egg

Wow. Just wow.

We are paying the price for the sell off of council houses. Thatchers government did not replenish the stock, and seeking to blame subsequent governments for failing to rectify the damage caused, is overly generous to that government for the initial policy. Fast forward all these years, and we have rampant house and rental prices flowing from a lack of affordable and social housing. We wouldn't be in such a mess of it wasn't for that policy. Gas. It's madness that we see our gas go into private hands then rely on shipping or piping it in at commercial prices. That situation should never have come about. We plainly need steel for industry and more importantly, security. That we've had to steal a plant back from Chinese ownership says it all. Then coal. We need it to operate the steelworks. We don't have enough, so again are a hostage to fortune. That's all ignoring that we need to be energy self sufficient, and coal plays a part on that. Losing those industries to private ownership has left us horribly exposed. We're an island nation, and cannot rely on external sources for vitals in times of strife. Water we kind of agree on, but again you blame others for not being able (or willing, granted) to row back from another stupid Thatcher concept. Simply, the privatisation should never have happened. I don't care if those basic and essential services were loss making. They're vital. S.28 and ANC of course aren't relevant today, ditto poll tax, but they were awful policies that were indicative of the woman.

We could debate the bad parts of each regime all day and probably disagree at the end! However, their domestic policy, as bad as it is, is exactly that. This discussion is mostly about Israel and it's policies in Gaza, and now it's foreign policies into the wider region. If there's a suggestion that the west should seek to impose regime change on other countries and states just because we don't like it, we absolutely shouldn't.

There aren't many white Islamists mate. You know what you meant. It's what you always mean.

And that belief (stated as a fact, which it isn't) is at the centre of the populist belief on here. Which military has shown themselves to be more aggressive towards civilians and other nations? There's a clear winner.

No, but the Islamists you mention probably are Muslim. Ditto teh Iranians. Feck me.

Poor swerve. Please answer: Are you comfortable with a nuclear armed Israel having a clear path to a weakened Iran? Do you think that the chances of Israel using a nuke against Iran would be reduced or increased by Iran having a nuclear deterrent? I know that you can't accept Israel as an aggressor, but they are

Ah ok, so the white people can have them, but not the brown Muslims. Gotcha. And yes, if Iran were nuked up, then absolutely, Israel ought to have a nuclear deterrent but they've got nukes anyway so it's a pointless question.

Are you comfortable with a nuclear armed Israel having a clear path to a weakened Iran? Do you think that the chances of Israel using a nuke against Iran would be reduced or increased by Iran having a nuclear deterrent? I know that you can't accept Israel as an aggressor, but they are.

I'm not sure you've thought through why nuclear armed states have become nuclear armed. Since WW2, it's been for a direct threat and then deterrence purposes. India and Pakistan is much more stable with the them both having equality of arms. Sure, you'd like them to live in eternal peace nuclear free, but one is nuked so understandable that the other is and serious war between them is about as likely as war between the US and Russia, and that's for one reason only.

I think you interpret what you read and hear, whether here or elsewhere, to suit your narrative. The depth and extent of thus issue is lost on you.

However you cut it, as a (western) person, it's obvious that Israel would be a better place to live. However, their government is barbaric, and I don't much like the Iranian domestic policies either. Re governments, we still, imo, come back to much of these issues being solved if the Israelis stop their Zionist approach, and facilitate a 2 state solution, but that ship has well and truly sailed.

That wasn't what I replied to. It was your nonsensical mention of Iranian domestic policy and the killing of an Iranian woman in the context of the wider dispute and nukes. It was stupid.

Like what? They have a questionable domestic policy, and a loathing for Israel, but there's absolutely nothing to suggest that they'd nuke Israel only to face decimation. No nation has used a nuke in over 80 years. That's only because those they'd want to harm have nukes. We all know that. We were told forever that North Korea having nukes would be devastating. That's proven to be bollox. They want to be left alone, and militarily they will be, although financially they won't be as they've not done as they're told.

That's stupid even by your standards.

On that we agree. The path across Iraq and Syria leaves them exposed geographically. Throw in the likely decimation of air defences and air force last year, the lack of Syrian air support, and the US owning Iraqi airspace, and they are very much a wounded animal.

As a citizen, Israel would offer more, but that's got zero relevance to the behaviour of the Israeli leadership.

I suspect the October strikes weakened them big time.

I just don't see that given the inevitable consequences - Iran and it's people would be destroyed. Wanting Israel to not exist, but nuking it, are different things. I think the perceived Iranian threat has been instilled so much over so long that people see it as more than it is imo. The damage in that region is and has been caused by allowing the Israeli regime to do wtf they like with impunity for 50+ years, not from those opposing that conduct.

Depends on your outlook, and what propaganda you swallow. Iran are no more likely to use a nuke in anger than any other nuclear power imo. They want a deterrent as per North Korea. Pakistan and India will never go toe to toe on large scale due to their mutual nuclear threat. The same would apply re Israel and Iran, but the last god knows many years have been about building Israel (and to an extent Saudi) as the only real strength in the middle east, and bringing down any threat to that. You've only got to see the clear run that Israel now have to Iran, with the Iraqi airspace patrolled by the US. As Farmer says, regime change in Israel is much more necessary than Iran.

Absolutely!

For me it depends how much Israel escalates. Netanyahu's comments imply that he wants regime change in Iran, and we've seen what he's capable of in his pursuit of that in Gaza. I don't think there's much meaningful support for Iran from any of the others, but depending on what Israel do, I think there's a real risk of someone pressing the fuck it button and doing something daft.

Too many awful things for me - industry, her stance re the ANC, s.28, mines/steel, social housing sell off, gas/water privatisation, poll tax etc, etc. We're all paying the price for a lot of that now.

That was a daft statement from a woman who did many a daft thing. We, as a nation, are still suffering from her decisions. Great lady, my arse.

To begin with: "You can never win with left leaning people. It is a derangement syndrome. Like Trump or Musk or Farage. They could clean up world wars, end poverty and cure cancer and people on here would still say things like 'Ah but....' or, 'yeah in-spite of them....' etc.They will never say a bad word about the ones they like and support, and likewise will never say a good word about those they opposed and dislike. It is a childish, narrow minded blinkered outlook and a big reason why the world is in such a mess".