Best Of

@hopisen

The US president's position seems to be
- Our allies are pathetic because they stand back when we need them.
- We don't need them anyway.
- They should help us solve this problem we created.
- But if they do offer to help, we'll insult them, because we don't need their help.

https://x.com/hopisen/status/2033109652485878111?s=20

"You're scum, we don't need you, please send ships we don't need to the war we've already won."

@NormalIslandNws

Donald Trump is the best ever president at winning wars because he has won the Iran war seven times in the last ten days. No other president has ever won the same war seven times.

It's been won in stages. It's the Seven Tiers War.

'Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.

The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.

In a speech to his party's spring conference in York on Sunday, Sir Ed will argue the UK's continued reliance on US support is an unacceptable risk to national security..France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, has always maintained a fully independent system.

The Lib Dems say France's approach proves a sovereign British capability is achievable.

They argue it could be done in two stages - developing a way to maintain the existing Trident weapons system domestically, and in the longer term manufacturing a fully British-made replacement.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dz1k0rr4o

These concerns of an undefended Britain with an effette metropolitan population unwilling to fight with sufficient vigour are not new. See for instance Saki's 1913 novella When William Came. Such concerns proved unfounded, as subsequent events demonstrated.

Yes but notions of civilians fighting invading tanks with improvised molotov cocktails and pitchforks are as fanciful now as they were then.

There's little or no "fighting" involved - absent nuclear war, against which the only defence seems to be mutual suicide, the real "threat" is chaos and disorder not an invading army.

The speed at which civilisation can unravel is frightening - someone once said the modern world is only three meals away from anarchy. How would we cope with no electricity for a week or a month? Many wouldn't, some would. Your survival might come down to stealing your neigthbour's food and killing them though you'd hope people would collaborate and co-operate to get through it together. Past history offers both scenarios as possible.

We've also seen societies can evolve very quickly in times of crisis - who knows?

Trump: "The last person we need help from is Zelenskyy." He acknowledges Russia is providing intelligence to Iran to hit American positions but doesn't think it's important. Unlike his friend Putin, Zelenskyy is not willing to make a deal.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/iran-negotiate-ceasefire-deal-trump-kharg-hormuz-oil-rcna263474

It really is extraordinary. The President knows that Russia is helping with Iranian targetting of US forces, but doesn't think it important. He also provides Putin a financial lifeline by suspending sanctions on Russian oil.

If Trump was a Russian asset, in what way would he behave differently?

If he could, Trump would join the war on the side of Russia.