Verbal

Thanks for that.

Can we please forget Alpine? I'm not in favour generally of ignoring anyone, but this was an engaging thread until he came along and turned it into a thread about him. Again.

Just as Assad would never tolerate any opposition, nor Gaddafi tolerate even a whisper of dissent. And Mubarak will simply murder any rebellious Egyptians. As for Tunisia - not a chance. BTW, this is the last response from me to any of your posts on this subject. You're really beyond common sense.

The end-game in Iran is regime change. But various American-led 'coalitions' have tried doing that with invasions and occupation, and finally hit upon a formula which kind of worked in Libya. (Kind of...) Any direct outside intervention in Iran cuts the 'green' opposition off at the knees. And that opposition is deeply rooted in a sophisticated, very well-educated, consumer-oriented, civil-rights-conscious middle class. So it's reasonable to assume that strategists in the West would advocate actions (or the lack of them) that buttress that opposition. There are a number of policy interventions that suggests this is the case, from sanctions targeted at regime frontmen to additional funding for the BBC's well-regarded (and much hated by the regime) Persian Service. These interventions also include very carefully calibrated contacts with key opposition figures like Mousavi. As far as Israel is concerned, I'd disagree that 'the West' is unambiguous in its support. The US, certainly. Europe, not so much - and it's that equivocation that buys political space for interventions that don't squash the opposition in a 'it's-us-against-the-world' reaction that would necessarily follow overt aggression from the West. PS: if you want in a very small way to support the opposition in Iran, go and see the movie "A Separation". Not only is it a great movie; films, which Iran is excelling at right now, are a key way of disseminating opposition ideas in the country

The reality is that Iran isn't going to start lobbing nuclear weapons at Israel, whatever anyone says. If you've been to the Middle East, especially around the Israeli, Jordanian and Saudi borders, you realise how TINY the place is. Even the smallest of nuclear warheads targeted at Israel would wipe out millions, Arabs and Jews alike. And as for the rhetoric, yes, it's true that Ahmadinejad did not say '...off the map', but even if he had, it doesn't mean he's going to do it. Just as with the American politicians in the US primaries, you can say something for one audience which will go down badly with another. It's all part of a political calculation. I do expect there to be trouble in the Straits. I do not expect a war. It's in no one's interest.

Nope. You really have lost a grasp of simple English. I give up. You're a waste of time, sadly.

I can only imagine you are struggling with the English language. I'm not blaming anyone. How on earth do you get from my comments to your nonsense? The point is we are where we are TODAY because of 1953 and the collapsing dominoes of history ever since. you actually highlighted the bit where I said that earlier and then applied your very, very odd way of ignoring it altogether.

And America's stupid neo-Con adventure in Iraq had the consequence of what with the price of oil exactly?

Pardon? And by what measure am I a 'leftie'? Why don't you stop slinging insults and try and engage sensibly in the debate. You clearly don't think that the CIA's actions in 1953 had any lasting consequences worth considering. The reality is that they led directly to where we are today. I can offer you a copious reading list of peer-reviewed history books to confirm this if you like, but I have the feeling that, in your case, it'll be a complete waste of time.

I think the point many have made on here is that 'looking after our interests' has, historically for the West, meant the equivalent of setting your own hair on fire and trying to put it out with a hammer (The CIA's coup against Mossadeq in 1953 being just one example)

I think DT's right on this one. Fulham, sadly.

Which is again the management of risk, obviously. The West has no interest in war with Iran, despite the rhetoric from the US primaries. And it's clearly in the West's interests for the internal opposition to succeed in regime change.

Isn't Samba off to Spurs, who are offering 50% more for him than you, and who rather more clearly fulfil his desire to be with a 'successful' club? Chelsea have turned down your offer for Alex, as have Fulham for Hughes' persistent attempts to sign Andrew Johnson - although I suspect you'll succeed with the latter.

True. I do enjoy a good ski.

Anti-semitism? Really? I haven't seen any example of that on here. Can you point it out? Or any lauding of the Iranian regime (who the hell would?). Or any loathing of the US. (Is criticism equal to pathological hatred in your mind?) Honestly Alpine, you really should try to step outside of your prison of ill-conceived prejudices and preconceptions, and try engaging with an argument as opposed to making sweeping, rather dumb accusations.

No, just ignorant.

As others have pointed out, this is a ridiculous response. But aside from your somehow wiping Hiroshima and Nagasaki away from your memory, or probably not even knowing that the last time a democracy threatened to go nuclear was 2002 (look it up), you really lack an ability to engage in an argument sensibly. To repeat: it's about the calculation of risk - and actually the Israelis' among others, are doing exactly the same thing, calculating risk, which is why they haven't conducted air strikes against nuclear facilities, but have confined themselves (in all likelihood) to the series of targeted assassinations of nuclear scientists, officials and revolutionary guards. One calculation is: the difference between the nuclear facilities now and then is that now they're up and running. So any attack could have truly shocking consequences. The world would unite in condemning the reckless killing of god knows how many people, and the regime would be handed the biggest propaganda coup of its life. But a bigger one is that we've already seen from the first wave of the Green Revolution that there's a voluble opposition to the regime from Iran's relatively large and very well educated middle class. Any outside aggression will destroy that. Change HAS to come from within. Any idea that you can bomb everyone into democracy is, shall we say, a little discredited.

This isn't going to make anyone look good at QPR when it comes out. The inside story on Dexter Blackstock is actually shocking, and utterly depressing. http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/jan/12/the-four-year-plan-qpr-film

Who started the Arab Spring? In one sense it did begin in Iran - but with the 'Green Revolution' that followed the rigged presidential elections of 2009, not as some wild conspiracy by the clerical state. The idea that the Iranian clerics created a radical, grass-roots popular opposition to itself is, of course, silly, and is the kind of garbage I've heard from a few self-serving Wahhabi 'commentators', keen to justify the brutal suppression of the Shia majority in Bahrain for example. Of course, the majority of the Arab Spring has been fought by nominally Sunni Muslim, not Shia - although the uprising has precious little to do with religion but with basic civil rights.

Both of those are on Iran's borders, of course. Not sure who you mean by 'placard-waving fanatics'. Are you referring to the Green Revolution - the movement that was effectively the immediate precursor of the Arab Spring, and which was brutally suppressed by the clerics?

Still revelling in your violent fantasies I see.

Has anyone seriously argued that Iran is 'misunderstood'? Most on here have suggested a calculation of risk. Whatever claims you want to make about the ruling clerics' fanaticism - and it IS pretty dreadful, although mostly and brutally directed at Iranians - what is the worst that Iran has done against the West? I've offered up the Hezbollah kidnappings in Beirut and the US embassy hostage-taking in 1979-80. I'd be curious to know what you have to add to that list. Incidentally, Iran has been developing nuclear capability since the seventies.

AC Milan couldn't afford him, so that leaves QPR almost in first place. Now what does this remind me of...?

For the highlights, yes.

Too comfortable with that bowl on your head Frank?