egg

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.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya give a flavour of what the US leave behind mate. Sad carry on.

Some of us don't share your view that the Israeli regime are decent humans mate. What's your view - Iranian BS, friendly fire, or something else?

Of course, but I'm in no doubt this was a deliberate hit by the IDF. There'll be some excuse that people will buy.

So friendly fire? FFS.

This has nothing to do with improving things for the Iranian people. They'll endure death, destruction, displacement and instability. Regime change only gives a subservient state who'll be powerless to react to whatever Israel get up to in Gaza, West bank (Inc inevitable US approved annexation), Lebanon, and wherever else they want to meddle.

Who are smart, and in this case, demonstrably callous.

With their precision, are you suggesting it was potentially inadvertent? 51 kids dead now.

More kids targeted by Israel, and in pre emptive strikes that weren't actually pre emptive. Doubtless someone will suggest an IRGC bloke was seen in the vicinity. "Number of students killed in Israeli attack on school in southern Iran rises to 24 We have reported earlier that an Israeli strike hit an elementary girl’s school in Minab, a city in the Hormozgan province of southern Iran, killing five people. Now, Iran’s Fars news agency is reporting that the number of students killed rose to 24".

Either way, it's a shocking attempt at justifying this, and rather ignores the US supply and support of Israel. The bottom line re the latest aggression is that the pretext of protecting the US is utter bollox.

George Galloway of all people talking sense. Trump wouldn't take yes for an answer is a great line. "Israel has launched an attack on Iran. Air raid sirens are wailing throughout Israel. All is unclear at this stage except this: once again US negotiations were a low-down trick. Nothing the Iranians could have done would have avoided war. Trump wouldn’t take yes for an answer. This is a lesson to all who still have faith in negotiations with the USA. In this lawless world political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. Trump’s words are not his bond they are merely more lies. George Galloway In Exile"