No, after Iran started targeting the gulf states and Cypress the UK shifted its position to allowing the US to use the UK’s bases for missions targeting Iran’s long range strike capabilities but not anything else. This video is consistent with that.
It’s funny how Ukraine has done that against Russia without ever using bomber planes and without even having bunker buster bombs.
So I maintain that it remains a no. USA does not need bombers to defend itself. In fact all it needed to not even have to defend itself, was to not wage an illegal war on Iran.
USA and Israel should not be aided in their illegal war in any way IMO.
Bombers have always and only been needed to blow up something very far away. They were needed in WW2 but we should have shifted funding to NASA and the USCG after that. The only reason we developed long range supersonic bomb delivery trucks that cost $2 billion a piece was waving dicks at the Soviets.
Could’ve done a lot more with that money building a defense force and functional water pipes and trains to every town than long range bombs but 🤷
I agree, for the most part, the UK should have as little to do with this as possible. Though there is the consideration of protecting the Gulf states we have a commitment to.
But my point is that this isnt going against the stated UK government position as lots of people (including you) are saying in this thread.
Yes it does, because an attack with a bomber plane dropping a bunker buster bomb, is not defense, when USA and Israel started it. What Iran is doing on the other hand, is defense, because they were the ones that were attacked.
You can’t hit someone in the face, and then if they hit back you hit again. And then call it defending yourself.
It’s abuse of terminology to mislead and manipulate.
The attacker does not suddenly became the defending party when they keep attacking.
Next you will claim that if USA drop a tactical nuke, that that is defense too?
I’m sorry I had to downvote you, because although what you write may be the official take, it is outrageous.
Did Cypress attack Iran? Did Dubai, Jordan, the UAE? They were all struck by Iran and only after that did the UK allow the US to use its bases. Based on your “if you get hit first then hitting back is legitamate” why does that apply to Iran but not those countries?
I completly agree that Iran attacking Isreal after being attacked is fair, but i dont see how you can make that argument without saying the Gulf states have the right to defend themselves too.
The Arab countries Iran is attacking are all part of the Israel/US effort to oppress Iran. And USA has bases there and is attacking from those countries.
USA also has intelligence offices in those countries, that Iran have hit, and was acused of hitting a civilian target because it was a hotel. When in reality US intelligence was hiding behind civilians.
The Arab countries are also a key part of the Petrodollar, that is a HUGE factor in why USA is waging war against Iran in an attempt to control the area.
Actually this war could change the political picture in the world as we know it, if Iran succeeds with their strategy, and the petrodollar collapses. So Iran was in fact at war with all those countries by proxy when USA attacked.
No, after Iran started targeting the gulf states and Cypress the UK shifted its position to allowing the US to use the UK’s bases for missions targeting Iran’s long range strike capabilities but not anything else. This video is consistent with that.
It’s funny how Ukraine has done that against Russia without ever using bomber planes and without even having bunker buster bombs.
So I maintain that it remains a no. USA does not need bombers to defend itself. In fact all it needed to not even have to defend itself, was to not wage an illegal war on Iran.
USA and Israel should not be aided in their illegal war in any way IMO.
Bombers have always and only been needed to blow up something very far away. They were needed in WW2 but we should have shifted funding to NASA and the USCG after that. The only reason we developed long range supersonic bomb delivery trucks that cost $2 billion a piece was waving dicks at the Soviets.
Could’ve done a lot more with that money building a defense force and functional water pipes and trains to every town than long range bombs but 🤷
I agree, for the most part, the UK should have as little to do with this as possible. Though there is the consideration of protecting the Gulf states we have a commitment to.
But my point is that this isnt going against the stated UK government position as lots of people (including you) are saying in this thread.
Yes it does, because an attack with a bomber plane dropping a bunker buster bomb, is not defense, when USA and Israel started it. What Iran is doing on the other hand, is defense, because they were the ones that were attacked.
You can’t hit someone in the face, and then if they hit back you hit again. And then call it defending yourself.
It’s abuse of terminology to mislead and manipulate.
The attacker does not suddenly became the defending party when they keep attacking.
Next you will claim that if USA drop a tactical nuke, that that is defense too?
I’m sorry I had to downvote you, because although what you write may be the official take, it is outrageous.
Did Cypress attack Iran? Did Dubai, Jordan, the UAE? They were all struck by Iran and only after that did the UK allow the US to use its bases. Based on your “if you get hit first then hitting back is legitamate” why does that apply to Iran but not those countries?
I completly agree that Iran attacking Isreal after being attacked is fair, but i dont see how you can make that argument without saying the Gulf states have the right to defend themselves too.
The Arab countries Iran is attacking are all part of the Israel/US effort to oppress Iran. And USA has bases there and is attacking from those countries.
USA also has intelligence offices in those countries, that Iran have hit, and was acused of hitting a civilian target because it was a hotel. When in reality US intelligence was hiding behind civilians.
The Arab countries are also a key part of the Petrodollar, that is a HUGE factor in why USA is waging war against Iran in an attempt to control the area.
Actually this war could change the political picture in the world as we know it, if Iran succeeds with their strategy, and the petrodollar collapses. So Iran was in fact at war with all those countries by proxy when USA attacked.