Kemi putting the Tories firmly behind Trump’s Middle East war. *bold*, given the absence of any sign that the Americans know what they are trying to achieve.
I've just read what she has said.
Verbal diarrhoea is one term.
The fact her mouth is always seconds in front of what brain she has never better evidenced.
Unequivocally supporting USA and Israel without explaining why, blaming Muslim voters for influencing the left wing people Parliament is full of, and grandstanding the fact that she would not see a Commons Vote to go to War if she thought she would lose if frankly the political dynamite stick that should be crammed up her ass for infinity.
Not fit to hold a once great office, totally ignoring international law, not only that, confirming she would completely ignore it.
She made this speech outside of the House, I suspect if she makes it inside the One Nation Tories will have their head in their hands.
She's clearly decided she wants to be farbti the right of Farage
Genuine one nation decent Tories will surely be horrified at this utter gobshite.
Is she, also, being controlled by a “Zionist cabal”, or has she got the full “Zionist clique” pulling her strings?
Of course she has.
Pritti Patel is the de facto Tory Leader.
Where was she last week. Where does she regularly visit.
My question is what is the difference in this between defensive and offensive action ?
If you assume Starmer refused the US permission to use British bases to attack Iran was defensive, but 24 hours later changed his view to allow the US to take offensive action from them
As others have said Starmer is dancing on a pin head
The difference between an offensive and defensive action is that Starmer thinks he can retain more of the Islamist and Islamist-adjacent vote with the latter.
It's patently clear what he means.
Stopping a drone or missile or bombing a remote missile site is defensive.
Carpet bombing of towns and cities is not.
He has facilitated the US doing exactly that by using UK air bases
He's an idiot then. Invading a country that is not posing an imminent threat is against international law. T'he rest is politics' worth listening to today.
Anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot apparently, even the widely praised Carney
It is an interesting question why Carney has thrown his lot in with Trump on Iran. I suspect he is an actual Bush Junior style neo-Conservative and believes this stuff. Trudeau wouldn't have signed up in the same way.
Ultimately anyone who isn't a participant - Carney, Starmer, Macron etc - are just posturing.
let me get this right, so we've allowed the US to use our bases for defensive operations only, and those defensive operations include strikes in Iran to remove the capability to launch attacks... SKS just said as much. Sounds like offensive operations to me. Dancing on the head of a pin.
It really isn't. Iran changed the terms by illegally attacking non combatants, after the US attack.
Kemi putting the Tories firmly behind Trump’s Middle East war. *bold*, given the absence of any sign that the Americans know what they are trying to achieve.
The complete lack of a plan or strategy or exit criteria is a red line, legal or not.
Mr Trump's track record suggests to me that he needs no plan or strategy or exit criteria, he starts something when he thinks he will and stops/changes direction when he thinks he will.
I think Trump as someone who doesn’t worry about elections, or legacy in history books. Novel position in politics.
So what is the motivation behind all his decisions, if it’s not the kerching of a cash till.
Motivation 50/50, IMHO. Money/attention. Being on the front page. All eyes on the Great Leader.
Why is it that under this government "international law" is always against our national interest - Kemi
With all due respect, what an absolutely stupid statement from the LOTO.
vibes, though
She's chosen a side and, in fairness, she is not alone in doing so. Carney and Albanese have done the same.
Starmer's position is a lot more nuanced. He refused to take part in the initial raids but is willing to support and take part in defensive measures when Iran tries to fight back. He says our consent is for "defensive actions" but when these "defensive actions" include trying to destroy Iranian missiles in Iran that doesn't make a lot of sense.
FWIW (and that is not a lot) I am with Starmer rather than her on this. The attacks were illegal, dangerous and ill thought through (if there was any thinking at all). We were right not to take part and if that puts us in the metaphorical dog house with Trump I am immensely relaxed about that. But I don't think that Kemi's position is "absolutely stupid", even if I don't agree with it.
“ Starmer's position is a lot more nuanced.”
Nuance was the first casualty of this war! It’s totally black and white, whether you lend them your bucket. You can’t say “yes if you’re going to make sandcastles - no if you are going to piss in it.” You handed over the bucket when asked or you didn’t - Nuance is just confusing the whole thing.
I don’t think the nuance of this will be covered correctly in the history books, let alone the immediate media coverage, which is just ignoring nuance. The only person on earth trying to find nuance in this situation is me.
let me get this right, so we've allowed the US to use our bases for defensive operations only, and those defensive operations include strikes in Iran to remove the capability to launch attacks... SKS just said as much. Sounds like offensive operations to me. Dancing on the head of a pin.
Indeed.
This photos has both defensive and offensive JDAMS in it. Can you spot which one is which?
Was sinking the French Mediterranean fleet at Mers Al Kebir offensive or defensive?
I wonder whether the people who are so pusillanimous here and view "victory" as a foul word would have been the same in WWII when we were fighting the Nazis? How dare we be fighting for victory?
The Mullahs are an evil that needs defeating. Now is the time to press for victory and see them eliminated once and for all.
War should be a last resort, but when war comes, fighting for victory is the right thing to do.
How many times are you going to repeat "victory"?
Look, if the US and Israel had a clear war plan to defeat the Iranian regime, maybe you'd have an argument. But they don't. They're going to bomb some bits and then probably sign a new nuclear treaty that looks very similar to the one Obama did. A lot of people are going to die for very little.
Until there is regime change.
If Trump does that, then shame on him.
Don't mistake my support for regime change as support for Trump. I despise Trump. I support war here to get regime change.
Anything short of regime change and I will condemn Trump for chickening out.
However you are wrong to call it very little. The damage to the regime is already not very little, which is why Lebanon now feels freed to tackle Hezbollah.
The more damage inflicted upon this regime, the better.
If you support war in Iran to get regime change, then, as there is no war to get regime change, you presumably aren't supporting anything.
Since when does what we want to happen need to be happening to support it?
I support planning liberalisation. This Government was vaguely committed to doing it at the last election, but are failing to do so. All other parties are not in favour either. I support it happening, even though it is not, and condemn SKS for failure to deliver.
I support tax reform. No party is delivering it. I will argue for it, even if no party offers it.
I support regime change. A war is in progress, good, but I have no faith in Trump and only marginally more in Bibi. We wait to see what happens but I will oppose "peace" until Persia is liberated from the Mullahs.
Feels like classic Starmer to thread the needle and find a compromise that keeps everyone unhappy.
Badenoch reminding us that she isn't a serious figure.
I think Starmer has this broadly right. Still, he manages to sound completely leaden and infuriating even when defending perfectly sensible policy decisions.
NEW: Israeli jets have begun striking border guard positions along the Iraq-Iran frontier in what appears to be an effort to weaken Iranian control over the region and potentially clear a path for armed Iranian Kurdish opposition groups based in Iraq to move back into Iran.
let me get this right, so we've allowed the US to use our bases for defensive operations only, and those defensive operations include strikes in Iran to remove the capability to launch attacks... SKS just said as much. Sounds like offensive operations to me. Dancing on the head of a pin.
Indeed.
This photos has both defensive and offensive JDAMS in it. Can you spot which one is which?
Was sinking the French Mediterranean fleet at Mers Al Kebir offensive or defensive?
The French seem to have found it fairly offensive!
Hardly a fan of Starmer but he’s done quite well so far .
Kemi might regret jumping all in with the USA and Israel.
He's trying to face both ways at once by implying that Trump acted illegally but then supporting further strikes. He's turning international law into a joke.
International law isn’t a joke because Starmer’s inconsistent. It’s a joke because enforcement depends on who’s got the aircraft carriers.
International law isn't a joke because of that. It just depends on something other than abstract morality - the biggest stick
For most of history, that's how it worked.
quite, hence my aircraft carriers quip
When I was student, I found a folio of letters in one of the second hand books stores near the British museum. Sadly I lost them, long ago.
Letters between an RN midshipman and his sisters in the 19th cent - he was serving in the anti-slavery patrols off West Africa.
The end of the folio was a copperplate letter from his Captain, giving the sad news of his death. And a letter from the crew of the cutter he'd been in command of - apparently he'd been killed by a shot from a slave ship. So they boarded, and him being a popular chap, they gave No Quarter.
Might and Right, two characters in a bar. Are they friends or foe?
Oh what a shame, that folio sounds fascinating, would love to have seen that.
In answer to your question: Depends on how much they've had to drink and if Right is sleeping with Might's sister or not.
Yeah
Just re-watching "The Devil's Share" from Person of Interest
Civilization rests on the principle that we treat our criminals better than they treated their victims, that we not stoop to their level. But you and I are outliers. We're not really a part of civilization.
Feels like classic Starmer to thread the needle and find a compromise that keeps everyone unhappy.
Badenoch reminding us that she isn't a serious figure.
I think Starmer has this broadly right. Still, he manages to sound completely leaden and infuriating even when defending perfectly sensible policy decisions.
Infuriatingly sensible may be another trait...
My father had a colleague, of whom several people said that he was always wrong. So wrong in fact, that even when he was right, he was wrong.
When this Iranian adventure goes very badly wrong Kemi's lot are going to bitterly regret today.
On one level, declaring war on Germany in 1939 went badly wrong, but we don't look upon the people who were against it with any fondness now.
If I never again hear another likening of US/Israeli aggression in the Middle East to our WW2 fight against the Nazis it will be too soon for me.
Well, once all Islamofascists who desire to exterminate all Jews like the Mullahs and Hamas and Hezbollah are gone and in the history books, the comparisons will no longer be needed.
Until then, they are apt. Whether you like it or not.
let me get this right, so we've allowed the US to use our bases for defensive operations only, and those defensive operations include strikes in Iran to remove the capability to launch attacks... SKS just said as much. Sounds like offensive operations to me. Dancing on the head of a pin.
Indeed.
This photos has both defensive and offensive JDAMS in it. Can you spot which one is which?
Was sinking the French Mediterranean fleet at Mers Al Kebir offensive or defensive?
The French seem to have found it fairly offensive!
Mers el-Kébir is basically the textbook case for why “offensive vs defensive” is a vibes argument.
It was offensive in the literal sense (we shot first), but defensive in the strategic sense (deny an enemy asset that could be turned against you). Pre-emptive self-defence, in other words.
Also: it was an act of war against a “not technically our enemy” state, justified as necessity, and it still looked brutal as hell. Which is kind of the point here.
let me get this right, so we've allowed the US to use our bases for defensive operations only, and those defensive operations include strikes in Iran to remove the capability to launch attacks... SKS just said as much. Sounds like offensive operations to me. Dancing on the head of a pin.
Indeed.
This photos has both defensive and offensive JDAMS in it. Can you spot which one is which?
Was sinking the French Mediterranean fleet at Mers Al Kebir offensive or defensive?
I think it was defensive. Britain was afraid the fleet would be used by either the Vichy French or the Nazis (or both) against, for example, Malta.
let me get this right, so we've allowed the US to use our bases for defensive operations only, and those defensive operations include strikes in Iran to remove the capability to launch attacks... SKS just said as much. Sounds like offensive operations to me. Dancing on the head of a pin.
The legal distinction is massive between responding to actual missile strikes against your territory and other third parties versus unprovoked attacks on other countries to assassinate their leaders.
That people here don't see that distinction and dismiss it as "dancing on the head of a pin" is baffling.
NEW: Israeli jets have begun striking border guard positions along the Iraq-Iran frontier in what appears to be an effort to weaken Iranian control over the region and potentially clear a path for armed Iranian Kurdish opposition groups based in Iraq to move back into Iran.
Part of me - the small bad part of me, obvs - thinks fuck it, let it all rip, the entire region is such a poisonous snakepit let them all bite each other to death. And we must reject all refugees
Instinctively if the line that comes out from Labour is "anti Iraq 2.0" then they'll have won. But it's Starmer so probably a loss.
The problem is this isn’t Iraq, and the circumstances are such that a lot of countries are inexorably being drawn in whether they like it or not.
At the moment we are taking a defensive position, but what happens if we see more strikes on British bases? At which point does our defensive stance become a retaliatory one? Presumably we do have the right to retaliate? Do we not need to maintain deterrence?
These are just musings, I’m not suggesting that we should be involved, I just think the whole waters are much more muddied now this is a regional war.
My question is what is the difference in this between defensive and offensive action ?
If you assume Starmer refused the US permission to use British bases to attack Iran was defensive, but 24 hours later changed his view to allow the US to take offensive action from them
As others have said Starmer is dancing on a pin head
The initial action by Israel and the US was clearly offensive and against international law. It was unprovoked in the middle of negotiations. Netanyahu wants to prolong war to avoid jail. Trump wants to deflect from Epstein. Job done. Neither are in UK interests. We should stay out of it, and we did.
When Iran retaliated by bombing everyone including UK interests, it was clearly defensive for the UK to help resist those attacks.
It seems very straight forward to me. Not dancing on a pin head.
What I don't understand is why Iran widened the war instead of just concentrating on Israel and the US interests. It would have divided the US from its allies.
NEW: Israeli jets have begun striking border guard positions along the Iraq-Iran frontier in what appears to be an effort to weaken Iranian control over the region and potentially clear a path for armed Iranian Kurdish opposition groups based in Iraq to move back into Iran.
So Trump wants the Kurds to do his dirty work for him. Haven't the Kurds suffered enough since 1919?
My question is what is the difference in this between defensive and offensive action ?
If you assume Starmer refused the US permission to use British bases to attack Iran was defensive, but 24 hours later changed his view to allow the US to take offensive action from them
As others have said Starmer is dancing on a pin head
The initial action by Israel and the US was clearly offensive and against international law. It was unprovoked in the middle of negotiations. Netanyahu wants to prolong war to avoid jail. Trump wants to deflect from Epstein. Job done. Neither are in UK interests. We should stay out of it, and we did.
When Iran retaliated by bombing everyone including UK interests, it was clearly defensive for the UK to help resist those attacks.
It seems very straight forward to me. Not dancing on a pin head.
What I don't understand is why Iran widened the war instead of just concentrating on Israel and the US interests. It would have divided the US from its allies.
Your last paragraph is very much in line with my thoughts
Kemi putting the Tories firmly behind Trump’s Middle East war. *bold*, given the absence of any sign that the Americans know what they are trying to achieve.
The complete lack of a plan or strategy or exit criteria is a red line, legal or not.
Mr Trump's track record suggests to me that he needs no plan or strategy or exit criteria, he starts something when he thinks he will and stops/changes direction when he thinks he will.
I think Trump as someone who doesn’t worry about elections, or legacy in history books. Novel position in politics.
So what is the motivation behind all his decisions, if it’s not the kerching of a cash till.
Motivation 50/50, IMHO. Money/attention. Being on the front page. All eyes on the Great Leader.
I’m not so sure
He’s 79 pushing 80. He’s as rich as Creases. He’s POTUS - he can’t get any more important or powerful
I wonder if his narcissism is now making him look to his legacy and dynasty. If he can go down as the POTUS that freed Iran he will be deemed great by many, albeit begrudgingly
A great legacy also means his kids and grandkids will prosper in politics
So his horrible traits might be working in a SLIGHTLY more productive way. At 79 I also imagine he is less driven by the need to “grab pussy”
The basic problem with Starmer's position is that whether military action has a legal basis isn't a black and white question. It's a political judgement first and a legal judgement second.
He's trying to invert this and tying himself in knots because his main political conviction is that politicians should be subordinate to lawyers.
NEW: Israeli jets have begun striking border guard positions along the Iraq-Iran frontier in what appears to be an effort to weaken Iranian control over the region and potentially clear a path for armed Iranian Kurdish opposition groups based in Iraq to move back into Iran.
So Trump wants the Kurds to do his dirty work for him. Haven't the Kurds suffered enough since 1919?
A certain amount of chaos at Notts County Council about the old County Hall, which is on land probably transferring to the new Nottingham City after reorganisation, and restoration to Council standards is budgeted at £30 million over 12 years.
Some want to sell it now so he successor County keeps the dosh. Others: "it's historic".
I would be inclined to get some money in now for County, but perhaps preserving some value for later too by the structure of the arrangement. Because I do not want it to go to paying off Nottingham City's, major debts so the priority should be action this day, not playing arse-sitters pass the parcel.
The basic problem with Starmer's position is that whether military action has a legal basis isn't a black and white question. It's a political judgement first and a legal judgement second.
He's trying to invert this and tying himself in knots because his main political conviction is that politicians should be subordinate to lawyers.
I think he's actually got this one right, which is the first thing he's got right in some time in my view.
I don't want to be involved in a morally dubious offensive action abroad. But if we get attacked, I think it fair to defend ourselves.
Basically, Starmer is against the war but in favour of defending ourselves. I think for once, he's actually exactly where the majority of people are. Badenoch is going to look extremely silly.
Why is it that under this government "international law" is always against our national interest - Kemi
Could you explain why giving Mad King Trump carte blanche to bomb Iran to the stone age and kill all its leaders is in the national interest, because Kemi Badenoch sure doesn't bother to do so?
I'm not even talking legals here. Just why would we want to do this?
It's in our national interest for this to backfire so badly that it ends the Trump presidency. This would be in the global interest too to the extent there is such a thing.
Caveats:
That the harm caused by the above happening is less than the harm that Trump2 is causing and will continue to cause for as long as he is there. This test is likely passed since the latter quantity is so huge.
The old chestnut, as debated about the Mullahs, of what replaces the old regime. This test is also likely passed since it's hard to imagine anything worse in America than Trump2. It's surely a good bet that if he falls the American people will rise up and reclaim their Republic.
let me get this right, so we've allowed the US to use our bases for defensive operations only, and those defensive operations include strikes in Iran to remove the capability to launch attacks... SKS just said as much. Sounds like offensive operations to me. Dancing on the head of a pin.
It really isn't. Iran changed the terms by illegally attacking non combatants, after the US attack.
Taking out launchers attacking you (or more accurately allowing the US use of our bases to do so) is legitimate defence under international law.
“ Iran changed the terms by illegally attacking non combatants”
But the point is, no, no change. They were always the terms. They was the terms factored in a month ago when decisions were made and relayed to the US.
Starmer is in trouble. His statement this afternoon could soon bring him down. If the new position of defensive bombing is illegal - Kemi will tell him at dispatch box “you have told the house it was legal, and it has been found not to be. I am calling a vote of no confidence.” And Starmer will resign a few hours later.
My question is what is the difference in this between defensive and offensive action ?
If you assume Starmer refused the US permission to use British bases to attack Iran was defensive, but 24 hours later changed his view to allow the US to take offensive action from them
As others have said Starmer is dancing on a pin head
The initial action by Israel and the US was clearly offensive and against international law. It was unprovoked in the middle of negotiations. Netanyahu wants to prolong war to avoid jail. Trump wants to deflect from Epstein. Job done. Neither are in UK interests. We should stay out of it, and we did.
When Iran retaliated by bombing everyone including UK interests, it was clearly defensive for the UK to help resist those attacks.
It seems very straight forward to me. Not dancing on a pin head.
What I don't understand is why Iran widened the war instead of just concentrating on Israel and the US interests. It would have divided the US from its allies.
I could just about understand regime change but if that isn't even Trump's objective (which it seems it isn't), the UK not getting involved seems extremely sensible to me.
Kemi putting the Tories firmly behind Trump’s Middle East war. *bold*, given the absence of any sign that the Americans know what they are trying to achieve.
The complete lack of a plan or strategy or exit criteria is a red line, legal or not.
Mr Trump's track record suggests to me that he needs no plan or strategy or exit criteria, he starts something when he thinks he will and stops/changes direction when he thinks he will.
I think Trump as someone who doesn’t worry about elections, or legacy in history books. Novel position in politics.
So what is the motivation behind all his decisions, if it’s not the kerching of a cash till.
Motivation 50/50, IMHO. Money/attention. Being on the front page. All eyes on the Great Leader.
I’m not so sure
He’s 79 pushing 80. He’s as rich as Creases. He’s POTUS - he can’t get any more important or powerful
I wonder if his narcissism is now making him look to his legacy and dynasty. If he can go down as the POTUS that freed Iran he will be deemed great by many, albeit begrudgingly
A great legacy also means his kids and grandkids will prosper in politics
So his horrible traits might be working in a SLIGHTLY more productive way. At 79 I also imagine he is less driven by the need to “grab pussy”
The Epstein thing was getting very close to him in the last few days. This is a massive distraction. Job done.
My question is what is the difference in this between defensive and offensive action ?
If you assume Starmer refused the US permission to use British bases to attack Iran was defensive, but 24 hours later changed his view to allow the US to take offensive action from them
As others have said Starmer is dancing on a pin head
The initial action by Israel and the US was clearly offensive and against international law. It was unprovoked in the middle of negotiations. Netanyahu wants to prolong war to avoid jail. Trump wants to deflect from Epstein. Job done. Neither are in UK interests. We should stay out of it, and we did.
When Iran retaliated by bombing everyone including UK interests, it was clearly defensive for the UK to help resist those attacks.
It seems very straight forward to me. Not dancing on a pin head.
What I don't understand is why Iran widened the war instead of just concentrating on Israel and the US interests. It would have divided the US from its allies.
A certain amount of chaos at Notts County Council about the old County Hall, which is on land probably transferring to the new Nottingham City after reorganisation, and restoration to Council standards is budgeted at £30 million over 12 years.
Some want to sell it now so he successor County keeps the dosh. Others: "it's historic".
I would be inclined to get some money in now for County, but perhaps preserving some value for later too by the structure of the arrangement. Because I do not want it to go to paying off Nottingham City's, major debts so the priority should be action this day, not playing arse-sitters pass the parcel.
My question is what is the difference in this between defensive and offensive action ?
If you assume Starmer refused the US permission to use British bases to attack Iran was defensive, but 24 hours later changed his view to allow the US to take offensive action from them
As others have said Starmer is dancing on a pin head
The initial action by Israel and the US was clearly offensive and against international law. It was unprovoked in the middle of negotiations. Netanyahu wants to prolong war to avoid jail. Trump wants to deflect from Epstein. Job done. Neither are in UK interests. We should stay out of it, and we did.
When Iran retaliated by bombing everyone including UK interests, it was clearly defensive for the UK to help resist those attacks.
It seems very straight forward to me. Not dancing on a pin head.
What I don't understand is why Iran widened the war instead of just concentrating on Israel and the US interests. It would have divided the US from its allies.
Yes, Iran took a hand and played it very badly.
Because they'd lost all their experienced national leaders?
When this Iranian adventure goes very badly wrong Kemi's lot are going to bitterly regret today.
On one level, declaring war on Germany in 1939 went badly wrong, but we don't look upon the people who were against it with any fondness now.
If I never again hear another likening of US/Israeli aggression in the Middle East to our WW2 fight against the Nazis it will be too soon for me.
Well, once all Islamofascists who desire to exterminate all Jews like the Mullahs and Hamas and Hezbollah are gone and in the history books, the comparisons will no longer be needed.
Until then, they are apt. Whether you like it or not.
Lol. So is Trump the Roosevelt and Netanyahu the Churchill? Or the other way round?
My question is what is the difference in this between defensive and offensive action ?
If you assume Starmer refused the US permission to use British bases to attack Iran was defensive, but 24 hours later changed his view to allow the US to take offensive action from them
As others have said Starmer is dancing on a pin head
The initial action by Israel and the US was clearly offensive and against international law. It was unprovoked in the middle of negotiations. Netanyahu wants to prolong war to avoid jail. Trump wants to deflect from Epstein. Job done. Neither are in UK interests. We should stay out of it, and we did.
When Iran retaliated by bombing everyone including UK interests, it was clearly defensive for the UK to help resist those attacks.
It seems very straight forward to me. Not dancing on a pin head.
What I don't understand is why Iran widened the war instead of just concentrating on Israel and the US interests. It would have divided the US from its allies.
I take back all I said about Starmer. He tod the loathsome creature Hegseth who seems to think he's Clint Eastwood to fuck off.
It'll do him no harm at all with his Party. In fact it might be enough to relaunch him if he openly criticises Trump and Netanyahu firmly enough. Particularly when the adventure fails as it almost certainly will.
When this Iranian adventure goes very badly wrong Kemi's lot are going to bitterly regret today.
On one level, declaring war on Germany in 1939 went badly wrong, but we don't look upon the people who were against it with any fondness now.
If I never again hear another likening of US/Israeli aggression in the Middle East to our WW2 fight against the Nazis it will be too soon for me.
Well, once all Islamofascists who desire to exterminate all Jews like the Mullahs and Hamas and Hezbollah are gone and in the history books, the comparisons will no longer be needed.
Until then, they are apt. Whether you like it or not.
Lol. So is Trump the Roosevelt and Netanyahu the Churchill? Or the other way round?
My question is what is the difference in this between defensive and offensive action ?
If you assume Starmer refused the US permission to use British bases to attack Iran was defensive, but 24 hours later changed his view to allow the US to take offensive action from them
As others have said Starmer is dancing on a pin head
The initial action by Israel and the US was clearly offensive and against international law. It was unprovoked in the middle of negotiations. Netanyahu wants to prolong war to avoid jail. Trump wants to deflect from Epstein. Job done. Neither are in UK interests. We should stay out of it, and we did.
When Iran retaliated by bombing everyone including UK interests, it was clearly defensive for the UK to help resist those attacks.
It seems very straight forward to me. Not dancing on a pin head.
What I don't understand is why Iran widened the war instead of just concentrating on Israel and the US interests. It would have divided the US from its allies.
I'm proudly anti-war. And to be anti-war that means looking to explore all possible diplomatic solutions. The US and Israel took a unilateral decision in the midst of negotiations to kill the Iranian leader, and opted for war. This is deplorable.
This guy is a massive liability for the Greens. Why on Earth did they put him there?
Kemi putting the Tories firmly behind Trump’s Middle East war. *bold*, given the absence of any sign that the Americans know what they are trying to achieve.
The complete lack of a plan or strategy or exit criteria is a red line, legal or not.
Mr Trump's track record suggests to me that he needs no plan or strategy or exit criteria, he starts something when he thinks he will and stops/changes direction when he thinks he will.
I think Trump as someone who doesn’t worry about elections, or legacy in history books. Novel position in politics.
So what is the motivation behind all his decisions, if it’s not the kerching of a cash till.
Motivation 50/50, IMHO. Money/attention. Being on the front page. All eyes on the Great Leader.
I’m not so sure
He’s 79 pushing 80. He’s as rich as Creases. He’s POTUS - he can’t get any more important or powerful
I wonder if his narcissism is now making him look to his legacy and dynasty. If he can go down as the POTUS that freed Iran he will be deemed great by many, albeit begrudgingly
A great legacy also means his kids and grandkids will prosper in politics
So his horrible traits might be working in a SLIGHTLY more productive way. At 79 I also imagine he is less driven by the need to “grab pussy”
The Epstein thing was getting very close to him in the last few days. This is a massive distraction. Job done.
If Epstein really is being hidden by Netanyahu as some suggest we'll wait for a rogue American bunker bomb to wipe out Tel Aviv
Just catching up with D Kruger not wanting to interfere in our private life, but absolutely wanting to control how we relate to each other and have children ... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/dfe7a4ee33c46531
When this Iranian adventure goes very badly wrong Kemi's lot are going to bitterly regret today.
On one level, declaring war on Germany in 1939 went badly wrong, but we don't look upon the people who were against it with any fondness now.
If I never again hear another likening of US/Israeli aggression in the Middle East to our WW2 fight against the Nazis it will be too soon for me.
Well, once all Islamofascists who desire to exterminate all Jews like the Mullahs and Hamas and Hezbollah are gone and in the history books, the comparisons will no longer be needed.
Until then, they are apt. Whether you like it or not.
Lol. So is Trump the Roosevelt and Netanyahu the Churchill? Or the other way round?
Who writes this rubbish for Trump? They wiped out their nuclear weapons but then they rebuilt them in a couple of months. This stuff was written by a Hollywood scriptwriter who writes for children. The Americans will be laughing at him.
When this Iranian adventure goes very badly wrong Kemi's lot are going to bitterly regret today.
On one level, declaring war on Germany in 1939 went badly wrong, but we don't look upon the people who were against it with any fondness now.
If I never again hear another likening of US/Israeli aggression in the Middle East to our WW2 fight against the Nazis it will be too soon for me.
Well, once all Islamofascists who desire to exterminate all Jews like the Mullahs and Hamas and Hezbollah are gone and in the history books, the comparisons will no longer be needed.
Until then, they are apt. Whether you like it or not.
Lol. So is Trump the Roosevelt and Netanyahu the Churchill? Or the other way round?
it is an inexact parallel but Trump is Stalin perhaps?
Speaking earlier with CNN’s Jake Tapper, President Donald J. Trump said regarding Operation Epic Fury, the ongoing strike campaign against Iran, “We’re knocking the crap out of them - I think it’s going very well. It’s very powerful. We’ve got the greatest military in the world and we’re using it.” Trump also alluded to a further “big wave” of attacks against Iran that hasn’t occurred yet, telling CNN, “We haven’t even started hitting them hard. The big wave hasn’t even happened. The big one is coming soon.”
I'm proudly anti-war. And to be anti-war that means looking to explore all possible diplomatic solutions. The US and Israel took a unilateral decision in the midst of negotiations to kill the Iranian leader, and opted for war. This is deplorable.
This guy is a massive liability for the Greens. Why on Earth did they put him there?
On defence of Donald, it increasingly looks like Netanyahu took a unilateral decision and the Yanks had no choice but to follow
My question is what is the difference in this between defensive and offensive action ?
If you assume Starmer refused the US permission to use British bases to attack Iran was defensive, but 24 hours later changed his view to allow the US to take offensive action from them
As others have said Starmer is dancing on a pin head
The initial action by Israel and the US was clearly offensive and against international law. It was unprovoked in the middle of negotiations. Netanyahu wants to prolong war to avoid jail. Trump wants to deflect from Epstein. Job done. Neither are in UK interests. We should stay out of it, and we did.
When Iran retaliated by bombing everyone including UK interests, it was clearly defensive for the UK to help resist those attacks.
It seems very straight forward to me. Not dancing on a pin head.
What I don't understand is why Iran widened the war instead of just concentrating on Israel and the US interests. It would have divided the US from its allies.
He doesn't explain how it is legal, or how it was provoked at this moment in the middle of negotiations. He's taken a political decision to support the US.
As a matter of interest, do you understand why Iran widened the conflict by attacking none US and Israeli interests?
Seems to some sort of announcement from Macron tomorrow about a European "nuclear umbrella" plan, stretching from northwestern to southeastern Europe, and including the U.K.
A certain amount of chaos at Notts County Council about the old County Hall, which is on land probably transferring to the new Nottingham City after reorganisation, and restoration to Council standards is budgeted at £30 million over 12 years.
Some want to sell it now so he successor County keeps the dosh. Others: "it's historic".
I would be inclined to get some money in now for County, but perhaps preserving some value for later too by the structure of the arrangement. Because I do not want it to go to paying off Nottingham City's, major debts so the priority should be action this day, not playing arse-sitters pass the parcel.
I take back all I said about Starmer. He tod the loathsome creature Hegseth who seems to think he's Clint Eastwood to fuck off.
It'll do him no harm at all with his Party. In fact it might be enough to relaunch him if he openly criticises Trump and Netanyahu firmly enough. Particularly when the adventure fails as it almost certainly will.
Never mind about the Iranians - especially women and the young - who will continue to be oppressed and murdered if the fascists theocratic & terror-supporting regime continues in power, eh! Tens of thousands of young Iranians taking to the streets demanding freedom and being murdered for it is not - and was not - an "adventure". They showed real courage and many are showing joy at the death of a loathsome brutal dictator. Just so long as international law, a law so clear apparently that the Canadians, Australians and even the Greeks were able to take a very different view to the British, is followed. And what's really important, apparently, the relaunch of an unpopular PM, a criticism made, ironically enough of Netanyahu in the aftermath of October 7.
My question is what is the difference in this between defensive and offensive action ?
If you assume Starmer refused the US permission to use British bases to attack Iran was defensive, but 24 hours later changed his view to allow the US to take offensive action from them
As others have said Starmer is dancing on a pin head
The initial action by Israel and the US was clearly offensive and against international law. It was unprovoked in the middle of negotiations. Netanyahu wants to prolong war to avoid jail. Trump wants to deflect from Epstein. Job done. Neither are in UK interests. We should stay out of it, and we did.
When Iran retaliated by bombing everyone including UK interests, it was clearly defensive for the UK to help resist those attacks.
It seems very straight forward to me. Not dancing on a pin head.
What I don't understand is why Iran widened the war instead of just concentrating on Israel and the US interests. It would have divided the US from its allies.
A certain amount of chaos at Notts County Council about the old County Hall, which is on land probably transferring to the new Nottingham City after reorganisation, and restoration to Council standards is budgeted at £30 million over 12 years.
Some want to sell it now so he successor County keeps the dosh. Others: "it's historic".
I would be inclined to get some money in now for County, but perhaps preserving some value for later too by the structure of the arrangement. Because I do not want it to go to paying off Nottingham City's, major debts so the priority should be action this day, not playing arse-sitters pass the parcel.
Piccie:
I see Reform plan a £21million cut in adult social care.
Just nuts. Have they any idea how that is possible?
I take back all I said about Starmer. He tod the loathsome creature Hegseth who seems to think he's Clint Eastwood to fuck off.
It'll do him no harm at all with his Party. In fact it might be enough to relaunch him if he openly criticises Trump and Netanyahu firmly enough. Particularly when the adventure fails as it almost certainly will.
Whatever this is, something has changed and if there is one stand out moment that will go down in history it is Iran lashing out to friend and foe throughout the region uniting them against
Could you have imagined even a few days ago of Qatar shooting down 2 Iranian planes as has happened today ?
It has to be hoped a new order results across the middle east where rogue states cease to exist
Speaking earlier with CNN’s Jake Tapper, President Donald J. Trump said regarding Operation Epic Fury, the ongoing strike campaign against Iran, “We’re knocking the crap out of them - I think it’s going very well. It’s very powerful. We’ve got the greatest military in the world and we’re using it.” Trump also alluded to a further “big wave” of attacks against Iran that hasn’t occurred yet, telling CNN, “We haven’t even started hitting them hard. The big wave hasn’t even happened. The big one is coming soon.”
Ooo that is tough guy talk and no mistake. Did he have his cap on?
let me get this right, so we've allowed the US to use our bases for defensive operations only, and those defensive operations include strikes in Iran to remove the capability to launch attacks... SKS just said as much. Sounds like offensive operations to me. Dancing on the head of a pin.
The legal distinction is massive between responding to actual missile strikes against your territory and other third parties versus unprovoked attacks on other countries to assassinate their leaders.
That people here don't see that distinction and dismiss it as "dancing on the head of a pin" is baffling.
Apart from anything else, surely leaders would think twice about assassinating other countries' leaders, in case it happens to them too?
My question is what is the difference in this between defensive and offensive action ?
If you assume Starmer refused the US permission to use British bases to attack Iran was defensive, but 24 hours later changed his view to allow the US to take offensive action from them
As others have said Starmer is dancing on a pin head
The initial action by Israel and the US was clearly offensive and against international law. It was unprovoked in the middle of negotiations. Netanyahu wants to prolong war to avoid jail. Trump wants to deflect from Epstein. Job done. Neither are in UK interests. We should stay out of it, and we did.
When Iran retaliated by bombing everyone including UK interests, it was clearly defensive for the UK to help resist those attacks.
It seems very straight forward to me. Not dancing on a pin head.
What I don't understand is why Iran widened the war instead of just concentrating on Israel and the US interests. It would have divided the US from its allies.
He doesn't explain how it is legal, or how it was provoked at this moment in the middle of negotiations. He's taken a political decision to support the US.
As a matter of interest, do you understand why Iran widened the conflict by attacking none US and Israeli interests?
Because they’re all part of the same alliance. That is no mystery at all. At the very least, we and the Gulf States are sharing intelligence with the USA and Israel, and we have bases which the USA uses, even if not directly for this campaign.
Playing a defensive, support, role in a military campaign, is still playing a part.
Speaking earlier with CNN’s Jake Tapper, President Donald J. Trump said regarding Operation Epic Fury, the ongoing strike campaign against Iran, “We’re knocking the crap out of them - I think it’s going very well. It’s very powerful. We’ve got the greatest military in the world and we’re using it.” Trump also alluded to a further “big wave” of attacks against Iran that hasn’t occurred yet, telling CNN, “We haven’t even started hitting them hard. The big wave hasn’t even happened. The big one is coming soon.”
Ooo that is tough guy talk and no mistake. Did he have his cap on?
"We stood alone but we always believed that our great ally the United Kingdom would join us eventually. They say that Keir Starmer can always be relied upon to make the correct decision, after he's tried everything else."
If there is nothing that can be reached by negotiation then the US should just come out and say so.
Trump and his munchkins were lying their heads off going into this vanity war *, and (in my view) engaged in fake negotiations as a distraction strategy whilst they prepared their attack, and Trump has spent the last year wiping his bottom with every treaty the USA ever signed, including the ones he made himself in 2025.
I just do not see any point at all in reacting on the basis anything he says.
The most dangerous point about Trump is that he acts purely on the basis of the voices in his head, and has surrounded himself with people who just listen to his voices and repeat it back.
Personally, I think he is unstable enough to push the big red nuclear button before this is over, just because he got out of bed the wrong side in the morning.
When this Iranian adventure goes very badly wrong Kemi's lot are going to bitterly regret today.
On one level, declaring war on Germany in 1939 went badly wrong, but we don't look upon the people who were against it with any fondness now.
If I never again hear another likening of US/Israeli aggression in the Middle East to our WW2 fight against the Nazis it will be too soon for me.
Well, once all Islamofascists who desire to exterminate all Jews like the Mullahs and Hamas and Hezbollah are gone and in the history books, the comparisons will no longer be needed.
Until then, they are apt. Whether you like it or not.
Lol. So is Trump the Roosevelt and Netanyahu the Churchill? Or the other way round?
it is an inexact parallel but Trump is Stalin perhaps?
Kemi putting the Tories firmly behind Trump’s Middle East war. *bold*, given the absence of any sign that the Americans know what they are trying to achieve.
The complete lack of a plan or strategy or exit criteria is a red line, legal or not.
Mr Trump's track record suggests to me that he needs no plan or strategy or exit criteria, he starts something when he thinks he will and stops/changes direction when he thinks he will.
I think Trump as someone who doesn’t worry about elections, or legacy in history books. Novel position in politics.
So what is the motivation behind all his decisions, if it’s not the kerching of a cash till.
Motivation 50/50, IMHO. Money/attention. Being on the front page. All eyes on the Great Leader.
I’m not so sure
He’s 79 pushing 80. He’s as rich as Creases. He’s POTUS - he can’t get any more important or powerful
I wonder if his narcissism is now making him look to his legacy and dynasty. If he can go down as the POTUS that freed Iran he will be deemed great by many, albeit begrudgingly
A great legacy also means his kids and grandkids will prosper in politics
So his horrible traits might be working in a SLIGHTLY more productive way. At 79 I also imagine he is less driven by the need to “grab pussy”
The Epstein thing was getting very close to him in the last few days. This is a massive distraction. Job done.
If Epstein really is being hidden by Netanyahu as some suggest we'll wait for a rogue American bunker bomb to wipe out Tel Aviv
Your hatred of Jewish people is obnoxious as demonstrated by wanting Tel Aviv wiped out
I have been there and enjoyed their hospitality with lots of ordinary people getting on with their lives
The Americans are complete morons. General Patreas saying 'We are waiting for a group with guns to take over the country and we'll take it from there........ '
Do they know where they've invaded? It's got a population of 90 million and nearly a million people under arms. It is an advanced country. They are not a bunch of cowboys in a sheriffs office. Why isn't Evan Davis ridiculing him?
My question is what is the difference in this between defensive and offensive action ?
If you assume Starmer refused the US permission to use British bases to attack Iran was defensive, but 24 hours later changed his view to allow the US to take offensive action from them
As others have said Starmer is dancing on a pin head
The initial action by Israel and the US was clearly offensive and against international law. It was unprovoked in the middle of negotiations. Netanyahu wants to prolong war to avoid jail. Trump wants to deflect from Epstein. Job done. Neither are in UK interests. We should stay out of it, and we did.
When Iran retaliated by bombing everyone including UK interests, it was clearly defensive for the UK to help resist those attacks.
It seems very straight forward to me. Not dancing on a pin head.
What I don't understand is why Iran widened the war instead of just concentrating on Israel and the US interests. It would have divided the US from its allies.
Your last paragraph is very much in line with my thoughts
It seems bizarre
Iran has been conducting a proxy war against Sunni neighbours for years. Just making it a bit more personal.
One of the Greek frigates on its way to Cyprus seems to be a very new and high-tech anti-drone one, made by the French. Does the U.K. have anything like this ?
I wonder whether the people who are so pusillanimous here and view "victory" as a foul word would have been the same in WWII when we were fighting the Nazis? How dare we be fighting for victory?
The Mullahs are an evil that needs defeating. Now is the time to press for victory and see them eliminated once and for all.
War should be a last resort, but when war comes, fighting for victory is the right thing to do.
How many times are you going to repeat "victory"?
Look, if the US and Israel had a clear war plan to defeat the Iranian regime, maybe you'd have an argument. But they don't. They're going to bomb some bits and then probably sign a new nuclear treaty that looks very similar to the one Obama did. A lot of people are going to die for very little.
Until there is regime change.
If Trump does that, then shame on him.
Don't mistake my support for regime change as support for Trump. I despise Trump. I support war here to get regime change.
Anything short of regime change and I will condemn Trump for chickening out.
However you are wrong to call it very little. The damage to the regime is already not very little, which is why Lebanon now feels freed to tackle Hezbollah.
The more damage inflicted upon this regime, the better.
If you support war in Iran to get regime change, then, as there is no war to get regime change, you presumably aren't supporting anything.
Since when does what we want to happen need to be happening to support it?
I support planning liberalisation. This Government was vaguely committed to doing it at the last election, but are failing to do so. All other parties are not in favour either. I support it happening, even though it is not, and condemn SKS for failure to deliver.
I support tax reform. No party is delivering it. I will argue for it, even if no party offers it.
I support regime change. A war is in progress, good, but I have no faith in Trump and only marginally more in Bibi. We wait to see what happens but I will oppose "peace" until Persia is liberated from the Mullahs.
We generally focus on reality here, not on fantasies. You may have whatever fantasies you want, but the topic under discussion is usually what's happening. It's confusing if most of us are discussing the actual US/ Israeli attacks while you're talking about some unobtainable Platonic ideal attack.
The Americans are complete morons. General Patreas saying 'We are waiting for a group with guns to take over the country and we'll take it from there........ '
Do they know where they've invaded? It's got a population of 90 million and nearly a million people under arms. It is an advanced country. They are not a bunch of cowboys in a sheriffs office. Why isn't Evan Davis ridiculing him?
It's supposed to be Americans who don't understand irony. "A group with guns" is just his way of referring to the people who command the military and police.
Speaking earlier with CNN’s Jake Tapper, President Donald J. Trump said regarding Operation Epic Fury, the ongoing strike campaign against Iran, “We’re knocking the crap out of them - I think it’s going very well. It’s very powerful. We’ve got the greatest military in the world and we’re using it.” Trump also alluded to a further “big wave” of attacks against Iran that hasn’t occurred yet, telling CNN, “We haven’t even started hitting them hard. The big wave hasn’t even happened. The big one is coming soon.”
Ooo that is tough guy talk and no mistake. Did he have his cap on?
"We stood alone but we always believed that our great ally the United Kingdom would join us eventually. They say that Keir Starmer can always be relied upon to make the correct decision, after he's tried everything else."
After letting him ride round Windor Castle in a shiny royal carriage too. Talk about ingratitude and lack of manners. Guy's a barbarian. Put him in the fridge, I say.
The basic problem with Starmer's position is that whether military action has a legal basis isn't a black and white question. It's a political judgement first and a legal judgement second.
He's trying to invert this and tying himself in knots because his main political conviction is that politicians should be subordinate to lawyers.
He can’t survive this legal judgement being wrong, it would be the end of his USP.
Easy to see just how and why Starmer resigns soon, after his statement to the house today unraveling so quickly.
There’s far more jeopardy to Starmer from taking UK into illegal war, than from the Mandelson and Epstein business.
Who the hell will Labour use to plug the hole at the top of their party, and crown UK PM? 🫣
One of the Greek frigates on its way to Cyprus seems to be a very new and high-tech anti-drone one, made by the French. Does the U.K. have anything like this ?
Why would we buy something fit for purpose from France when we can design our own, have it delivered 10 years late at double the cost but with half the capability?
The real problem is not the ins and outs of international law but what the strategy is, what does success look like and what is the exit strategy.
No-one seems to have a clue.
Netanyahu does, I think. Strategy is to keep bombing until Iran is a disarmed mess that can never pose a threat to Israel. Success is this having happened to his satisfaction. Exit strategy is to then stop.
Do Britons think the UK government should praise or condemn the US for the Iran attacks?
Should condemn: 21% Should praise: 12% Should neither condemn nor praise: 45%
The UK prefers to sit on the fence.
I think the government is broadly in line with public mood, at least for now.
True, but the problem he will have is that the anti war crew will see him as having dragged us into it and the hawks that hes not dragged us in and he should. The test of where the public sits will come if the Arab states or any EU states get involved or if a more consequential attack on UK territory or citizens occurs
The real problem is not the ins and outs of international law but what the strategy is, what does success look like and what is the exit strategy.
No-one seems to have a clue.
I think the two things are somewhat correlated. If you dismiss international law as of no concern, generally you don't have a clue about what works either.
Mark Rutte: "The Commander-in-Chief, the leader of the free world, President Donald J. Trump, I REALLY commend what is happening here! Taking out Khamenei, taking out the nuclear capability and ballistic missile program in Iran."
"This is crucial. I spoke with ALL the key European leaders...there's WIDESPREAD support for the president's doing."
Comments
Pritti Patel is the de facto Tory Leader.
Where was she last week. Where does she regularly visit.
Washington
Tel Aviv
Defensive yesterday, offensive today
Ultimately anyone who isn't a participant - Carney, Starmer, Macron etc - are just posturing.
Iran changed the terms by illegally attacking non combatants, after the US attack.
And it now seems this included the UK.
MoD assessment is that the drone attack on Akrotiri base in Cyprus last night was launched before the PM’s statement - ie was not a retaliation for it.
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/2028425541297033541
Taking out launchers attacking you (or more accurately allowing the US use of our bases to do so) is legitimate defence under international law.
I support planning liberalisation. This Government was vaguely committed to doing it at the last election, but are failing to do so. All other parties are not in favour either. I support it happening, even though it is not, and condemn SKS for failure to deliver.
I support tax reform. No party is delivering it. I will argue for it, even if no party offers it.
I support regime change. A war is in progress, good, but I have no faith in Trump and only marginally more in Bibi. We wait to see what happens but I will oppose "peace" until Persia is liberated from the Mullahs.
NEW: Israeli jets have begun striking border guard positions along the Iraq-Iran frontier in what appears to be an effort to weaken Iranian control over the region and potentially clear a path for armed Iranian Kurdish opposition groups based in Iraq to move back into Iran.
Just re-watching "The Devil's Share" from Person of Interest
Civilization rests on the principle that we treat our criminals better than they treated their victims, that we not stoop to their level. But you and I are outliers. We're not really a part of civilization.
Until then, they are apt. Whether you like it or not.
It was offensive in the literal sense (we shot first), but defensive in the strategic sense (deny an enemy asset that could be turned against you). Pre-emptive self-defence, in other words.
Also: it was an act of war against a “not technically our enemy” state, justified as necessity, and it still looked brutal as hell. Which is kind of the point here.
That people here don't see that distinction and dismiss it as "dancing on the head of a pin" is baffling.
https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/qatar-iran-fighter-jets-shot-down-b2930412.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCvhpxznQWo
At the moment we are taking a defensive position, but what happens if we see more strikes on British bases? At which point does our defensive stance become a retaliatory one? Presumably we do have the right to retaliate? Do we not need to maintain deterrence?
These are just musings, I’m not suggesting that we should be involved, I just think the whole waters are much more muddied now this is a regional war.
When Iran retaliated by bombing everyone including UK interests, it was clearly defensive for the UK to help resist those attacks.
It seems very straight forward to me. Not dancing on a pin head.
What I don't understand is why Iran widened the war instead of just concentrating on Israel and the US interests. It would have divided the US from its allies.
It seems bizarre
He’s 79 pushing 80. He’s as rich as Creases. He’s POTUS - he can’t get any more important or powerful
I wonder if his narcissism is now making him look to his legacy and dynasty. If he can go down as the POTUS that freed Iran he will be deemed great by many, albeit begrudgingly
A great legacy also means his kids and grandkids will prosper in politics
So his horrible traits might be working in a SLIGHTLY more productive way. At 79 I also imagine he is less driven by the need to “grab pussy”
He's trying to invert this and tying himself in knots because his main political conviction is that politicians should be subordinate to lawyers.
Some want to sell it now so he successor County keeps the dosh. Others: "it's historic".
I really can't tell who is the major upfucker.
https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/reckless-bid-sell-iconic-nottinghamshire-10839235
I would be inclined to get some money in now for County, but perhaps preserving some value for later too by the structure of the arrangement. Because I do not want it to go to paying off Nottingham City's, major debts so the priority should be action this day, not playing arse-sitters pass the parcel.
I don't want to be involved in a morally dubious offensive action abroad. But if we get attacked, I think it fair to defend ourselves.
Basically, Starmer is against the war but in favour of defending ourselves. I think for once, he's actually exactly where the majority of people are. Badenoch is going to look extremely silly.
Caveats:
That the harm caused by the above happening is less than the harm that Trump2 is causing and will continue to cause for as long as he is there. This test is likely passed since the latter quantity is so huge.
The old chestnut, as debated about the Mullahs, of what replaces the old regime. This test is also likely passed since it's hard to imagine anything worse in America than Trump2. It's surely a good bet that if he falls the American people will rise up and reclaim their Republic.
But the point is, no, no change. They were always the terms. They was the terms factored in a month ago when decisions were made and relayed to the US.
Starmer is in trouble. His statement this afternoon could soon bring him down. If the new position of defensive bombing is illegal - Kemi will tell him at dispatch box “you have told the house it was legal, and it has been found not to be. I am calling a vote of no confidence.” And Starmer will resign a few hours later.
This is a massive distraction. Job done.
I think politically Starmer has played this quite well. Which I wouldn't have said two days ago.
It'll do him no harm at all with his Party. In fact it might be enough to relaunch him if he openly criticises Trump and Netanyahu firmly enough. Particularly when the adventure fails as it almost certainly will.
Footage of Kuwaiti locals approaching one of the shot down American pilots this morning.
“Are you OK? Thank you for helping us.”
Not because Carney is wrong.
Had Clinton or Biden or Obama done what is happening, for the same reasons, then many opposing today would be in favour.
And to be fair some in favour today would be opposed too.
I don't care about colour of party, I have always been ultra hawkish.
I'm proudly anti-war. And to be anti-war that means looking to explore all possible diplomatic solutions. The US and Israel took a unilateral decision in the midst of negotiations to kill the Iranian leader, and opted for war. This is deplorable.
This guy is a massive liability for the Greens. Why on Earth did they put him there?
Speaking earlier with CNN’s Jake Tapper, President Donald J. Trump said regarding Operation Epic Fury, the ongoing strike campaign against Iran, “We’re knocking the crap out of them - I think it’s going very well. It’s very powerful. We’ve got the greatest military in the world and we’re using it.” Trump also alluded to a further “big wave” of attacks against Iran that hasn’t occurred yet, telling CNN, “We haven’t even started hitting them hard. The big wave hasn’t even happened. The big one is coming soon.”
I would be against the UK getting involved, whoever the leader is. I respect your opinion but I hope you will also respect mine.
I think though, politically the UK will overwhelmingly be against getting involved. Badenoch has made a very serious error.
He's taken a political decision to support the US.
As a matter of interest, do you understand why Iran widened the conflict by attacking none US and Israeli interests?
Trump on Iran: "We projected 4-5 weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that. We'll do whatever [it takes]."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c05v0p1d0peo
Just nuts. Have they any idea how that is possible?
Could you have imagined even a few days ago of Qatar shooting down 2 Iranian planes as has happened today ?
It has to be hoped a new order results across the middle east where rogue states cease to exist
The Elizabeth I versus Mary scenario.
Playing a defensive, support, role in a military campaign, is still playing a part.
Being tracked by 130,000 people of Flightradar24
I just do not see any point at all in reacting on the basis anything he says.
The most dangerous point about Trump is that he acts purely on the basis of the voices in his head, and has surrounded himself with people who just listen to his voices and repeat it back.
Personally, I think he is unstable enough to push the big red nuclear button before this is over, just because he got out of bed the wrong side in the morning.
* https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-statements-made-by-trump-to-justify-u-s-strikes-on-iran
I have been there and enjoyed their hospitality with lots of ordinary people getting on with their lives
Do they know where they've invaded? It's got a population of 90 million and nearly a million people under arms. It is an advanced country. They are not a bunch of cowboys in a sheriffs office. Why isn't Evan Davis ridiculing him?
Net support by 2024 vote
Reform: +33
Con: +14
Lab: -45
Lib Dem: -49
Green: -59
Results link in replies
https://x.com/YouGov/status/2028519868761252303
The number of US service members seriously wounded in the Iran War now stands at 18, up from the five reported yesterday.
Do Britons think the UK government should praise or condemn the US for the Iran attacks?
Should condemn: 21%
Should praise: 12%
Should neither condemn nor praise: 45%
The UK prefers to sit on the fence.
No-one seems to have a clue.
Easy to see just how and why Starmer resigns soon, after his statement to the house today unraveling so quickly.
There’s far more jeopardy to Starmer from taking UK into illegal war, than from the Mandelson and Epstein business.
Who the hell will Labour use to plug the hole at the top of their party, and crown UK PM? 🫣
Israel - flatten Iran, call an election.
US - the Saudis asked Trump to do this, as they too love the outcome Israel promised.
The test of where the public sits will come if the Arab states or any EU states get involved or if a more consequential attack on UK territory or citizens occurs
Mark Rutte: "The Commander-in-Chief, the leader of the free world, President Donald J. Trump, I REALLY commend what is happening here! Taking out Khamenei, taking out the nuclear capability and ballistic missile program in Iran."
"This is crucial. I spoke with ALL the key European leaders...there's WIDESPREAD support for the president's doing."
I thought they were all about fixing Broken Britain.