it was a small scale missile strike probably a small group of hotheads like you say, they were positioned in the flight path of aircraft taking off from Tehran airport. It doesn't look like it was a mistake that they set up their missiles there. Also some media are suggesting that it was anti aircraft missiles attacking a suspected US airforce plane. Again, that was unlikely to happen in the flightpath of the airport.

It's looking like there are two people with the blood of those airline passengers on their hands, Trump and the those hotheads with that missile. Perhaps they were given the nod by the leaders, who then put out the press reports that it was an engine fire, afterwards. Outwitting The US, killing over 70 western citizens in reprisal for the assassination of Sulimani, in such a way that the US was found to be impotent, simply because it wasn't clear who actually killed them. This sets the stage for many more such accidents committed by rogue elements etc.

You seem to have the same attitude to this issue as to climate change. Nothing to important, it will all sort itself out soon enough, folk are sensible enough and will come to some accommodation eventually.

I will ask you what I asked NOS4A2 and didn't get much of an answer, how will Trump prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb?

Folk should realise that israel is paranoid of Iran and looks to the US to pacify them and prevent them acquiring a nuclear bomb. Trump has just lost any leverage he had with Iran, they are now going to acquire the bomb at the first opportunity and the only way Trump can stop them is to go to war.

He has already fought back the 'biggest tragedy in history', the collapse of the Soviet Union, by annexing Crimea ...and annexing parts of Georgia back to Russia. Those were popular moves with many Russians

Yes and we already know that Putin has been characterising Europe and the US as aggressors against Russia in the Russian media. This fires up his base as it portrays him as a strong man look after their interests. He also played a smart move by going to help Assad in Syria, giving him more kudos and giving him his entry back onto the world stage. Iran is ripe for the picking now that Trump is going to strangle Iran.

When I say Brexit will be done, I mean we will have legally left the EU on that date. Before that date we are still members and could in theory revoke article 50. After that day, our membership is history and to remain in any sense of the word is impossible.

You may be right about the next stage and Iran, but I don't think Trump is going to back down. The problem with Iran is that they are now going to get a nuclear bomb, which the US will not allow under any circumstances. The reasons for this are complex and include the paranoia of Israel. In fact I expect that Israel will probably launch a preemptive strike on Iran before the US if it looks like the Iranians are close to acquiring the bomb. So in such scenarios, it is not Iran who starts the war, all they do is continue with their ambition to acquire the bomb and I see no sign that they are going to stop in that.

I agree with the first paragraph. With the second it shows that johnson is still running scarred of appearing with, or endorsing Trump. He is probably on the phone to Trump making excuses.

More importantly Trump will be waiting for Johnson's endorsement, especially if there is an escalation in tension. If Johnson wants his trade deal he has to get into bed with Trump, which will require committing UK soldiers in any crackpot wars Trump gets involved in. If he commits troops, the protests will dwarf the stop the war march we had the last time.

I expect the Johnson has been begging Trump to hold off any escalation until after leaving Day on January 31st. Once we're past that point Johnson will come out of hiding and get into bed with Trump, because Brexit will be done and there will be nothing anyone can do about it.

We could go back and forth over a lot of those issues, for a few pages and it probably wouldn't leave anyone any the wiser. I was speculating on what would happen should the US turn its back. There would be a vacuum of sorts.

I don't think we should underestimate what is going through Putin's mind. But he does seem to be testing the borders of the territory that is has influence over. It would be remarkable if he weren't looking at the chaos over the pond and looking for opportunities.

When I said "breathing down necks", I was referring to a future scenario in which there is a ring of Russian client states around the whole region. It might not happen, but is it a risk.

If the US turns away, then Russia will fill the void. They are spreading their influence through Ukraine, Turkey and Syria already. If they get into bed with Iran, then Iraq will be swallowed up by Iran. They may look at Afghanistan again.

They will be breathing down the necks of Europe, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Where’s the benefit for them in this?

To re-establish their role on the world stage as a super power. They probably feel diminished now that a number of Eastern European states have now joined the EU, who were once under their control. You know, geopolitical stuff.

I don't know, but I expect they will want to become an influential friend to a crescent of countries across the Middle East. They talk of Syria as a client state, Turkey has been cooperating with Russia and falling out with the US. As the US strangles Iran with sanctions etc and a promise for a much tougher nuclear deal than the Obama deal, they will look for friends to bolster their economy and prestige. A perfect moment for Russia to step forward. They might even lend Iran a nuclear bomb. This would then enable Iran to begin to dominate the region with a nuclear power behind them. Giving Russia a dominant presence in the region and forcing any US, or European presence remaining out.

Looks like a win win to me and a lose lose for NATO.

Quite so, it's populism on steroids again, showmanship designed to deflect from the impeachment scandal and win an election. Trump doesn't know how to do anything else, in reality he's The King of Comedy.

Unfortunately by his self obsessed behaviour, he is losing the US presence in the Middle East, leaving a vacuum to be filled by Russia, or China. I expect Russia will make the first move, as they have already been showing their presence in the Middle East. This is a big prize for them, because they lost the East European states to the EU. Ever since they have been looking to expand into the countries around the periphery of Europe, what better prize is there than Iran?

I expect in about ten years we will have a proxy war stand off between a US backed Israel and a Russian backed Iran, both sides bristling with nuclear weapons.

All thanks to The King of Comedy Donald Trump, ( read Rupert Pupkin).

Watching Trump's victory speech, it was classic electioneering. He is claiming the kudos of a war hero, without having the war, a smart move, it will work in deflecting from the impeachment scandal and empowering his base.

But to the intelligent onlooker it's just more populism on steroids. It achieves its aim to keep a showman in charge of the show, " The Greatest Show on Earth", behold the mighty Kong, KING KONG.

But it's not a show, is it? The show is just a fascade.

In reality it's an office, perhaps the most important office in the world, with great responsibilities, an office supposed to be showing great statesmanship in its careful and considered governance of the most influential state in the world which over the last century has been showing leadership across the world.

Such a great office reduced to a sideshow, it's like Penguin in Batman has won and now controls Gotham City.

The tragedy is that it is betraying this high office, the country and the world for a sop, it's not even the spectacle of King Kong, it's The King of Comedy, Rupert Pupkin.

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.

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.

What, like North Korea?

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

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

We still don't know how the airliner came down in Tehran lastnight with Brits, Germans and over 50 Canadians on board.

Also Israel is bristling with Nuclear Weapons, this might be their opportunity to attack.

The other player we are not hearing about, who might now fill the void is Russia. They could give Tehran a nuclear bomb, in return for influence in the region. Russia tightening its grip on the Middle East.

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

I'm envious of your weather (assuming you don't have tornados), here it has been cold, cloudy and rainy for about four months. We have tiny, or stormy waves here so poor surfing also.

Nice video, I was remembering this moment.

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

I don't know why this thread has been hijacked by people talking about Kant, it must be a kind of Twister played by philosophers.

It's really very simple as Wayfarer pointed out in the first reply. The distinction between subject and object is a function of the mind body duality of humans.

So subject is that perceived, understood, inferred and discussed by the mind.

The object is what is sensed, or encountered by the body.

Simples.

Now is the time for him to step up to the plate, as the US is on the brink of war. But he seems to be hiding.

Will the Iran war expose the weakness of an independent UK, soon to be Little England.

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.

But how could he ever proof to himself that he is in contact with every possible being?

Well I don't think we can answer that, or even if it is a valid question. I don't see why it is important, he might be in contact with all the beings in a discreet eternal space. This does not negate other possible discreet eternities.

Anyway another point I was going to make in reference to your argument, was that for real beings there might not be any such thing as a non benevolent being, that might only occur in artificially constructed realities.

God cannot be omniscient unless he has a very strange nature. The clue is 'know thyself'.

Perhaps I should ask you to define God, or which theological system you are referencing?

I am saying that our kind of thinking is not up to the job of saying what Gods nature is or isn't. Let me illustrate how God can be both omniscient and limited at the same time. At the end of my last post I mentioned communion. God might be in eternal communion with a near endless number of other Gods, who as a collective are essentially omniscient. So God is not "god fearing", or lacking of any knowledge of all the other Gods out there. On the contrary God might be in eternal communion with all other real beings (remember, I am suggesting that we as we know ourselves are not real, but constructs).