> he claims that he is accountable only to the voters in his constituency
To add to this,
* Mr Farage's logic seems to be that if
If he is accused of a financial crime then he can pick the jury who will try him, finding the most sympathetic audience. And if this jury goes his way, all future financial crimes can be answered with "the people have spoken!"
A pro-sleaze campaign, a vote to specifically endorse ongoing corruption is not very common. And not strictly speaking admissible in a court of law.
It's gamesmanship to avoid due process. The prosecutors should not play along. Kudos to the political parties who are not playing along.
* Mr Farage made this move shortly before this was reported: "Farage’s £5m gift reported to UK crime agency over money laundering concerns" , and he knew that was coming, as "Farage was given a deadline of 1pm on Tuesday to respond .. He gave a video address at 2pm"
* Mr Farage in this speech claimed that he was "most attacked politician in the country". It's true that he had a milkshake thrown at him. Meanwhile, 2 sitting MPs have been murdered, Jo Cox and David Amiss, among other serious incidents such as arson.
* It is quite possible that Mr Farage is in fact taking money by unfriendly foreign governments, to influence UK politics to our detriment. Is there a word for that?
Dave Farley has done some writing on what makes "Software Engineering" "Engineering"
e.g. his 2021 book " Modern Software Engineering"
> Software engineering is the application of an empirical, scientific approach to finding efficient, economic solutions to practical problems in software.
Mr Vance's thoughts are more about the current administration that he is a part of, than the Nixon administration. His desire is to not be held to the level of accountability that president Nixon was. Mr Vance's claim that they do Watergate level things twice daily (1) may be true, but it is IMHO not positive and should not be a boast. Accountability is good.
What does that mean? Is this an excuse to dismiss his assessment? I don't necessarily value his opinion, but "oh, he's known to be a sceptic of it" is often dismissive rather than acknowledging that there are real reasons be be sceptical.
> Trump was warned protecting the strait would be difficult. Was it the military?
Common sense makes it clear that it was the miliary who know the score. Who else would have studied it in as much detail and wargamed possible scenarios? I refer you to my grandparent comment re "professional strategists who thought that this was an incredibly stupid idea"
> For years, the U.S. government has conducted war games dealing with potential conflicts with Iran, including ones at the Pentagon attended by dozens of military officials and policymakers. Over and over, participants say, they concluded that Iran would respond to a major American attack by closing the strait of Hormuz.
> They can, to some extent, but drone stockpiles and factories can be targeted and destroyed by conventional means.
Every time the US shoots down a Shahed with a Patriot, the US is further from winning. The problem is that the USA is running out of US$4 million patriot missiles long before Iran runs out of $40K shaheed drones. And Iran can restock sooner.
You made the claim that they thought it was a great idea. What's your research for that?
it is widely known that Mr Netanyahu has suggested this same plan to every US administration from Bush onwards (1), and was rejected by them all until now.
It is widely known that the military analysts all made the obvious prediction that Iran would seize Hormuz (2)
I might be a bit off the mark with "professional strategists let go in the DOGE purges" but not by much (3) DOGE Cuts have affected the Pentagon as well (4), so it's less clear. What's your source that it had no effect?
Recent reporting on the decision to attack in 2026 includes (5)
Trump attacked based on "a feeling" (6) not advice.
> I think that (the US could keep Hormuz open) was exactly what they thought. I think this was supposed to be a quick and dirty campaign like Venezuela.
It depends on who "they" is. The accounts seem to be that Mrs Trump and Hegseth and co thought like this.
But everyone else (including the professional strategists let go in the DOGE purges, and the remaining ones in the room) thought that this was an incredibly stupid idea that was bound to fail for obvious reasons.
They were overruled. Another case of "they said it couldn't be done. But we tried anyway, and what do you know, they were right." Hubris, incompetence and idiocy.
> The military has been planning to attack Iran for 50 years.
And Iran has been preparing for attack for a long time too. Hence the drone stockpiles.
The Iranian regime might be deeply unpleasant, but they do not appear to be stupid or incompetent at this.
> there’s a real military lesson here
Agreed, but I think the lesson is more about listening to the professional strategists who are stating the obvious.
Ah yes, the defining tragedy of the Trump administration is ... gestures into the middle distance ... look over there! what if those guys abuse it one day?