egg

Carbohydrates

Not in 18 months or whatever it's been. It'll take a couple of terms and a shit load of money to get us anywhere near where we should be.

Free

As has been said, it was a civil court finding on the balance of probabilities, not a criminal court where the jury were convinced beyond all reasonable doubt. They're two completely different things - it isn't semantics. It's worth remembering that a UK High Court Judge found on the balance of probabilities in a civil case that Jonny Depp had done all sorts to Amber Heard. There's no way he'd have been convicted in a criminal court on the same facts and evidence. That's because Civil court decisions, based on little more than hunches and gut feel, are a world away from a criminal conviction.

Fair point.

Yep. The rules based system doesn't exist for the big boys. The West sitting back and tolerating Crimea set this off, and at it's simplest, Trump will do wtf he wants without meaningful international opposition.

I think your last sentence is the crux. We're not privy to the negotiations, and have no idea what was said or not said. I suspect the truth is there was no imminent danger as such, but more of a let's stop wasting time with these idiots and end them.

Article 51 is crystal clear. If there was an imminent threat, preventative action was legal. If there wasn't, it was illegal. Doubtless we'll be told what the imminent threat to the US and Israel was.

Anyone who's apparently worked on criminal prosecutions knows that a guilty verdict only follows a criminal prosecution. It's not semantics, it's a different thing.

The point was in the context of what they were asked to concede to do a deal, not what's happened previously. The last point was relevant to that, and according to the Omani mediator, it was conceded, thus saying yes wasn't enough.

Took a while, with a few casualties.

The point is the instability etc post regime change. I doubt Iranians will want the instability that other Muslim countries have suffered, and US / Israeli interference.

Our friends at ChatGPT are between us: "Many Iraqis are relieved that Saddam Hussein is gone, especially groups that suffered most under his regime. But widespread disappointment with instability, corruption, and violence after 2003 means that satisfaction with how things turned out is far from universal". In short, regime change hasn't gone down a storm.

Yep, sadly, they're run ins are favourable. Last week looks costly, but there's loads of points to play for and other teams will have dips, injuries, suspensions etc. It'll be touch and go.

It's not for countries to enforce regime change on others. When has it ended well after US meddling? Would the average Iraqi or Libyan prefer what they had pre western enforced change, or what they've had since? How did it go on Afghanistan? Years of war, displacements, etc, and back where they started. I bet they're dead grateful for that.

I think it's fair to say that neither of us know how the average Iranian feels, or what they want. They probably want this regime gone, but not, I suspect, at the expense of foreign (US) interference and/or instability. Would I prefer to see the Iranian regime replaced, absolutely, but we've seen time and time before how it goes when the US enforce regime change. There'll be al sorts of fallout and instability - look at Libya and Iraq as examples. In short, there shouldn't be enforced regime change in this way. There also shouldn't have been killings of kids, and the indiscriminate response from Iran. There's also a sad irony of the military being used to do this being under the control of two appalling leaders who lead pretty messed up regimes. The wider picture is why Israel and the US want a compliant Iran. Whilst they want to be safe at the hands of the proxies, understandably, another way of putting that is that they don't want any armed opposition to the IDF. If the Iranian regime are toppled and Iran weakened, which seems likely, I'd bet you a pound to a penny that Israel's expansion will go up a notch.

You're an angry chap mate. Calm it. You're clear in your own head only.

Oh, you weren't clear in saying that this was Iranian fire in your view. Blimey. So no chance it was Israeli, whether deliberately or inadvertently?

Biased, no, just not so naive as to believe that the US are protecting it's interests and/or acting in the interests of the Iranian people. It staggers me that people buy that nonsense. The US and Israel together, in this mood, make the world a more dangerous place than Iran do imo. Other views are available.

To be fair, I think that was to be his role. Hopefully Stewart will be ready for next time.

You were waffling as per so it wasn't easy to see the wood for the trees. Thanks for clarifying. If the Iranians strike a school, I assume you'll give them the same benefit of the doubt.

Yep. Although we all wanted a back 4, it was clear we couldn't put a credible one out there with what we had. Great that he's back.

Oh absolutely, no dispute there. it's just that everyone above us keeps winning, but fantastic that we still have something to play for.

Crazy that we seem to need to win every game just to nudge into the play offs.

I'm still waiting for your opinion on what happened.