The USA and the settler colony of Israel has started a war with Iran

[DaveyJ]

@Lincolnshire

the US will find itself even more isolated, less and less at the centre of international trade, weakened by huge overspend and distrusted by all.

Distrusted less perhaps, but not as distrusted as the alternatives, such as Xi jinping, Kim Jong, Shahbaz, Putin, Khamenei the second, Starmer, Spain and Nato.

[Robin1]

@Lincolnshire

The US under Trump fails to understand that no nation exists and thrives in isolation

That’s an assumption! Don’t care what country one is in, it doesn’t matter what it is, there is never 100% agreement.

@Lincolnshire

Trump is gambling on two things in this attack on Iran. First that removing the leadership will cause chaos and a weak response from Iran. Second, that bombardments, hitting Iran’s infrastructure as well as leadership & military capability will encourage regime change through revolution

Trumps first goal according to you, accomplished, leadership removed.
The second half is happening, destroying Iran infrastructure, military and military capability.

As long as Iran attack supposed allied countries, they will not get support except from terrorist organizations.

And basically the rest is just a unsupported opinions.

[Robin1]

Ya. I watched them. Only one had any real bases was the on the hit the school but the one opinion that was not mentioned was, the pilot didn’t know what target was and I can guarantee, it was not on purpose, it was a 100% accident.

[Morticia]

@Lincolnshire

The US under Trump fails to understand that no nation exists and thrives in isolation. Every nation, including the US, needs allies and trading partners. In fact, even with its military might, the US has a critical need for all countries and (nearly) all trade to do so in US dollars. Particularly so called petro-dollars. As soon as international trade starts moving away from the US dollar the lower the demand is for dollars. And when that happens, the massive US national debt starts to look critically unaffordable.
Trump is gambling on two things in this attack on Iran. First that removing the leadership will cause chaos and a weak response from Iran. Second, that bombardments, hitting Iran’s infrastructure as well as leadership & military capability will encourage regime change through revolution. Already it is clear both are not happening. Iran is going to put huge pressure on the oil market, and huge pressure on other gulf states. They are not going to let Trump continue this for long … even if the US has sufficient weapons (they and Israel are burning their way through very expensive missiles to try to shoot down cheap drones).
Trump, being a thick egotist, has not thought this through and has no plan after the first few strikes. This is likely to drag on in the form of more and more air strikes but little evidence of change. Afterwards, with some face saving agreement with Iran, the US will find itself even more isolated, less and less at the centre of international trade, weakened by huge overspend and distrusted by all. Hardly a win and not really a sign of making good choices.
So in a sense you are correct to say that the US can do what it wants - but poorly considered ago-driven actions aren’t even going to work out in US’ favour.

It’ll be interesting to see how accurate your post turns out to be …
Not too many have speculated over what Trump’s ideal end game is supposed to be and what happens if he doesn’t achieve it.
Myself, after threats over Greenland, I shall never trust America again as long as Trump is President and even after he’s thankfully gone the taint of all this global posturing will remain as a reminder of how too much dependency is bad.

[Morticia]

@DaveyJ

Distrusted less perhaps, but not as distrusted as the alternatives, such as Xi jinping, Kim Jong, Shahbaz, Putin, Khamenei the second, Starmer, Spain and Nato.

Maybe but America shouldn’t even appear amongst the distrusted list.
But now they do.
As to alternatives on the ‘distrust list’ … how come you’ve included Spain?

[Lincolnshire]

@Robin1

Trumps first goal according to you, accomplished, leadership removed.

Err, the Iranians are already appointing a new leadership. Simples. Their military is still in place, their stockpiles of low cost drones still in place. So nothing is accomplished as yet. They are going to escalate attacks on other gulf states - which have lots of vulnerable infrastructure. Desalination plants and oil refineries. This war that Trump instigated is going to be messy and hit the US hard. How’s the price of gas with you?

[DaveyJ]

@Morticia

As to alternatives on the ‘distrust list’ … how come you’ve included Spain?

Why Spain is not meeting NATO spending targets

For starters.

[DaveyJ]

@Robin1

Ya. I watched them. Only one had any real bases was the on the hit the school but the one opinion that was not mentioned was, the pilot didn’t know what target was and I can guarantee, it was not on purpose, it was a 100% accident.

Now, Trump confirms that Iraq was responsible due to their poor guidance systems.

[Morticia]

Okay … I see your point about not meeting their Nato contribution though I’d still query why that should merit inclusion with the likes of Russis, North Kores, China and Iran.

But you also said
For starters?

What else have they done or not done?

[DaveyJ]

@Morticia

What else have they done or not done?

Guess you will want to know why 85% of them are divorced next?

[Morticia]

Sorry … it’d depend I’m sure, on how many lapsed Catholics there are.

[DaveyJ]

@Morticia

What else have they done or not done?

Francisco Franco’s “neutral” attitude during World War II was a pragmatic, calculated policy known as non-belligerence . While officially neutral, Francoist Spain was ideologically aligned with the Axis powers, having won the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) with significant aid from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. This complex stance allowed Spain to avoid the devastation of another war while offering covert support to Germany. And it had a direct effect on me and thousands of others, plus they seem to be unable to shake off the Franco effect after all these years.

[Robin1]

Irans leader was gone in the first few hours of the conflict. The new leader could be disposed of just as quick. Iran Army is busy with in it borders and is aged and out of date.The US Navy said it has sunk more than 30 Iranian ships over the past week. And their air force is out dated as well.
Irans drones are being destroyed on the ground and in warehouse storage facilities.

Ya, it looks bad, what is the US going to do???

[AnnieS]

@Robin1

what is the US going to do???

presumably keep up the senseless bombing?

[AnnieS]

@DaveyJ

Francisco Franco’s “neutral” attitude during World War II was a pragmatic, calculated policy known as non-belligerence . While officially neutral, Francoist Spain was ideologically aligned with the Axis powers, having won the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) with significant aid from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. This complex stance allowed Spain to avoid the devastation of another war while offering covert support to Germany. And it had a direct effect on me and thousands of others, plus they seem to be unable to shake off the Franco effect after all these years.

Aha I am glad you mentioned WWII. Because that reminds me of an interesting discussion on LBC today.

Trump’s recent “he’s no Winston Churchill” comment was torn apart by someone who mentioned that Churchill himself had criticised the US’s lack of decisive action in their late intervention in two world wars.

[DaveyJ]

@AnnieS

presumably keep up the senseless bombing?

Better than picking up radio-active body parts here, down the line.

[AnnieS]

@DaveyJ

Better than picking up radio-active body parts here, down the line.

have the US air force people found the uranium then?

[AnnieS]

@DaveyJ

Francisco Franco’s “neutral” attitude during World War II was a pragmatic, calculated policy known as non-belligerence . While officially neutral, Francoist Spain was ideologically aligned with the Axis powers, having won the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) with significant aid from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. This complex stance allowed Spain to avoid the devastation of another war while offering covert support to Germany. And it had a direct effect on me and thousands of others, plus they seem to be unable to shake off the Franco effect after all these years.

how is that different from Swiss “neutrality” vs laundering looted gold in cooperation with Germany during WWII?

[DaveyJ]

@AnnieS

Aha I am glad you mentioned WWII. Because that reminds me of an interesting discussion on LBC today.

Trump’s recent “he’s no Winston Churchill” comment was torn apart by someone who mentioned that Churchill himself had criticised the US’s lack of decisive action in their late intervention in two world wars.

Sorry Annie, but I cannot see any relevant similarity.

[DaveyJ]

@AnnieS

how is that different from Swiss “neutrality” vs laundering looted gold in cooperation with Germany during WWII?

The Swiss got over it, the Spanish never have and still continue it.