Not sure the numbers make very good reading for Kemi Badenoch either in all honesty.
Worse for Davey though.
I was referring to this from the Opinium piece:
As the Conservatives gather for their Party Conference in Manchester, leader Kemi Badenoch’s net approval remains steady at -22 overall (18% approve, 40% disapprove). Among 2024 Conservative voters, fewer than two in five (38%) approve of the job she is doing so far, while 21% disapprove.
Nearly half (48%) of voters say her leadership has not been a success so far, with only 23% taking a positive view. Even among 2024 Conservative voters, negative views (43%) outnumber positives views (39%).
Standalone support for policy proposals embraced by the Conservatives is strongest on supporting academy school freedoms (+46%), a strict visa cap to reduce immigration (+43%), and increasing the living time required in the UK to claim citizenship (+35%). However, all see modest declines in support when framed as Conservative policies under Badenoch’s leadership.
I don’t care if Trump rushed this proposal out to get an agreement before the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded next Friday!
Whatever your political side I hope I speak for all in desperately hoping that this Peace Plan can get agreement .
Looks like the pressure on Netanyahu put on by Australia, Canada, Portugal, France - and Starmer's United Kingdom - through recognition of Palestine has finally brought him to the table.
(chucks lit match and leaves)
Laughable to think it had any impact whatsoever.
You might think this is insane but this is precisely what some of those protestors thought would happen. 1) Horror at what is happening in Gaza 2) Labour's support tanks for left-leaning voters due to continued support for Netanyahu 3) UK Government is forced to recognise Palestine 4) Netanyahu gets the message 5) Genocide comes to an end.
(Replicated in other western countries.)
In the eyes of those who have taken to the streets, this is complete vindication. This comes only 11 days since recognition.
I don’t care if Trump rushed this proposal out to get an agreement before the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded next Friday!
Whatever your political side I hope I speak for all in desperately hoping that this Peace Plan can get agreement .
Anybody wanting it to fail is frankly a disgrace
Anything which curtails the killing is to be welcomed.
Colour me sceptical, but anything Middle Eastern with Blair's fingerprints all over it haven't gone so well in the past.
It's possible the US government, after all Trump's political appointments, simply doesn't have the talent to draft that document. In that circumstance, I'd take Blair.
I don’t care if Trump rushed this proposal out to get an agreement before the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded next Friday!
Whatever your political side I hope I speak for all in desperately hoping that this Peace Plan can get agreement .
As Trump has been personally responsible for ending 27 of the last 7 wars surely he is already a shoe in for it.
I'd love to visit the Albanian/Cambodian border, now so peaceful after Trump's intervention, meet some of the families who won't now have lost a son or a husband.
I don’t care if Trump rushed this proposal out to get an agreement before the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded next Friday!
Whatever your political side I hope I speak for all in desperately hoping that this Peace Plan can get agreement .
As Trump has been personally responsible for ending 27 of the last 7 wars surely he is already a shoe in for it.
I'd love to visit the Albanian/Cambodian border, now so peaceful after Trump's intervention, meet some of the families who won't now have lost a son or a husband.
Sadly you can only reach it through the still war ravaged lands of Narnia so safe passage cannot be guaranteed at this time
'The premature recognition of "Palestine" by France and the UK has made Europe even more irrelevant to the conflict than it was already. A joint French-British-German initiative to work with the US and Israel would have brought Europe back in the game.'
European countries attempted to use the recognition of Palestine to punish Israel and now that bolt has been shot, nothing changed for Israel and we rewarded terrorists. Instead if we'd reserved that recognition as a reward for Palestinians who sought a permanent peace with Israel we'd still have that in our armoury and something to bring to the table in the next phase of this. As it stands the twatter is right, European countries are completely irrelevant and sidelined, we have nothing to offer either party. Short termism from Starmer to give in to the Gaza mob means we have zero influence today.
He's truly the worst PM of the modern era, worse than Truss who at least had the decency to resign.
You're right, but the problem is he didn't do it to influence the Middle East or help either the ordinary Palestinians or Israelis.
He did it to pander to his base.
You might both be wrong. Starmer is a lawyer, possibly *the* lawyer. This simple truth runs through and explains everything he does. So it may well be Starmer believed implicitly that legal recognition of Palestine would cause a Palestinian state to exist.
That's not an absurd thought. A state that is legally recognised but occupied by a hostile power can be said to still exist.
Wasn't that the position of France, Norway and Poland during WW2? Their government-in-exiles were in London during the war (in the case of the Poles, they went to Paris before moving to London once France fell).
Incidentally, IIRC the Polish government in exile did not officially end until Polish independence in 1991.
'The premature recognition of "Palestine" by France and the UK has made Europe even more irrelevant to the conflict than it was already. A joint French-British-German initiative to work with the US and Israel would have brought Europe back in the game.'
European countries attempted to use the recognition of Palestine to punish Israel and now that bolt has been shot, nothing changed for Israel and we rewarded terrorists. Instead if we'd reserved that recognition as a reward for Palestinians who sought a permanent peace with Israel we'd still have that in our armoury and something to bring to the table in the next phase of this. As it stands the twatter is right, European countries are completely irrelevant and sidelined, we have nothing to offer either party. Short termism from Starmer to give in to the Gaza mob means we have zero influence today.
He's truly the worst PM of the modern era, worse than Truss who at least had the decency to resign.
You're right, but the problem is he didn't do it to influence the Middle East or help either the ordinary Palestinians or Israelis.
He did it to pander to his base.
You might both be wrong. Starmer is a lawyer, possibly *the* lawyer. This simple truth runs through and explains everything he does. So it may well be Starmer believed implicitly that legal recognition of Palestine would cause a Palestinian state to exist.
That's not an absurd thought. A state that is legally recognised but occupied by a hostile power can be said to still exist.
Wasn't that the position of France, Norway and Poland during WW2? Their government-in-exiles were in London during the war (in the case of the Poles, they went to Paris before moving to London once France fell).
Incidentally, IIRC the Polish government in exile did not officially end until Polish independence in 1991.
The Belarus government-in-exile has been in existence since 1919. They expected to disband until Lukashenka took power in the early 1990s.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
As someone who thought Bond films were standalone, and watched Quantum of Solace before I had seen Casino Royale, I heartily agree.
Quantum of Solace is standalone.
Like, "Quantum of Solace, please go over there and stand alone and don't let anyone see you."
Die Another Day is by far the worst.
It's not great, but QoS is one of the worst films (not just Bond) that I have paid money to see.
Home alone 2: Lost in New York for me. Never actually walked out on a movie but came close during this one…
The only movie I've seen someone walk out of was the Guy Ritchie movie Revolver. They left with a few choice words. At the end of the film, I thought "they did the right thing".
I remember walking out of Vanilla Sky....awful film.
I enjoyed Vanilla Sky, good film, although it's a pretty straight remake of the Spanish original film Abre los Ojos, which is a really great film.
Films I would've walked out of had I not been with someone else are... Inland Empire, and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Maybe also Greenaway's The Pillow Book.
Tbf, the Two Towers is way worse than FOTR. Absolutely dreadful film.
And the one who said The Rise Of Skywalker is terrible isn't wrong, but remember one outstanding achievement - it made The Last Jedi look less biblically shit,
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
As someone who thought Bond films were standalone, and watched Quantum of Solace before I had seen Casino Royale, I heartily agree.
Quantum of Solace is standalone.
Like, "Quantum of Solace, please go over there and stand alone and don't let anyone see you."
Die Another Day is by far the worst.
It's not great, but QoS is one of the worst films (not just Bond) that I have paid money to see.
Home alone 2: Lost in New York for me. Never actually walked out on a movie but came close during this one…
The only movie I've seen someone walk out of was the Guy Ritchie movie Revolver. They left with a few choice words. At the end of the film, I thought "they did the right thing".
I remember walking out of Vanilla Sky....awful film.
I enjoyed Vanilla Sky, good film, although it's a pretty straight remake of the Spanish original film Abre los Ojos, which is a really great film.
Films I would've walked out of had I not been with someone else are... Inland Empire, and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Maybe also Greenaway's The Pillow Book.
Tbf, the Two Towers is way worse than FOTR. Absolutely dreadful film.
And the one who said The Rise Of Skywalker is terrible isn't wrong, but remember one outstanding achievement - it made The Last Jedi look less biblically shit,
I don’t care if Trump rushed this proposal out to get an agreement before the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded next Friday!
Whatever your political side I hope I speak for all in desperately hoping that this Peace Plan can get agreement .
Looks like the pressure on Netanyahu put on by Australia, Canada, Portugal, France - and Starmer's United Kingdom - through recognition of Palestine has finally brought him to the table.
(chucks lit match and leaves)
Laughable to think it had any impact whatsoever.
You might think this is insane but this is precisely what some of those protestors thought would happen. 1) Horror at what is happening in Gaza 2) Labour's support tanks for left-leaning voters due to continued support for Netanyahu 3) UK Government is forced to recognise Palestine 4) Netanyahu gets the message 5) Genocide comes to an end.
(Replicated in other western countries.)
In the eyes of those who have taken to the streets, this is complete vindication. This comes only 11 days since recognition.
I've seen no evidence that the protesters are in any way sensible people. They could believe all kinds of bollocks.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
As someone who thought Bond films were standalone, and watched Quantum of Solace before I had seen Casino Royale, I heartily agree.
Quantum of Solace is standalone.
Like, "Quantum of Solace, please go over there and stand alone and don't let anyone see you."
Die Another Day is by far the worst.
It's not great, but QoS is one of the worst films (not just Bond) that I have paid money to see.
Home alone 2: Lost in New York for me. Never actually walked out on a movie but came close during this one…
I actually walked out in The International. Despite really liking both Clive Owen and Naomi Watts
I don’t care if Trump rushed this proposal out to get an agreement before the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded next Friday!
Whatever your political side I hope I speak for all in desperately hoping that this Peace Plan can get agreement .
Anybody wanting it to fail is frankly a disgrace
Anything which curtails the killing is to be welcomed.
Colour me sceptical, but anything Middle Eastern with Blair's fingerprints all over it haven't gone so well in the past.
It's possible the US government, after all Trump's political appointments, simply doesn't have the talent to draft that document. In that circumstance, I'd take Blair.
In an irony to eclipse all ironies perhaps Blair wins the Nobel Peace Prize.
A reminder that Mrs J and I realised that you could replace one word in each of the Harry Potter book titles with the word 'cum' and get some interesting titles. E.g.
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Cum Harry Potter and the Chamber of Cum Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Cum (or Cum of Azkaban) Harry Potter and the Goblet of Cum (or Cum of Fire) Harry Potter and the Cum of the Phoenix (or Order of the Cum) Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Cum Harry Potter and the Deathly Cum
Yes, we are that immature.
Having said, that, they'd probably make a much better TV series...
The penultimate one was of course just the title of part 1, "Harry potter and the urgent referral" was part 2
I don’t care if Trump rushed this proposal out to get an agreement before the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded next Friday!
Whatever your political side I hope I speak for all in desperately hoping that this Peace Plan can get agreement .
Anybody wanting it to fail is frankly a disgrace
Anything which curtails the killing is to be welcomed.
Colour me sceptical, but anything Middle Eastern with Blair's fingerprints all over it haven't gone so well in the past.
It's possible the US government, after all Trump's political appointments, simply doesn't have the talent to draft that document. In that circumstance, I'd take Blair.
In an irony to eclipse all ironies perhaps Blair wins the Nobel Peace Prize.
And shortly after Trump nukes London. It'd cut down on the stories about muggings and stolen phones, on the upside.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
As someone who thought Bond films were standalone, and watched Quantum of Solace before I had seen Casino Royale, I heartily agree.
Quantum of Solace is standalone.
Like, "Quantum of Solace, please go over there and stand alone and don't let anyone see you."
Die Another Day is by far the worst.
It's not great, but QoS is one of the worst films (not just Bond) that I have paid money to see.
Home alone 2: Lost in New York for me. Never actually walked out on a movie but came close during this one…
The only movie I've seen someone walk out of was the Guy Ritchie movie Revolver. They left with a few choice words. At the end of the film, I thought "they did the right thing".
I remember walking out of Vanilla Sky....awful film.
I enjoyed Vanilla Sky, good film, although it's a pretty straight remake of the Spanish original film Abre los Ojos, which is a really great film.
Films I would've walked out of had I not been with someone else are... Inland Empire, and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Maybe also Greenaway's The Pillow Book.
Never, ever watch "Triple Bogey on a Par Five Hole". When I walked into the empty cinema the ticket person asked, "Are... are you sure?". Staggeringly bad.
'The premature recognition of "Palestine" by France and the UK has made Europe even more irrelevant to the conflict than it was already. A joint French-British-German initiative to work with the US and Israel would have brought Europe back in the game.'
European countries attempted to use the recognition of Palestine to punish Israel and now that bolt has been shot, nothing changed for Israel and we rewarded terrorists. Instead if we'd reserved that recognition as a reward for Palestinians who sought a permanent peace with Israel we'd still have that in our armoury and something to bring to the table in the next phase of this. As it stands the twatter is right, European countries are completely irrelevant and sidelined, we have nothing to offer either party. Short termism from Starmer to give in to the Gaza mob means we have zero influence today.
He's truly the worst PM of the modern era, worse than Truss who at least had the decency to resign.
You're right, but the problem is he didn't do it to influence the Middle East or help either the ordinary Palestinians or Israelis.
He did it to pander to his base.
You might both be wrong. Starmer is a lawyer, possibly *the* lawyer. This simple truth runs through and explains everything he does. So it may well be Starmer believed implicitly that legal recognition of Palestine would cause a Palestinian state to exist.
That's not an absurd thought. A state that is legally recognised but occupied by a hostile power can be said to still exist.
From the desert to the sea, Western Sahara will be free!
Isn't Western Sahara more "from the desert to the even more desert"?
'The premature recognition of "Palestine" by France and the UK has made Europe even more irrelevant to the conflict than it was already. A joint French-British-German initiative to work with the US and Israel would have brought Europe back in the game.'
European countries attempted to use the recognition of Palestine to punish Israel and now that bolt has been shot, nothing changed for Israel and we rewarded terrorists. Instead if we'd reserved that recognition as a reward for Palestinians who sought a permanent peace with Israel we'd still have that in our armoury and something to bring to the table in the next phase of this. As it stands the twatter is right, European countries are completely irrelevant and sidelined, we have nothing to offer either party. Short termism from Starmer to give in to the Gaza mob means we have zero influence today.
He's truly the worst PM of the modern era, worse than Truss who at least had the decency to resign.
You're right, but the problem is he didn't do it to influence the Middle East or help either the ordinary Palestinians or Israelis.
He did it to pander to his base.
You might both be wrong. Starmer is a lawyer, possibly *the* lawyer. This simple truth runs through and explains everything he does. So it may well be Starmer believed implicitly that legal recognition of Palestine would cause a Palestinian state to exist.
That's not an absurd thought. A state that is legally recognised but occupied by a hostile power can be said to still exist.
From the desert to the sea, Western Sahara will be free!
Isn't Western Sahara more "from the desert to the even more desert"?
Not sure the numbers make very good reading for Kemi Badenoch either in all honesty.
Apart from Farage and Greens the rest are dire
Badenoch is likely to resign post May 26 but the bigger question is will Starmer?
Somewhere, someone is surely training an AI avatar to spout meaningless slogans about 'AI Powerhouse', 'Small Modular Reactors', 'Plan for growth'. Probably save a lot of money in the longer term.
'The premature recognition of "Palestine" by France and the UK has made Europe even more irrelevant to the conflict than it was already. A joint French-British-German initiative to work with the US and Israel would have brought Europe back in the game.'
European countries attempted to use the recognition of Palestine to punish Israel and now that bolt has been shot, nothing changed for Israel and we rewarded terrorists. Instead if we'd reserved that recognition as a reward for Palestinians who sought a permanent peace with Israel we'd still have that in our armoury and something to bring to the table in the next phase of this. As it stands the twatter is right, European countries are completely irrelevant and sidelined, we have nothing to offer either party. Short termism from Starmer to give in to the Gaza mob means we have zero influence today.
He's truly the worst PM of the modern era, worse than Truss who at least had the decency to resign.
You're right, but the problem is he didn't do it to influence the Middle East or help either the ordinary Palestinians or Israelis.
He did it to pander to his base.
You might both be wrong. Starmer is a lawyer, possibly *the* lawyer. This simple truth runs through and explains everything he does. So it may well be Starmer believed implicitly that legal recognition of Palestine would cause a Palestinian state to exist.
That's not an absurd thought. A state that is legally recognised but occupied by a hostile power can be said to still exist.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
As someone who thought Bond films were standalone, and watched Quantum of Solace before I had seen Casino Royale, I heartily agree.
Quantum of Solace is standalone.
Like, "Quantum of Solace, please go over there and stand alone and don't let anyone see you."
Die Another Day is by far the worst.
It's not great, but QoS is one of the worst films (not just Bond) that I have paid money to see.
Home alone 2: Lost in New York for me. Never actually walked out on a movie but came close during this one…
I actually walked out in The International. Despite really liking both Clive Owen and Naomi Watts
Clive Owen's finest performances are the BMW The Hire films. The films are directed by the likes of John Frankenheimer, Ang Lee, Guy Ritchie, John Woo, Joe Carnahan, and Tony Scott. The best in my opinion is the most recent, the Escape directed by Neill Blomkamp.
'The premature recognition of "Palestine" by France and the UK has made Europe even more irrelevant to the conflict than it was already. A joint French-British-German initiative to work with the US and Israel would have brought Europe back in the game.'
European countries attempted to use the recognition of Palestine to punish Israel and now that bolt has been shot, nothing changed for Israel and we rewarded terrorists. Instead if we'd reserved that recognition as a reward for Palestinians who sought a permanent peace with Israel we'd still have that in our armoury and something to bring to the table in the next phase of this. As it stands the twatter is right, European countries are completely irrelevant and sidelined, we have nothing to offer either party. Short termism from Starmer to give in to the Gaza mob means we have zero influence today.
He's truly the worst PM of the modern era, worse than Truss who at least had the decency to resign.
You're right, but the problem is he didn't do it to influence the Middle East or help either the ordinary Palestinians or Israelis.
He did it to pander to his base.
You might both be wrong. Starmer is a lawyer, possibly *the* lawyer. This simple truth runs through and explains everything he does. So it may well be Starmer believed implicitly that legal recognition of Palestine would cause a Palestinian state to exist.
That's not an absurd thought. A state that is legally recognised but occupied by a hostile power can be said to still exist.
From the desert to the sea, Western Sahara will be free!
Isn't Western Sahara more "from the desert to the even more desert"?
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
As someone who thought Bond films were standalone, and watched Quantum of Solace before I had seen Casino Royale, I heartily agree.
Quantum of Solace is standalone.
Like, "Quantum of Solace, please go over there and stand alone and don't let anyone see you."
Die Another Day is by far the worst.
It's not great, but QoS is one of the worst films (not just Bond) that I have paid money to see.
Home alone 2: Lost in New York for me. Never actually walked out on a movie but came close during this one…
I actually walked out in The International. Despite really liking both Clive Owen and Naomi Watts
Clive Owen's finest performances are the BMW The Hire films. The films are directed by the likes of John Frankenheimer, Ang Lee, Guy Ritchie, John Woo, Joe Carnahan, and Tony Scott. The best in my opinion is the most recent, the Escape directed by Neill Blomkamp.
'The premature recognition of "Palestine" by France and the UK has made Europe even more irrelevant to the conflict than it was already. A joint French-British-German initiative to work with the US and Israel would have brought Europe back in the game.'
European countries attempted to use the recognition of Palestine to punish Israel and now that bolt has been shot, nothing changed for Israel and we rewarded terrorists. Instead if we'd reserved that recognition as a reward for Palestinians who sought a permanent peace with Israel we'd still have that in our armoury and something to bring to the table in the next phase of this. As it stands the twatter is right, European countries are completely irrelevant and sidelined, we have nothing to offer either party. Short termism from Starmer to give in to the Gaza mob means we have zero influence today.
He's truly the worst PM of the modern era, worse than Truss who at least had the decency to resign.
You're right, but the problem is he didn't do it to influence the Middle East or help either the ordinary Palestinians or Israelis.
He did it to pander to his base.
You might both be wrong. Starmer is a lawyer, possibly *the* lawyer. This simple truth runs through and explains everything he does. So it may well be Starmer believed implicitly that legal recognition of Palestine would cause a Palestinian state to exist.
That's not an absurd thought. A state that is legally recognised but occupied by a hostile power can be said to still exist.
Wasn't that the position of France, Norway and Poland during WW2? Their government-in-exiles were in London during the war (in the case of the Poles, they went to Paris before moving to London once France fell).
Incidentally, IIRC the Polish government in exile did not officially end until Polish independence in 1991.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
As someone who thought Bond films were standalone, and watched Quantum of Solace before I had seen Casino Royale, I heartily agree.
Quantum of Solace is standalone.
Like, "Quantum of Solace, please go over there and stand alone and don't let anyone see you."
Die Another Day is by far the worst.
It's not great, but QoS is one of the worst films (not just Bond) that I have paid money to see.
Home alone 2: Lost in New York for me. Never actually walked out on a movie but came close during this one…
The only movie I've seen someone walk out of was the Guy Ritchie movie Revolver. They left with a few choice words. At the end of the film, I thought "they did the right thing".
I remember walking out of Vanilla Sky....awful film.
I enjoyed Vanilla Sky, good film, although it's a pretty straight remake of the Spanish original film Abre los Ojos, which is a really great film.
Films I would've walked out of had I not been with someone else are... Inland Empire, and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Maybe also Greenaway's The Pillow Book.
Tbf, the Two Towers is way worse than FOTR. Absolutely dreadful film.
And the one who said The Rise Of Skywalker is terrible isn't wrong, but remember one outstanding achievement - it made The Last Jedi look less biblically shit,
That was me!
Although ironically it was The Rise of Skywalker that opened your eyes to the dreadfulness of The Last Jedi.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
As someone who thought Bond films were standalone, and watched Quantum of Solace before I had seen Casino Royale, I heartily agree.
Quantum of Solace is standalone.
Like, "Quantum of Solace, please go over there and stand alone and don't let anyone see you."
Die Another Day is by far the worst.
It's not great, but QoS is one of the worst films (not just Bond) that I have paid money to see.
Home alone 2: Lost in New York for me. Never actually walked out on a movie but came close during this one…
The only movie I've seen someone walk out of was the Guy Ritchie movie Revolver. They left with a few choice words. At the end of the film, I thought "they did the right thing".
I remember walking out of Vanilla Sky....awful film.
I enjoyed Vanilla Sky, good film, although it's a pretty straight remake of the Spanish original film Abre los Ojos, which is a really great film.
Films I would've walked out of had I not been with someone else are... Inland Empire, and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Maybe also Greenaway's The Pillow Book.
Tbf, the Two Towers is way worse than FOTR. Absolutely dreadful film.
And the one who said The Rise Of Skywalker is terrible isn't wrong, but remember one outstanding achievement - it made The Last Jedi look less biblically shit,
That was me!
Although ironically it was The Rise of Skywalker that opened your eyes to the dreadfulness of The Last Jedi.
At least The Last Jedi had a vaguely cohesive narrative. The Rise of Palpatine was a mish-mash of retcons, lousy editing, too rapid pacing, and plot holes galore.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
As someone who thought Bond films were standalone, and watched Quantum of Solace before I had seen Casino Royale, I heartily agree.
Quantum of Solace is standalone.
Like, "Quantum of Solace, please go over there and stand alone and don't let anyone see you."
Die Another Day is by far the worst.
It's not great, but QoS is one of the worst films (not just Bond) that I have paid money to see.
Home alone 2: Lost in New York for me. Never actually walked out on a movie but came close during this one…
The only movie I've seen someone walk out of was the Guy Ritchie movie Revolver. They left with a few choice words. At the end of the film, I thought "they did the right thing".
I remember walking out of Vanilla Sky....awful film.
I enjoyed Vanilla Sky, good film, although it's a pretty straight remake of the Spanish original film Abre los Ojos, which is a really great film.
Films I would've walked out of had I not been with someone else are... Inland Empire, and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Maybe also Greenaway's The Pillow Book.
Tbf, the Two Towers is way worse than FOTR. Absolutely dreadful film.
And the one who said The Rise Of Skywalker is terrible isn't wrong, but remember one outstanding achievement - it made The Last Jedi look less biblically shit,
That was me!
Although ironically it was The Rise of Skywalker that opened your eyes to the dreadfulness of The Last Jedi.
At least The Last Jedi had a vaguely cohesive narrative. The Rise of Palpatine was a mish-mash of retcons, lousy editing, too rapid pacing, and plot holes galore.
Like I said, it made The Last Jedi look less biblically shit.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
But you need to ask what would Churchill do in about March or April 1945, with Nazi Germany practically defeated. Israel controls more of Gaza than the Allied powers did of Germany then. At that point, Churchill was very much thinking about German civilian casualties and how to re-build Germany after the war.
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
As someone who thought Bond films were standalone, and watched Quantum of Solace before I had seen Casino Royale, I heartily agree.
Quantum of Solace is standalone.
Like, "Quantum of Solace, please go over there and stand alone and don't let anyone see you."
Die Another Day is by far the worst.
It's not great, but QoS is one of the worst films (not just Bond) that I have paid money to see.
Home alone 2: Lost in New York for me. Never actually walked out on a movie but came close during this one…
The only movie I've seen someone walk out of was the Guy Ritchie movie Revolver. They left with a few choice words. At the end of the film, I thought "they did the right thing".
I remember walking out of Vanilla Sky....awful film.
I enjoyed Vanilla Sky, good film, although it's a pretty straight remake of the Spanish original film Abre los Ojos, which is a really great film.
Films I would've walked out of had I not been with someone else are... Inland Empire, and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Maybe also Greenaway's The Pillow Book.
Tbf, the Two Towers is way worse than FOTR. Absolutely dreadful film.
And the one who said The Rise Of Skywalker is terrible isn't wrong, but remember one outstanding achievement - it made The Last Jedi look less biblically shit,
That was me!
Although ironically it was The Rise of Skywalker that completely ruined the Last Jedi, the best Star Wars film
James Bond: the British owners made a nice mess of the IP themselves to be honest. Escapist entertainment requires the protagonist to escape.
The clear path forward is to make it a period piece. The cars, fashion, music, locations. The main issue bond has had is the big bad in real life is China but they are such a big market for movies they daren’t show that on film.
I think the Craig films were generally pretty good, and a bit of a change from the paint-by-numbers, repetitive approach that the Brosnan era (and before that, Moore) ended up falling into.
Their failing was in trying to tie everything together and write an “ending” for the era (modern screenwriters are generally appalling at writing effective and logical endings).
I think it’s probably time that the series did trade on its nostalgia again. A period piece, as you say, would probably work pretty well nowadays.
It is the 21st Century obsession with arcs. It ruined Dr Who; it ruined Star Whatever; it ruined James Bond. Out went the inter-film reset button, to be replaced by the accumulation of in-universe lore over multi-year story arcs until collapsing under the weight of its own internal logic.
As someone who thought Bond films were standalone, and watched Quantum of Solace before I had seen Casino Royale, I heartily agree.
Quantum of Solace is standalone.
Like, "Quantum of Solace, please go over there and stand alone and don't let anyone see you."
Die Another Day is by far the worst.
It's not great, but QoS is one of the worst films (not just Bond) that I have paid money to see.
Home alone 2: Lost in New York for me. Never actually walked out on a movie but came close during this one…
The only movie I've seen someone walk out of was the Guy Ritchie movie Revolver. They left with a few choice words. At the end of the film, I thought "they did the right thing".
I remember walking out of Vanilla Sky....awful film.
I enjoyed Vanilla Sky, good film, although it's a pretty straight remake of the Spanish original film Abre los Ojos, which is a really great film.
Films I would've walked out of had I not been with someone else are... Inland Empire, and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Maybe also Greenaway's The Pillow Book.
Tbf, the Two Towers is way worse than FOTR. Absolutely dreadful film.
And the one who said The Rise Of Skywalker is terrible isn't wrong, but remember one outstanding achievement - it made The Last Jedi look less biblically shit,
That was me!
Although ironically it was The Rise of Skywalker that completely ruined the Last Jedi, the best Star Wars film
So, I had never been upstairs. My friend Nick knew Renos, the late (and former) owner of Gardenia's, and apparently it used to be much bigger and much more fun.
So, I had never been upstairs. My friend Nick knew Renos, the late (and former) owner of Gardenia's, and apparently it used to be much bigger and much more fun.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
But you need to ask what would Churchill do in about March or April 1945, with Nazi Germany practically defeated. Israel controls more of Gaza than the Allied powers did of Germany then. At that point, Churchill was very much thinking about German civilian casualties and how to re-build Germany after the war.
Indeed:
The difference between the fight betwee the Allies and Germany (and Japan), is that the Allies were looking for how to restore Germany - how to get the institutions right, and then how to pour in money for its rebuilding.
The current government seems to believe that the best way for Israel to survive is for it to tightly control the Palestinians via an apartheit type system in the West Bank, and through a colonial governorship in Gaza.
As an aside, I really hope the Trump Gaza plan comes through. It's been clear for a while that the best chance for the people of Gaza is for someone who isnt Hamas or Israel to take it over. I had thought it was mostly likely to be the Malaysians (as Muslims, but not Middle Eastern), but Tony Blair will do.
Hopefully he can oversee the rebuilding of Gaza, and make it a prosperous place that is no threat to its neighbour.
Simple capitalism - I've found - is the best antitode to extremism. (Indeed, you'd struggle to find a more diverse place than Goldman Sachs when I worked there in the late 1990s. Except perhaps from a neurodiversity point of view.)
The issue before is now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.
The issue before is now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
But you need to ask what would Churchill do in about March or April 1945, with Nazi Germany practically defeated. Israel controls more of Gaza than the Allied powers did of Germany then. At that point, Churchill was very much thinking about German civilian casualties and how to re-build Germany after the war.
Indeed:
The difference between the fight betwee the Allies and Germany (and Japan), is that the Allies were looking for how to restore Germany - how to get the institutions right, and then how to pour in money for its rebuilding.
The current government seems to believe that the best way for Israel to survive is for it to tightly control the Palestinians via an apartheit type system in the West Bank, and through a colonial governorship in Gaza.
Well, those are the doves in the current Israeli government. The hardliners want ethnic cleansing and a Greater Israel taking over Gaza, the West Bank, southern Lebanon and Syria, maybe Jordan.
The issue before is now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.
The issue before is now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.
The issue before is now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
Netanyahu's extermination of Palestinians is not predicated on expediency it is predicated on racial hatred. This is why none of the examples you provide bear comparison.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
But you need to ask what would Churchill do in about March or April 1945, with Nazi Germany practically defeated. Israel controls more of Gaza than the Allied powers did of Germany then. At that point, Churchill was very much thinking about German civilian casualties and how to re-build Germany after the war.
Indeed:
The difference between the fight betwee the Allies and Germany (and Japan), is that the Allies were looking for how to restore Germany - how to get the institutions right, and then how to pour in money for its rebuilding.
The current government seems to believe that the best way for Israel to survive is for it to tightly control the Palestinians via an apartheit type system in the West Bank, and through a colonial governorship in Gaza.
Eh, I’m not sure I’d go that far. Churchill wanted to use them as fodder against the Soviets and parts of the American establishment were publicly talking about the Morgenthau Plan to the point where their agents were worried it’d just up German resistance.
The issue before is now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
Netanyahu's extermination of Palestinians is not predicated on expediency it is predicated on racial hatred. This is why none of the examples you provide bear comparison.
There was plenty of racial hatred against Germans in the UK in say 1943
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
Netanyahu's extermination of Palestinians is not predicated on expediency it is predicated on racial hatred. This is why none of the examples you provide bear comparison.
That would be true for Ben-Gvir. It is not true for Netanyahu.
His calculation is that if he's the PM who annexes Gaza, he'll never be held accountable for the many crimes he has committed. Which is probably correct.
Just as, when he was secretly funnelling money to Hamas, he calculated as long as they were around his (entirely undeserved) reputation as a strongman who would take them on would cement him in power. In which incidentally he was correct.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
Netanyahu's extermination of Palestinians is not predicated on expediency it is predicated on racial hatred. This is why none of the examples you provide bear comparison.
There was plenty of racial hatred against Germans in the UK in say 1943
But we tempered ourselves and were soon allies with Germany in NATO and later the EEC. Our leaders saw past any hatred and re-built Germany.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
Netanyahu's extermination of Palestinians is not predicated on expediency it is predicated on racial hatred. This is why none of the examples you provide bear comparison.
That would be true for Ben-Gvir. It is not true for Netanyahu.
His calculation is that if he's the PM who annexes Gaza, he'll never be held accountable for the many crimes he has committed. Which is probably correct.
Just as, when he was secretly funnelling money to Hamas, he calculated as long as they were around his (entirely undeserved) reputation as a strongman who would take them on would cement him in power. In which incidentally he was correct.
Whereas I accept your narrative, Max Hastings provides an insight into Bibi's contempt for the Palestinian people.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
But you need to ask what would Churchill do in about March or April 1945, with Nazi Germany practically defeated. Israel controls more of Gaza than the Allied powers did of Germany then. At that point, Churchill was very much thinking about German civilian casualties and how to re-build Germany after the war.
Indeed:
The difference between the fight betwee the Allies and Germany (and Japan), is that the Allies were looking for how to restore Germany - how to get the institutions right, and then how to pour in money for its rebuilding.
The current government seems to believe that the best way for Israel to survive is for it to tightly control the Palestinians via an apartheit type system in the West Bank, and through a colonial governorship in Gaza.
Eh, I’m not sure I’d go that far. Churchill wanted to use them as fodder against the Soviets and parts of the American establishment were publicly talking about the Morgenthau Plan to the point where their agents were worried it’d just up German resistance.
You are correct.
But in the end, the allies did the right thing in both Germany and Japan.
As an aside, I really hope the Trump Gaza plan comes through. It's been clear for a while that the best chance for the people of Gaza is for someone who isnt Hamas or Israel to take it over. I had thought it was mostly likely to be the Malaysians (as Muslims, but not Middle Eastern), but Tony Blair will do.
Hopefully he can oversee the rebuilding of Gaza, and make it a prosperous place that is no threat to its neighbour.
Simple capitalism - I've found - is the best antitode to extremism. (Indeed, you'd struggle to find a more diverse place than Goldman Sachs when I worked there in the late 1990s. Except perhaps from a neurodiversity point of view.)
I'm not sure I follow your Goldman Sachs point. Are you suggesting you had fanatical religious zealots on the staff who were turned away from their godly obsession by making money instead?
I'd suggest the best thing would be not to indoctrinate children. And try to inoculate them through the public education system.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
Netanyahu's extermination of Palestinians is not predicated on expediency it is predicated on racial hatred. This is why none of the examples you provide bear comparison.
There was plenty of racial hatred against Germans in the UK in say 1943
Congratulations on winning the most inane post of the day award.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
Netanyahu's extermination of Palestinians is not predicated on expediency it is predicated on racial hatred. This is why none of the examples you provide bear comparison.
That would be true for Ben-Gvir. It is not true for Netanyahu.
His calculation is that if he's the PM who annexes Gaza, he'll never be held accountable for the many crimes he has committed. Which is probably correct.
Just as, when he was secretly funnelling money to Hamas, he calculated as long as they were around his (entirely undeserved) reputation as a strongman who would take them on would cement him in power. In which incidentally he was correct.
Whereas I accept your narrative, Max Hastings provides an insight into Bibi's contempt for the Palestinian people.
Even if I overlook the fact that that was fifty years ago, I don't think that's as significant as you and he are making it to be. Netanyahu holds *everyone* in contempt (even, in private, his own supporters). He thinks of them all as scum.
It's epochal projection worthy of Susan Acland-Hood.
Netanyahu becomes easier to understand when you realise he is utterly cynical. He has no principles of any sort. Not even bad ones like racism.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
But you need to ask what would Churchill do in about March or April 1945, with Nazi Germany practically defeated. Israel controls more of Gaza than the Allied powers did of Germany then. At that point, Churchill was very much thinking about German civilian casualties and how to re-build Germany after the war.
Indeed:
The difference between the fight betwee the Allies and Germany (and Japan), is that the Allies were looking for how to restore Germany - how to get the institutions right, and then how to pour in money for its rebuilding.
The current government seems to believe that the best way for Israel to survive is for it to tightly control the Palestinians via an apartheit type system in the West Bank, and through a colonial governorship in Gaza.
Eh, I’m not sure I’d go that far. Churchill wanted to use them as fodder against the Soviets and parts of the American establishment were publicly talking about the Morgenthau Plan to the point where their agents were worried it’d just up German resistance.
You are correct.
But in the end, the allies did the right thing in both Germany and Japan.
I'm not sure I want to suggest to Israel that the correct course of action is to use nukes.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
Netanyahu's extermination of Palestinians is not predicated on expediency it is predicated on racial hatred. This is why none of the examples you provide bear comparison.
That would be true for Ben-Gvir. It is not true for Netanyahu.
His calculation is that if he's the PM who annexes Gaza, he'll never be held accountable for the many crimes he has committed. Which is probably correct.
Just as, when he was secretly funnelling money to Hamas, he calculated as long as they were around his (entirely undeserved) reputation as a strongman who would take them on would cement him in power. In which incidentally he was correct.
Whereas I accept your narrative, Max Hastings provides an insight into Bibi's contempt for the Palestinian people.
Even if I overlook the fact that that was fifty years ago, I don't think that's as significant as you and he are making it to be. Netanyahu holds *everyone* in contempt (even, in private, his own supporters). He thinks of them all as scum.
It's epochal projection worthy of Susan Acland-Hood.
Netanyahu becomes easier to understand when you realise he is utterly cynical. He has no principles of any sort. Not even bad ones like racism.
All that is true except the bit about Bibi not being racist because of his narcissistic sociopathy.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
Netanyahu's extermination of Palestinians is not predicated on expediency it is predicated on racial hatred. This is why none of the examples you provide bear comparison.
There was plenty of racial hatred against Germans in the UK in say 1943
Congratulations on winning the most inane post of the day award.
Really? You tend to have hatred for people who are trying to kill you. It is a reasonable response and, arguably, admirable.
As Nelson said "you should hate a Frenchman as you would the Devil"
The issue before is now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.
As an aside, I really hope the Trump Gaza plan comes through. It's been clear for a while that the best chance for the people of Gaza is for someone who isnt Hamas or Israel to take it over. I had thought it was mostly likely to be the Malaysians (as Muslims, but not Middle Eastern), but Tony Blair will do.
Hopefully he can oversee the rebuilding of Gaza, and make it a prosperous place that is no threat to its neighbour.
Simple capitalism - I've found - is the best antitode to extremism. (Indeed, you'd struggle to find a more diverse place than Goldman Sachs when I worked there in the late 1990s. Except perhaps from a neurodiversity point of view.)
I'm not sure I follow your Goldman Sachs point. Are you suggesting you had fanatical religious zealots on the staff who were turned away from their godly obsession by making money instead?
I'm suggesting that when people are motivated by making money, they are very happy to work very closely with people they have very little in common with.
I'm reminded of the greatest introduction to a book ever:
"Most of economics can be summarized in four words: ‘People respond to incentives.’ The rest is commentary."
Kemi’s promised to deport 150,000 a year and throw in the odd Trafalgar Square execution to please the baying mob .
I find something very distasteful about this deportation wankathon ! Things turn even worse when she tries to further throw fuel on the fire with “ foreigners raping our little girls “ comments .
We know people have to be deported if they’ve no right to be in the UK , I just find the whole race to see who can deport more dispiriting.
As an aside, I really hope the Trump Gaza plan comes through. It's been clear for a while that the best chance for the people of Gaza is for someone who isnt Hamas or Israel to take it over. I had thought it was mostly likely to be the Malaysians (as Muslims, but not Middle Eastern), but Tony Blair will do.
Hopefully he can oversee the rebuilding of Gaza, and make it a prosperous place that is no threat to its neighbour.
Simple capitalism - I've found - is the best antitode to extremism. (Indeed, you'd struggle to find a more diverse place than Goldman Sachs when I worked there in the late 1990s. Except perhaps from a neurodiversity point of view.)
I'm not sure I follow your Goldman Sachs point. Are you suggesting you had fanatical religious zealots on the staff who were turned away from their godly obsession by making money instead?
I'd suggest the best thing would be not to indoctrinate children. And try to inoculate them through the public education system.
I don’t think there any schools still standing in Gaza, unfortunately.
The issue before is now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
Netanyahu's extermination of Palestinians is not predicated on expediency it is predicated on racial hatred. This is why none of the examples you provide bear comparison.
There was plenty of racial hatred against Germans in the UK in say 1943
Congratulations on winning the most inane post of the day award.
Really? You tend to have hatred for people who are trying to kill you. It is a reasonable response and, arguably, admirable.
As Nelson said "you should hate a Frenchman as you would the Devil"
My view is Bibi and Smotrich and Ben Gvir's hatred runs much, much deeper.
Anyway these three will seem like pussycats after Stephen Miller sets fire to the planet.
The issue before is now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.
As an aside, I really hope the Trump Gaza plan comes through. It's been clear for a while that the best chance for the people of Gaza is for someone who isnt Hamas or Israel to take it over. I had thought it was mostly likely to be the Malaysians (as Muslims, but not Middle Eastern), but Tony Blair will do.
Hopefully he can oversee the rebuilding of Gaza, and make it a prosperous place that is no threat to its neighbour.
Simple capitalism - I've found - is the best antitode to extremism. (Indeed, you'd struggle to find a more diverse place than Goldman Sachs when I worked there in the late 1990s. Except perhaps from a neurodiversity point of view.)
I'm not sure I follow your Goldman Sachs point. Are you suggesting you had fanatical religious zealots on the staff who were turned away from their godly obsession by making money instead?
I'm suggesting that when people are motivated by making money, they are very happy to work very closely with people they have very little in common with.
I'm reminded of the greatest introduction to a book ever:
"Most of economics can be summarized in four words: ‘People respond to incentives.’ The rest is commentary."
I'm not sure Goldman Sachs employees are really a great cross section of the public either.
The issue before is now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.
Note that “terror networks” includes “democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general”
Trump will now use his paramilitaries to arrest the enemies of the people.
America is a past-tense thing.
If you are not watching Stephen Miller you are not watching the man who will be primarily responsible for the next American Civil War. There is evil and there is Stephen Miller. Be scared, very, very scared.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
The problem with your comparisons is that Netenyahu is not Churchill. If he is anyone in that conflict then it is Hitler. Happy to follow a course of genocide 'for the greater good'.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
But you need to ask what would Churchill do in about March or April 1945, with Nazi Germany practically defeated. Israel controls more of Gaza than the Allied powers did of Germany then. At that point, Churchill was very much thinking about German civilian casualties and how to re-build Germany after the war.
Indeed:
The difference between the fight betwee the Allies and Germany (and Japan), is that the Allies were looking for how to restore Germany - how to get the institutions right, and then how to pour in money for its rebuilding.
The current government seems to believe that the best way for Israel to survive is for it to tightly control the Palestinians via an apartheit type system in the West Bank, and through a colonial governorship in Gaza.
Eh, I’m not sure I’d go that far. Churchill wanted to use them as fodder against the Soviets and parts of the American establishment were publicly talking about the Morgenthau Plan to the point where their agents were worried it’d just up German resistance.
You are correct.
But in the end, the allies did the right thing in both Germany and Japan.
I'm not sure I want to suggest to Israel that the correct course of action is to use nukes.
On a practical level, the nuclear fallout from an unsuitable prevailing wind is probably the only factor that has stopped him.
The issue before is now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.
Unlike Leon who's Edgelordship is founded on a desperate need for adoration, Stephen Miller is a genuinely evil bastard. He is not joking.
This is so much like a hundred years ago in Germany.
Actually, there is a really big difference.
Germany in the 1930s was beset by the Great Depression. It was an economic ruin, and people were starving. Unemployment was about 30%. Crime had gone through the roof - mostly because people needed to eat. The Germans would reach out for anything which promised salvation.
The US is 2025 is not like that. Now, sure, there are large parts of the US that have been hollowed out by globalisation, automation and private equity. There is a serious problem with homeless, mentally ill people addicted to Crystal Meth and opiates. Thanks to dumb policies, housing is too expensive (particularly on the prosperous coasts). Too many Americans have taken on too much debt.
But no one - or virtutally no one - is starving. Unemployment is not particularly high, even compared to the early 1980s. Crime - after a post Covid spike - is coming down. Some of the cities that looked desolate a few years ago - like San Francisco and New York - are now on the up again.
It's hard to look at America, the largest economy in the World, and say it's a disaster zone. Indeed, the mistakes (tariffs and the subsidization of coal) are relatively minor and easily reversible.
As an aside, I really hope the Trump Gaza plan comes through. It's been clear for a while that the best chance for the people of Gaza is for someone who isnt Hamas or Israel to take it over. I had thought it was mostly likely to be the Malaysians (as Muslims, but not Middle Eastern), but Tony Blair will do.
Hopefully he can oversee the rebuilding of Gaza, and make it a prosperous place that is no threat to its neighbour.
Simple capitalism - I've found - is the best antitode to extremism. (Indeed, you'd struggle to find a more diverse place than Goldman Sachs when I worked there in the late 1990s. Except perhaps from a neurodiversity point of view.)
I'm not sure I follow your Goldman Sachs point. Are you suggesting you had fanatical religious zealots on the staff who were turned away from their godly obsession by making money instead?
I'm suggesting that when people are motivated by making money, they are very happy to work very closely with people they have very little in common with.
I'm reminded of the greatest introduction to a book ever:
"Most of economics can be summarized in four words: ‘People respond to incentives.’ The rest is commentary."
I'm not sure Goldman Sachs employees are really a great cross section of the public either.
They are motivated by exactly one thing: money.
I think it would be better if both Palestinians and Israelis were motivated by money, don't you?
The issue before is now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.
This might well be conspiracy theory nonsense, and it likely wouldn't work very well, but it's actually now difficult to tell. They're mad enough to attempt it, and they do have a few tech billionaires inside.
.."After breaking fast tonight, while preparing for dinner and catching up on the flood of missed calls and messages, I heard from sources I trust. And what I heard stopped me cold.
The reason Trump and Pete Hegseth gathered all those generals in one room was not just about a loyalty speech or a pep rally.
I’m hearing that the Trump team used artificial intelligence and facial-recognition technology during those briefings to monitor the generals’ reactions in real time.
Every eyebrow raise, every flicker of doubt, every moment of discomfort was scanned and analyzed by an algorithm designed to detect who would obey orders without question—and who might resist.
I’m also hearing from my sources that this isn’t limited to the generals. This same technology is being used as a tool inside Trump’s orbit — a quiet weapon of power, deployed by his loyalists to identify and weed out whistleblowers and anyone who isn’t completely obedient. .. https://x.com/LorraineEvanoff/status/1973946340796477452
The issue before is now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.
Unlike Leon who's Edgelordship is founded on a desperate need for adoration, Stephen Miller is a genuinely evil bastard. He is not joking.
This is so much like a hundred years ago in Germany.
Actually, there is a really big difference.
Germany in the 1930s was beset by the Great Depression. It was an economic ruin, and people were starving. Unemployment was about 30%. Crime had gone through the roof - mostly because people needed to eat. The Germans would reach out for anything which promised salvation.
The US is 2025 is not like that. Now, sure, there are large parts of the US that have been hollowed out by globalisation, automation and private equity. There is a serious problem with homeless, mentally ill people addicted to Crystal Meth and opiates. Thanks to dumb policies, housing is too expensive (particularly on the prosperous coasts). Too many Americans have taken on too much debt.
But no one - or virtutally no one - is starving. Unemployment is not particularly high, even compared to the early 1980s. Crime - after a post Covid spike - is coming down. Some of the cities that looked desolate a few years ago - like San Francisco and New York - are now on the up again.
It's hard to look at America, the largest economy in the World, and say it's a disaster zone. Indeed, the mistakes (tariffs and the subsidization of coal) are relatively minor and easily reversible.
Nor has it lost a major war with millions of half-broken and brutalised men in their 30s and 40s wandering around with their heads full of nonsense about 'stab in the back'.
This morning, the Trump Administration’s Department of War gave me an ultimatum: call up your troops, or we will. It is absolutely outrageous and un-American to demand a Governor send military troops within our own borders and against our will. https://x.com/GovPritzker/status/1974531904767656030
The issue before is now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.
Unlike Leon who's Edgelordship is founded on a desperate need for adoration, Stephen Miller is a genuinely evil bastard. He is not joking.
This is so much like a hundred years ago in Germany.
Actually, there is a really big difference.
Germany in the 1930s was beset by the Great Depression. It was an economic ruin, and people were starving. Unemployment was about 30%. Crime had gone through the roof - mostly because people needed to eat. The Germans would reach out for anything which promised salvation.
The US is 2025 is not like that. Now, sure, there are large parts of the US that have been hollowed out by globalisation, automation and private equity. There is a serious problem with homeless, mentally ill people addicted to Crystal Meth and opiates. Thanks to dumb policies, housing is too expensive (particularly on the prosperous coasts). Too many Americans have taken on too much debt.
But no one - or virtutally no one - is starving. Unemployment is not particularly high, even compared to the early 1980s. Crime - after a post Covid spike - is coming down. Some of the cities that looked desolate a few years ago - like San Francisco and New York - are now on the up again.
It's hard to look at America, the largest economy in the World, and say it's a disaster zone. Indeed, the mistakes (tariffs and the subsidization of coal) are relatively minor and easily reversible.
Comments
As the Conservatives gather for their Party Conference in Manchester, leader Kemi Badenoch’s net approval remains steady at -22 overall (18% approve, 40% disapprove). Among 2024 Conservative voters, fewer than two in five (38%) approve of the job she is doing so far, while 21% disapprove.
Nearly half (48%) of voters say her leadership has not been a success so far, with only 23% taking a positive view. Even among 2024 Conservative voters, negative views (43%) outnumber positives views (39%).
Standalone support for policy proposals embraced by the Conservatives is strongest on supporting academy school freedoms (+46%), a strict visa cap to reduce immigration (+43%), and increasing the living time required in the UK to claim citizenship (+35%). However, all see modest declines in support when framed as Conservative policies under Badenoch’s leadership.
(Replicated in other western countries.)
In the eyes of those who have taken to the streets, this is complete vindication. This comes only 11 days since recognition.
Keir Starmer’s approval rating slips to net -44% after Labour Party
Beth Rigby fans please explain!
Incidentally, IIRC the Polish government in exile did not officially end until Polish independence in 1991.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rada_of_the_Belarusian_Democratic_Republic
And the one who said The Rise Of Skywalker is terrible isn't wrong, but remember one outstanding achievement - it made The Last Jedi look less biblically shit,
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103121/
https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1974247400253386871
https://x.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1974459487642939732
Owen would have been an awesome Bond.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_limited_recognition
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn954dqdl33o
(Solely for former Cambridge students.)
@GovPritzker
·
2h
I will not call up our National Guard to further Trump’s acts of aggression against our people.
https://x.com/GovPritzker/status/1974531923826684287
The police are being investigated as witnesses, not suspects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaQlzv5CQzo
The difference between the fight betwee the Allies and Germany (and Japan), is that the Allies were looking for how to restore Germany - how to get the institutions right, and then how to pour in money for its rebuilding.
The current government seems to believe that the best way for Israel to survive is for it to tightly control the Palestinians via an apartheit type system in the West Bank, and through a colonial governorship in Gaza.
Hopefully he can oversee the rebuilding of Gaza, and make it a prosperous place that is no threat to its neighbour.
Simple capitalism - I've found - is the best antitode to extremism. (Indeed, you'd struggle to find a more diverse place than Goldman Sachs when I worked there in the late 1990s. Except perhaps from a neurodiversity point of view.)
Stephen Miller
@StephenM
The issue before is now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.
https://x.com/StephenM/status/1974534850334933179
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194
His calculation is that if he's the PM who annexes Gaza, he'll never be held accountable for the many crimes he has committed. Which is probably correct.
Just as, when he was secretly funnelling money to Hamas, he calculated as long as they were around his (entirely undeserved) reputation as a strongman who would take them on would cement him in power. In which incidentally he was correct.
https://x.com/DalrympleWill/status/1721163356051288412?lang=en
But in the end, the allies did the right thing in both Germany and Japan.
I'd suggest the best thing would be not to indoctrinate children. And try to inoculate them through the public education system.
It's epochal projection worthy of Susan Acland-Hood.
Netanyahu becomes easier to understand when you realise he is utterly cynical. He has no principles of any sort. Not even bad ones like racism.
As Nelson said "you should hate a Frenchman as you would the Devil"
I'm reminded of the greatest introduction to a book ever:
"Most of economics can be summarized in four words: ‘People respond to incentives.’ The rest is commentary."
I find something very distasteful about this deportation wankathon ! Things turn even worse when she tries to further throw fuel on the fire with “ foreigners raping our little girls “ comments .
We know people have to be deported if they’ve no right to be in the UK , I just find the whole race to see who can deport more dispiriting.
Trump will now use his paramilitaries to arrest the enemies of the people.
America is a past-tense thing.
Anyway these three will seem like pussycats after Stephen Miller sets fire to the planet.
Trump is the puppet, Miller is the puppet master.
Germany in the 1930s was beset by the Great Depression. It was an economic ruin, and people were starving. Unemployment was about 30%. Crime had gone through the roof - mostly because people needed to eat. The Germans would reach out for anything which promised salvation.
The US is 2025 is not like that. Now, sure, there are large parts of the US that have been hollowed out by globalisation, automation and private equity. There is a serious problem with homeless, mentally ill people addicted to Crystal Meth and opiates. Thanks to dumb policies, housing is too expensive (particularly on the prosperous coasts). Too many Americans have taken on too much debt.
But no one - or virtutally no one - is starving. Unemployment is not particularly high, even compared to the early 1980s. Crime - after a post Covid spike - is coming down. Some of the cities that looked desolate a few years ago - like San Francisco and New York - are now on the up again.
It's hard to look at America, the largest economy in the World, and say it's a disaster zone. Indeed, the mistakes (tariffs and the subsidization of coal) are relatively minor and easily reversible.
I think it would be better if both Palestinians and Israelis were motivated by money, don't you?
They're mad enough to attempt it, and they do have a few tech billionaires inside.
.."After breaking fast tonight, while preparing for dinner and catching up on the flood of missed calls and messages, I heard from sources I trust. And what I heard stopped me cold.
The reason Trump and Pete Hegseth gathered all those generals in one room was not just about a loyalty speech or a pep rally.
I’m hearing that the Trump team used artificial intelligence and facial-recognition technology during those briefings to monitor the generals’ reactions in real time.
Every eyebrow raise, every flicker of doubt, every moment of discomfort was scanned and analyzed by an algorithm designed to detect who would obey orders without question—and who might resist.
I’m also hearing from my sources that this isn’t limited to the generals. This same technology is being used as a tool inside Trump’s orbit — a quiet weapon of power, deployed by his loyalists to identify and weed out whistleblowers and anyone who isn’t completely obedient.
..
https://x.com/LorraineEvanoff/status/1973946340796477452
This morning, the Trump Administration’s Department of War gave me an ultimatum: call up your troops, or we will. It is absolutely outrageous and un-American to demand a Governor send military troops within our own borders and against our will.
https://x.com/GovPritzker/status/1974531904767656030