Panto_Villan

Yes, you’re right that anyone referring to what’s happening in Gaza as “genocide” either doesn’t know the definition of the word or is exaggerating to push their agenda. But you still have to accept the Israelis are committing some serious war crimes, right? Numerous countries that back Israel called out their blockade of food and medical supplies at the border right at the start of the war, for example, but that’s still happening. As was said at the time, it’s a pretty clear-cut war crime with no military justification - it’s not the men with the guns who starve if there’s not enough food to go round. Why not let in enough food to feed everyone?

Goodbye Bertie, you made some really valuable contributions on the pitch in your first season and you were always fun to watch.

If we’re dumb enough to give him a massive contract he’s well within his rights to see it out, unfortunately. But you’d hope we’d come to a deal where we get rid of him and subsidise at least some of the wages we would be paying him in the summer.

No, but then I couldn't imagine a 2024 Trump run either. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if he's somehow remains in charge of the Republicans after losing another election.

You were bang on the money, it seems!

In other good news, the EU finally approved the 50bn of financial support for Ukraine (over the next 4 years). Unfortunately the most important aid package by far is still the one in from the US, which is currently going nowhere thanks to Trump and the Republican speaker. But it’s some good news at least.

Of course, the Republicans getting 46% of the vote compared to the Democrats getting 47% would likely mean the Republicans win complete control.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive - in fact, they're pretty much the opposite of that

Wow, this has moved quickly. He's signed and disappeared off to Plymouth before I'd even noticed the thread, leaving only pages upon pages of floor-related puns in his wake. Well done to @lexicon and @LondonLax for putting in a strong performance in the critical early stages. Anyway, seems an exciting signing from what I know about him (absolutely nothing). I do like the way we seem to be setting up a conveyor belt of affordable young talent into our first team, given we've already got a solid spine of more expensive and experienced players to build around.

First of all - well done getting to where you are. You're in a fortunate position now compared to most people, but I experienced something like what you're going through when I was younger (on a smaller scale, mind) and I know it can be quite hard to deal with. It's good to have goals but sometimes it's better not to achieve them! (*cue world's smallest violin*) Anyway, there's two things I'd suggest. The first is to do what several people have already mentioned - make sure you value your time. Consider your relationship with work very carefully. It's great you enjoy your job, but is it really the most enjoyable thing you could be doing with your time? The fact you want to retire early perhaps implies not? Make sure you're not doing it just because that's what you're used to, and what you feel like you should be doing. I know you said doing your job part-time isn't really an option, but is there any way you can move into a position where you could work 3 days a week? The issue with retiring early is you're going from 5 days a week to zero days a week overnight, at a time when most of your friends are probably still working full-time. You immediately need to develop hobbies to fill your entire week, which isn't easy, and in that situation lots of people just end up pottering around the house for a few months and then get bored and go back to their old job. It's potentially worth trying to engineer a situation where you can work 3-days a week for a much longer time, and hopefully then you'll find the transition to full retirement much easier when it happens. The second thing is - yeah, I'd probably try and force yourself to spend a bit more money on "treat" stuff, at least for a while. If you've been relatively sensible with money your whole life it can be difficult to unlearn that trait even if you've now reached the point where you can afford to splash a little more cash. Maybe set aside a chunk of money for you and your wife to just spend on things you would quite like, but don't consider good value, and make yourself spend it. See if you actually like those things or not. Stuff like: shopping at a more upmarket supermarket go to a really nice restaurant get a cleaner or gardener to do the chores for you fly premium economy or business class on your next holiday get a personal trainer and get into shape get lessons to do something you've always wanted to do etc If you end up thinking none of the things you spent the money on were worthwhile, you know you're already living your best life and you can start giving all your extra money to friends and family or to charity. You're already financially secure so just letting money accumulate in your bank account when it's not improving your life (and never will) is a waste.

US support for Israel now is much more split along party lines than it has been in the past. Republicans are pro-Israel, and the more extreme Republicans will support literally anything that Israel wants to do. Democrats tend to be more skeptical of Israel. It used to be bipartisan but Democratic support has steadily eroded over the past couple of decades. If it wasn't an election year, and the Hamas attack had been less successful (like if it had killed mostly soldiers) then the US backing of Israel may have been a lot more tepid given there's a Democrat as President. If Trump wins the next election there's basically zero chance the US will try and nudge Israel towards supporting peace. If the Democrats win, you might actually see the US getting a bit tougher on them. They'd definitely listen to US threats of cutting military aid, but the problem is that if it happens near an election then Israel may well just try and stick it out in the hope that the Republicans would win and just reverse it (i.e. "the Putin in Ukraine" gambit).

Welcome Morgan! Really hope we look back in a few years and say "how on earth did we get this guy for £15m?"

One of the scarier things about Israel is the fact the ultra-orthodox Jews, who are closely linked to the settler movement (in no small part because they're poor and it's the cheapest way to live) have much higher birth rates than the rest of the population. Like six children per family levels of birth rate. I read an article claiming that modern secular Israeli society only had another ten or twenty years to wrest control of their country back before the ultra-orthodox voting bloc would start to outnumber them. Might have been a bit of alarmist take, but it's certainly a trend to keep an eye on nonetheless. I've not met as many as you have on my travels, but I'd absolutely agree with that assessment.

Not under the current government, no. The one ray of hope is that the current Israeli government is rather unpopular. One of the reasons why the government policians are continually coming out with genocidal statements like the above is because they're propped up by (or represent) the far right and the settler movement - and that's precisely because the rest of Israeli society doesn't support Netanyahu. There's no guarantee that after the next election that Israel will play a more constructive role in the peace process, but if there's a change of government then the chances will be much higher at least.

Fair enough. Yes, "ignoring the Middle East" was a bit of an exaggeration and was aimed as much at the vague stereotypes of the Middle East only being relevant due to oil and America only being there to secure their supplies of it than anything you'd posted. The point I'm making is that I don't actually think we would have more options or flexibility if the West wasn't dependent on foreign oil. I think America would still be the only major Western player in the region and they'd still be faced with the same choices as they are now - their decisions would be the same, because they already have energy independence. And Europe having energy independence wouldn't really change things because I don't think Europe's economy factors into American thinking very much. We'd be more insulated from pain caused by American decisions, sure, but I think the decisions themselves would ultimately remain the same.

That would make sense. His movement would benefit from term limits because it'd allow them to more easily wash away the "old guard" Republicans in the Senate that still oppose him. It'd be a very small ray of sunshine in a dark sky if Trump got elected and did bother to bring them in.

Reads like you're implying these discussions would be going differently if we weren't reliant on foreign oil. However, the biggest Western player in the region isn't actually reliant on foreign oil so I think that demonstrates we'd still be faced with the exact same headaches whether we needed the oil or not. Is that not what you meant?

The US is already entirely self-sufficient in oil and gas. It’s a very narrow view to assume we could just ignore the Middle East if only we didn’t need their oil.

I believe it’d need to be a constitutional amendment, so 2/3 of both houses. I’d be absolutely amazed if Trump was willing to do it for the Supreme Court though (or if he did, his party would refuse to vote for it).

I don't think this is true. You might be right about the long-term effects, but I very much doubt Saudi would think that far ahead - Iran are a real threat to them, and I think the Saudis would be extremely enthusiastic about a chance to take the Iranians out. Countering Iranian influence was the main driving force behind the recent improvement of relations with Israel, as the Arab countries consider Iran a much bigger issue than Israel these days. That was clear in Yemen, where a coalition of several Arab nations couldn't even defeat one of the weaker Iranian proxies. Let alone the fact Iran keep threatening to build nukes. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if all the countries that were fighting the Houthis in Yemen would happily support an American invasion of Iran with their own military forces, and if not I'm sure they'd be willing to contribute to an invasion logisitically.

Yeah, I really think there should be term limits on more offices than just the President. Adding them to the supreme court and both houses of Congress would probably be a big improvement. Something like 20 years seems the absolute maximum anyone should be able to spend in those three institutions. The same is true in the UK as well. There'd still be some old people in politics that way, but only after they'd spent most of their life doing something else.

Yeah. Or another assassination of one of their military generals abroad? There's quite a few options available, it's just a question of what Biden decides is a suitable response. But yes, my money would probably be on large-scale strikes on targets outside Iranian borders. Haha. The problem is they did get Iran to sit down and talk things over a few years back, and there was a nuclear deal agreed between the US and Iran and several European powers, including us. Wasn't a great deal by any stretch of the imagination, but Trump ripped it up - so I don't think Iran would trust the US to stick to a deal even if one was negotiated. Their foriegn policy is too erratic these days. With all that said, I think the hope is that once the Gaza war is over, the region might calm down a bit. I guess the US is probably hoping it can get by by trading missiles and drone strikes with Iran until Israel are done with Gaza, and then perhaps everyone can claim they achieved their objectives and let the situation calm down. But escalation can take on a life of its own. Hamas' terror attack was disastrously successful because it left Israel no choice but to respond with overwhelming force against Hamas, and if say an Iranian missile somehow got through the defences of a US warship and sunk it with massive loss of life then Biden would similarly have no other option than start a major war with Iran. So everyone involved is playing a dangerous game here.

Honestly, no idea. As I said above there's genuinely no good options here. The US really doesn't want to escalate, but they also need to do something big enough to deter Iran from further action, and those two things appear contradictory. I'd guess they'd err on the side of non-escalation, and then in a few weeks they'll find themselves in the same situation again.

Out of interest, have you updated your thoughts on the Ukraine conflict since the proper war broke out? Apologies if I'm misremembering but I seem to recall you talking about the democratic revolutions in Ukraine being carried out by CIA-funded fascists before Putin invaded. Is that what the US did to force Russia to invade, or was it something else?

No, it's not normal. But they're all Iranian-aligned proxies so really it needs to be seen as Iran flexing it's muscles rather than lots of small groups acting independently.