What do you think about Iran conflict?

[Eric7]

It made me annoyed, frustrated, and embarrassed. I didn’t laugh, but of course I’ve got a different passport than you do I believe.

My passports(!) aren't much less embarrassing.

It's hard to think of a western leader that hasn't made a complete mess of everything, with the noteable exceptions of Orban & Fico.
They are of course utterly demonised in the media.

[john_b]

Strange how ‘not making a mess’ seems to involve cosying up to Putin while undermining Ukraine’s right to exist.

If that’s the benchmark, the bar’s on the floor.

Hmmmmm.

[Eric7]

Neither of those things are true, but anyway....

[john_b]

So they’re misunderstood champions of stability who just happen to echo Kremlin talking points from time to time...

Yeah. Right.

[Eric7]

Ok, I'll bite...
Which leaders you do think have promoted stability?
Which ones have balanced the interests of their own countries against the wider agenda?

[Eric7]

More escalation...

The Iranian oil and gas infrastructure at the South Pars and Assaluyeh fields was subjected to attacks by the US and Israel.

Fars News Agency (Iran), citing a military source: "We will strike the enemy's infrastructure after their targeting of the Assaluyeh gas field."

This is going very bad, very fast.
It's probably time to buy some (very expensive) heating oil...

[john_b]

Ok, I'll bite...
Which leaders you do think have promoted stability?
Which ones have balanced the interests of their own countries against the wider agenda?

Depends what we mean by ‘stability’. If it’s the kind that involves weakening institutions, sidelining independent media, and keeping relations cosy with Vladimir Putin while a neighbour is being invaded, then yes — very stable indeed.

You're certainly not alone in your enthusiasm for Orban & Fico (Trump, Alice Weidel, Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders spring to mind) so clearly that model has its fan club. Although it has to be said that Orban is looking increasingly unpopular at home these days.

Personally I’d put ‘balancing national interests’ a bit closer to supporting allies under attack, maintaining rule-of-law standards, and not redefining ‘stability’ as ‘nothing changes as long as we stay comfortable’.

[Eric7]

You managed to not answer my question(s) while at the same time making some snidey, not so subtle implications. Well done!

At some point, the interests of a sovereign country have to be put before outside interests. Yes, allies should be supported (when it suits*, sorry Don ) but not when it causes extreme, long term damage to a country. You seem to disagree. *shrugs*

* I fully agree with the (current) decision not to support the US in the current madness. Maybe our leaders are finally moving closer to 'balancing the interests of their own countries against the wider agenda'?

[john_b]

Fair enough — let me actually answer you then.

If we’re talking about leaders trying (imperfectly) to balance national interest with wider responsibilities, I’d point to people like Emmanuel Macron, or Donald Tusk — not because they got everything right (far from it), but because they’ve broadly tried to keep their countries stable and uphold alliances, institutions, and the basic idea that borders aren’t changed by force.

Where I struggle is this idea that supporting Ukraine is some kind of optional ‘outside interest’. If a country in Europe can be invaded and carved up, that is the long-term damage — to everyone. At that point ‘national interest’ and ‘wider agenda’ stop being separate things.

And yes, I completely agree about not blindly following the US — but that cuts both ways. If ‘independent thinking’ just happens to align with Vladimir Putin’s preferences, it’s worth asking who actually benefits from that version of ‘balance’. *shrugs*

[Eric7]

Macron!
I think the French people would disagree with you. Out of all the EU leaders, 'Little Napoleon' is widely accepted as being the most 'globalist' and out of touch with what the french actually feel is good for France.

*****deleted - felt a bit patronising*****

Anyway, I don't think we will agree on the other issues (and neither of us will get anything from trying to convince the other) and I don't want to fall out with anyone so let's stick to discussing the actual current events of the Iran conflict.

----

QatarEnergy CEO says the Iranian attack overnight damaged approx. 17% of it's LNG production capacity, and it would take 3-5 years to repair the (current!) damage (with more damage to come being highly likely!).

----

We need a poop emoji.

Remark by EditorL:
You managed to get those smileys by typing <colon>lol<colon>, didn't you?

<colon>poop<colon> give you this:

[john_b]

Ah yes, the ‘I deleted it because it might sound patronising’ move — a neat way of sounding patronising while claiming moral restraint. Yes, I'm learning so much from you.

Just for the record, I wasn’t nominating Macron for sainthood. I was saying that in this one specific area — trying to balance national interests with a broader European and strategic responsibility — he’s at least made some serious attempts, whatever one thinks of him otherwise. That’s a much narrower claim than ‘Macron good’. Similar thoughts on Tusk.

What I still find odd is that your standard for an acceptable leader seems to rule out almost anyone who operates within alliances, institutions, compromise, or any wider framework beyond pure nationalist reflex. By that logic, the shortlist ends up being characters like Nigel Farage, Vladimir Putin, or Kim Jong Un — populist leaders who can present themselves as gloriously unencumbered by the inconvenience of shared responsibility. Which is… a standard, I suppose. And admittedly very much part of the Zeitgeist. Good luck with that!

But yes, probably wise not to turn this into a friendship-ending symposium on political philosophy.

[Chelski]

Interesting back and forth.

Which is cool. Verbal discourse is the whole basis of politics.

But, I understand nothing, except the fact that Donald Trump is a malignant narcissist with a cat on his head.

YMMV.

[Eric7]

Interesting back and forth.

Which is cool. Verbal discourse is the whole basis of politics.

But, I understand nothing, except the fact that Donald Trump is a malignant narcissist with a cat on his head.

YMMV.

It would have been better without the snidey implications (I apparently support VVP, KJU & the chancer Farage! ) but you can't always expect your debating partner to stick to reality.

One thing that I am a bit flummoxed by with regards to the whole Iran mess... where is the widespread condemnation (instead of the feeble mumblings of not wanting to get involved) of the US as a rogue terrorist state for their unprovoked war of aggression against Iran (not to mention the kidnapping of the president of a different nation!)?
Surely the sanctions must now flow, along with the complete cancellation of anything or anyone related to said terrorist state?
No? Good guys?

Re: Trump - it's a shame that the cat isn't in charge.

[john_b]

(I apparently support VVP, KJU & the chancer Farage! ) but you can't always expect your debating partner to stick to reality.

Snidey is as snidey does! The point I was making was that these are the logical consequence of following your "strong patriotic leader" line. I sincerely hope you don't support KJU, although your unbridled enthusiasm for Orban means that I might not be entirely wrong about the VVP connection. As for the UK, from your utterances it sounds that if not Farage, then at least the pitiful Badenoch would be your chosen leader...

Well, at least your alter ego has made an interesting proposal relating to the current situation

[Eric7]

Eric is normally on the money with most subjects! ***hero***

Orban is just looking out for the interests of Hungary, which is exactly what he should be doing. Do you suggest that he blindly support Ukraine when they have sabotaged and are currently actively blocking oil & gas supplies (from Russia) to his country? An appropriate word here would be 'cuck'. He has supported various sanctions but understands that it's not worth destroying his country for the sake of another. Fico likewise.
My opinion (and that of an increasing number of people within Russia) of VVP is that he has been far too restrained. I do understand the desire to limit escalation but that attitude has lead us to the point where countries like the UK think it's acceptable for them to directly strike targets within Russia. That's a very dangerous point to be at.
Amusingly, the headlines today are about the possibility that Iran could strike UK cities. I wonder what the UK response would be to such an attack? I imagine there would be widespread calls for nuking Iran (the UK has no other viable options), but the UK has been participating in exactly the same kind of attacks against Russia for quite a while now with seemingly no worries about retaliation. Those attacks don't make the cover of the Mail though...

I have almost zero interest in UK politics, having never voted there, having not been in the country since 2013 & having no intention to move back there. I do know that all parties seem to be utterly riddled with c*nts though.

KJU is a mentalist so the best option is leaving him/NK alone, no?