FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > What Next for the Middle East ? 🤷
What Next for the Middle East ? 🤷
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's the influencers in Dubai I feel sorry for. Has anyone set up a GoFundMe yet?" God bless em. Their filler full lips will be trembling uncontrollably. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who’s leading policy again???" Iran!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again???" Yep. He dropped a bollock there. A preemptive attack because they knew Iran would respond to an impending attack from Israel. Illegal war. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again???" That old conspiracy theory  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tail wags dog.." And again 😭 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory "It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?"This is not a correct representation of what was said. Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
"Exactly.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
"A bit like the Iranian regime. They knew their people would protest eventually so they started murdering them back in the ‘80s | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
"Starmer knew British citizens and territory could be at risk but did nothing to protect them. Still hasn't sent navy to Cyprus. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Starmer knew British citizens and territory could be at risk but did nothing to protect them. Still hasn't sent navy to Cyprus."I think its a harsh but predictable criticism given the government weren't prepared and in any case what protection other than the RAF doing what they have been over the British areas in the Gulf States should we do? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
"Explain the exact difference between what Fabio said paraphrasing Rubio: “The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!!“ And what you said: “ they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Starmer knew British citizens and territory could be at risk but did nothing to protect them. Still hasn't sent navy to Cyprus."Maybe he has very justifiable concerns about the legality of this war…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Starmer knew British citizens and territory could be at risk but did nothing to protect them. Still hasn't sent navy to Cyprus.
I think its a harsh but predictable criticism given the government weren't prepared and in any case what protection other than the RAF doing what they have been over the British areas in the Gulf States should we do?
"Prepared not prepared | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Starmer knew British citizens and territory could be at risk but did nothing to protect them. Still hasn't sent navy to Cyprus.
Maybe he has very justifiable concerns about the legality of this war…."He and others are or were right to do so initially.. As its changed because of Iran's attacks willy nilly then the change in posture is also right.. A good and necessary u turn | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Starmer knew British citizens and territory could be at risk but did nothing to protect them. Still hasn't sent navy to Cyprus.
Maybe he has very justifiable concerns about the legality of this war….
He and others are or were right to do so initially..
As its changed because of Iran's attacks willy nilly then the change in posture is also right..
A good and necessary u turn"If you start a war on shady illegal terms, and then the opposition responds, it doesn’t negate your intel shady, illegal commencement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Starmer knew British citizens and territory could be at risk but did nothing to protect them. Still hasn't sent navy to Cyprus.
Maybe he has very justifiable concerns about the legality of this war….
He and others are or were right to do so initially..
As its changed because of Iran's attacks willy nilly then the change in posture is also right..
A good and necessary u turn
If you start a war on shady illegal terms, and then the opposition responds, it doesn’t negate your intel shady, illegal commencement. "It wasn't us though.. Whilst we can debate about the illegality (and I've previously said without International law 'we' are in a dodgy place) of the initial actions the facts are they happened.. And we are in the now.. Yeah but, yeah but its not right adds little at this stage in my opinion.. Deal with the present and look at the mistakes etc afterwards.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Starmer knew British citizens and territory could be at risk but did nothing to protect them. Still hasn't sent navy to Cyprus.
I think its a harsh but predictable criticism given the government weren't prepared and in any case what protection other than the RAF doing what they have been over the British areas in the Gulf States should we do?
"Harsh and predictable criticism from the Cypriot Govt too: 'The UK government is considering whether to send a Royal Navy warship to the Mediterranean to increase security around RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. HMS Duncan, a Type 45 Destroyer, could be dispatched to the region after criticism from the Cypriot government about a lack of air defence as the Middle East war continues to spiral.' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Starmer knew British citizens and territory could be at risk but did nothing to protect them. Still hasn't sent navy to Cyprus."So now you think Starmer is somehow to blame for the fuck ups of trump 🤣🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Starmer knew British citizens and territory could be at risk but did nothing to protect them. Still hasn't sent navy to Cyprus.
So now you think Starmer is somehow to blame for the fuck ups of trump 🤣🤣"Fuck Up ? You were calling for Trump to intervene in Iran weeks ago.🤷 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Starmer knew British citizens and territory could be at risk but did nothing to protect them. Still hasn't sent navy to Cyprus.
I think its a harsh but predictable criticism given the government weren't prepared and in any case what protection other than the RAF doing what they have been over the British areas in the Gulf States should we do?
Harsh and predictable criticism from the Cypriot Govt too:
'The UK government is considering whether to send a Royal Navy warship to the Mediterranean to increase security around RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus.
HMS Duncan, a Type 45 Destroyer, could be dispatched to the region after criticism from the Cypriot government about a lack of air defence as the Middle East war continues to spiral.'
"It makes sense now to locate it there at this point in time.. Greece is sending a ship and has sent planes too.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Starmer knew British citizens and territory could be at risk but did nothing to protect them. Still hasn't sent navy to Cyprus.
So now you think Starmer is somehow to blame for the fuck ups of trump 🤣🤣"Aw come on.. We should have thought ahead and moved lots of resources there just in case.. 
Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Exactly. "So again… who is leading policy here? Is it Trump or Benny?…. Because like someone else said… it certainly sounds like tail wags dog! Because if they knew… certainly trump would have enough sway to stop benny… right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Starmer knew British citizens and territory could be at risk but did nothing to protect them. Still hasn't sent navy to Cyprus.
So now you think Starmer is somehow to blame for the fuck ups of trump 🤣🤣
Aw come on..
We should have thought ahead and moved lots of resources there just in case..
Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing.. "Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Starmer knew British citizens and territory could be at risk but did nothing to protect them. Still hasn't sent navy to Cyprus.
So now you think Starmer is somehow to blame for the fuck ups of trump 🤣🤣
Aw come on..
We should have thought ahead and moved lots of resources there just in case..
Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it."Trump blew up any pretence of seeing the UK as an ally a year ago. That ship has long sailed. The best thing the UK can do is stay away from this mess. Trump has just criticised us so we are clearly in his bad books. Whatever we do, we will stay in his bad book so no point wasting any British lives on something we can’t influence. The US does respect our intelligence capabilities so we should make sure that relationship stays intact but beyond that we let the Americans and the Israelis deal with everything that is coming down the track. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Starmer knew British citizens and territory could be at risk but did nothing to protect them. Still hasn't sent navy to Cyprus.
So now you think Starmer is somehow to blame for the fuck ups of trump 🤣🤣
Fuck Up ? You were calling for Trump to intervene in Iran weeks ago.🤷"No, I debunked that yesterday when you made the same delusional attack | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump has just called Starmer out ‘This is not Winston Churchill that we're dealing with," he says of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer" Starmer should respond with ‘And you’re not Barack Obama’ and watch the orange buffoon lose his mind | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Starmer knew British citizens and territory could be at risk but did nothing to protect them. Still hasn't sent navy to Cyprus.
So now you think Starmer is somehow to blame for the fuck ups of trump 🤣🤣
Aw come on..
We should have thought ahead and moved lots of resources there just in case..
Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it."Despite what your hero says the relationship will still exist after the turmoil of his tenure.. How will they be? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump has just called Starmer out ‘This is not Winston Churchill that we're dealing with," he says of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer" He also went on to say "We should get Churchill out of retirement." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump has just called Starmer out ‘This is not Winston Churchill that we're dealing with," he says of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer" No sleep will be lost at all.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump has just called Starmer out ‘This is not Winston Churchill that we're dealing with," he says of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer Starmer should respond with ‘And you’re not Barack Obama’ and watch the orange buffoon lose his mind " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Starmer knew British citizens and territory could be at risk but did nothing to protect them. Still hasn't sent navy to Cyprus.
So now you think Starmer is somehow to blame for the fuck ups of trump 🤣🤣
Aw come on..
We should have thought ahead and moved lots of resources there just in case..
Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it.
Trump blew up any pretence of seeing the UK as an ally a year ago. That ship has long sailed.
The best thing the UK can do is stay away from this mess. Trump has just criticised us so we are clearly in his bad books. Whatever we do, we will stay in his bad book so no point wasting any British lives on something we can’t influence.
The US does respect our intelligence capabilities so we should make sure that relationship stays intact but beyond that we let the Americans and the Israelis deal with everything that is coming down the track.
"I guess Labour and its supporters can now fly the white flag alongside the Palestinian one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Starmer knew British citizens and territory could be at risk but did nothing to protect them. Still hasn't sent navy to Cyprus.
So now you think Starmer is somehow to blame for the fuck ups of trump 🤣🤣
Aw come on..
We should have thought ahead and moved lots of resources there just in case..
Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it.
Trump blew up any pretence of seeing the UK as an ally a year ago. That ship has long sailed.
The best thing the UK can do is stay away from this mess. Trump has just criticised us so we are clearly in his bad books. Whatever we do, we will stay in his bad book so no point wasting any British lives on something we can’t influence.
The US does respect our intelligence capabilities so we should make sure that relationship stays intact but beyond that we let the Americans and the Israelis deal with everything that is coming down the track.
I guess Labour and its supporters can now fly the white flag alongside the Palestinian one. "I do hope all of those in favour of gung-ho action in Iran don’t change their tune in years to come and claim to have always been against it when history tells us it was an illegal act | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump has just called Starmer out ‘This is not Winston Churchill that we're dealing with," he says of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer" Well there'll never be another Churchill for sure, but it's regrettable we can't do better than a man who's more interested in 'helping' Ukrainian rent boys than our most important ally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it.
Trump blew up any pretence of seeing the UK as an ally a year ago. That ship has long sailed.
The best thing the UK can do is stay away from this mess. Trump has just criticised us so we are clearly in his bad books. Whatever we do, we will stay in his bad book so no point wasting any British lives on something we can’t influence.
The US does respect our intelligence capabilities so we should make sure that relationship stays intact but beyond that we let the Americans and the Israelis deal with everything that is coming down the track.
I guess Labour and its supporters can now fly the white flag alongside the Palestinian one. "Seriously? I have never voted Labour in my life. I can look at the world and make my own decisions about what I think we should do. I don’t need to follow a party line. Trump is clearly pissed off that we didn’t play lapdog. That what happens when you want people to start looking after their own interests. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it.
Trump blew up any pretence of seeing the UK as an ally a year ago. That ship has long sailed.
The best thing the UK can do is stay away from this mess. Trump has just criticised us so we are clearly in his bad books. Whatever we do, we will stay in his bad book so no point wasting any British lives on something we can’t influence.
The US does respect our intelligence capabilities so we should make sure that relationship stays intact but beyond that we let the Americans and the Israelis deal with everything that is coming down the track.
I guess Labour and its supporters can now fly the white flag alongside the Palestinian one.
Seriously? I have never voted Labour in my life.
I can look at the world and make my own decisions about what I think we should do. I don’t need to follow a party line.
Trump is clearly pissed off that we didn’t play lapdog. That what happens when you want people to start looking after their own interests."A few weeks ago he threatened to take a NATO country by force and he's surprised that Starmer has more balls than he has. Trump is seriously fucked up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it.
Trump blew up any pretence of seeing the UK as an ally a year ago. That ship has long sailed.
The best thing the UK can do is stay away from this mess. Trump has just criticised us so we are clearly in his bad books. Whatever we do, we will stay in his bad book so no point wasting any British lives on something we can’t influence.
The US does respect our intelligence capabilities so we should make sure that relationship stays intact but beyond that we let the Americans and the Israelis deal with everything that is coming down the track.
I guess Labour and its supporters can now fly the white flag alongside the Palestinian one.
Seriously? I have never voted Labour in my life.
I can look at the world and make my own decisions about what I think we should do. I don’t need to follow a party line.
Trump is clearly pissed off that we didn’t play lapdog. That what happens when you want people to start looking after their own interests."Cool, let's take that to its logical conclusion - let the US withdraw from Nato, close all its European bases, and withdraw all intelligence about terrorist threats, attacks on British military, etc. Good luck with that not so splendid isolation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it.
Trump blew up any pretence of seeing the UK as an ally a year ago. That ship has long sailed.
The best thing the UK can do is stay away from this mess. Trump has just criticised us so we are clearly in his bad books. Whatever we do, we will stay in his bad book so no point wasting any British lives on something we can’t influence.
The US does respect our intelligence capabilities so we should make sure that relationship stays intact but beyond that we let the Americans and the Israelis deal with everything that is coming down the track.
I guess Labour and its supporters can now fly the white flag alongside the Palestinian one.
Seriously? I have never voted Labour in my life.
I can look at the world and make my own decisions about what I think we should do. I don’t need to follow a party line.
Trump is clearly pissed off that we didn’t play lapdog. That what happens when you want people to start looking after their own interests.
Cool, let's take that to its logical conclusion - let the US withdraw from Nato, close all its European bases, and withdraw all intelligence about terrorist threats, attacks on British military, etc. Good luck with that not so splendid isolation."So because of that, we should follow the USA into an illegal action? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it.
Trump blew up any pretence of seeing the UK as an ally a year ago. That ship has long sailed.
The best thing the UK can do is stay away from this mess. Trump has just criticised us so we are clearly in his bad books. Whatever we do, we will stay in his bad book so no point wasting any British lives on something we can’t influence.
The US does respect our intelligence capabilities so we should make sure that relationship stays intact but beyond that we let the Americans and the Israelis deal with everything that is coming down the track.
I guess Labour and its supporters can now fly the white flag alongside the Palestinian one.
Seriously? I have never voted Labour in my life.
I can look at the world and make my own decisions about what I think we should do. I don’t need to follow a party line.
Trump is clearly pissed off that we didn’t play lapdog. That what happens when you want people to start looking after their own interests.
A few weeks ago he threatened to take a NATO country by force and he's surprised that Starmer has more balls than he has.
Trump is seriously fucked up"The bloke who ducked serving his own country and then accused the UK military of hiding behind the front lines in Afghanistan..  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it.
Trump blew up any pretence of seeing the UK as an ally a year ago. That ship has long sailed.
The best thing the UK can do is stay away from this mess. Trump has just criticised us so we are clearly in his bad books. Whatever we do, we will stay in his bad book so no point wasting any British lives on something we can’t influence.
The US does respect our intelligence capabilities so we should make sure that relationship stays intact but beyond that we let the Americans and the Israelis deal with everything that is coming down the track.
I guess Labour and its supporters can now fly the white flag alongside the Palestinian one.
Seriously? I have never voted Labour in my life.
I can look at the world and make my own decisions about what I think we should do. I don’t need to follow a party line.
Trump is clearly pissed off that we didn’t play lapdog. That what happens when you want people to start looking after their own interests.
Cool, let's take that to its logical conclusion - let the US withdraw from Nato, close all its European bases, and withdraw all intelligence about terrorist threats, attacks on British military, etc. Good luck with that not so splendid isolation."Personally I agree with Trump that the Europeans have freeloaded in NATO. I think multiple Tory and Labour governments have underinvested in our military capabilities for decades. I also agree with Trumps previous statements that the UK and Europe needs to grow a back bone and start looking after our national interest. Stopping being a lapdog is what looking after our national interest _actually_ means. _Our_ national interest does not involve getting sucked into a war with Iran. It also doesn’t not include getting sucked into an Israeli war in Lebanon. The US is not going to remove themselves from Five Eyes or any UK intelligence sharing arrangements. It is too valuable to them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Personally I agree with Trump that the Europeans have freeloaded in NATO. I think multiple Tory and Labour governments have underinvested in our military capabilities for decades. I also agree with Trumps previous statements that the UK and Europe needs to grow a back bone and start looking after our national interest. Stopping being a lapdog is what looking after our national interest _actually_ means. _Our_ national interest does not involve getting sucked into a war with Iran. It also doesn’t not include getting sucked into an Israeli war in Lebanon. The US is not going to remove themselves from Five Eyes or any UK intelligence sharing arrangements. It is too valuable to them." Spot on.. His one positive is that he has focused Europe's and our eyes upon how we have massively underfunded our defence capabilities for too long.. Him gobbing off about how we didn't support him is bollocking, allies give their friends a heads up on such things.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Explain the exact difference between what Fabio said paraphrasing Rubio:
“The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!!“
And what you said:
“ they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.”
"I’m sure you can see the difference in inference | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Explain the exact difference between what Fabio said paraphrasing Rubio:
“The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!!“
And what you said:
“ they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.”
I’m sure you can see the difference in inference"No, I’d like you to explain please. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Explain the exact difference between what Fabio said paraphrasing Rubio:
“The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!!“
And what you said:
“ they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.”
I’m sure you can see the difference in inference
No, I’d like you to explain please. "It is written above already, I'm not sure what more I can add if you can't see it now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Explain the exact difference between what Fabio said paraphrasing Rubio:
“The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!!“
And what you said:
“ they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.”
I’m sure you can see the difference in inference
No, I’d like you to explain please.
It is written above already, I'm not sure what more I can add if you can't see it now.
"Indeed. I thought you’d fail to point out the difference | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Explain the exact difference between what Fabio said paraphrasing Rubio:
“The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!!“
And what you said:
“ they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.”
I’m sure you can see the difference in inference
No, I’d like you to explain please.
It is written above already, I'm not sure what more I can add if you can't see it now.
Indeed. I thought you’d fail to point out the difference "I have lessons learnt about going around in endless circles on the whim of another. You have been here before and know that too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Explain the exact difference between what Fabio said paraphrasing Rubio:
“The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!!“
And what you said:
“ they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.”
I’m sure you can see the difference in inference
No, I’d like you to explain please.
It is written above already, I'm not sure what more I can add if you can't see it now.
Indeed. I thought you’d fail to point out the difference
I have lessons learnt about going around in endless circles on the whim of another. You have been here before and know that too.
"No, not going round and round at all. I asked a question and you chose not to answer it. That’s not illegal. Unlike this war. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Starmer knew British citizens and territory could be at risk but did nothing to protect them. Still hasn't sent navy to Cyprus.
I think its a harsh but predictable criticism given the government weren't prepared and in any case what protection other than the RAF doing what they have been over the British areas in the Gulf States should we do?
Harsh and predictable criticism from the Cypriot Govt too:
'The UK government is considering whether to send a Royal Navy warship to the Mediterranean to increase security around RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus.
HMS Duncan, a Type 45 Destroyer, could be dispatched to the region after criticism from the Cypriot government about a lack of air defence as the Middle East war continues to spiral.'
It makes sense now to locate it there at this point in time..
Greece is sending a ship and has sent planes too..
"France is sending a ship and air defence equipment to Cyprus (it's an EU country). Also sending their only aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean as they have defence agreements with several Arab states that have been attacked according to the BBC | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Starmer knew British citizens and territory could be at risk but did nothing to protect them. Still hasn't sent navy to Cyprus.
I think its a harsh but predictable criticism given the government weren't prepared and in any case what protection other than the RAF doing what they have been over the British areas in the Gulf States should we do?
Harsh and predictable criticism from the Cypriot Govt too:
'The UK government is considering whether to send a Royal Navy warship to the Mediterranean to increase security around RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus.
HMS Duncan, a Type 45 Destroyer, could be dispatched to the region after criticism from the Cypriot government about a lack of air defence as the Middle East war continues to spiral.'
It makes sense now to locate it there at this point in time..
Greece is sending a ship and has sent planes too..
France is sending a ship and air defence equipment to Cyprus (it's an EU country). Also sending their only aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean as they have defence agreements with several Arab states that have been attacked according to the BBC "
The Gulf States are livid by all accounts with how Iran has attacked them..
Iran wants them to put pressure on the USA but its not looking likely and they are more isolated.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Starmer knew British citizens and territory could be at risk but did nothing to protect them. Still hasn't sent navy to Cyprus.
I think its a harsh but predictable criticism given the government weren't prepared and in any case what protection other than the RAF doing what they have been over the British areas in the Gulf States should we do?
Harsh and predictable criticism from the Cypriot Govt too:
'The UK government is considering whether to send a Royal Navy warship to the Mediterranean to increase security around RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus.
HMS Duncan, a Type 45 Destroyer, could be dispatched to the region after criticism from the Cypriot government about a lack of air defence as the Middle East war continues to spiral.'
It makes sense now to locate it there at this point in time..
Greece is sending a ship and has sent planes too..
France is sending a ship and air defence equipment to Cyprus (it's an EU country). Also sending their only aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean as they have defence agreements with several Arab states that have been attacked according to the BBC
The Gulf States are livid by all accounts with how Iran has attacked them..
Iran wants them to put pressure on the USA but its not looking likely and they are more isolated.."Iran leadership gave away how disjointed they had become by the punitive attacks on their neighbours. In the past they limited any response to minimise further conflict, that leadership clearly fell away. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it.
Trump blew up any pretence of seeing the UK as an ally a year ago. That ship has long sailed.
The best thing the UK can do is stay away from this mess. Trump has just criticised us so we are clearly in his bad books. Whatever we do, we will stay in his bad book so no point wasting any British lives on something we can’t influence.
The US does respect our intelligence capabilities so we should make sure that relationship stays intact but beyond that we let the Americans and the Israelis deal with everything that is coming down the track.
I guess Labour and its supporters can now fly the white flag alongside the Palestinian one.
Seriously? I have never voted Labour in my life.
I can look at the world and make my own decisions about what I think we should do. I don’t need to follow a party line.
Trump is clearly pissed off that we didn’t play lapdog. That what happens when you want people to start looking after their own interests.
Cool, let's take that to its logical conclusion - let the US withdraw from Nato, close all its European bases, and withdraw all intelligence about terrorist threats, attacks on British military, etc. Good luck with that not so splendid isolation.
Personally I agree with Trump that the Europeans have freeloaded in NATO. I think multiple Tory and Labour governments have underinvested in our military capabilities for decades. I also agree with Trumps previous statements that the UK and Europe needs to grow a back bone and start looking after our national interest. Stopping being a lapdog is what looking after our national interest _actually_ means.
_Our_ national interest does not involve getting sucked into a war with Iran. It also doesn’t not include getting sucked into an Israeli war in Lebanon.
The US is not going to remove themselves from Five Eyes or any UK intelligence sharing arrangements. It is too valuable to them."The US has not asked us to attack Iran, simply to use air bases which have been used for decades in multiple operations. This seems like a very small favour to ask from a friend and ally, but clearly under Starmer we are neither to the US, and as the very junior partner is this relationship the negative consequences Will fall heavily on us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it.
Trump blew up any pretence of seeing the UK as an ally a year ago. That ship has long sailed.
The best thing the UK can do is stay away from this mess. Trump has just criticised us so we are clearly in his bad books. Whatever we do, we will stay in his bad book so no point wasting any British lives on something we can’t influence.
The US does respect our intelligence capabilities so we should make sure that relationship stays intact but beyond that we let the Americans and the Israelis deal with everything that is coming down the track.
I guess Labour and its supporters can now fly the white flag alongside the Palestinian one.
Seriously? I have never voted Labour in my life.
I can look at the world and make my own decisions about what I think we should do. I don’t need to follow a party line.
Trump is clearly pissed off that we didn’t play lapdog. That what happens when you want people to start looking after their own interests.
Cool, let's take that to its logical conclusion - let the US withdraw from Nato, close all its European bases, and withdraw all intelligence about terrorist threats, attacks on British military, etc. Good luck with that not so splendid isolation.
Personally I agree with Trump that the Europeans have freeloaded in NATO. I think multiple Tory and Labour governments have underinvested in our military capabilities for decades. I also agree with Trumps previous statements that the UK and Europe needs to grow a back bone and start looking after our national interest. Stopping being a lapdog is what looking after our national interest _actually_ means.
_Our_ national interest does not involve getting sucked into a war with Iran. It also doesn’t not include getting sucked into an Israeli war in Lebanon.
The US is not going to remove themselves from Five Eyes or any UK intelligence sharing arrangements. It is too valuable to them.
The US has not asked us to attack Iran, simply to use air bases which have been used for decades in multiple operations. This seems like a very small favour to ask from a friend and ally, but clearly under Starmer we are neither to the US, and as the very junior partner is this relationship the negative consequences Will fall heavily on us."Should we always follow the USA’s orders/requests, regardless of circumstance? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
A lapdog for someone like trump..
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it.
Trump blew up any pretence of seeing the UK as an ally a year ago. That ship has long sailed.
The best thing the UK can do is stay away from this mess. Trump has just criticised us so we are clearly in his bad books. Whatever we do, we will stay in his bad book so no point wasting any British lives on something we can’t influence.
The US does respect our intelligence capabilities so we should make sure that relationship stays intact but beyond that we let the Americans and the Israelis deal with everything that is coming down the track.
I guess Labour and its supporters can now fly the white flag alongside the Palestinian one.
Seriously? I have never voted Labour in my life.
I can look at the world and make my own decisions about what I think we should do. I don’t need to follow a party line.
Trump is clearly pissed off that we didn’t play lapdog. That what happens when you want people to start looking after their own interests.
Cool, let's take that to its logical conclusion - let the US withdraw from Nato, close all its European bases, and withdraw all intelligence about terrorist threats, attacks on British military, etc. Good luck with that not so splendid isolation.
Personally I agree with Trump that the Europeans have freeloaded in NATO. I think multiple Tory and Labour governments have underinvested in our military capabilities for decades. I also agree with Trumps previous statements that the UK and Europe needs to grow a back bone and start looking after our national interest. Stopping being a lapdog is what looking after our national interest _actually_ means.
_Our_ national interest does not involve getting sucked into a war with Iran. It also doesn’t not include getting sucked into an Israeli war in Lebanon.
The US is not going to remove themselves from Five Eyes or any UK intelligence sharing arrangements. It is too valuable to them.
The US has not asked us to attack Iran, simply to use air bases which have been used for decades in multiple operations. This seems like a very small favour to ask from a friend and ally, but clearly under Starmer we are neither to the US, and as the very junior partner is this relationship the negative consequences Will fall heavily on us."Starmer’s decision really does go against our long standing approach which has been taken by successive Prime Ministers, it is no wonder Trump is annoyed. Starmer could confuse his own shadow | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Didn't Trump want to turn the gaza strip in the next Vegas a year ago? " Perhaps Tehran could be the new Blackpool? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The amount of people on here, mostly right leaning who are happy with the country being America's poodle..
A lapdog for someone like trump..
"As said above, good luck with military and intelligence isolation. I dread to think how many terrorist attacks on Britain or British citizens and especially armed forces abroad have been averted with American help but heh, a price worth paying to piss off Trump I'm sure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it.
Trump blew up any pretence of seeing the UK as an ally a year ago. That ship has long sailed.
The best thing the UK can do is stay away from this mess. Trump has just criticised us so we are clearly in his bad books. Whatever we do, we will stay in his bad book so no point wasting any British lives on something we can’t influence.
The US does respect our intelligence capabilities so we should make sure that relationship stays intact but beyond that we let the Americans and the Israelis deal with everything that is coming down the track.
I guess Labour and its supporters can now fly the white flag alongside the Palestinian one.
Seriously? I have never voted Labour in my life.
I can look at the world and make my own decisions about what I think we should do. I don’t need to follow a party line.
Trump is clearly pissed off that we didn’t play lapdog. That what happens when you want people to start looking after their own interests.
Cool, let's take that to its logical conclusion - let the US withdraw from Nato, close all its European bases, and withdraw all intelligence about terrorist threats, attacks on British military, etc. Good luck with that not so splendid isolation.
Personally I agree with Trump that the Europeans have freeloaded in NATO. I think multiple Tory and Labour governments have underinvested in our military capabilities for decades. I also agree with Trumps previous statements that the UK and Europe needs to grow a back bone and start looking after our national interest. Stopping being a lapdog is what looking after our national interest _actually_ means.
_Our_ national interest does not involve getting sucked into a war with Iran. It also doesn’t not include getting sucked into an Israeli war in Lebanon.
The US is not going to remove themselves from Five Eyes or any UK intelligence sharing arrangements. It is too valuable to them.
The US has not asked us to attack Iran, simply to use air bases which have been used for decades in multiple operations. This seems like a very small favour to ask from a friend and ally, but clearly under Starmer we are neither to the US, and as the very junior partner is this relationship the negative consequences Will fall heavily on us.
Starmer’s decision really does go against our long standing approach which has been taken by successive Prime Ministers, it is no wonder Trump is annoyed.
Starmer could confuse his own shadow"15 months ago I would have agreed with you. 15 months ago it clearly was in our long term interests to stand with the Americans. 15 months ago is a long time ago. The world has changed. It is in our long long term interests to be aligned with America but it is not in our short long term interests to be aligned with Trump. He is too capricious. He thinks he is America and that what suits him suits America. That isnt the case. This Iranian adventure is not going to end well and the America that comes after Trump will remember that. They are the ones who will have to deal with the aftermath. They will remember that we said no when the madness started and that will stand us in good stead. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it.
Trump blew up any pretence of seeing the UK as an ally a year ago. That ship has long sailed.
The best thing the UK can do is stay away from this mess. Trump has just criticised us so we are clearly in his bad books. Whatever we do, we will stay in his bad book so no point wasting any British lives on something we can’t influence.
The US does respect our intelligence capabilities so we should make sure that relationship stays intact but beyond that we let the Americans and the Israelis deal with everything that is coming down the track.
I guess Labour and its supporters can now fly the white flag alongside the Palestinian one.
Seriously? I have never voted Labour in my life.
I can look at the world and make my own decisions about what I think we should do. I don’t need to follow a party line.
Trump is clearly pissed off that we didn’t play lapdog. That what happens when you want people to start looking after their own interests.
Cool, let's take that to its logical conclusion - let the US withdraw from Nato, close all its European bases, and withdraw all intelligence about terrorist threats, attacks on British military, etc. Good luck with that not so splendid isolation.
Personally I agree with Trump that the Europeans have freeloaded in NATO. I think multiple Tory and Labour governments have underinvested in our military capabilities for decades. I also agree with Trumps previous statements that the UK and Europe needs to grow a back bone and start looking after our national interest. Stopping being a lapdog is what looking after our national interest _actually_ means.
_Our_ national interest does not involve getting sucked into a war with Iran. It also doesn’t not include getting sucked into an Israeli war in Lebanon.
The US is not going to remove themselves from Five Eyes or any UK intelligence sharing arrangements. It is too valuable to them.
The US has not asked us to attack Iran, simply to use air bases which have been used for decades in multiple operations. This seems like a very small favour to ask from a friend and ally, but clearly under Starmer we are neither to the US, and as the very junior partner is this relationship the negative consequences Will fall heavily on us.
Starmer’s decision really does go against our long standing approach which has been taken by successive Prime Ministers, it is no wonder Trump is annoyed.
Starmer could confuse his own shadow"A Man of Density. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it.
Trump blew up any pretence of seeing the UK as an ally a year ago. That ship has long sailed.
The best thing the UK can do is stay away from this mess. Trump has just criticised us so we are clearly in his bad books. Whatever we do, we will stay in his bad book so no point wasting any British lives on something we can’t influence.
The US does respect our intelligence capabilities so we should make sure that relationship stays intact but beyond that we let the Americans and the Israelis deal with everything that is coming down the track.
I guess Labour and its supporters can now fly the white flag alongside the Palestinian one.
Seriously? I have never voted Labour in my life.
I can look at the world and make my own decisions about what I think we should do. I don’t need to follow a party line.
Trump is clearly pissed off that we didn’t play lapdog. That what happens when you want people to start looking after their own interests.
Cool, let's take that to its logical conclusion - let the US withdraw from Nato, close all its European bases, and withdraw all intelligence about terrorist threats, attacks on British military, etc. Good luck with that not so splendid isolation.
Personally I agree with Trump that the Europeans have freeloaded in NATO. I think multiple Tory and Labour governments have underinvested in our military capabilities for decades. I also agree with Trumps previous statements that the UK and Europe needs to grow a back bone and start looking after our national interest. Stopping being a lapdog is what looking after our national interest _actually_ means.
_Our_ national interest does not involve getting sucked into a war with Iran. It also doesn’t not include getting sucked into an Israeli war in Lebanon.
The US is not going to remove themselves from Five Eyes or any UK intelligence sharing arrangements. It is too valuable to them.
The US has not asked us to attack Iran, simply to use air bases which have been used for decades in multiple operations. This seems like a very small favour to ask from a friend and ally, but clearly under Starmer we are neither to the US, and as the very junior partner is this relationship the negative consequences Will fall heavily on us.
Starmer’s decision really does go against our long standing approach which has been taken by successive Prime Ministers, it is no wonder Trump is annoyed.
Starmer could confuse his own shadow
15 months ago I would have agreed with you. 15 months ago it clearly was in our long term interests to stand with the Americans. 15 months ago is a long time ago.
The world has changed.
It is in our long long term interests to be aligned with America but it is not in our short long term interests to be aligned with Trump. He is too capricious. He thinks he is America and that what suits him suits America. That isnt the case.
This Iranian adventure is not going to end well and the America that comes after Trump will remember that. They are the ones who will have to deal with the aftermath. They will remember that we said no when the madness started and that will stand us in good stead."You are an intelligent and well informed poster but I honestly feel that is a hugely misguided understand of realpolitik. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it.
Trump blew up any pretence of seeing the UK as an ally a year ago. That ship has long sailed.
The best thing the UK can do is stay away from this mess. Trump has just criticised us so we are clearly in his bad books. Whatever we do, we will stay in his bad book so no point wasting any British lives on something we can’t influence.
The US does respect our intelligence capabilities so we should make sure that relationship stays intact but beyond that we let the Americans and the Israelis deal with everything that is coming down the track.
I guess Labour and its supporters can now fly the white flag alongside the Palestinian one.
Seriously? I have never voted Labour in my life.
I can look at the world and make my own decisions about what I think we should do. I don’t need to follow a party line.
Trump is clearly pissed off that we didn’t play lapdog. That what happens when you want people to start looking after their own interests.
Cool, let's take that to its logical conclusion - let the US withdraw from Nato, close all its European bases, and withdraw all intelligence about terrorist threats, attacks on British military, etc. Good luck with that not so splendid isolation.
Personally I agree with Trump that the Europeans have freeloaded in NATO. I think multiple Tory and Labour governments have underinvested in our military capabilities for decades. I also agree with Trumps previous statements that the UK and Europe needs to grow a back bone and start looking after our national interest. Stopping being a lapdog is what looking after our national interest _actually_ means.
_Our_ national interest does not involve getting sucked into a war with Iran. It also doesn’t not include getting sucked into an Israeli war in Lebanon.
The US is not going to remove themselves from Five Eyes or any UK intelligence sharing arrangements. It is too valuable to them.
The US has not asked us to attack Iran, simply to use air bases which have been used for decades in multiple operations. This seems like a very small favour to ask from a friend and ally, but clearly under Starmer we are neither to the US, and as the very junior partner is this relationship the negative consequences Will fall heavily on us.
Starmer’s decision really does go against our long standing approach which has been taken by successive Prime Ministers, it is no wonder Trump is annoyed.
Starmer could confuse his own shadow
15 months ago I would have agreed with you. 15 months ago it clearly was in our long term interests to stand with the Americans. 15 months ago is a long time ago.
The world has changed.
It is in our long long term interests to be aligned with America but it is not in our short long term interests to be aligned with Trump. He is too capricious. He thinks he is America and that what suits him suits America. That isnt the case.
This Iranian adventure is not going to end well and the America that comes after Trump will remember that. They are the ones who will have to deal with the aftermath. They will remember that we said no when the madness started and that will stand us in good stead.
You are an intelligent and well informed poster but I honestly feel that is a hugely misguided understand of realpolitik. "Realpolitik being the practice of _self_ interest. You appreciate the irony of practicing realpolitik by being a lapdog? Bismark would be proud. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it.
Trump blew up any pretence of seeing the UK as an ally a year ago. That ship has long sailed.
The best thing the UK can do is stay away from this mess. Trump has just criticised us so we are clearly in his bad books. Whatever we do, we will stay in his bad book so no point wasting any British lives on something we can’t influence.
The US does respect our intelligence capabilities so we should make sure that relationship stays intact but beyond that we let the Americans and the Israelis deal with everything that is coming down the track.
I guess Labour and its supporters can now fly the white flag alongside the Palestinian one.
Seriously? I have never voted Labour in my life.
I can look at the world and make my own decisions about what I think we should do. I don’t need to follow a party line.
Trump is clearly pissed off that we didn’t play lapdog. That what happens when you want people to start looking after their own interests.
Cool, let's take that to its logical conclusion - let the US withdraw from Nato, close all its European bases, and withdraw all intelligence about terrorist threats, attacks on British military, etc. Good luck with that not so splendid isolation.
Personally I agree with Trump that the Europeans have freeloaded in NATO. I think multiple Tory and Labour governments have underinvested in our military capabilities for decades. I also agree with Trumps previous statements that the UK and Europe needs to grow a back bone and start looking after our national interest. Stopping being a lapdog is what looking after our national interest _actually_ means.
_Our_ national interest does not involve getting sucked into a war with Iran. It also doesn’t not include getting sucked into an Israeli war in Lebanon.
The US is not going to remove themselves from Five Eyes or any UK intelligence sharing arrangements. It is too valuable to them.
The US has not asked us to attack Iran, simply to use air bases which have been used for decades in multiple operations. This seems like a very small favour to ask from a friend and ally, but clearly under Starmer we are neither to the US, and as the very junior partner is this relationship the negative consequences Will fall heavily on us.
Starmer’s decision really does go against our long standing approach which has been taken by successive Prime Ministers, it is no wonder Trump is annoyed.
Starmer could confuse his own shadow
15 months ago I would have agreed with you. 15 months ago it clearly was in our long term interests to stand with the Americans. 15 months ago is a long time ago.
The world has changed.
It is in our long long term interests to be aligned with America but it is not in our short long term interests to be aligned with Trump. He is too capricious. He thinks he is America and that what suits him suits America. That isnt the case.
This Iranian adventure is not going to end well and the America that comes after Trump will remember that. They are the ones who will have to deal with the aftermath. They will remember that we said no when the madness started and that will stand us in good stead.
You are an intelligent and well informed poster but I honestly feel that is a hugely misguided understand of realpolitik.
Realpolitik being the practice of _self_ interest.
You appreciate the irony of practicing realpolitik by being a lapdog? Bismark would be proud."That would be Bismark who lived by the maxim of Blood and Iron ? I'm pretty sure he would have had more respect for the American approach to global politics than that of the quisling in Downing St. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 15 months ago I would have agreed with you. 15 months ago it clearly was in our long term interests to stand with the Americans. 15 months ago is a long time ago. The world has changed. It is in our long long term interests to be aligned with America but it is not in our short long term interests to be aligned with Trump. He is too capricious. He thinks he is America and that what suits him suits America. That isnt the case. This Iranian adventure is not going to end well and the America that comes after Trump will remember that. They are the ones who will have to deal with the aftermath. They will remember that we said no when the madness started and that will stand us in good stead. You are an intelligent and well informed poster but I honestly feel that is a hugely misguided understand of realpolitik. Realpolitik being the practice of _self_ interest. You appreciate the irony of practicing realpolitik by being a lapdog? Bismark would be proud. That would be Bismark who lived by the maxim of Blood and Iron ? I'm pretty sure he would have had more respect for the American approach to global politics than that of the quisling in Downing St." No it would be the Bismark who lived by the maxim of only fighting wars you know you can win and never starting a “preventative” one because you “cannot see the cards of Providence far enough ahead to anticipate historical developments according to one’s own calculations”. There is no way Bismark would have let himself get dragged into a war because the Israelis were going to do it anyway. Starmer definitely isn’t Churchill and Trump is definitely not Bismark. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 15 months ago I would have agreed with you. 15 months ago it clearly was in our long term interests to stand with the Americans. 15 months ago is a long time ago. The world has changed. It is in our long long term interests to be aligned with America but it is not in our short long term interests to be aligned with Trump. He is too capricious. He thinks he is America and that what suits him suits America. That isnt the case. This Iranian adventure is not going to end well and the America that comes after Trump will remember that. They are the ones who will have to deal with the aftermath. They will remember that we said no when the madness started and that will stand us in good stead. You are an intelligent and well informed poster but I honestly feel that is a hugely misguided understand of realpolitik. Realpolitik being the practice of _self_ interest. You appreciate the irony of practicing realpolitik by being a lapdog? Bismark would be proud. That would be Bismark who lived by the maxim of Blood and Iron ? I'm pretty sure he would have had more respect for the American approach to global politics than that of the quisling in Downing St. No it would be the Bismark who lived by the maxim of only fighting wars you know you can win and never starting a “preventative” one because you “cannot see the cards of Providence far enough ahead to anticipate historical developments according to one’s own calculations”. There is no way Bismark would have let himself get dragged into a war because the Israelis were going to do it anyway. Starmer definitely isn’t Churchill and Trump is definitely not Bismark. " So you think Trump is going to lose to Iran ? That would be quite a turnaround given the current situation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 15 months ago I would have agreed with you. 15 months ago it clearly was in our long term interests to stand with the Americans. 15 months ago is a long time ago. The world has changed. It is in our long long term interests to be aligned with America but it is not in our short long term interests to be aligned with Trump. He is too capricious. He thinks he is America and that what suits him suits America. That isnt the case. This Iranian adventure is not going to end well and the America that comes after Trump will remember that. They are the ones who will have to deal with the aftermath. They will remember that we said no when the madness started and that will stand us in good stead. You are an intelligent and well informed poster but I honestly feel that is a hugely misguided understand of realpolitik. Realpolitik being the practice of _self_ interest. You appreciate the irony of practicing realpolitik by being a lapdog? Bismark would be proud. That would be Bismark who lived by the maxim of Blood and Iron ? I'm pretty sure he would have had more respect for the American approach to global politics than that of the quisling in Downing St. No it would be the Bismark who lived by the maxim of only fighting wars you know you can win and never starting a “preventative” one because you “cannot see the cards of Providence far enough ahead to anticipate historical developments according to one’s own calculations”. There is no way Bismark would have let himself get dragged into a war because the Israelis were going to do it anyway. Starmer definitely isn’t Churchill and Trump is definitely not Bismark. So you think Trump is going to lose to Iran ? That would be quite a turnaround given the current situation." I think Trump doesn’t have any plan other than being yanked around by Netanyahu. The American administration cannot give a cogent argument as to what their aims are. America will clearly win the battle but they will lose the war unless they can articulate what their goals are. What are they _actually_ fighting for? If you can show me where their agreed goals are then I will happily read them. I will wait. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The amount of people on here, mostly right leaning who are happy with the country being America's poodle..
A lapdog for someone like trump..
As said above, good luck with military and intelligence isolation. I dread to think how many terrorist attacks on Britain or British citizens and especially armed forces abroad have been averted with American help but heh, a price worth paying to piss off Trump I'm sure. "Intelligence doesn't only flow one way.. The adults in the Pentagon know that so despite tantrums from the man child things won't change.. You sound like you want some sort of terrorist so you can feel justified in your wrong opinion..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 15 months ago I would have agreed with you. 15 months ago it clearly was in our long term interests to stand with the Americans. 15 months ago is a long time ago. The world has changed. It is in our long long term interests to be aligned with America but it is not in our short long term interests to be aligned with Trump. He is too capricious. He thinks he is America and that what suits him suits America. That isnt the case. This Iranian adventure is not going to end well and the America that comes after Trump will remember that. They are the ones who will have to deal with the aftermath. They will remember that we said no when the madness started and that will stand us in good stead. You are an intelligent and well informed poster but I honestly feel that is a hugely misguided understand of realpolitik. Realpolitik being the practice of _self_ interest. You appreciate the irony of practicing realpolitik by being a lapdog? Bismark would be proud. That would be Bismark who lived by the maxim of Blood and Iron ? I'm pretty sure he would have had more respect for the American approach to global politics than that of the quisling in Downing St. No it would be the Bismark who lived by the maxim of only fighting wars you know you can win and never starting a “preventative” one because you “cannot see the cards of Providence far enough ahead to anticipate historical developments according to one’s own calculations”. There is no way Bismark would have let himself get dragged into a war because the Israelis were going to do it anyway. Starmer definitely isn’t Churchill and Trump is definitely not Bismark. So you think Trump is going to lose to Iran ? That would be quite a turnaround given the current situation. I think Trump doesn’t have any plan other than being yanked around by Netanyahu. The American administration cannot give a cogent argument as to what their aims are. America will clearly win the battle but they will lose the war unless they can articulate what their goals are. What are they _actually_ fighting for? If you can show me where their agreed goals are then I will happily read them. I will wait. " Really no need to wait as Trump's objectives are really clear and have been stated many times -to remove any ability from Iran to produce nuclear weapons or to attack American and their allies in the regions with conventional weapon, directly or through proxies. That seems perfectly achievable whether you approve of the methods or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The amount of people on here, mostly right leaning who are happy with the country being America's poodle..
A lapdog for someone like trump..
As said above, good luck with military and intelligence isolation. I dread to think how many terrorist attacks on Britain or British citizens and especially armed forces abroad have been averted with American help but heh, a price worth paying to piss off Trump I'm sure.
Intelligence doesn't only flow one way..
The adults in the Pentagon know that so despite tantrums from the man child things won't change..
You sound like you want some sort of terrorist so you can feel justified in your wrong opinion..?"Haha 🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it.
Trump blew up any pretence of seeing the UK as an ally a year ago. That ship has long sailed.
The best thing the UK can do is stay away from this mess. Trump has just criticised us so we are clearly in his bad books. Whatever we do, we will stay in his bad book so no point wasting any British lives on something we can’t influence.
The US does respect our intelligence capabilities so we should make sure that relationship stays intact but beyond that we let the Americans and the Israelis deal with everything that is coming down the track.
I guess Labour and its supporters can now fly the white flag alongside the Palestinian one.
Seriously? I have never voted Labour in my life.
I can look at the world and make my own decisions about what I think we should do. I don’t need to follow a party line.
Trump is clearly pissed off that we didn’t play lapdog. That what happens when you want people to start looking after their own interests.
Cool, let's take that to its logical conclusion - let the US withdraw from Nato, close all its European bases, and withdraw all intelligence about terrorist threats, attacks on British military, etc. Good luck with that not so splendid isolation.
Personally I agree with Trump that the Europeans have freeloaded in NATO. I think multiple Tory and Labour governments have underinvested in our military capabilities for decades. I also agree with Trumps previous statements that the UK and Europe needs to grow a back bone and start looking after our national interest. Stopping being a lapdog is what looking after our national interest _actually_ means.
_Our_ national interest does not involve getting sucked into a war with Iran. It also doesn’t not include getting sucked into an Israeli war in Lebanon.
The US is not going to remove themselves from Five Eyes or any UK intelligence sharing arrangements. It is too valuable to them.
The US has not asked us to attack Iran, simply to use air bases which have been used for decades in multiple operations. This seems like a very small favour to ask from a friend and ally, but clearly under Starmer we are neither to the US, and as the very junior partner is this relationship the negative consequences Will fall heavily on us.
Starmer’s decision really does go against our long standing approach which has been taken by successive Prime Ministers, it is no wonder Trump is annoyed.
Starmer could confuse his own shadow
15 months ago I would have agreed with you. 15 months ago it clearly was in our long term interests to stand with the Americans. 15 months ago is a long time ago.
The world has changed.
It is in our long long term interests to be aligned with America but it is not in our short long term interests to be aligned with Trump. He is too capricious. He thinks he is America and that what suits him suits America. That isnt the case.
This Iranian adventure is not going to end well and the America that comes after Trump will remember that. They are the ones who will have to deal with the aftermath. They will remember that we said no when the madness started and that will stand us in good stead."Do you see the Iranian adventure as a well timed and strategic decision or a longterm tactical folly? Lets be real Trump is following military advice / orders, he holds the pen but not the ink. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 15 months ago I would have agreed with you. 15 months ago it clearly was in our long term interests to stand with the Americans. 15 months ago is a long time ago. The world has changed. It is in our long long term interests to be aligned with America but it is not in our short long term interests to be aligned with Trump. He is too capricious. He thinks he is America and that what suits him suits America. That isnt the case. This Iranian adventure is not going to end well and the America that comes after Trump will remember that. They are the ones who will have to deal with the aftermath. They will remember that we said no when the madness started and that will stand us in good stead. You are an intelligent and well informed poster but I honestly feel that is a hugely misguided understand of realpolitik. Realpolitik being the practice of _self_ interest. You appreciate the irony of practicing realpolitik by being a lapdog? Bismark would be proud. That would be Bismark who lived by the maxim of Blood and Iron ? I'm pretty sure he would have had more respect for the American approach to global politics than that of the quisling in Downing St. No it would be the Bismark who lived by the maxim of only fighting wars you know you can win and never starting a “preventative” one because you “cannot see the cards of Providence far enough ahead to anticipate historical developments according to one’s own calculations”. There is no way Bismark would have let himself get dragged into a war because the Israelis were going to do it anyway. Starmer definitely isn’t Churchill and Trump is definitely not Bismark. So you think Trump is going to lose to Iran ? That would be quite a turnaround given the current situation. I think Trump doesn’t have any plan other than being yanked around by Netanyahu. The American administration cannot give a cogent argument as to what their aims are. America will clearly win the battle but they will lose the war unless they can articulate what their goals are. What are they _actually_ fighting for? If you can show me where their agreed goals are then I will happily read them. I will wait. Really no need to wait as Trump's objectives are really clear and have been stated many times -to remove any ability from Iran to produce nuclear weapons or to attack American and their allies in the regions with conventional weapon, directly or through proxies. That seems perfectly achievable whether you approve of the methods or not. " So more 'absolute destruction' in ten months then? Because the regime will for their own self defence re equip and they know a nuke gives them the same 'back off' that north Korea has.. Without regime change and they are a fucking evil and cruel lot its deja vu.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it.
Trump blew up any pretence of seeing the UK as an ally a year ago. That ship has long sailed.
The best thing the UK can do is stay away from this mess. Trump has just criticised us so we are clearly in his bad books. Whatever we do, we will stay in his bad book so no point wasting any British lives on something we can’t influence.
The US does respect our intelligence capabilities so we should make sure that relationship stays intact but beyond that we let the Americans and the Israelis deal with everything that is coming down the track.
I guess Labour and its supporters can now fly the white flag alongside the Palestinian one.
Seriously? I have never voted Labour in my life.
I can look at the world and make my own decisions about what I think we should do. I don’t need to follow a party line.
Trump is clearly pissed off that we didn’t play lapdog. That what happens when you want people to start looking after their own interests.
Cool, let's take that to its logical conclusion - let the US withdraw from Nato, close all its European bases, and withdraw all intelligence about terrorist threats, attacks on British military, etc. Good luck with that not so splendid isolation.
Personally I agree with Trump that the Europeans have freeloaded in NATO. I think multiple Tory and Labour governments have underinvested in our military capabilities for decades. I also agree with Trumps previous statements that the UK and Europe needs to grow a back bone and start looking after our national interest. Stopping being a lapdog is what looking after our national interest _actually_ means.
_Our_ national interest does not involve getting sucked into a war with Iran. It also doesn’t not include getting sucked into an Israeli war in Lebanon.
The US is not going to remove themselves from Five Eyes or any UK intelligence sharing arrangements. It is too valuable to them.
The US has not asked us to attack Iran, simply to use air bases which have been used for decades in multiple operations. This seems like a very small favour to ask from a friend and ally, but clearly under Starmer we are neither to the US, and as the very junior partner is this relationship the negative consequences Will fall heavily on us.
Starmer’s decision really does go against our long standing approach which has been taken by successive Prime Ministers, it is no wonder Trump is annoyed.
Starmer could confuse his own shadow
15 months ago I would have agreed with you. 15 months ago it clearly was in our long term interests to stand with the Americans. 15 months ago is a long time ago.
The world has changed.
It is in our long long term interests to be aligned with America but it is not in our short long term interests to be aligned with Trump. He is too capricious. He thinks he is America and that what suits him suits America. That isnt the case.
This Iranian adventure is not going to end well and the America that comes after Trump will remember that. They are the ones who will have to deal with the aftermath. They will remember that we said no when the madness started and that will stand us in good stead.
Do you see the Iranian adventure as a well timed and strategic decision or a longterm tactical folly?
Lets be real Trump is following military advice / orders, he holds the pen but not the ink."Unfortunately the obsessive dislike of Trump, mixed sometimes with unsavoury views on Israel, blinds even intelligent people to that obvious truth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it.
Trump blew up any pretence of seeing the UK as an ally a year ago. That ship has long sailed.
The best thing the UK can do is stay away from this mess. Trump has just criticised us so we are clearly in his bad books. Whatever we do, we will stay in his bad book so no point wasting any British lives on something we can’t influence.
The US does respect our intelligence capabilities so we should make sure that relationship stays intact but beyond that we let the Americans and the Israelis deal with everything that is coming down the track.
I guess Labour and its supporters can now fly the white flag alongside the Palestinian one.
Seriously? I have never voted Labour in my life.
I can look at the world and make my own decisions about what I think we should do. I don’t need to follow a party line.
Trump is clearly pissed off that we didn’t play lapdog. That what happens when you want people to start looking after their own interests.
Cool, let's take that to its logical conclusion - let the US withdraw from Nato, close all its European bases, and withdraw all intelligence about terrorist threats, attacks on British military, etc. Good luck with that not so splendid isolation.
Personally I agree with Trump that the Europeans have freeloaded in NATO. I think multiple Tory and Labour governments have underinvested in our military capabilities for decades. I also agree with Trumps previous statements that the UK and Europe needs to grow a back bone and start looking after our national interest. Stopping being a lapdog is what looking after our national interest _actually_ means.
_Our_ national interest does not involve getting sucked into a war with Iran. It also doesn’t not include getting sucked into an Israeli war in Lebanon.
The US is not going to remove themselves from Five Eyes or any UK intelligence sharing arrangements. It is too valuable to them.
The US has not asked us to attack Iran, simply to use air bases which have been used for decades in multiple operations. This seems like a very small favour to ask from a friend and ally, but clearly under Starmer we are neither to the US, and as the very junior partner is this relationship the negative consequences Will fall heavily on us.
Starmer’s decision really does go against our long standing approach which has been taken by successive Prime Ministers, it is no wonder Trump is annoyed.
Starmer could confuse his own shadow
15 months ago I would have agreed with you. 15 months ago it clearly was in our long term interests to stand with the Americans. 15 months ago is a long time ago.
The world has changed.
It is in our long long term interests to be aligned with America but it is not in our short long term interests to be aligned with Trump. He is too capricious. He thinks he is America and that what suits him suits America. That isnt the case.
This Iranian adventure is not going to end well and the America that comes after Trump will remember that. They are the ones who will have to deal with the aftermath. They will remember that we said no when the madness started and that will stand us in good stead.
Do you see the Iranian adventure as a well timed and strategic decision or a longterm tactical folly?
Lets be real Trump is following military advice / orders, he holds the pen but not the ink."As I understand it the short term tactical opportunity that presented itself was to be able to kill Khamenei in his compound. That clearly worked. What happens next will decide if it was strategic genius or folly. The fact that multiple gulf states are now being attacked and that Israel is opening up a new front in Lebanon doesn’t look like the kind of thing that makes me think it is work of strategic genius. Actually that’s not true. The genius belongs to Israel because they are going to be able to use this whole mess to push an agenda they they have been unable to do for decades and they know they can use the Americans to help clean up. I totally understand why the Israelis would want to do that. That is realpolitik. I don’t however see any of that being reasons for wasting British military resources on. I don’t know if you have looked but the UK military piggy bank is empty. We are barely able to scrape together a single Type 42 frigate. Most of our troops are being used for the last American obsession in the arctic. We literally don’t have the resources to spare on Iran. We need to stop conflating what is good for America and Israel with what is good for us. Let’s focus our military on our problems and let America and the Israelis deal with their problems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it.
Trump blew up any pretence of seeing the UK as an ally a year ago. That ship has long sailed.
The best thing the UK can do is stay away from this mess. Trump has just criticised us so we are clearly in his bad books. Whatever we do, we will stay in his bad book so no point wasting any British lives on something we can’t influence.
The US does respect our intelligence capabilities so we should make sure that relationship stays intact but beyond that we let the Americans and the Israelis deal with everything that is coming down the track.
I guess Labour and its supporters can now fly the white flag alongside the Palestinian one.
Seriously? I have never voted Labour in my life.
I can look at the world and make my own decisions about what I think we should do. I don’t need to follow a party line.
Trump is clearly pissed off that we didn’t play lapdog. That what happens when you want people to start looking after their own interests.
Cool, let's take that to its logical conclusion - let the US withdraw from Nato, close all its European bases, and withdraw all intelligence about terrorist threats, attacks on British military, etc. Good luck with that not so splendid isolation.
Personally I agree with Trump that the Europeans have freeloaded in NATO. I think multiple Tory and Labour governments have underinvested in our military capabilities for decades. I also agree with Trumps previous statements that the UK and Europe needs to grow a back bone and start looking after our national interest. Stopping being a lapdog is what looking after our national interest _actually_ means.
_Our_ national interest does not involve getting sucked into a war with Iran. It also doesn’t not include getting sucked into an Israeli war in Lebanon.
The US is not going to remove themselves from Five Eyes or any UK intelligence sharing arrangements. It is too valuable to them.
The US has not asked us to attack Iran, simply to use air bases which have been used for decades in multiple operations. This seems like a very small favour to ask from a friend and ally, but clearly under Starmer we are neither to the US, and as the very junior partner is this relationship the negative consequences Will fall heavily on us.
Starmer’s decision really does go against our long standing approach which has been taken by successive Prime Ministers, it is no wonder Trump is annoyed.
Starmer could confuse his own shadow
15 months ago I would have agreed with you. 15 months ago it clearly was in our long term interests to stand with the Americans. 15 months ago is a long time ago.
The world has changed.
It is in our long long term interests to be aligned with America but it is not in our short long term interests to be aligned with Trump. He is too capricious. He thinks he is America and that what suits him suits America. That isnt the case.
This Iranian adventure is not going to end well and the America that comes after Trump will remember that. They are the ones who will have to deal with the aftermath. They will remember that we said no when the madness started and that will stand us in good stead.
Do you see the Iranian adventure as a well timed and strategic decision or a longterm tactical folly?
Lets be real Trump is following military advice / orders, he holds the pen but not the ink."No military advisor recommends going to war in a fashion that breaches the UN charter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reports yet to be confirmed that the son of the previous Ayatollah has been appointed as the new supreme leader.. Reputed to be hard line and close to the IRGC.." . That is rather controversial because it would resemble hereditary succession, something the Islamic Republic officially rejected when it overthrew the Shah in 1979. . If this is true, it's a significant shift and consolidation of power by the IRGC inside Iran. . It means the IRGC would become the dominant power centre. That means a move away from a theocracy, to a military-theocracy dominated by the IRGC. . It also weakens clerical legitimacy, which is governed by the doctrine of Wilayat al‑Faqih (the Supreme Leader must be a senior Islamist jurist). Mojtaba is not widely seen as a senior marja-level cleric. So in other words, clerical legitimacy is supplanted with coercive legitimacy (power of the security services). . Internal repression would likely intensify. The IRGC already oversees the Basij militia, domestic intelligence and protest suppression. Harsh crackdowns seem very likely, along with tighter surveillance. . Many feel that since Mojtaba relies on IRGC support, it means - more emphasis on proxy warfare - less diplomatic flexibility - greater confrontation with Israel and the US. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Starmer knew British citizens and territory could be at risk but did nothing to protect them. Still hasn't sent navy to Cyprus.
So now you think Starmer is somehow to blame for the fuck ups of trump 🤣🤣
Fuck Up ? You were calling for Trump to intervene in Iran weeks ago.🤷"Can I ask how you know what someone said a few weeks ago? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it.
Trump blew up any pretence of seeing the UK as an ally a year ago. That ship has long sailed.
The best thing the UK can do is stay away from this mess. Trump has just criticised us so we are clearly in his bad books. Whatever we do, we will stay in his bad book so no point wasting any British lives on something we can’t influence.
The US does respect our intelligence capabilities so we should make sure that relationship stays intact but beyond that we let the Americans and the Israelis deal with everything that is coming down the track.
I guess Labour and its supporters can now fly the white flag alongside the Palestinian one.
Seriously? I have never voted Labour in my life.
I can look at the world and make my own decisions about what I think we should do. I don’t need to follow a party line.
Trump is clearly pissed off that we didn’t play lapdog. That what happens when you want people to start looking after their own interests.
Cool, let's take that to its logical conclusion - let the US withdraw from Nato, close all its European bases, and withdraw all intelligence about terrorist threats, attacks on British military, etc. Good luck with that not so splendid isolation.
Personally I agree with Trump that the Europeans have freeloaded in NATO. I think multiple Tory and Labour governments have underinvested in our military capabilities for decades. I also agree with Trumps previous statements that the UK and Europe needs to grow a back bone and start looking after our national interest. Stopping being a lapdog is what looking after our national interest _actually_ means.
_Our_ national interest does not involve getting sucked into a war with Iran. It also doesn’t not include getting sucked into an Israeli war in Lebanon.
The US is not going to remove themselves from Five Eyes or any UK intelligence sharing arrangements. It is too valuable to them.
The US has not asked us to attack Iran, simply to use air bases which have been used for decades in multiple operations. This seems like a very small favour to ask from a friend and ally, but clearly under Starmer we are neither to the US, and as the very junior partner is this relationship the negative consequences Will fall heavily on us.
Starmer’s decision really does go against our long standing approach which has been taken by successive Prime Ministers, it is no wonder Trump is annoyed.
Starmer could confuse his own shadow
15 months ago I would have agreed with you. 15 months ago it clearly was in our long term interests to stand with the Americans. 15 months ago is a long time ago.
The world has changed.
It is in our long long term interests to be aligned with America but it is not in our short long term interests to be aligned with Trump. He is too capricious. He thinks he is America and that what suits him suits America. That isnt the case.
This Iranian adventure is not going to end well and the America that comes after Trump will remember that. They are the ones who will have to deal with the aftermath. They will remember that we said no when the madness started and that will stand us in good stead.
Do you see the Iranian adventure as a well timed and strategic decision or a longterm tactical folly?
Lets be real Trump is following military advice / orders, he holds the pen but not the ink.
As I understand it the short term tactical opportunity that presented itself was to be able to kill Khamenei in his compound. That clearly worked. What happens next will decide if it was strategic genius or folly.
The fact that multiple gulf states are now being attacked and that Israel is opening up a new front in Lebanon doesn’t look like the kind of thing that makes me think it is work of strategic genius. Actually that’s not true. The genius belongs to Israel because they are going to be able to use this whole mess to push an agenda they they have been unable to do for decades and they know they can use the Americans to help clean up.
I totally understand why the Israelis would want to do that. That is realpolitik.
I don’t however see any of that being reasons for wasting British military resources on. I don’t know if you have looked but the UK military piggy bank is empty. We are barely able to scrape together a single Type 42 frigate. Most of our troops are being used for the last American obsession in the arctic. We literally don’t have the resources to spare on Iran.
We need to stop conflating what is good for America and Israel with what is good for us. Let’s focus our military on our problems and let America and the Israelis deal with their problems."I agree with you on our capabilities, we allowed that to happen and the US have given Europe a wake up call in terms of our self interests. Put Trump to one side, we need the US. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Should we always follow the USA’s orders/requests, regardless of circumstance?" Can’t help but notice this has gone unanswered so far… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reports yet to be confirmed that the son of the previous Ayatollah has been appointed as the new supreme leader.. Reputed to be hard line and close to the IRGC.." I would imagine whoever took the top position would need to be hardline, the target on their back is already glowing red, I would have thought. The regime can't continue with an iron grip | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reports yet to be confirmed that the son of the previous Ayatollah has been appointed as the new supreme leader.. Reputed to be hard line and close to the IRGC.. I would imagine whoever took the top position would need to be hardline, the target on their back is already glowing red, I would have thought. The regime can't continue with an iron grip" Oh indeed. Sadly that's exactly what other historical leaders have done in the same situation in the past. Consolidate, tighten and crack down. . It's all those using the "Authoritarian Playbook" really know. . Because the alternative, to relax the rules, empower the people, ease off the beatings and the surveillance, ultimately means people with legitimate grudges to bear will come looking for the other people who did "bad things". . Power is being held and squeezed tighter not to protect the country, or indeed the citizens. It's to protect the lives of the people (and their families) who made everyone else's lives insufferable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Rubio gave the game away yesterday… rather then the various different excuses that was thrown at the wall to see what sticks The necessity of the attack is that Israel were going to do it anyway… and that Iran was going blame the US…. So the US went along with it to get their strikes in first!!!! Who’s leading policy again??? That old conspiracy theory
It’s literally what Rubio said. Is he part of the conspiracy?
This is not a correct representation of what was said.
Paraphrasing, he said they knew they would have been hit as a retaliatory measure, so they hit first to reduce the threat.
Starmer knew British citizens and territory could be at risk but did nothing to protect them. Still hasn't sent navy to Cyprus.
So now you think Starmer is somehow to blame for the fuck ups of trump 🤣🤣
Fuck Up ? You were calling for Trump to intervene in Iran weeks ago.🤷
Can I ask how you know what someone said a few weeks ago?"It was what they posted in another thread on here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No military advisor recommends going to war in a fashion that breaches the UN charter." You didn't see Pete Hegseth talking about the current operation being fought with "no stupid rules of engagement"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reports yet to be confirmed that the son of the previous Ayatollah has been appointed as the new supreme leader.. Reputed to be hard line and close to the IRGC... That is rather controversial because it would resemble hereditary succession, something the Islamic Republic officially rejected when it overthrew the Shah in 1979. . If this is true, it's a significant shift and consolidation of power by the IRGC inside Iran. . It means the IRGC would become the dominant power centre. That means a move away from a theocracy, to a military-theocracy dominated by the IRGC. . It also weakens clerical legitimacy, which is governed by the doctrine of Wilayat al‑Faqih (the Supreme Leader must be a senior Islamist jurist). Mojtaba is not widely seen as a senior marja-level cleric. So in other words, clerical legitimacy is supplanted with coercive legitimacy (power of the security services). . Internal repression would likely intensify. The IRGC already oversees the Basij militia, domestic intelligence and protest suppression. Harsh crackdowns seem very likely, along with tighter surveillance. . Many feel that since Mojtaba relies on IRGC support, it means - more emphasis on proxy warfare - less diplomatic flexibility - greater confrontation with Israel and the US." A good insight and very informative..
Not what outside observers and strategy makers might have expected.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No military advisor recommends going to war in a fashion that breaches the UN charter. You didn't see Pete Hegseth talking about the current operation being fought with "no stupid rules of engagement"?" You’re quite right. I should has qualified my statement. “No competent military advisor…” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reports yet to be confirmed that the son of the previous Ayatollah has been appointed as the new supreme leader.. Reputed to be hard line and close to the IRGC... That is rather controversial because it would resemble hereditary succession, something the Islamic Republic officially rejected when it overthrew the Shah in 1979. . If this is true, it's a significant shift and consolidation of power by the IRGC inside Iran. . It means the IRGC would become the dominant power centre. That means a move away from a theocracy, to a military-theocracy dominated by the IRGC. . It also weakens clerical legitimacy, which is governed by the doctrine of Wilayat al‑Faqih (the Supreme Leader must be a senior Islamist jurist). Mojtaba is not widely seen as a senior marja-level cleric. So in other words, clerical legitimacy is supplanted with coercive legitimacy (power of the security services). . Internal repression would likely intensify. The IRGC already oversees the Basij militia, domestic intelligence and protest suppression. Harsh crackdowns seem very likely, along with tighter surveillance. . Many feel that since Mojtaba relies on IRGC support, it means - more emphasis on proxy warfare - less diplomatic flexibility - greater confrontation with Israel and the US. A good insight and very informative..
Not what outside observers and strategy makers might have expected.."'Greater confrontation' What with, paper aeroplanes? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reports yet to be confirmed that the son of the previous Ayatollah has been appointed as the new supreme leader.. Reputed to be hard line and close to the IRGC... That is rather controversial because it would resemble hereditary succession, something the Islamic Republic officially rejected when it overthrew the Shah in 1979. . If this is true, it's a significant shift and consolidation of power by the IRGC inside Iran. . It means the IRGC would become the dominant power centre. That means a move away from a theocracy, to a military-theocracy dominated by the IRGC. . It also weakens clerical legitimacy, which is governed by the doctrine of Wilayat al‑Faqih (the Supreme Leader must be a senior Islamist jurist). Mojtaba is not widely seen as a senior marja-level cleric. So in other words, clerical legitimacy is supplanted with coercive legitimacy (power of the security services). . Internal repression would likely intensify. The IRGC already oversees the Basij militia, domestic intelligence and protest suppression. Harsh crackdowns seem very likely, along with tighter surveillance. . Many feel that since Mojtaba relies on IRGC support, it means - more emphasis on proxy warfare - less diplomatic flexibility - greater confrontation with Israel and the US. A good insight and very informative..
Not what outside observers and strategy makers might have expected..
'Greater confrontation' What with, paper aeroplanes?"8 months ago trump said their missile capabilities were totally obliterated.. Unless this recent campaign is targeting paper missiles, and one just hit an American airbase by the way.. Its obvious they weren't all obliterated and Iran in the interim has produced more.. They will using their oil revenue re arm, China will welcome the trade and more influence with them perhaps.. This phase will end and we all want the best outcome being the end of the regime and for Iranians to not live under repression it's not set in stone.. If what's been said on the Kurdistan thread, and it was reported days ago that Trump has asked the Kurds in Erbil to intervene on the ground then its going the way Iraq went.. Or the regime will sadly survive.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Sure America and Israel wouldn't have minded if after months of intelligence gathering we warned the Ayatollah something was in the offing..
Unfortunately Britain is no longer a trusted ally for the US, and British lives will be more in danger because of it.
Trump blew up any pretence of seeing the UK as an ally a year ago. That ship has long sailed.
The best thing the UK can do is stay away from this mess. Trump has just criticised us so we are clearly in his bad books. Whatever we do, we will stay in his bad book so no point wasting any British lives on something we can’t influence.
The US does respect our intelligence capabilities so we should make sure that relationship stays intact but beyond that we let the Americans and the Israelis deal with everything that is coming down the track.
I guess Labour and its supporters can now fly the white flag alongside the Palestinian one.
Seriously? I have never voted Labour in my life.
I can look at the world and make my own decisions about what I think we should do. I don’t need to follow a party line.
Trump is clearly pissed off that we didn’t play lapdog. That what happens when you want people to start looking after their own interests.
Cool, let's take that to its logical conclusion - let the US withdraw from Nato, close all its European bases, and withdraw all intelligence about terrorist threats, attacks on British military, etc. Good luck with that not so splendid isolation."So, if Starmer is a wimp, a coward or whatever for not supporting the US are you then agreed that Tony Blair was a hero for sending British troops into Iraq in support of the US ? After all Tony Blair acted after one of the worst attacks on the West and Starmer didnt act on .. well .. nothing 🤷♂️ A short quote from the tribunal The 2016 Chilcot Inquiry concluded that Tony Blair’s decision to join the 2003 Iraq invasion was not justified, as it was based on flawed intelligence, misrepresented threats, and inadequate planning. While Blair maintained that removing Saddam Hussein was necessary and justified, the war resulted in major instability, causing immense loss of life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A good insight and very informative..
Not what outside observers and strategy makers might have expected.."He was, by far, the most likely successor. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" After all Tony Blair acted after one of the worst attacks on the West..." ...which had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A good insight and very informative..
Not what outside observers and strategy makers might have expected..
He was, by far, the most likely successor."
Did Trump not get the memo one wonders..
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" After all Tony Blair acted after one of the worst attacks on the West... ...which had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq." Absolutely spot on .. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If what's been said on the Kurdistan thread, and it was reported days ago that Trump has asked the Kurds in Erbil to intervene on the ground then its going the way Iraq went.. " Iraq essentially got taken over by Iran (through a massive IRGC investment in militias), due to its majority Shi'ite population. As with Gaddafi in Libya, Sadaam was holding a fractious country together. Modern borders of Iraq ignored historical tribal power dynamics, which accounts for much of the sectarianism that led to its collapse and inability to rebuild. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer last night addressing a large Muslim audience in Westminster Hall, boasting that Britain won't support US or Israel. This is the reality of his cowardice, the desperate need to appeal to those voters who are leaving Labour in droves for the Greens. Sounds like a lapdog after all." You still haven’t answered the question about whether we should always blindly assist the USA no matter what? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do find it interesting that Israel are blaming the US for the minab school attack that killed 160 children… Israeli self interest in throwing the US under the bus They are saying they were not in the area… not their intelligence…." Haven't seen the specific denial, but... Throwing under the bus would be blaming the US. Simply saying "it wasn't us" is very understandable when even random people on a sex site are looking for any opportunity to throw the term "war crime" around with wanton disregard. You're suggesting that Israel might like to take responsibility for something that they didn't do? Weird outlook! So... Israel says "oops, we did it" - war crime. Israel says "it wasn't us" - throwing the US under the bus. It's a no-win situation, isn't it? Perhaps there is just a deep-rooted hatred of Israel somewhere? " So… war crime?" Wouldn't that need to be deliberate, or show wanton disregard? Very hard to prove, and a bit weird to jump to "war crime" at this point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If what's been said on the Kurdistan thread, and it was reported days ago that Trump has asked the Kurds in Erbil to intervene on the ground then its going the way Iraq went.. Iraq essentially got taken over by Iran (through a massive IRGC investment in militias), due to its majority Shi'ite population. As with Gaddafi in Libya, Sadaam was holding a fractious country together. Modern borders of Iraq ignored historical tribal power dynamics, which accounts for much of the sectarianism that led to its collapse and inability to rebuild." Yes, and thanks.. Ditto the Balkans.. This is heading the same way possibly, and the rhetoric from those in Trumps administration that the Iranians opposed to the regime have to seize power points to another mess that historians will ponder was it worth it in the short/medium term.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So… war crime? Wouldn't that need to be deliberate, or show wanton disregard? Very hard to prove, and a bit weird to jump to "war crime" at this point." For those who were silent about the regime killing 50,000 of its citizens in less than a week, its not really that weird. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer is playing this very shrewdly, I agree. His foreign policy stuff is certainly far better than his work at home." He is naturally cautious which is a very good trait for foreign affairs. It is a disaster for internal stuff. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer is playing this very shrewdly, I agree. His foreign policy stuff is certainly far better than his work at home. He is naturally cautious which is a very good trait for foreign affairs. It is a disaster for internal stuff. " Agreed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..?" Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..? Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less." And probably because right now this war looks highly illegal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer is playing this very shrewdly, I agree. His foreign policy stuff is certainly far better than his work at home. He is naturally cautious which is a very good trait for foreign affairs. It is a disaster for internal stuff. " Hard to disagree there.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..? Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less." That opinion bears no weight, if you seriously think Trump only wanted those things and no more then that's your opinion but it doesn't stack up given how such things as we've seen in post war American policies and interventions have gone.. Usa said no to Suez and we said no to Vietnam so such things happen.. Difference being the ego of the current president who takes it all personally yet wants all the kudos, often of his own imagination in what hes actually achieved.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Listening to LBC they were interviewing a professor of American politics and he was talking about something like 25 % of Trumps strongest supporters in the MAGA movement are not happy with what's happening. And a massive amount of American people feel the same in that one of Trumps selling point for re election was to concentrate on America and sorting out the economy, but since he's been in office he's been more interested in sticking his nose into other countries issues and trying to destabilise the EU." I hope it doesn't happen but possibly inevitable that more US personell will be coming home in a flag adorned coffin.. The longer this drags on the worse it will look for the Republicans in the Middle terms.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..? Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less. That opinion bears no weight, if you seriously think Trump only wanted those things and no more then that's your opinion but it doesn't stack up given how such things as we've seen in post war American policies and interventions have gone.. Usa said no to Suez and we said no to Vietnam so such things happen.. Difference being the ego of the current president who takes it all personally yet wants all the kudos, often of his own imagination in what hes actually achieved.." Except its not an opinion, its a statement of fact that this is all Trump asked for. Your musings about what may or may not happen in the future is simply speculation with no evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..? Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less. That opinion bears no weight, if you seriously think Trump only wanted those things and no more then that's your opinion but it doesn't stack up given how such things as we've seen in post war American policies and interventions have gone.. Usa said no to Suez and we said no to Vietnam so such things happen.. Difference being the ego of the current president who takes it all personally yet wants all the kudos, often of his own imagination in what hes actually achieved.. Except its not an opinion, its a statement of fact that this is all Trump asked for. Your musings about what may or may not happen in the future is simply speculation with no evidence." Its your opinion based upon what your bias has led you to believe, quite a simple thing to do.. Just swallow what appeals to you then you dont have to think beyond that.. Well yes but without clear stated aims as to what the 'mission' is then its bound to cause speculation.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..? Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less. That opinion bears no weight, if you seriously think Trump only wanted those things and no more then that's your opinion but it doesn't stack up given how such things as we've seen in post war American policies and interventions have gone.. Usa said no to Suez and we said no to Vietnam so such things happen.. Difference being the ego of the current president who takes it all personally yet wants all the kudos, often of his own imagination in what hes actually achieved.. Except its not an opinion, its a statement of fact that this is all Trump asked for. Your musings about what may or may not happen in the future is simply speculation with no evidence." It doesn't matter a jot what he asked for. Any assistance is complicity in an illegal attack. Yes the regime was and still is awful but that didn't give trump a license to assassinate anyone and Starmer was 100% correct in staying out of it. Or Blair was right .... Your choice | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..? Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less. That opinion bears no weight, if you seriously think Trump only wanted those things and no more then that's your opinion but it doesn't stack up given how such things as we've seen in post war American policies and interventions have gone.. Usa said no to Suez and we said no to Vietnam so such things happen.. Difference being the ego of the current president who takes it all personally yet wants all the kudos, often of his own imagination in what hes actually achieved.. Except its not an opinion, its a statement of fact that this is all Trump asked for. Your musings about what may or may not happen in the future is simply speculation with no evidence. It doesn't matter a jot what he asked for. Any assistance is complicity in an illegal attack. Yes the regime was and still is awful but that didn't give trump a license to assassinate anyone and Starmer was 100% correct in staying out of it. Or Blair was right .... Your choice" Illegal by what law ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..? Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less. That opinion bears no weight, if you seriously think Trump only wanted those things and no more then that's your opinion but it doesn't stack up given how such things as we've seen in post war American policies and interventions have gone.. Usa said no to Suez and we said no to Vietnam so such things happen.. Difference being the ego of the current president who takes it all personally yet wants all the kudos, often of his own imagination in what hes actually achieved.. Except its not an opinion, its a statement of fact that this is all Trump asked for. Your musings about what may or may not happen in the future is simply speculation with no evidence. Its your opinion based upon what your bias has led you to believe, quite a simple thing to do.. Just swallow what appeals to you then you dont have to think beyond that.. Well yes but without clear stated aims as to what the 'mission' is then its bound to cause speculation.. "Trump asked for permission to use two British airbases, that's a fact in the public domain. What part of that is an opinion or bias ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Illegal by what law ?" Breaking the UN charter article 2(4) - International law. Trump also has the issue of not running it by congress first. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Illegal by what law ? Breaking the UN charter article 2(4) - International law. Trump also has the issue of not running it by congress first. " Who enforces that 'law' ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..? Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less. That opinion bears no weight, if you seriously think Trump only wanted those things and no more then that's your opinion but it doesn't stack up given how such things as we've seen in post war American policies and interventions have gone.. Usa said no to Suez and we said no to Vietnam so such things happen.. Difference being the ego of the current president who takes it all personally yet wants all the kudos, often of his own imagination in what hes actually achieved.. Except its not an opinion, its a statement of fact that this is all Trump asked for. Your musings about what may or may not happen in the future is simply speculation with no evidence. It doesn't matter a jot what he asked for. Any assistance is complicity in an illegal attack. Yes the regime was and still is awful but that didn't give trump a license to assassinate anyone and Starmer was 100% correct in staying out of it. Or Blair was right .... Your choice Illegal by what law ?" Did he have approval of Congress Was there an "imminent" threat. History will judge your hero and I don't think he'll win any peace prizes now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Illegal by what law ? Breaking the UN charter article 2(4) - International law. Trump also has the issue of not running it by congress first. Who enforces that 'law' ?" The member states (who are legally bound to uphold the charter) and UN council, Why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..? Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less. That opinion bears no weight, if you seriously think Trump only wanted those things and no more then that's your opinion but it doesn't stack up given how such things as we've seen in post war American policies and interventions have gone.. Usa said no to Suez and we said no to Vietnam so such things happen.. Difference being the ego of the current president who takes it all personally yet wants all the kudos, often of his own imagination in what hes actually achieved.. Except its not an opinion, its a statement of fact that this is all Trump asked for. Your musings about what may or may not happen in the future is simply speculation with no evidence. It doesn't matter a jot what he asked for. Any assistance is complicity in an illegal attack. Yes the regime was and still is awful but that didn't give trump a license to assassinate anyone and Starmer was 100% correct in staying out of it. Or Blair was right .... Your choice Illegal by what law ?" There's none so deaf that will not hear and none so blind that will not see. The orangeman is definitely "bampot" as they say in Scotland and somewhere are pretty "fifish" for believing him | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..? Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less. That opinion bears no weight, if you seriously think Trump only wanted those things and no more then that's your opinion but it doesn't stack up given how such things as we've seen in post war American policies and interventions have gone.. Usa said no to Suez and we said no to Vietnam so such things happen.. Difference being the ego of the current president who takes it all personally yet wants all the kudos, often of his own imagination in what hes actually achieved.. Except its not an opinion, its a statement of fact that this is all Trump asked for. Your musings about what may or may not happen in the future is simply speculation with no evidence. Its your opinion based upon what your bias has led you to believe, quite a simple thing to do.. Just swallow what appeals to you then you dont have to think beyond that.. Well yes but without clear stated aims as to what the 'mission' is then its bound to cause speculation..
Trump asked for permission to use two British airbases, that's a fact in the public domain. What part of that is an opinion or bias ?
"Your opinion that's where it would have ended based upon believing what Trump wants to sell to his country and globally.. Opinion garnered so far here shows that Starmer was right to initially say no to an act unlawful in its intent.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who torpedoed the Iranian warship next to Sri Lankan waters. 150 snuff, 32 rescued apparently " Wasn't us.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Illegal by what law ? Breaking the UN charter article 2(4) - International law. Trump also has the issue of not running it by congress first. Who enforces that 'law' ? The member states (who are legally bound to uphold the charter) and UN council, Why? " When do they begin this enforcement? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who torpedoed the Iranian warship next to Sri Lankan waters. 150 snuff, 32 rescued apparently Wasn't us.." Americans are saying it was their submarine… In which case what is the convention on sinking someone’s ship, but leaving another country to pick up the survivors And the us did not even inform Sri Lanka of what they did…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..? Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less. That opinion bears no weight, if you seriously think Trump only wanted those things and no more then that's your opinion but it doesn't stack up given how such things as we've seen in post war American policies and interventions have gone.. Usa said no to Suez and we said no to Vietnam so such things happen.. Difference being the ego of the current president who takes it all personally yet wants all the kudos, often of his own imagination in what hes actually achieved.. Except its not an opinion, its a statement of fact that this is all Trump asked for. Your musings about what may or may not happen in the future is simply speculation with no evidence. Its your opinion based upon what your bias has led you to believe, quite a simple thing to do.. Just swallow what appeals to you then you dont have to think beyond that.. Well yes but without clear stated aims as to what the 'mission' is then its bound to cause speculation..
Trump asked for permission to use two British airbases, that's a fact in the public domain. What part of that is an opinion or bias ?
Your opinion that's where it would have ended based upon believing what Trump wants to sell to his country and globally..
Opinion garnered so far here shows that Starmer was right to initially say no to an act unlawful in its intent.."'Opinion garnered here' - well that settles it then ! 🤣🤣🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..? Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less. That opinion bears no weight, if you seriously think Trump only wanted those things and no more then that's your opinion but it doesn't stack up given how such things as we've seen in post war American policies and interventions have gone.. Usa said no to Suez and we said no to Vietnam so such things happen.. Difference being the ego of the current president who takes it all personally yet wants all the kudos, often of his own imagination in what hes actually achieved.. Except its not an opinion, its a statement of fact that this is all Trump asked for. Your musings about what may or may not happen in the future is simply speculation with no evidence. Its your opinion based upon what your bias has led you to believe, quite a simple thing to do.. Just swallow what appeals to you then you dont have to think beyond that.. Well yes but without clear stated aims as to what the 'mission' is then its bound to cause speculation..
Trump asked for permission to use two British airbases, that's a fact in the public domain. What part of that is an opinion or bias ?
Your opinion that's where it would have ended based upon believing what Trump wants to sell to his country and globally..
Opinion garnered so far here shows that Starmer was right to initially say no to an act unlawful in its intent..
'Opinion garnered here' - well that settles it then ! 🤣🤣🤣"Hard for you to accept that your in the minority on this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..? Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less. That opinion bears no weight, if you seriously think Trump only wanted those things and no more then that's your opinion but it doesn't stack up given how such things as we've seen in post war American policies and interventions have gone.. Usa said no to Suez and we said no to Vietnam so such things happen.. Difference being the ego of the current president who takes it all personally yet wants all the kudos, often of his own imagination in what hes actually achieved.. Except its not an opinion, its a statement of fact that this is all Trump asked for. Your musings about what may or may not happen in the future is simply speculation with no evidence. Its your opinion based upon what your bias has led you to believe, quite a simple thing to do.. Just swallow what appeals to you then you dont have to think beyond that.. Well yes but without clear stated aims as to what the 'mission' is then its bound to cause speculation..
Trump asked for permission to use two British airbases, that's a fact in the public domain. What part of that is an opinion or bias ?
Your opinion that's where it would have ended based upon believing what Trump wants to sell to his country and globally..
Opinion garnered so far here shows that Starmer was right to initially say no to an act unlawful in its intent..
'Opinion garnered here' - well that settles it then ! 🤣🤣🤣
Hard for you to accept that your in the minority on this?"Heroes always walk alone, sheep travel in numbers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..? Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less. That opinion bears no weight, if you seriously think Trump only wanted those things and no more then that's your opinion but it doesn't stack up given how such things as we've seen in post war American policies and interventions have gone.. Usa said no to Suez and we said no to Vietnam so such things happen.. Difference being the ego of the current president who takes it all personally yet wants all the kudos, often of his own imagination in what hes actually achieved.. Except its not an opinion, its a statement of fact that this is all Trump asked for. Your musings about what may or may not happen in the future is simply speculation with no evidence. Its your opinion based upon what your bias has led you to believe, quite a simple thing to do.. Just swallow what appeals to you then you dont have to think beyond that.. Well yes but without clear stated aims as to what the 'mission' is then its bound to cause speculation..
Trump asked for permission to use two British airbases, that's a fact in the public domain. What part of that is an opinion or bias ?
Your opinion that's where it would have ended based upon believing what Trump wants to sell to his country and globally..
Opinion garnered so far here shows that Starmer was right to initially say no to an act unlawful in its intent..
'Opinion garnered here' - well that settles it then ! 🤣🤣🤣
Hard for you to accept that your in the minority on this?
Heroes always walk alone, sheep travel in numbers."Or thieves and law breakers sneak around in the dark whilst honest men sleep.. I might have made that up but you'll understand the premise..  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..? Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less. That opinion bears no weight, if you seriously think Trump only wanted those things and no more then that's your opinion but it doesn't stack up given how such things as we've seen in post war American policies and interventions have gone.. Usa said no to Suez and we said no to Vietnam so such things happen.. Difference being the ego of the current president who takes it all personally yet wants all the kudos, often of his own imagination in what hes actually achieved.. Except its not an opinion, its a statement of fact that this is all Trump asked for. Your musings about what may or may not happen in the future is simply speculation with no evidence. Its your opinion based upon what your bias has led you to believe, quite a simple thing to do.. Just swallow what appeals to you then you dont have to think beyond that.. Well yes but without clear stated aims as to what the 'mission' is then its bound to cause speculation..
Trump asked for permission to use two British airbases, that's a fact in the public domain. What part of that is an opinion or bias ?
Your opinion that's where it would have ended based upon believing what Trump wants to sell to his country and globally..
Opinion garnered so far here shows that Starmer was right to initially say no to an act unlawful in its intent..
'Opinion garnered here' - well that settles it then ! 🤣🤣🤣
Hard for you to accept that your in the minority on this?
Heroes always walk alone, sheep travel in numbers.
Or thieves and law breakers sneak around in the dark whilst honest men sleep..
I might have made that up but you'll understand the premise.. "As it makes no sense at all in the context of an open Forum, not so much 🤭🤭 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who torpedoed the Iranian warship next to Sri Lankan waters. 150 snuff, 32 rescued apparently Wasn't us.. Americans are saying it was their submarine… In which case what is the convention on sinking someone’s ship, but leaving another country to pick up the survivors And the us did not even inform Sri Lanka of what they did…." Wait until you hear about the 50,000 killed in 3 days by the Iranian regime, Fabio, it'll blow your mind ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Middle East in general? I think Dubai will build more hotels. Saudi Arabia will host more sports. The Muslims and Jews will continue to argue over their fairytale based ideology, and the land claims based upon it. The oil rich states will continue to accumulate wealth for many years to come, but not help their poorer neighbours so no change there. The people of the Middle East will continue to head to the promised land where they can claim free everything while trying to change the promised land to be more like Iran and Afghanistan. Human rights violations committed by governments will increase and the far left socialists of Europe will say it’s nothing to do with them. And despite the hundreds of thousands murdered, the half a dozen Hamas terrorists killed by Isreal in Gaze will be far, far worse, in fact killing half a dozen terrorists is genocide in their opinion where as actual genocide is just the government keeping order in their country, so no change there. They will continue to train and finance terrorists to send all over the western world and the far left will continue to march through our big cities supporting those terrorists. They will make more of a stand against the spread of LGBT ideology and threaten to kill them all, and of course the far left LGBT community will praise this. Possibly even asking to be killed by an Islamist as the ultimate show of support. I think I’ve covered everything" Pretty spot on actually | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..? Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less. That opinion bears no weight, if you seriously think Trump only wanted those things and no more then that's your opinion but it doesn't stack up given how such things as we've seen in post war American policies and interventions have gone.. Usa said no to Suez and we said no to Vietnam so such things happen.. Difference being the ego of the current president who takes it all personally yet wants all the kudos, often of his own imagination in what hes actually achieved.. Except its not an opinion, its a statement of fact that this is all Trump asked for. Your musings about what may or may not happen in the future is simply speculation with no evidence. Its your opinion based upon what your bias has led you to believe, quite a simple thing to do.. Just swallow what appeals to you then you dont have to think beyond that.. Well yes but without clear stated aims as to what the 'mission' is then its bound to cause speculation..
Trump asked for permission to use two British airbases, that's a fact in the public domain. What part of that is an opinion or bias ?
Your opinion that's where it would have ended based upon believing what Trump wants to sell to his country and globally..
Opinion garnered so far here shows that Starmer was right to initially say no to an act unlawful in its intent..
'Opinion garnered here' - well that settles it then ! 🤣🤣🤣
Hard for you to accept that your in the minority on this?
Heroes always walk alone, sheep travel in numbers.
Or thieves and law breakers sneak around in the dark whilst honest men sleep..
I might have made that up but you'll understand the premise.. "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. - George Orwell. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..? Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less. That opinion bears no weight, if you seriously think Trump only wanted those things and no more then that's your opinion but it doesn't stack up given how such things as we've seen in post war American policies and interventions have gone.. Usa said no to Suez and we said no to Vietnam so such things happen.. Difference being the ego of the current president who takes it all personally yet wants all the kudos, often of his own imagination in what hes actually achieved.. Except its not an opinion, its a statement of fact that this is all Trump asked for. Your musings about what may or may not happen in the future is simply speculation with no evidence. Its your opinion based upon what your bias has led you to believe, quite a simple thing to do.. Just swallow what appeals to you then you dont have to think beyond that.. Well yes but without clear stated aims as to what the 'mission' is then its bound to cause speculation..
Trump asked for permission to use two British airbases, that's a fact in the public domain. What part of that is an opinion or bias ?
Your opinion that's where it would have ended based upon believing what Trump wants to sell to his country and globally..
Opinion garnered so far here shows that Starmer was right to initially say no to an act unlawful in its intent..
'Opinion garnered here' - well that settles it then ! 🤣🤣🤣
Hard for you to accept that your in the minority on this?
Heroes always walk alone, sheep travel in numbers."Heroes are on the right side of the law | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..? Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less. That opinion bears no weight, if you seriously think Trump only wanted those things and no more then that's your opinion but it doesn't stack up given how such things as we've seen in post war American policies and interventions have gone.. Usa said no to Suez and we said no to Vietnam so such things happen.. Difference being the ego of the current president who takes it all personally yet wants all the kudos, often of his own imagination in what hes actually achieved.. Except its not an opinion, its a statement of fact that this is all Trump asked for. Your musings about what may or may not happen in the future is simply speculation with no evidence. Its your opinion based upon what your bias has led you to believe, quite a simple thing to do.. Just swallow what appeals to you then you dont have to think beyond that.. Well yes but without clear stated aims as to what the 'mission' is then its bound to cause speculation..
Trump asked for permission to use two British airbases, that's a fact in the public domain. What part of that is an opinion or bias ?
Your opinion that's where it would have ended based upon believing what Trump wants to sell to his country and globally..
Opinion garnered so far here shows that Starmer was right to initially say no to an act unlawful in its intent..
'Opinion garnered here' - well that settles it then ! 🤣🤣🤣
Hard for you to accept that your in the minority on this?
Heroes always walk alone, sheep travel in numbers."Trump certainly has his sheeple | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..? Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less. That opinion bears no weight, if you seriously think Trump only wanted those things and no more then that's your opinion but it doesn't stack up given how such things as we've seen in post war American policies and interventions have gone.. Usa said no to Suez and we said no to Vietnam so such things happen.. Difference being the ego of the current president who takes it all personally yet wants all the kudos, often of his own imagination in what hes actually achieved.. Except its not an opinion, its a statement of fact that this is all Trump asked for. Your musings about what may or may not happen in the future is simply speculation with no evidence. Its your opinion based upon what your bias has led you to believe, quite a simple thing to do.. Just swallow what appeals to you then you dont have to think beyond that.. Well yes but without clear stated aims as to what the 'mission' is then its bound to cause speculation..
Trump asked for permission to use two British airbases, that's a fact in the public domain. What part of that is an opinion or bias ?
Your opinion that's where it would have ended based upon believing what Trump wants to sell to his country and globally..
Opinion garnered so far here shows that Starmer was right to initially say no to an act unlawful in its intent..
'Opinion garnered here' - well that settles it then ! 🤣🤣🤣
Hard for you to accept that your in the minority on this?
Heroes always walk alone, sheep travel in numbers.
Heroes are on the right side of the law"Not always. Where I live now, the people jailed are on the wrong side of the "national security law" which is being used to quash dissent. Laws can always be used against you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..? Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less. That opinion bears no weight, if you seriously think Trump only wanted those things and no more then that's your opinion but it doesn't stack up given how such things as we've seen in post war American policies and interventions have gone.. Usa said no to Suez and we said no to Vietnam so such things happen.. Difference being the ego of the current president who takes it all personally yet wants all the kudos, often of his own imagination in what hes actually achieved.. Except its not an opinion, its a statement of fact that this is all Trump asked for. Your musings about what may or may not happen in the future is simply speculation with no evidence. Its your opinion based upon what your bias has led you to believe, quite a simple thing to do.. Just swallow what appeals to you then you dont have to think beyond that.. Well yes but without clear stated aims as to what the 'mission' is then its bound to cause speculation..
Trump asked for permission to use two British airbases, that's a fact in the public domain. What part of that is an opinion or bias ?
Your opinion that's where it would have ended based upon believing what Trump wants to sell to his country and globally..
Opinion garnered so far here shows that Starmer was right to initially say no to an act unlawful in its intent..
'Opinion garnered here' - well that settles it then ! 🤣🤣🤣
Hard for you to accept that your in the minority on this?
Heroes always walk alone, sheep travel in numbers.
Heroes are on the right side of the law"Have I got some history lessons for you ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..? Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less. That opinion bears no weight, if you seriously think Trump only wanted those things and no more then that's your opinion but it doesn't stack up given how such things as we've seen in post war American policies and interventions have gone.. Usa said no to Suez and we said no to Vietnam so such things happen.. Difference being the ego of the current president who takes it all personally yet wants all the kudos, often of his own imagination in what hes actually achieved.. Except its not an opinion, its a statement of fact that this is all Trump asked for. Your musings about what may or may not happen in the future is simply speculation with no evidence. Its your opinion based upon what your bias has led you to believe, quite a simple thing to do.. Just swallow what appeals to you then you dont have to think beyond that.. Well yes but without clear stated aims as to what the 'mission' is then its bound to cause speculation..
Trump asked for permission to use two British airbases, that's a fact in the public domain. What part of that is an opinion or bias ?
Your opinion that's where it would have ended based upon believing what Trump wants to sell to his country and globally..
Opinion garnered so far here shows that Starmer was right to initially say no to an act unlawful in its intent..
'Opinion garnered here' - well that settles it then ! 🤣🤣🤣
Hard for you to accept that your in the minority on this?
Heroes always walk alone, sheep travel in numbers.
Trump certainly has his sheeple"How it works in banter is you come up with something new, not just repeat what I've said. It can be quite amusing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..? Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less. That opinion bears no weight, if you seriously think Trump only wanted those things and no more then that's your opinion but it doesn't stack up given how such things as we've seen in post war American policies and interventions have gone.. Usa said no to Suez and we said no to Vietnam so such things happen.. Difference being the ego of the current president who takes it all personally yet wants all the kudos, often of his own imagination in what hes actually achieved.. Except its not an opinion, its a statement of fact that this is all Trump asked for. Your musings about what may or may not happen in the future is simply speculation with no evidence. Its your opinion based upon what your bias has led you to believe, quite a simple thing to do.. Just swallow what appeals to you then you dont have to think beyond that.. Well yes but without clear stated aims as to what the 'mission' is then its bound to cause speculation..
Trump asked for permission to use two British airbases, that's a fact in the public domain. What part of that is an opinion or bias ?
Your opinion that's where it would have ended based upon believing what Trump wants to sell to his country and globally..
Opinion garnered so far here shows that Starmer was right to initially say no to an act unlawful in its intent..
'Opinion garnered here' - well that settles it then ! 🤣🤣🤣
Hard for you to accept that your in the minority on this?
Heroes always walk alone, sheep travel in numbers.
Trump certainly has his sheeple
How it works in banter is you come up with something new, not just repeat what I've said. It can be quite amusing."How or works in the forum is people put what they want within the rules Bitchin about other people's posts is NOT allowed Read before posting 😘 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a certain predictable deja vu occurring here .. Blair for ever will be known as a war criminal over Iraq (i opposed it and marched against it) by some especially on the right despite the tories voting overwhelmingly for it.. Starmer has taken the right decision initially and is being castigated again by the right for not wanting us to make the same mistakes history shows us, the views of the veterans who still suffer from that conflict might be worth seeking out.. Yes theres no plan at present to send troops on the ground as there was then.. Yet.. But if there was would those who seem to want our forces to go on the offencive now be so quick to ignore the very recent wrongs of 2002 /03..? Those comparisons don't really stand up at all. Trump hasn't asked for any UK military involvement in the air or on the ground. All he requested was the use of two air bases which have been shared for decades. Starmer refused for his own selfish Electoral reasons, no more or less. That opinion bears no weight, if you seriously think Trump only wanted those things and no more then that's your opinion but it doesn't stack up given how such things as we've seen in post war American policies and interventions have gone.. Usa said no to Suez and we said no to Vietnam so such things happen.. Difference being the ego of the current president who takes it all personally yet wants all the kudos, often of his own imagination in what hes actually achieved.. Except its not an opinion, its a statement of fact that this is all Trump asked for. Your musings about what may or may not happen in the future is simply speculation with no evidence. Its your opinion based upon what your bias has led you to believe, quite a simple thing to do.. Just swallow what appeals to you then you dont have to think beyond that.. Well yes but without clear stated aims as to what the 'mission' is then its bound to cause speculation..
Trump asked for permission to use two British airbases, that's a fact in the public domain. What part of that is an opinion or bias ?
Your opinion that's where it would have ended based upon believing what Trump wants to sell to his country and globally..
Opinion garnered so far here shows that Starmer was right to initially say no to an act unlawful in its intent..
'Opinion garnered here' - well that settles it then ! 🤣🤣🤣
Hard for you to accept that your in the minority on this?
Heroes always walk alone, sheep travel in numbers.
Or thieves and law breakers sneak around in the dark whilst honest men sleep..
I might have made that up but you'll understand the premise..
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. - George Orwell."Familiar with the concept and the reality of that, wouldn't have said i was rough back then though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the reports that Mossad agents have been caught and arrested for planning false flags in Qatar and Saudi Arabia are true, the emergency meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council Qatar just called will be a critical point for anyone supporting this war against Iran. They can easily hold the world to ransom." So from where do you get your news? Tucker Carlson? At the time you posted this, only vehemently anti-Israel propaganda sites were spouting this lie. Initiated by Tucker Carlson. Which was your source? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I learned a new word today Sophistry: Using clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving." Bit harsh on anyone called Sophie that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How are we going to cater for all the false boobs bursting on the plane back here " Definitely not flying Virgin that lot | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here wouldn't trumpy be right fucked off if Starmer got nominated for the Nobel peace prize. 🤣🤣🤣🤣" For services to the youth of Ukraine? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trumps not read his script the Israelis gave him. He said yesterday he thought that Iran were about to attack yet today the Israelis said it was for two totally different things.. " Those devious people heh 🤔 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
