• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

The Middle East conflict

GusB

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
8,111
Location
Elginshire
What does it take for European countries to realise the Israeli government is not their friend? Maybe not much more given their condemnation of this behaviour:

What irks me is that the first of the kidnappings happened several days ago and it's only now making the news. Actually, that's not quite accurate; the kidnappings began when the first flotilla set out several months ago. It was all dismissed as Greta Thunberg trying to gain attention and the fact that people were snatched from boats in international waters was conveniently ignored.

The Israeli government is a friend to no-one, not even the US, and the sooner that the goons in our own government realise this the better.

As for Itamar Ben-Gvir, if ever someone deserved to meet a sticky end it's him.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,386
Location
Taunton or Kent
Well, this isn't ending anytime soon:


'This is the beginning of a full week of continuous strikes,' IRGC says

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) says "this operation is not a passing event, but rather the beginning of a full week of continuous strikes".

In a statement it adds: "Waves of missiles and drones will continue to be launched around the clock for the next seven days until the enemy is deterred and ceases its crimes."

"Any targeting of Iranian territory will be met with a devastating and overwhelming response beyond all expectation," it adds.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,414
Well, this isn't ending anytime soon:


How about locking the entire Iranian and Israeli governments in a nice comfy cell so that the whole lot of them can indulge their violent fantasies in a scrap?
It would mean the rest of us would be shielded from these deranged psychopaths and we might actually see peace in the region.
 

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
3,039
How about locking the entire Iranian and Israeli governments in a nice comfy cell so that the whole lot of them can indulge their violent fantasies in a scrap?
It would mean the rest of us would be shielded from these deranged psychopaths and we might actually see peace in the region.
Or recreate the video for Two Tribes by Frankie Goes To Hollywood, there's a boxing ring at the White House they could use :D
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,386
Location
Taunton or Kent
Next up in "Trump doesn't have a clue about anything":


Donald Trump said he wanted Syria to take on Hizbollah as he expressed frustration with Israel’s military offensive against the militant group in Lebanon.

The US president suggested it would be better that Syria’s president Ahmed al-Sharaa, who took power after overthrowing the regime of Bashar al-Assad in 2024, fight Hizbollah rather than Israel, which has been waging a war in Lebanon since March. “If Israel can’t do the job, without killing everyone else, he’ll [al-Sharaa] do the job. Syria will do the job,” Trump said ahead of his bilateral meeting with the Emir of Qatar at the G7 summit in Evian.
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
3,790
Location
West is best
The “Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran”:

The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have jointly agreed in good faith on [ __ date] on the following:

1 — The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war are signing this MOU to declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph.

2 — The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.

3 — The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days, extendable with mutual consent.

4 — Immediately upon the signing of this MOU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, the traffic of vessels will be in proportion to the numbers of pre-war traffic being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.

5 — Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles, and demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialog with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.

6 — The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final deal within 60 days. All required licenses, waivers and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America.

7 — The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America acknowledge the critical importance of the sanctions termination issue above mentioned, and expressed their intentions to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.

8 — The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph seven, with the minimum methodology to be down blended on site under the supervision of the IAEA. The two parties also agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal. The final deal will confirm the provisions of this paragraph. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran acknowledge the critical importance of the nuclear issues above mentioned. They express their intention to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.

9 — Pending the final deal, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree to maintain the status quo. The Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region.

10 — The United States of America undertakes that immediately upon the signing of this MOU and until the termination of sanctions, US Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc.

11 — The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MOU. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will mutually agree on the procedures related to the release of these funds during negotiations. Such funds, whether retained in the original account or transferred, shall be made fully usable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America undertakes to issue all necessary licenses and authorizations accordingly.

12 — The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree that an executive mechanism will be established to monitor the successful implementation of this MOU and the future compliance of the final deal.

13 — After signing this MOU, and subject to the beginning of the implementation of paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 10 and 11 of this MOU, and the continuing implementation of these measures, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will start negotiations regarding the final deal exclusively on the other paragraphs.

14 — The final deal will be endorsed by a binding UNSC resolution.

Source = CNN


 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
7,210
Location
UK
I don't think that looks like a good deal for America.


Sorry, It's a great deal, a big beautiful golden deal, ask anybody, and they'll tell you it's true.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,187
Location
LBK
This is almost like America's Suez in terms of embarrassment. What a gigantic own goal and a misuse of military power, to achieve less than nothing.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,386
Location
Taunton or Kent
Far from worrying about Trump invading Greenland, Mexico, Panama and Canada, part of me jokingly thinks these countries should welcome a Trump-led attack. Then all they need to do is shut off trade with the US, or shut the Panama canal to all US traffic, then Trump will end up giving those countries better terms than they have now.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

This is almost like America's Suez in terms of embarrassment. What a gigantic own goal and a misuse of military power, to achieve less than nothing.
This makes Suez look like Trafalgar.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,021
It's a great deal, a big beautiful golden deal, ask anybody, and they'll tell you it's true.

Indeed, why would anyone think differently, given this has been agreed by the great and glorious leader (may he live forever) and as everyone knows he's the best at doing deals.

in case someone miss understands, this is continuing the joke and using terms which wouldn't sit out of place in a dictatorship - which in itself is part of the joke
 

Cdd89

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2017
Messages
1,718
We're obviously judging this settlement in the context of "the US didn't have to start this war", but bearing in mind that going back in time wasn't an option, do others think a better deal could have been achieved / been worth holding out for (or alternatively, would others have supported further escalating the war militarily?)

At this point I'm just glad it's (hopefully, maybe) over, and maybe Trump will think twice before doing this again next time.
 

Trackman

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2013
Messages
4,246
Location
Lewisham
We're obviously judging this settlement in the context of "the US didn't have to start this war", but bearing in mind that going back in time wasn't an option, do others think a better deal could have been achieved / been worth holding out for (or alternatively, would others have supported further escalating the war militarily?)

At this point I'm just glad it's (hopefully, maybe) over, and maybe Trump will think twice before doing this again next time.
Iran claiming the US have surrendered isn't far from the truth.
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
3,790
Location
West is best
We're obviously judging this settlement in the context of "the US didn't have to start this war", but bearing in mind that going back in time wasn't an option, do others think a better deal could have been achieved / been worth holding out for (or alternatively, would others have supported further escalating the war militarily?)

At this point I'm just glad it's (hopefully, maybe) over, and maybe Trump will think twice before doing this again next time.
If you are in a position of power with plenty of knowledgeable people who can advise you, would you have had a proper term plan before attacking another country? A country which had not directly seriously threatened let alone been an imminent threat to the U.S.A.

In my humble opinion, I would like to think that I would never have got myself in such a mess. Indeed, if I was in such a position of power, I would have read the riot act to the Israeli government to tell them to stop causing trouble.

Trump is an idiot in my opinion. Given what happened, this is a reasonable way out of it. Much better than more military action.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
6,432
Location
Sheffield
Trump is an idiot in my opinion. Given what happened, this is a reasonable way out of it. Much better than more military acaction.

It makes you wonder what we have diplomats for. Listening to the professionals might reduce the need for the military action. But Trump, and others, seem to think their mates make good ambassadors. It's a practice we've found to have shortcomings. You'd get a lot of professional diplomats for all the armaments used in the recent skirmishes.
 

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
2,428
In many countries a war going this badly would result in the leader resigning on the spot. Instead in Trump US, it's the best deal ever, far better than anything that Obama guy negotiated.

But Trump, and others, seem to think their mates make good ambassadors.
Probably less that they make good ambassadors and more that they tell him what he wants to hear.

"Are we beating Iran bigly?"
"well, no, sir, they're..."
"You're fired. Next! Are we beating Iran bigly?"
"Well, you see, their leadership was more prepared..."
"You're fired. Next! Are we beating Iran bigly?"
"err, we're not doing that badly, but..."
"You're fired. Next! Are we beating Iran bigly?"
"Yes?"
"Good. Aren't I the best!"
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
6,432
Location
Sheffield
In many countries a war going this badly would result in the leader resigning on the spot. Instead in Trump US, it's the best deal ever, far better than anything that Obama guy negotiated.

Probably less that they make good ambassadors and more that they tell him what he wants to hear.
Precisely, and are skilled in echoing his superlatives despite all factual evidence telling a less flattering narrative.

As the narrative of history changes over time it will be interesting to see how these events are portrayed in a year, 5 years and 50 years time. By 2126 the verdict should be based on broader consideration of facts we may not fully know for some time.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,589
Location
Scotland
This is almost like America's Suez in terms of embarrassment. What a gigantic own goal and a misuse of military power, to achieve less than nothing.
I'd actually say that it's worse that Suez - at least the UK and France had someone to blame for their failure.
We're obviously judging this settlement in the context of "the US didn't have to start this war", but bearing in mind that going back in time wasn't an option, do others think a better deal could have been achieved / been worth holding out for (or alternatively, would others have supported further escalating the war militarily?)
I wouldn't have supported further action, but that's the only way they could have got something better than what they got.
 

Uncle Buck

Member
Joined
30 Jun 2020
Messages
336
Location
Glasgow
I'd actually say that it's worse that Suez - at least the UK and France had someone to blame for their failure.

I wouldn't have supported further action, but that's the only way they could have got something better than what they got.
Their credibility is also shot to pieces insofar as Trump makes terrifying threats which are then reneged on at the last minute. Now, I think we can all agree that it is a good thing that “an entire civilisation” did not “die”, but the fact that he has consistently made such awful threats and his bluff has consistently been called shows he will, as they say, “always chicken out”.

The flip side of this is that Trump may try to re-establish credibility by doing something else crazy. After the fall of Saigon the literally diabolical Henry Kissinger advised President Ford that “the United States must continue to be seen as a great power”, leading to the USS Magauyez incident. I am worried that someone is saying something similar to Trump. It looks like Cuba is the most likely candidate.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,589
Location
Scotland
The flip side of this is that Trump may try to re-establish credibility by doing something else crazy.

It looks like Cuba is the most likely candidate.
The world's most powerful military invading a country that spends something like one thousandth as much on defence isn't really that much of a flex.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,386
Location
Taunton or Kent

Top