egg

Yes, that's the one. Very impressive.

They serve a decent curry on that route. I was very impressed with the service. Night and day different to the trains down here.

It was expensed mate, peasant class if I'm paying. Nice meal, free drinks trolley, little lounge at Leeds. Fecking expensive though.

Detailed debate is too much for you mate. No objectivity and a complete unwillingness to listen to facts that don't support your narrative. Very sad.

It's nuts. Recently my mate and his mate flew to Istanbul, stayed over, and went to a gig, all for less than I paid for a return (1st class admittedly) to Leeds. £250 ISH iirc.

After all these pages, you still don't get it. Them having a nuke is one point. Whether they were building one is another. Whether they would have rolled their enrichment back to the allowed levels pre 2018 is another. Whether it was right for the US to arbitrarily decide to attac Iran is another. There are other points but you plainly can't see beyond thinking that anyone who doesn't support the US attacks is an Iranian fanboy, and that just muslims can't be trusted with a nuke, so it's pointless. I'm off to watch telly.

Ditto Israel. Despicable does not make them a country who'd nuke another nuclear state who are backed by another nuclear state. Nonsense to suggest they'd do something to wipe their own country and it's people off the face of the earth.

We got there eventually. "Of course" is your opinion. I disagree that there's more chance of Iran using a nuke than anyone else. It'd lead to their destruction.

But more likely than other countries? And because they're a muslim state? Yes?

Yep!!

Ok, but you think they are more likely to than not because they're a muslim state, but that the non muslim states won't. That's what you're saying in a nutshell isn't it.

Well isn't your whole point that yiu believe that Iran will use a nuke if they have one? If that's not your point, what is your point?

Good chiropractor's can work miracles. No reason why they can't adjust an animal and get them fixed up.

Typical Hypo mate. You disagree with him and he just makes stuff up. Earlier I apparently said that the Iranians were pretending to build a nuke.

That's incredibly stupid. Incredibly. There is a binary choice in your head only. Well, Trump's perhaps.

Hilton

Good point. Hopefully he's ok.

Indeed. Essentially, we're expected not to trust Iran, but trust the rest. I don't trust Israel with a nuke anymore than I trust Iran, and I certainly trust very little that Trump says. I still think it's necessary to understand the Iran and US stance in the negotiations. If Iran were willing to roll back enrichment levels to where they were before Trump pulled the plug on the 2018 deal, the US have a case to answer. If Iran weren't, then my sympathy has gone.

Yep. And a regime who buy into normal relations with Israel (aka agree to sit back and allow them to fill their boots) from the off.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency Japan are a "hop, skip and a jump" away from a nuke. 2. I'm not sure who's said they were pretending to build a nuke. Bizarre interpretation. They're enriching uranium, and could build a nuke once they have, but there's zero evidence that they were actually building one. What's your position re the other points please?

1. Google is your friend. 2. There is no evidence of either parties stance in the talks, save that the US were publicly saying no enriched uranium. Where's the evidence that until Trump blew up the deal in 2018 that Iran weren't playing the game? Assuming they were, why would they not retreat to their pre 2018 position? The leverage flows from that - Iran demonstrated that they had the ability.

Japan are widely known to be able to put together nukes at the click of a finger. Iran weren't that close it would seem. If Iran were willing to roll back their enrichment to pre 2018 levels, and facilitate access to inspection, what would be the issue?

Misguided leverage.

Yes. Many countries have it without nuclear weapons. Japan, South Africa, etc. This seems to come back to people being cool with Israel having a nuke but Iran not having any form of nuclear.

You're conflating the desire of some Iranians wish for change with other countries wish for change. Entirely different, and with different motivation. Iran were on the road to being a successful state. Until 1953 they had a democratic government. The UK and US engineered a coup. Iran then got the Shah, who ran the country with US "support". The Iranians didn't like the level of Western ism, and influence. They then had the revolution in 1979, leading to the "supreme leader", and we've seen what happened since. No doubt some Iranians want change. Moreover, the west want change. They want a malleable leader (again). This is all about regime change, and softening up the Iranian masses to want it and accept outside "support". Basically, Iran are being taken back to 1953.