If FIFA did, for some reason, regularly give out a Peace Prize, you’d think #1 on the list of criteria for potential winners would be “do not start a war with another nation in the World Cup, directly before the start of the World Cup”
FIFA are a corrupt joke. Trump is a corrupt POTUS.
But the Iranian regime is infinitely worse.
Just because Trump is bad, is no reason to oppose the liberation of Iran. Your reflexive "anything Trump does is bad" attitude is drowning out all else.
How else should the Iranian people be freed, given that the regime is slaughtering protestors? Other than force, what alternative do you propose?
Should we all just sit back, watch the Iranians get slaughtered, watch Iran supply Russia with drones and tut and do jack shit?
Is Trump genuinely going for regime change or something altogether less satisfying?
It does seem that Trump is on board with any military action if someone explains to him that they stole the 2020 election. Perhaps Nigel should tell Trump Starmer and the Labour Party stole the election in 2020. Although Nigel doesn't seem as popular as Tiny Tom in Whitehouse circles these days.
I could not care less about Trump's motivations or what he is going for, I care about results.
If we see the liberation of Iran, then great.
Anything short of regime change, is a miserable failure.
The UK should be using our full military power and diplomatic power to push for regime change, explicitly, too. Instead we're just bystanders. Pathetic.
Like we did in Iraq? Against the sage advice of Lib Dems and most Tories.
Although this time around Kemi is coming across as the great Churchillian war hero to Starmer's Chamberlain. Only time will tell.
Iraq was a success, Hussein was eliminated.
Do that again and mission accomplished. This regime needs to go.
I will take the same success we had in Iraq when it comes to Iran, yes. Ideally better, but if "all" we get is the same that would be a fantastic improvement over the status quo.
If this escapade has Iraq as it's blueprint thank Allah Starmer is keeping his distance. On no metric was Iraq anything other than a disgraceful disaster.
How would Iraq have gone if Saddam Hussein had been taken out on day one?
US attacks by volume have largely been surface missile based with some stand off work, Israel appears to be usng a mix of stand off air launched and over-target launches. As much as this may come as a surprise to people, this is not full throttle stuff
The Iranian counters have also been limited but the question here is why. Is it because they don't have the TELS to launch the missiles in greater volumes? The drone launches, which can be way bigger volumes also seem limited. Are they holding back? Are they having command chain issues?
The money is that, come the hours of darkness, its going to get heavier from both sides. If it doesn't from Iran, they have a problem of capacity and they will need to make targeting decisions, potentially some radical ones to try to have an impact.
One last thing, people are completely misunderstand Iranian nuclear refinement. They have weapons useable stocks now, today. It doesnt have to be all 80 or 90%+ refinement. Less refinement doesnt mean they couldnt use it to effect, it just adds complications of weight and attendant missile delivery (which is a perhaps surprising but real restriction) and the tech surrounding the uranium or plutonium on the tip of the launcher.
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
I think this might be the nail in the coffin for whatever the "special relationship" is. The UK not supporting this, even without providing military assets is going to weigh very badly, especially if the US does manage to remove the current regime. The defence chiefs in the US won't forget quickly that the UK equivocated and refused support and use of bases.
I don’t think that will be a horrifying shock for the Islamo-left that voted Green last week. They openly hate America, Israel, the West
Indeed, hence SKS has had to be even more lawyerly than usual today, saying the UK was not involved in this operation by the US and Israel, he is concerned about international law, evacuating UK citizens from the region blah, blah, while still ideally wanting the Iranian regime gone
Is regime change going to happen? I hope so, but I am not convinced yet.
Another FIFA peace prize I suspect is in the mix.
'Is regime change going to happen? I hope so, but I am not convinced yet.' Pretty much our decisive PM's position this morning!!
Israel assesses the assassination was successful; the likelihood that Supreme Leader of Iran Ali Khamenei survived the Israeli strike is slim to none - N12
If that is true then hopefully others in this obnoxious regime will also have been eliminated
Prayers for the people of Iran who should have total support to regain their country and make it a democracy
Total support they aren't going to get though. You need troops in situ for that. And that won't happen.
It should.
Though it may not be needed. We only needed bombs to help the locals overthrow Ghaddafi.
Total support "To make it (their country) a democracy" was the quote from Big G. For that you need troops.
So the Baku Gap is still open, at least until Turkey joins in to stop the Iranian Kurds from minding their own business.
My son’s flying out to Kazakhstan in a few weeks for his gap year travels. I hope the corridor remains, otherwise he’s looking at big detours.
And I’m off on a solo rail and road trip to Eastern Anatolia in June. I was going to be getting within a mile or two of Iran but who knows, if they’ve had a regime change by then perhaps I can pop across the border and have a mooch around.
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
Although Ukrainians never threatened Iran, the Iranian regime chose to become Putin’s accomplice and supplied him with “shahed” drones, and not only the drones themselves, but also the technologies to produce them. Iran also provided other weapons to Russia.
Over the course of this full-scale war, Russia has used more than 57,000 shahed-type attack drones against the Ukrainian people, cities, and energy infrastructure. Other nations have also suffered from Iranian-backed terror. Therefore, it is fair to give the Iranian people a chance to rid themselves of a terrorist regime and to guarantee security for all nations that have suffered from terror originating in Iran.
Israel assesses the assassination was successful; the likelihood that Supreme Leader of Iran Ali Khamenei survived the Israeli strike is slim to none - N12
If that is true then hopefully others in this obnoxious regime will also have been eliminated
Prayers for the people of Iran who should have total support to regain their country and make it a democracy
Total support they aren't going to get though. You need troops in situ for that. And that won't happen.
It should.
Though it may not be needed. We only needed bombs to help the locals overthrow Ghaddafi.
Libya was different . You had organised opposition and not the layer upon layer of miltary, revolutionary guard with no proper opposition in Iran .
If FIFA did, for some reason, regularly give out a Peace Prize, you’d think #1 on the list of criteria for potential winners would be “do not start a war with another nation in the World Cup, directly before the start of the World Cup”
FIFA are a corrupt joke. Trump is a corrupt POTUS.
But the Iranian regime is infinitely worse.
Just because Trump is bad, is no reason to oppose the liberation of Iran. Your reflexive "anything Trump does is bad" attitude is drowning out all else.
How else should the Iranian people be freed, given that the regime is slaughtering protestors? Other than force, what alternative do you propose?
Should we all just sit back, watch the Iranians get slaughtered, watch Iran supply Russia with drones and tut and do jack shit?
Is Trump genuinely going for regime change or something altogether less satisfying?
It does seem that Trump is on board with any military action if someone explains to him that they stole the 2020 election. Perhaps Nigel should tell Trump Starmer and the Labour Party stole the election in 2020. Although Nigel doesn't seem as popular as Tiny Tom in Whitehouse circles these days.
I could not care less about Trump's motivations or what he is going for, I care about results.
If we see the liberation of Iran, then great.
Anything short of regime change, is a miserable failure.
The UK should be using our full military power and diplomatic power to push for regime change, explicitly, too. Instead we're just bystanders. Pathetic.
Like we did in Iraq? Against the sage advice of Lib Dems and most Tories.
Although this time around Kemi is coming across as the great Churchillian war hero to Starmer's Chamberlain. Only time will tell.
Iraq was a success, Hussein was eliminated.
Do that again and mission accomplished. This regime needs to go.
I will take the same success we had in Iraq when it comes to Iran, yes. Ideally better, but if "all" we get is the same that would be a fantastic improvement over the status quo.
Badenoch is no Churchill
What a fecking stupid comparison
Churchill was a great war leader when we were under attack direct attack.
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
If FIFA did, for some reason, regularly give out a Peace Prize, you’d think #1 on the list of criteria for potential winners would be “do not start a war with another nation in the World Cup, directly before the start of the World Cup”
FIFA are a corrupt joke. Trump is a corrupt POTUS.
But the Iranian regime is infinitely worse.
Just because Trump is bad, is no reason to oppose the liberation of Iran. Your reflexive "anything Trump does is bad" attitude is drowning out all else.
How else should the Iranian people be freed, given that the regime is slaughtering protestors? Other than force, what alternative do you propose?
Should we all just sit back, watch the Iranians get slaughtered, watch Iran supply Russia with drones and tut and do jack shit?
Is Trump genuinely going for regime change or something altogether less satisfying?
It does seem that Trump is on board with any military action if someone explains to him that they stole the 2020 election. Perhaps Nigel should tell Trump Starmer and the Labour Party stole the election in 2020. Although Nigel doesn't seem as popular as Tiny Tom in Whitehouse circles these days.
I could not care less about Trump's motivations or what he is going for, I care about results.
If we see the liberation of Iran, then great.
Anything short of regime change, is a miserable failure.
The UK should be using our full military power and diplomatic power to push for regime change, explicitly, too. Instead we're just bystanders. Pathetic.
Like we did in Iraq? Against the sage advice of Lib Dems and most Tories.
Although this time around Kemi is coming across as the great Churchillian war hero to Starmer's Chamberlain. Only time will tell.
Iraq was a success, Hussein was eliminated.
Do that again and mission accomplished. This regime needs to go.
I will take the same success we had in Iraq when it comes to Iran, yes. Ideally better, but if "all" we get is the same that would be a fantastic improvement over the status quo.
If this escapade has Iraq as it's blueprint thank Allah Starmer is keeping his distance. On no metric was Iraq anything other than a disgraceful disaster.
How would Iraq have gone if Saddam Hussein had been taken out on day one?
For anyone not up with fashion, Hannah Spencer now MP, at Glasto, in 2011:
"At home, a lot of girls dress the same way. It's boring. I pretty much dress like this all the time. People always get a shock when I turn up to their door to fix something. I work with lots of fortysomething men and they probably just think I'm a bit weird."
I am no different to every single person here in this constituency. I work hard. That’s what we do.
Except things have changed a lot over the last few decades. Because working hard used to get you something. It got you a house. A nice life. Holidays. It got you somewhere.
But now – working hard? What does that get you? Because talk to anyone here and they’ll tell you. The people who work hard but can’t put food on the table. Can’t get their kids school uniforms. Can’t put their heating on. Can’t live off the pension they worked hard to save for. Can’t even begin to dream about ever having a holiday. Ever. Because life has changed.
Well, she was able to cough up the £205 to go to Glastonbury.
I don't know who else on here goes to music festivals, but there are a lot of working class people at them, even posh ones like Glasto and Latitude, and at Download or Leeds probably form a majority.
£205 for a long weekend with unlimited entertainment is not bad value, comparable to a few away matches to follow a football team, which is unremarkeable working class entertainment for many.
The idea that the only authentic working class is neanderthal knuckledraggers is a pretty crude bit of political bubble prejudice. Even assuming that Spencer won Gorton comfortably she must have had 20-25% of the vote in Denton. Or are they disqualified from being working class automatically by voting Green, in a sort of "no true Scotsman" sort of paradox?
Why are you so desperate for her to be working class?
Why are you so desperate for her not to be?
In fact has Spencer actually claimed to be working class, or has she just described in non RP tones her life as a non-uni educated tradesperson living and working in the area she now represents.
I’m reminded of Andrew Neil’s desperation to prove that Mhairi Black was not working class Paisley, unlike himself as he ranted in orotund, well fed tones from his South of France villa.
I'm not desperate for her not to be, she just isn't. I don't know that she has claimed it for herself at all. She seems to be middle class men's idea of what it is to be working class, and a few of the posters on here really want her to be. But she isn't, and there is nothing wrong with that
Given we don't know the full situation of her up-bringing, I don't think we can give a clear view either way (whereas, we know that Keir Starmer's father was a toolmaker...).
Keir Starmer claims to be from a working class background, but I don't think anyone born in the 60s to parents with a private mortgage had a working class upbringing. Almost all working class people lived in social housing in those days
Maybe they did in London. Most of the people in my home town worked down the pit or in associated industries. There was very little social housing.
My dad was a bricklayer for the Coal Board. He had a mortgage from 1965. So did most of his workmates. And so did his Dad who worked underground.
In 1967 51% of people owned their property, 29% were in social housing and 20% rented privately, so I would say it was quite unusual for working class families to have mortgages. I would assume the majority of the 51% were not working class.
There would have probably been a bigger difference between the skilled and unskilled working class than between the skilled working class and the middle class.
The unskilled working class back then would not have owned their own homes and would have struggled financially. As they do now.
The skilled working class only really started getting mortgages and owning their homes in large numbers with Thatcher's right to buy.
That was also the first big step in breaking down class based politics, before that middle class home owners and those with mortgages overwhelmingly voted Tory or Liberal and the working class overwhelmingly voted Labour
Nah. Class based politics was in decline in the Sixties.
Not really, in the Heath V Wilson v Thorpe October 1974 general election for example 56% of middle class ABC1s voted Conservative, 21% Liberal and just 19% Labour. 49% of skilled working class C2s voted Labour and just 26% Conservative and 20% Liberal and 57% of unskilled working class DEs voted Labour, 22% Conservative and 16% Liberal.
Right to buy was introduced in 1980 and by the 1983 general election Thatcher's Conservatives won 40% of skilled working class C2s, ahead of the 32% who voted for Foot's Labour. 33% of DEs also voted Conservative to 41% for Labour. 55% of middle class ABC1s still voted Conservative but 28% voted SDP/Liberal Alliance and 16% Labour. https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-october-1974
Lovely to see the righties back to their bellicose best after Thursday’s bloody nose, though I’m a bit confused about the messaging. Should HM Forces be going in balls deep with Bibi & Don or not?
Israel assesses the assassination was successful; the likelihood that Supreme Leader of Iran Ali Khamenei survived the Israeli strike is slim to none - N12
If that is true then hopefully others in this obnoxious regime will also have been eliminated
Prayers for the people of Iran who should have total support to regain their country and make it a democracy
Total support they aren't going to get though. You need troops in situ for that. And that won't happen.
It should.
Though it may not be needed. We only needed bombs to help the locals overthrow Ghaddafi.
Which was a total disaster, and continues to be one.
Israel assesses the assassination was successful; the likelihood that Supreme Leader of Iran Ali Khamenei survived the Israeli strike is slim to none - N12
If that is true then hopefully others in this obnoxious regime will also have been eliminated
Prayers for the people of Iran who should have total support to regain their country and make it a democracy
Total support they aren't going to get though. You need troops in situ for that. And that won't happen.
It should.
Though it may not be needed. We only needed bombs to help the locals overthrow Ghaddafi.
Which was a total disaster, and continues to be one.
Everyone seems to want the regime gone but no one wants to do the dirty work except the US and Israel. Starmer is absolutely pathetic hiding behind mythical "international law" that Iran certainly gives zero fucks about.
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
Although Ukrainians never threatened Iran, the Iranian regime chose to become Putin’s accomplice and supplied him with “shahed” drones, and not only the drones themselves, but also the technologies to produce them. Iran also provided other weapons to Russia.
Over the course of this full-scale war, Russia has used more than 57,000 shahed-type attack drones against the Ukrainian people, cities, and energy infrastructure. Other nations have also suffered from Iranian-backed terror. Therefore, it is fair to give the Iranian people a chance to rid themselves of a terrorist regime and to guarantee security for all nations that have suffered from terror originating in Iran.
Yes, Iran has gone all-in on Russia’s side against Ukraine. If Khameini has been killed, it’s good riddance to bad rubbish.
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
Although Ukrainians never threatened Iran, the Iranian regime chose to become Putin’s accomplice and supplied him with “shahed” drones, and not only the drones themselves, but also the technologies to produce them. Iran also provided other weapons to Russia.
Over the course of this full-scale war, Russia has used more than 57,000 shahed-type attack drones against the Ukrainian people, cities, and energy infrastructure. Other nations have also suffered from Iranian-backed terror. Therefore, it is fair to give the Iranian people a chance to rid themselves of a terrorist regime and to guarantee security for all nations that have suffered from terror originating in Iran.
So what? I don't see Ukrainian troops going in either.
I would be delighted if the Mullahs are overthrown, but the track record in Iraq, Afghanistan (no one seems to want to mention that one), Libya and actually Venezuela, where the Chavistas are still in charge, even if Maduro is not, suggests that the chances of a "good" outcome are fairly poor.
Lovely to see the righties back to their bellicose best after Thursday’s bloody nose, though I’m a bit confused about the messaging. Should HM Forces be going in balls deep with Bibi & Don or not?
I think this might be the nail in the coffin for whatever the "special relationship" is. The UK not supporting this, even without providing military assets is going to weigh very badly, especially if the US does manage to remove the current regime. The defence chiefs in the US won't forget quickly that the UK equivocated and refused support and use of bases.
Starmer really is the worst.
Interesting that Carney seems to be supporting this . Equally after Trump slagged off NATO troops and the UKs misadventures in Libya and Iraq it’s going to be a hard sell to get the UK public onside .
If FIFA did, for some reason, regularly give out a Peace Prize, you’d think #1 on the list of criteria for potential winners would be “do not start a war with another nation in the World Cup, directly before the start of the World Cup”
FIFA are a corrupt joke. Trump is a corrupt POTUS.
But the Iranian regime is infinitely worse.
Just because Trump is bad, is no reason to oppose the liberation of Iran. Your reflexive "anything Trump does is bad" attitude is drowning out all else.
How else should the Iranian people be freed, given that the regime is slaughtering protestors? Other than force, what alternative do you propose?
Should we all just sit back, watch the Iranians get slaughtered, watch Iran supply Russia with drones and tut and do jack shit?
Is Trump genuinely going for regime change or something altogether less satisfying?
It does seem that Trump is on board with any military action if someone explains to him that they stole the 2020 election. Perhaps Nigel should tell Trump Starmer and the Labour Party stole the election in 2020. Although Nigel doesn't seem as popular as Tiny Tom in Whitehouse circles these days.
I could not care less about Trump's motivations or what he is going for, I care about results.
If we see the liberation of Iran, then great.
Anything short of regime change, is a miserable failure.
The UK should be using our full military power and diplomatic power to push for regime change, explicitly, too. Instead we're just bystanders. Pathetic.
Like we did in Iraq? Against the sage advice of Lib Dems and most Tories.
Although this time around Kemi is coming across as the great Churchillian war hero to Starmer's Chamberlain. Only time will tell.
What I cannot understand with Starmer is why he has to involve Macron and Mertz before stating hls position
Carney has confirmed Canada's support as has Australia
Carney is not seeing his party's vote leak heavily to a pacifist anti US Green party like Starmer Labour are and in Australia they have AV so Albanese knows he can get pacifist anti US Green primary voters to hold their noses for his governing Labor party on the 2PP vote
If FIFA did, for some reason, regularly give out a Peace Prize, you’d think #1 on the list of criteria for potential winners would be “do not start a war with another nation in the World Cup, directly before the start of the World Cup”
FIFA are a corrupt joke. Trump is a corrupt POTUS.
But the Iranian regime is infinitely worse.
Just because Trump is bad, is no reason to oppose the liberation of Iran. Your reflexive "anything Trump does is bad" attitude is drowning out all else.
How else should the Iranian people be freed, given that the regime is slaughtering protestors? Other than force, what alternative do you propose?
Should we all just sit back, watch the Iranians get slaughtered, watch Iran supply Russia with drones and tut and do jack shit?
Is Trump genuinely going for regime change or something altogether less satisfying?
It does seem that Trump is on board with any military action if someone explains to him that they stole the 2020 election. Perhaps Nigel should tell Trump Starmer and the Labour Party stole the election in 2020. Although Nigel doesn't seem as popular as Tiny Tom in Whitehouse circles these days.
I could not care less about Trump's motivations or what he is going for, I care about results.
If we see the liberation of Iran, then great.
Anything short of regime change, is a miserable failure.
The UK should be using our full military power and diplomatic power to push for regime change, explicitly, too. Instead we're just bystanders. Pathetic.
Like we did in Iraq? Against the sage advice of Lib Dems and most Tories.
Although this time around Kemi is coming across as the great Churchillian war hero to Starmer's Chamberlain. Only time will tell.
Iraq was a success, Hussein was eliminated.
Do that again and mission accomplished. This regime needs to go.
I will take the same success we had in Iraq when it comes to Iran, yes. Ideally better, but if "all" we get is the same that would be a fantastic improvement over the status quo.
If this escapade has Iraq as it's blueprint thank Allah Starmer is keeping his distance. On no metric was Iraq anything other than a disgraceful disaster.
"Was Hussein eliminated" - try that metric.
"Is the current regime an improvement on Hussein's" - try that one too.
Between half a million and a million dead and a quarter of a century later and you have your win. Sadam was a complete bastard but his bastardy kept disparate factions from killing each other. Something that passed Blair by. Remove Sadam by all means but have a post match plan in place first. Do you think we have one today?
Not that anyone cares, but so far, I think my opinion on this conflict is:
Let them use the bases. I see no reason to act to defend the Iranian regime. I also see no reason to hold back intelligence that might be useful.
But
Not a penny of British financial input, not a single bit of ball sweat from any British forces. Nada. Zilch.
Intelligence and bases is where we should be right now. If they would like assistance with naval platforms etc... I'd probably say yes to that too in order to keep oil trade going to prevent a price spike.
Israel assesses the assassination was successful; the likelihood that Supreme Leader of Iran Ali Khamenei survived the Israeli strike is slim to none - N12
If that is true then hopefully others in this obnoxious regime will also have been eliminated
Prayers for the people of Iran who should have total support to regain their country and make it a democracy
Total support they aren't going to get though. You need troops in situ for that. And that won't happen.
It should.
Though it may not be needed. We only needed bombs to help the locals overthrow Ghaddafi.
Which was a total disaster, and continues to be one.
Why?
Because it has led to Europe being completely swamped with immigration.
If FIFA did, for some reason, regularly give out a Peace Prize, you’d think #1 on the list of criteria for potential winners would be “do not start a war with another nation in the World Cup, directly before the start of the World Cup”
FIFA are a corrupt joke. Trump is a corrupt POTUS.
But the Iranian regime is infinitely worse.
Just because Trump is bad, is no reason to oppose the liberation of Iran. Your reflexive "anything Trump does is bad" attitude is drowning out all else.
How else should the Iranian people be freed, given that the regime is slaughtering protestors? Other than force, what alternative do you propose?
Should we all just sit back, watch the Iranians get slaughtered, watch Iran supply Russia with drones and tut and do jack shit?
Is Trump genuinely going for regime change or something altogether less satisfying?
It does seem that Trump is on board with any military action if someone explains to him that they stole the 2020 election. Perhaps Nigel should tell Trump Starmer and the Labour Party stole the election in 2020. Although Nigel doesn't seem as popular as Tiny Tom in Whitehouse circles these days.
I could not care less about Trump's motivations or what he is going for, I care about results.
If we see the liberation of Iran, then great.
Anything short of regime change, is a miserable failure.
The UK should be using our full military power and diplomatic power to push for regime change, explicitly, too. Instead we're just bystanders. Pathetic.
Like we did in Iraq? Against the sage advice of Lib Dems and most Tories.
Although this time around Kemi is coming across as the great Churchillian war hero to Starmer's Chamberlain. Only time will tell.
Iraq was a success, Hussein was eliminated.
Do that again and mission accomplished. This regime needs to go.
I will take the same success we had in Iraq when it comes to Iran, yes. Ideally better, but if "all" we get is the same that would be a fantastic improvement over the status quo.
Badenoch is no Churchill
What a fecking stupid comparison
Churchill was a great war leader when we were under attack direct attack.
We are not under attack.
The RAF typhoons have already been active in shooting down missiles over Qatar
Starmer hiding behind international law is just words as he must have known we are involved
(IIRC he was hiding in an Irish bar, on the basis that it was neutral. Begorrah ! )
Yes, I live in Dubai and my wife’s Ukranian.
I’ve been to Ukraine three times since the 2022 war started, and had to buy new sets of windows for two apartments.
I hope that you are both OK, as I see that there has been some fire on Dubai (if the reports are correct).
It’s all good here so far. It appears that the targets were military bases, and the air defences did their job.
People here are posting pictures of beach bars and boozy brunches, much as we normally see from Ukranians insisting life goes on. I’ve spent the afternoon drinking some of Dublin’s finest black stuff in an Irish pub. Cheers!
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
Although Ukrainians never threatened Iran, the Iranian regime chose to become Putin’s accomplice and supplied him with “shahed” drones, and not only the drones themselves, but also the technologies to produce them. Iran also provided other weapons to Russia.
Over the course of this full-scale war, Russia has used more than 57,000 shahed-type attack drones against the Ukrainian people, cities, and energy infrastructure. Other nations have also suffered from Iranian-backed terror. Therefore, it is fair to give the Iranian people a chance to rid themselves of a terrorist regime and to guarantee security for all nations that have suffered from terror originating in Iran.
So what? I don't see Ukrainian troops going in either.
I would be delighted if the Mullahs are overthrown, but the track record in Iraq, Afghanistan (no one seems to want to mention that one), Libya and actually Venezuela, where the Chavistas are still in charge, even if Maduro is not, suggests that the chances of a "good" outcome are fairly poor.
And if we don't take action, the chances of a "good" outcome are zero.
I think this might be the nail in the coffin for whatever the "special relationship" is. The UK not supporting this, even without providing military assets is going to weigh very badly, especially if the US does manage to remove the current regime. The defence chiefs in the US won't forget quickly that the UK equivocated and refused support and use of bases.
Starmer really is the worst.
Interesting that Carney seems to be supporting this . Equally after Trump slagged off NATO troops and the UKs misadventures in Libya and Iraq it’s going to be a hard sell to get the UK public onside .
Ultimately the aim of removing the regime is absolutely a worthy one. Either we support that or we don't. By equivocating Starmer is trying to hold on the last vestiges of his Islamist voter base. That's really all it is. Labour MPs and strategists can see Birmingham, Bradford, Luton, Bolton, East London and other parts of the country running to the Islamist supporting Greens. By supporting the US that becomes irreversible.
If FIFA did, for some reason, regularly give out a Peace Prize, you’d think #1 on the list of criteria for potential winners would be “do not start a war with another nation in the World Cup, directly before the start of the World Cup”
FIFA are a corrupt joke. Trump is a corrupt POTUS.
But the Iranian regime is infinitely worse.
Just because Trump is bad, is no reason to oppose the liberation of Iran. Your reflexive "anything Trump does is bad" attitude is drowning out all else.
How else should the Iranian people be freed, given that the regime is slaughtering protestors? Other than force, what alternative do you propose?
Should we all just sit back, watch the Iranians get slaughtered, watch Iran supply Russia with drones and tut and do jack shit?
Is Trump genuinely going for regime change or something altogether less satisfying?
It does seem that Trump is on board with any military action if someone explains to him that they stole the 2020 election. Perhaps Nigel should tell Trump Starmer and the Labour Party stole the election in 2020. Although Nigel doesn't seem as popular as Tiny Tom in Whitehouse circles these days.
I could not care less about Trump's motivations or what he is going for, I care about results.
If we see the liberation of Iran, then great.
Anything short of regime change, is a miserable failure.
The UK should be using our full military power and diplomatic power to push for regime change, explicitly, too. Instead we're just bystanders. Pathetic.
Like we did in Iraq? Against the sage advice of Lib Dems and most Tories.
Although this time around Kemi is coming across as the great Churchillian war hero to Starmer's Chamberlain. Only time will tell.
Iraq was a success, Hussein was eliminated.
Do that again and mission accomplished. This regime needs to go.
I will take the same success we had in Iraq when it comes to Iran, yes. Ideally better, but if "all" we get is the same that would be a fantastic improvement over the status quo.
Badenoch is no Churchill
What a fecking stupid comparison
Churchill was a great war leader when we were under attack direct attack.
We are not under attack.
The RAF typhoons have already been active in shooting down missiles over Qatar
Starmer hiding behind international law is just words as he must have known we are involved
Why are all you Tories so desperate for Starmer to declare war on Iran? If Blair had been a little more circumspect Iraq might not have been the catastrophe it turned out to be. You do know Bibi is driving this don't you?
If FIFA did, for some reason, regularly give out a Peace Prize, you’d think #1 on the list of criteria for potential winners would be “do not start a war with another nation in the World Cup, directly before the start of the World Cup”
FIFA are a corrupt joke. Trump is a corrupt POTUS.
But the Iranian regime is infinitely worse.
Just because Trump is bad, is no reason to oppose the liberation of Iran. Your reflexive "anything Trump does is bad" attitude is drowning out all else.
How else should the Iranian people be freed, given that the regime is slaughtering protestors? Other than force, what alternative do you propose?
Should we all just sit back, watch the Iranians get slaughtered, watch Iran supply Russia with drones and tut and do jack shit?
Is Trump genuinely going for regime change or something altogether less satisfying?
It does seem that Trump is on board with any military action if someone explains to him that they stole the 2020 election. Perhaps Nigel should tell Trump Starmer and the Labour Party stole the election in 2020. Although Nigel doesn't seem as popular as Tiny Tom in Whitehouse circles these days.
I could not care less about Trump's motivations or what he is going for, I care about results.
If we see the liberation of Iran, then great.
Anything short of regime change, is a miserable failure.
The UK should be using our full military power and diplomatic power to push for regime change, explicitly, too. Instead we're just bystanders. Pathetic.
Like we did in Iraq? Against the sage advice of Lib Dems and most Tories.
Although this time around Kemi is coming across as the great Churchillian war hero to Starmer's Chamberlain. Only time will tell.
Iraq was a success, Hussein was eliminated.
Do that again and mission accomplished. This regime needs to go.
I will take the same success we had in Iraq when it comes to Iran, yes. Ideally better, but if "all" we get is the same that would be a fantastic improvement over the status quo.
If this escapade has Iraq as it's blueprint thank Allah Starmer is keeping his distance. On no metric was Iraq anything other than a disgraceful disaster.
"Was Hussein eliminated" - try that metric.
"Is the current regime an improvement on Hussein's" - try that one too.
Between half a million and a million dead and a quarter of a century later and you have your win. Sadam was a complete bastard but his bastardy kept disparate factions from killing each other. Something that passed Blair by. Remove Sadam by all means but have a post match plan in place first. Do you think we have one today?
Kill the bastard, that's all that matters.
The rest is up to them. The mistake was thinking we could stay and impose our will on them.
Better disparate groups fighting each other, preferably with ballots not bullets, than one bastard killing everyone.
He's consulting with Macron who has issued a similar statement to COBRA
Very considered and statesmanlike.
Protect our interests, defensive action, support for UK citizens. Belief that attacks breaking international law.
No need to show boat.
Davey's next tweet:
The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes. 12:26 PM · Feb 28, 2026
Lovely to see the righties back to their bellicose best after Thursday’s bloody nose, though I’m a bit confused about the messaging. Should HM Forces be going in balls deep with Bibi & Don or not?
No they should not for one reason. They have nothing to add offensively. Its facilities are useful but not essential. The UK has already provided what intelligence it has to the US on specific targets, human targets, weeks ago. Other European nations have as well because the US has been asking everyone and their dog in the last couple of months.
What the UK has on the slate. 1. Allowing UK-based and possibly other facilities to be used as part of the logistics train and intelligence operations 2. Feed in information from UK sovereign intelligence resources on useful information about Iran as this conflict rolls on. This is just a by-product of the fact that they will be feeding this to HMG 3. Providing the potential for Cyprus facilities to be safe harbour in an emergency 4. Having the capacity to add some additional air to air missile defence to Israel, Jordan and the region via the aircraft in Cyprus as a staging base. No evidence of its use. This may also be available in the Gulf as well but its unclear if the resources there bugged out ahead of this. 5. Providing ISTAR to the south of Jordan and Israel to help keep an eye on the Houthis 6. Support any defence of Gulf sea lanes. They wouldnt be the only European country ready and willing to do this in concert with the US.
It is, bluntly, limited and can stay that way. There is no gain to do any more.
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
Friend of the PM quoted in The Guardian today: “Keir would not have been able to live with himself if he had been forced out of office early without showing the country who he really is and what he’s about.”
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
If FIFA did, for some reason, regularly give out a Peace Prize, you’d think #1 on the list of criteria for potential winners would be “do not start a war with another nation in the World Cup, directly before the start of the World Cup”
FIFA are a corrupt joke. Trump is a corrupt POTUS.
But the Iranian regime is infinitely worse.
Just because Trump is bad, is no reason to oppose the liberation of Iran. Your reflexive "anything Trump does is bad" attitude is drowning out all else.
How else should the Iranian people be freed, given that the regime is slaughtering protestors? Other than force, what alternative do you propose?
Should we all just sit back, watch the Iranians get slaughtered, watch Iran supply Russia with drones and tut and do jack shit?
Is Trump genuinely going for regime change or something altogether less satisfying?
It does seem that Trump is on board with any military action if someone explains to him that they stole the 2020 election. Perhaps Nigel should tell Trump Starmer and the Labour Party stole the election in 2020. Although Nigel doesn't seem as popular as Tiny Tom in Whitehouse circles these days.
I could not care less about Trump's motivations or what he is going for, I care about results.
If we see the liberation of Iran, then great.
Anything short of regime change, is a miserable failure.
The UK should be using our full military power and diplomatic power to push for regime change, explicitly, too. Instead we're just bystanders. Pathetic.
Like we did in Iraq? Against the sage advice of Lib Dems and most Tories.
Although this time around Kemi is coming across as the great Churchillian war hero to Starmer's Chamberlain. Only time will tell.
Iraq was a success, Hussein was eliminated.
Do that again and mission accomplished. This regime needs to go.
I will take the same success we had in Iraq when it comes to Iran, yes. Ideally better, but if "all" we get is the same that would be a fantastic improvement over the status quo.
Badenoch is no Churchill
What a fecking stupid comparison
Churchill was a great war leader when we were under attack direct attack.
We are not under attack.
The RAF typhoons have already been active in shooting down missiles over Qatar
Starmer hiding behind international law is just words as he must have known we are involved
Why are all you Tories so desperate for Starmer to declare war on Iran? If Blair had been a little more circumspect Iraq might not have been the catastrophe it turned out to be. You do know Bibi is driving this don't you?
Starmer needs to follow Carney and others in standing alongside our allies and that includes gulf states that apparently are already receiving our military's involvement
Of course the left oppose but cannot explain how they stop the slaughter of the people of Iran by their rulers
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
Although Ukrainians never threatened Iran, the Iranian regime chose to become Putin’s accomplice and supplied him with “shahed” drones, and not only the drones themselves, but also the technologies to produce them. Iran also provided other weapons to Russia.
Over the course of this full-scale war, Russia has used more than 57,000 shahed-type attack drones against the Ukrainian people, cities, and energy infrastructure. Other nations have also suffered from Iranian-backed terror. Therefore, it is fair to give the Iranian people a chance to rid themselves of a terrorist regime and to guarantee security for all nations that have suffered from terror originating in Iran.
So what? I don't see Ukrainian troops going in either.
I would be delighted if the Mullahs are overthrown, but the track record in Iraq, Afghanistan (no one seems to want to mention that one), Libya and actually Venezuela, where the Chavistas are still in charge, even if Maduro is not, suggests that the chances of a "good" outcome are fairly poor.
And if we don't take action, the chances of a "good" outcome are zero.
If you play international politics as a zero sum game, you lose. The risks are unacceptable and the rewards are uncertain. Have you served in the armed forces? A lot of Lib Dem MPs have, and they know the costs if things fuck up. Davey's position reflects a clear understanding of the risks.
Next thing will be you handing out white feathers.
If FIFA did, for some reason, regularly give out a Peace Prize, you’d think #1 on the list of criteria for potential winners would be “do not start a war with another nation in the World Cup, directly before the start of the World Cup”
FIFA are a corrupt joke. Trump is a corrupt POTUS.
But the Iranian regime is infinitely worse.
Just because Trump is bad, is no reason to oppose the liberation of Iran. Your reflexive "anything Trump does is bad" attitude is drowning out all else.
How else should the Iranian people be freed, given that the regime is slaughtering protestors? Other than force, what alternative do you propose?
Should we all just sit back, watch the Iranians get slaughtered, watch Iran supply Russia with drones and tut and do jack shit?
Is Trump genuinely going for regime change or something altogether less satisfying?
It does seem that Trump is on board with any military action if someone explains to him that they stole the 2020 election. Perhaps Nigel should tell Trump Starmer and the Labour Party stole the election in 2020. Although Nigel doesn't seem as popular as Tiny Tom in Whitehouse circles these days.
I could not care less about Trump's motivations or what he is going for, I care about results.
If we see the liberation of Iran, then great.
Anything short of regime change, is a miserable failure.
The UK should be using our full military power and diplomatic power to push for regime change, explicitly, too. Instead we're just bystanders. Pathetic.
Like we did in Iraq? Against the sage advice of Lib Dems and most Tories.
Although this time around Kemi is coming across as the great Churchillian war hero to Starmer's Chamberlain. Only time will tell.
Iraq was a success, Hussein was eliminated.
Do that again and mission accomplished. This regime needs to go.
I will take the same success we had in Iraq when it comes to Iran, yes. Ideally better, but if "all" we get is the same that would be a fantastic improvement over the status quo.
Badenoch is no Churchill
What a fecking stupid comparison
Churchill was a great war leader when we were under attack direct attack.
We are not under attack.
The RAF typhoons have already been active in shooting down missiles over Qatar
Starmer hiding behind international law is just words as he must have known we are involved
Why are all you Tories so desperate for Starmer to declare war on Iran? If Blair had been a little more circumspect Iraq might not have been the catastrophe it turned out to be. You do know Bibi is driving this don't you?
They are Tory bears of very little cognition, and they hate to recall while they were all gung ho for regime change with IDS, GWB and Tony, it was Robin Cook, Ken Clarke, Charles Kennedy and assorted Nats who spoke out against Iraq. Apparently it was Tony Blair’s fault for misleading these big, tough men of the world.
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
Vanity war. You do know Iran is slaughtering its own people for protesting.
No, Davey is just being a cynical opportunistic twat. Does he give a fuck about slaughtered Iranian protesters ? There’s no votes in that.
Israel assesses the assassination was successful; the likelihood that Supreme Leader of Iran Ali Khamenei survived the Israeli strike is slim to none - N12
If that is true then hopefully others in this obnoxious regime will also have been eliminated
Prayers for the people of Iran who should have total support to regain their country and make it a democracy
Total support they aren't going to get though. You need troops in situ for that. And that won't happen.
It should.
Though it may not be needed. We only needed bombs to help the locals overthrow Ghaddafi.
Which was a total disaster, and continues to be one.
Why?
Because it has led to Europe being completely swamped with immigration.
No that began long before Gaddafi fell and continued long after.
It happened because Europe has welcomed migration.
If FIFA did, for some reason, regularly give out a Peace Prize, you’d think #1 on the list of criteria for potential winners would be “do not start a war with another nation in the World Cup, directly before the start of the World Cup”
FIFA are a corrupt joke. Trump is a corrupt POTUS.
But the Iranian regime is infinitely worse.
Just because Trump is bad, is no reason to oppose the liberation of Iran. Your reflexive "anything Trump does is bad" attitude is drowning out all else.
How else should the Iranian people be freed, given that the regime is slaughtering protestors? Other than force, what alternative do you propose?
Should we all just sit back, watch the Iranians get slaughtered, watch Iran supply Russia with drones and tut and do jack shit?
Is Trump genuinely going for regime change or something altogether less satisfying?
It does seem that Trump is on board with any military action if someone explains to him that they stole the 2020 election. Perhaps Nigel should tell Trump Starmer and the Labour Party stole the election in 2020. Although Nigel doesn't seem as popular as Tiny Tom in Whitehouse circles these days.
I could not care less about Trump's motivations or what he is going for, I care about results.
If we see the liberation of Iran, then great.
Anything short of regime change, is a miserable failure.
The UK should be using our full military power and diplomatic power to push for regime change, explicitly, too. Instead we're just bystanders. Pathetic.
Like we did in Iraq? Against the sage advice of Lib Dems and most Tories.
Although this time around Kemi is coming across as the great Churchillian war hero to Starmer's Chamberlain. Only time will tell.
Iraq was a success, Hussein was eliminated.
Do that again and mission accomplished. This regime needs to go.
I will take the same success we had in Iraq when it comes to Iran, yes. Ideally better, but if "all" we get is the same that would be a fantastic improvement over the status quo.
Badenoch is no Churchill
What a fecking stupid comparison
Churchill was a great war leader when we were under attack direct attack.
We are not under attack.
The RAF typhoons have already been active in shooting down missiles over Qatar
Starmer hiding behind international law is just words as he must have known we are involved
Why are all you Tories so desperate for Starmer to declare war on Iran? If Blair had been a little more circumspect Iraq might not have been the catastrophe it turned out to be. You do know Bibi is driving this don't you?
Starmer needs to follow Carney and others in standing alongside our allies and that includes gulf states that apparently are already receiving our military's involvement
Of course the left oppose but cannot explain how they stop the slaughter of the people of Iran by their rulers
Starmer's Labour MPs are more concerned by their own prospective slaughter by the Greens this morning than any Mullahs slaughtering in Iran!
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
Of course it is entirely practical to expect the 645.000 US troops to be able to occupy a country of 1.6 million km2 and 92 million people.
For anyone not up with fashion, Hannah Spencer now MP, at Glasto, in 2011:
"At home, a lot of girls dress the same way. It's boring. I pretty much dress like this all the time. People always get a shock when I turn up to their door to fix something. I work with lots of fortysomething men and they probably just think I'm a bit weird."
I am no different to every single person here in this constituency. I work hard. That’s what we do.
Except things have changed a lot over the last few decades. Because working hard used to get you something. It got you a house. A nice life. Holidays. It got you somewhere.
But now – working hard? What does that get you? Because talk to anyone here and they’ll tell you. The people who work hard but can’t put food on the table. Can’t get their kids school uniforms. Can’t put their heating on. Can’t live off the pension they worked hard to save for. Can’t even begin to dream about ever having a holiday. Ever. Because life has changed.
Well, she was able to cough up the £205 to go to Glastonbury.
I don't know who else on here goes to music festivals, but there are a lot of working class people at them, even posh ones like Glasto and Latitude, and at Download or Leeds probably form a majority.
£205 for a long weekend with unlimited entertainment is not bad value, comparable to a few away matches to follow a football team, which is unremarkeable working class entertainment for many.
The idea that the only authentic working class is neanderthal knuckledraggers is a pretty crude bit of political bubble prejudice. Even assuming that Spencer won Gorton comfortably she must have had 20-25% of the vote in Denton. Or are they disqualified from being working class automatically by voting Green, in a sort of "no true Scotsman" sort of paradox?
Why are you so desperate for her to be working class?
Why are you so desperate for her not to be?
In fact has Spencer actually claimed to be working class, or has she just described in non RP tones her life as a non-uni educated tradesperson living and working in the area she now represents.
I’m reminded of Andrew Neil’s desperation to prove that Mhairi Black was not working class Paisley, unlike himself as he ranted in orotund, well fed tones from his South of France villa.
I'm not desperate for her not to be, she just isn't. I don't know that she has claimed it for herself at all. She seems to be middle class men's idea of what it is to be working class, and a few of the posters on here really want her to be. But she isn't, and there is nothing wrong with that
Given we don't know the full situation of her up-bringing, I don't think we can give a clear view either way (whereas, we know that Keir Starmer's father was a toolmaker...).
Keir Starmer claims to be from a working class background, but I don't think anyone born in the 60s to parents with a private mortgage had a working class upbringing. Almost all working class people lived in social housing in those days
Maybe they did in London. Most of the people in my home town worked down the pit or in associated industries. There was very little social housing.
My dad was a bricklayer for the Coal Board. He had a mortgage from 1965. So did most of his workmates. And so did his Dad who worked underground.
In 1967 51% of people owned their property, 29% were in social housing and 20% rented privately, so I would say it was quite unusual for working class families to have mortgages. I would assume the majority of the 51% were not working class.
There would have probably been a bigger difference between the skilled and unskilled working class than between the skilled working class and the middle class.
The unskilled working class back then would not have owned their own homes and would have struggled financially. As they do now.
On a wider issue I wonder how many people on sites such as PB had parents / grandparents / great grandparents who were skilled working class and made the move up the socioeconomic ladder.
It would explain nostalgia for the social mobility and rising living standards of previous generations.
My maternal grandparents were very much in this category - my granddad was a ship's engineer whose work took him all around the Med. He and my grandmother were real working class Tories. My mother went to boarding school courtesy of her father's employers and subsequently university. As a result there was a bit of a generation/class/educational/culture gap between her and my grandparents that never really went away. In a lot of ways my grandparents were extremely admirable people, they believed in hard work and self improvement, my grandmother was a concert standard pianist who probably would have been a professional musician if her parents hadn't been too poor for her to continue her education. My grandfather always felt looked down on because of his lack of education and social standing and developed a drinking problem. In many ways they were victims of the English class system but they also raised themselves up and gave their daughters a better life than they had even if this put up a barrier between the generations in the process. They were quite snobby too in their own way and also a bit racist. They were very kind to animals. They weren't easy people to be around but they were family. My father's parents had also raised themselves up but from more lower middle class sorts of roots, they both came from Nonconformist families which placed them slightly outside the usual class hierarchy I think.
If FIFA did, for some reason, regularly give out a Peace Prize, you’d think #1 on the list of criteria for potential winners would be “do not start a war with another nation in the World Cup, directly before the start of the World Cup”
FIFA are a corrupt joke. Trump is a corrupt POTUS.
But the Iranian regime is infinitely worse.
Just because Trump is bad, is no reason to oppose the liberation of Iran. Your reflexive "anything Trump does is bad" attitude is drowning out all else.
How else should the Iranian people be freed, given that the regime is slaughtering protestors? Other than force, what alternative do you propose?
Should we all just sit back, watch the Iranians get slaughtered, watch Iran supply Russia with drones and tut and do jack shit?
Is Trump genuinely going for regime change or something altogether less satisfying?
It does seem that Trump is on board with any military action if someone explains to him that they stole the 2020 election. Perhaps Nigel should tell Trump Starmer and the Labour Party stole the election in 2020. Although Nigel doesn't seem as popular as Tiny Tom in Whitehouse circles these days.
I could not care less about Trump's motivations or what he is going for, I care about results.
If we see the liberation of Iran, then great.
Anything short of regime change, is a miserable failure.
The UK should be using our full military power and diplomatic power to push for regime change, explicitly, too. Instead we're just bystanders. Pathetic.
Like we did in Iraq? Against the sage advice of Lib Dems and most Tories.
Although this time around Kemi is coming across as the great Churchillian war hero to Starmer's Chamberlain. Only time will tell.
Iraq was a success, Hussein was eliminated.
Do that again and mission accomplished. This regime needs to go.
I will take the same success we had in Iraq when it comes to Iran, yes. Ideally better, but if "all" we get is the same that would be a fantastic improvement over the status quo.
Badenoch is no Churchill
What a fecking stupid comparison
Churchill was a great war leader when we were under attack direct attack.
We are not under attack.
The RAF typhoons have already been active in shooting down missiles over Qatar
Starmer hiding behind international law is just words as he must have known we are involved
Why are all you Tories so desperate for Starmer to declare war on Iran? If Blair had been a little more circumspect Iraq might not have been the catastrophe it turned out to be. You do know Bibi is driving this don't you?
Iraq has turned out rather better than Afghanistan did, a new elected government replaced Saddam whereas the Taliban are back in power in the latter and even Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
Of course it is entirely practical to expect the 645.000 US troops to be able to occupy a country of 1.6 million km2 and 92 million people.
They don't need to.
Occupying Tehran ought to be sufficient, hard to see the regime surviving that.
After that, leave it to whoever runs Iran next. Probably Pahlavi at first would be a good idea.
Standing back doing fuck all but wittering on inanely about international law while the regime slaughters hundreds of thousands of its own people is not moral or right.
If FIFA did, for some reason, regularly give out a Peace Prize, you’d think #1 on the list of criteria for potential winners would be “do not start a war with another nation in the World Cup, directly before the start of the World Cup”
FIFA are a corrupt joke. Trump is a corrupt POTUS.
But the Iranian regime is infinitely worse.
Just because Trump is bad, is no reason to oppose the liberation of Iran. Your reflexive "anything Trump does is bad" attitude is drowning out all else.
How else should the Iranian people be freed, given that the regime is slaughtering protestors? Other than force, what alternative do you propose?
Should we all just sit back, watch the Iranians get slaughtered, watch Iran supply Russia with drones and tut and do jack shit?
Is Trump genuinely going for regime change or something altogether less satisfying?
It does seem that Trump is on board with any military action if someone explains to him that they stole the 2020 election. Perhaps Nigel should tell Trump Starmer and the Labour Party stole the election in 2020. Although Nigel doesn't seem as popular as Tiny Tom in Whitehouse circles these days.
I could not care less about Trump's motivations or what he is going for, I care about results.
If we see the liberation of Iran, then great.
Anything short of regime change, is a miserable failure.
The UK should be using our full military power and diplomatic power to push for regime change, explicitly, too. Instead we're just bystanders. Pathetic.
Like we did in Iraq? Against the sage advice of Lib Dems and most Tories.
Although this time around Kemi is coming across as the great Churchillian war hero to Starmer's Chamberlain. Only time will tell.
What I cannot understand with Starmer is why he has to involve Macron and Mertz before stating hls position
Carney has confirmed Canada's support as has Australia
If FIFA did, for some reason, regularly give out a Peace Prize, you’d think #1 on the list of criteria for potential winners would be “do not start a war with another nation in the World Cup, directly before the start of the World Cup”
FIFA are a corrupt joke. Trump is a corrupt POTUS.
But the Iranian regime is infinitely worse.
Just because Trump is bad, is no reason to oppose the liberation of Iran. Your reflexive "anything Trump does is bad" attitude is drowning out all else.
How else should the Iranian people be freed, given that the regime is slaughtering protestors? Other than force, what alternative do you propose?
Should we all just sit back, watch the Iranians get slaughtered, watch Iran supply Russia with drones and tut and do jack shit?
Is Trump genuinely going for regime change or something altogether less satisfying?
It does seem that Trump is on board with any military action if someone explains to him that they stole the 2020 election. Perhaps Nigel should tell Trump Starmer and the Labour Party stole the election in 2020. Although Nigel doesn't seem as popular as Tiny Tom in Whitehouse circles these days.
I could not care less about Trump's motivations or what he is going for, I care about results.
If we see the liberation of Iran, then great.
Anything short of regime change, is a miserable failure.
The UK should be using our full military power and diplomatic power to push for regime change, explicitly, too. Instead we're just bystanders. Pathetic.
Like we did in Iraq? Against the sage advice of Lib Dems and most Tories.
Although this time around Kemi is coming across as the great Churchillian war hero to Starmer's Chamberlain. Only time will tell.
Iraq was a success, Hussein was eliminated.
Do that again and mission accomplished. This regime needs to go.
I will take the same success we had in Iraq when it comes to Iran, yes. Ideally better, but if "all" we get is the same that would be a fantastic improvement over the status quo.
Badenoch is no Churchill
What a fecking stupid comparison
Churchill was a great war leader when we were under attack direct attack.
We are not under attack.
The RAF typhoons have already been active in shooting down missiles over Qatar
Starmer hiding behind international law is just words as he must have known we are involved
Why are all you Tories so desperate for Starmer to declare war on Iran? If Blair had been a little more circumspect Iraq might not have been the catastrophe it turned out to be. You do know Bibi is driving this don't you?
Starmer needs to follow Carney and others in standing alongside our allies and that includes gulf states that apparently are already receiving our military's involvement
Of course the left oppose but cannot explain how they stop the slaughter of the people of Iran by their rulers
Starmer's Labour MPs are more concerned by their own prospective slaughter by the Greens this morning than any Mullahs slaughtering in Iran!
Everyone seems to want the regime gone but no one wants to do the dirty work except the US and Israel. Starmer is absolutely pathetic hiding behind mythical "international law" that Iran certainly gives zero fucks about.
So what? We all want Putin dead as well, but how do you do that without starting WW III?
Getting rid of the current Iranian regime is easy. Have we got any evidence that the US and Israel have planned for what comes next? Have they even sketched out an idea?
The assumption that the current Iranian regime is as bad as it can gets seems to me to be extremely dubious, I can well imagine an Iranian government that is more popular with its own people, and a greater threat than the current one. Think something like Turkey, maybe even stronger than that, but fully aligned with China. Imagine that Iran coming to dominate the region.
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
Frankly F*ck off. The Lib Dems are not pro Mullah, and your bullshit does not change that.
Anyone being isolationist and opposing action against the Mullahs is precisely that, being pro Mullah.
The Lib Dems were never always isolationist contrarians. Used to have leaders of principle who supported taking action rather than cowering behind international law and saying "not my problem".
Who said this, it suits today: "I have never felt more depressed or, I am bound to say, ashamed this morning that now I have to wake up and see children burning on the television sets - as they were last night - and say that the answer from my country is 'nothing to do with me'
If that’s true it means the Iranians are seriously infiltrated, most likely by Mossad spooks.
You'd think they'd have learnt how to meet Online by now. Is your meeting really necessary?
One might suspect they don’t trust any phones or conference call solutions. That’s probably not an irrational position to hold.
It is if folk know where you are meeting. And the number of suitable locations and number of people involved in knowing you are attending it is necessarily pretty high. Seems a no brainer to me.
If FIFA did, for some reason, regularly give out a Peace Prize, you’d think #1 on the list of criteria for potential winners would be “do not start a war with another nation in the World Cup, directly before the start of the World Cup”
FIFA are a corrupt joke. Trump is a corrupt POTUS.
But the Iranian regime is infinitely worse.
Just because Trump is bad, is no reason to oppose the liberation of Iran. Your reflexive "anything Trump does is bad" attitude is drowning out all else.
How else should the Iranian people be freed, given that the regime is slaughtering protestors? Other than force, what alternative do you propose?
Should we all just sit back, watch the Iranians get slaughtered, watch Iran supply Russia with drones and tut and do jack shit?
Is Trump genuinely going for regime change or something altogether less satisfying?
It does seem that Trump is on board with any military action if someone explains to him that they stole the 2020 election. Perhaps Nigel should tell Trump Starmer and the Labour Party stole the election in 2020. Although Nigel doesn't seem as popular as Tiny Tom in Whitehouse circles these days.
I could not care less about Trump's motivations or what he is going for, I care about results.
If we see the liberation of Iran, then great.
Anything short of regime change, is a miserable failure.
The UK should be using our full military power and diplomatic power to push for regime change, explicitly, too. Instead we're just bystanders. Pathetic.
Like we did in Iraq? Against the sage advice of Lib Dems and most Tories.
Although this time around Kemi is coming across as the great Churchillian war hero to Starmer's Chamberlain. Only time will tell.
Iraq was a success, Hussein was eliminated.
Do that again and mission accomplished. This regime needs to go.
I will take the same success we had in Iraq when it comes to Iran, yes. Ideally better, but if "all" we get is the same that would be a fantastic improvement over the status quo.
Badenoch is no Churchill
What a fecking stupid comparison
Churchill was a great war leader when we were under attack direct attack.
We are not under attack.
The RAF typhoons have already been active in shooting down missiles over Qatar
Starmer hiding behind international law is just words as he must have known we are involved
Why are all you Tories so desperate for Starmer to declare war on Iran? If Blair had been a little more circumspect Iraq might not have been the catastrophe it turned out to be. You do know Bibi is driving this don't you?
Iraq has turned out rather better than Afghanistan did, a new elected government replaced Saddam whereas the Taliban are back in power in the latter and even Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan
Israeli or US jets hitting targets just outside Baghdad today, so perhaps not an unalloyed success for the regime changers..
If FIFA did, for some reason, regularly give out a Peace Prize, you’d think #1 on the list of criteria for potential winners would be “do not start a war with another nation in the World Cup, directly before the start of the World Cup”
FIFA are a corrupt joke. Trump is a corrupt POTUS.
But the Iranian regime is infinitely worse.
Just because Trump is bad, is no reason to oppose the liberation of Iran. Your reflexive "anything Trump does is bad" attitude is drowning out all else.
How else should the Iranian people be freed, given that the regime is slaughtering protestors? Other than force, what alternative do you propose?
Should we all just sit back, watch the Iranians get slaughtered, watch Iran supply Russia with drones and tut and do jack shit?
Is Trump genuinely going for regime change or something altogether less satisfying?
It does seem that Trump is on board with any military action if someone explains to him that they stole the 2020 election. Perhaps Nigel should tell Trump Starmer and the Labour Party stole the election in 2020. Although Nigel doesn't seem as popular as Tiny Tom in Whitehouse circles these days.
I could not care less about Trump's motivations or what he is going for, I care about results.
If we see the liberation of Iran, then great.
Anything short of regime change, is a miserable failure.
The UK should be using our full military power and diplomatic power to push for regime change, explicitly, too. Instead we're just bystanders. Pathetic.
Like we did in Iraq? Against the sage advice of Lib Dems and most Tories.
Although this time around Kemi is coming across as the great Churchillian war hero to Starmer's Chamberlain. Only time will tell.
Iraq was a success, Hussein was eliminated.
Do that again and mission accomplished. This regime needs to go.
I will take the same success we had in Iraq when it comes to Iran, yes. Ideally better, but if "all" we get is the same that would be a fantastic improvement over the status quo.
If this escapade has Iraq as it's blueprint thank Allah Starmer is keeping his distance. On no metric was Iraq anything other than a disgraceful disaster.
"Was Hussein eliminated" - try that metric.
"Is the current regime an improvement on Hussein's" - try that one too.
Between half a million and a million dead and a quarter of a century later and you have your win. Sadam was a complete bastard but his bastardy kept disparate factions from killing each other. Something that passed Blair by. Remove Sadam by all means but have a post match plan in place first. Do you think we have one today?
In rural Derbyshire, conflict in the Middle East seems a million miles away and those enjoying their lunch in Belper seemed unperturbed by events.
In my working life, I was once told “change” only works if you not only knew FROM what you were changing but also TO what you were changing.
Libya shows what happens if you have no idea of the outcome of change and Iraq shows what happens if the change you want isn’t the change the locals want. Remember the poor sap who was supposed to be the new leader of Iraq yet turned out had as much support as a Conservative in a Manchester seat (too soon?).
What then is or was the point of this? The killing, execution or martyrdom (delete as appropriate) of Khamanei (if confirmed) works only if you think, hope or believe (again delete accordingly) the house of cards will fall with him and if it does, what then? Even with an occupying and overwhelming military force on the ground in 2003, Iraq quickly fell into violence and anarchy.
Repressive regimes aren’t just about fear and terror - they provide for the basics such as the administration of law and the distribution of food. As we saw in 2000 and 2020, interrupting the distribution of essential food causes chaos - now assume that and add on no Police and no Government. That’s basically what happens once a Government collapses until some form of new order takes over. Nature abhors a vacuum and you can quickly replace State sponsored violence and terror with local violence and terror and the settling of scores.
None of that is any justification for maintaining the power of the Iranian theocracy. They have brutally repressed dissent and exported their brand of extremist or fundamentalist thinking worldwide.
However, removing said theocracy without some idea or plan for the future of the Iranian people seems ridiculous. Replacing missiles with food supplies, engineers to restore infrastructure and trainers to quickly rebuild a Police force to administer a new set of laws bereft of religious hatred would seem the likely requirements once the theocracy has fallen IF that is really the intention of all this.
If we are to due this without some kind of ground presence (perhaps the hope will be for a new secular Government to invite in American “advisers” to secure key areas such as oil fields), all I can hope is some thinking and planning has been done in the Trump administration and elsewhere but I’m not optimistic.
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
Vanity war. You do know Iran is slaughtering its own people for protesting.
No, Davey is just being a cynical opportunistic twat. Does he give a fuck about slaughtered Iranian protesters ? There’s no votes in that.
No wonder he’s popular here on PB.
I'm not sure what is your point.
A vanity war is exactly what it is. This is Trump.
If FIFA did, for some reason, regularly give out a Peace Prize, you’d think #1 on the list of criteria for potential winners would be “do not start a war with another nation in the World Cup, directly before the start of the World Cup”
FIFA are a corrupt joke. Trump is a corrupt POTUS.
But the Iranian regime is infinitely worse.
Just because Trump is bad, is no reason to oppose the liberation of Iran. Your reflexive "anything Trump does is bad" attitude is drowning out all else.
How else should the Iranian people be freed, given that the regime is slaughtering protestors? Other than force, what alternative do you propose?
Should we all just sit back, watch the Iranians get slaughtered, watch Iran supply Russia with drones and tut and do jack shit?
Is Trump genuinely going for regime change or something altogether less satisfying?
It does seem that Trump is on board with any military action if someone explains to him that they stole the 2020 election. Perhaps Nigel should tell Trump Starmer and the Labour Party stole the election in 2020. Although Nigel doesn't seem as popular as Tiny Tom in Whitehouse circles these days.
I could not care less about Trump's motivations or what he is going for, I care about results.
If we see the liberation of Iran, then great.
Anything short of regime change, is a miserable failure.
The UK should be using our full military power and diplomatic power to push for regime change, explicitly, too. Instead we're just bystanders. Pathetic.
Like we did in Iraq? Against the sage advice of Lib Dems and most Tories.
Although this time around Kemi is coming across as the great Churchillian war hero to Starmer's Chamberlain. Only time will tell.
Iraq was a success, Hussein was eliminated.
Do that again and mission accomplished. This regime needs to go.
I will take the same success we had in Iraq when it comes to Iran, yes. Ideally better, but if "all" we get is the same that would be a fantastic improvement over the status quo.
Badenoch is no Churchill
What a fecking stupid comparison
Churchill was a great war leader when we were under attack direct attack.
We are not under attack.
The RAF typhoons have already been active in shooting down missiles over Qatar
Starmer hiding behind international law is just words as he must have known we are involved
Why are all you Tories so desperate for Starmer to declare war on Iran? If Blair had been a little more circumspect Iraq might not have been the catastrophe it turned out to be. You do know Bibi is driving this don't you?
Iraq has turned out rather better than Afghanistan did, a new elected government replaced Saddam whereas the Taliban are back in power in the latter and even Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan
Israeli or US jets hitting targets just outside Baghdad today, so perhaps not an unalloyed success for the regime changers..
In rural Derbyshire, conflict in the Middle East seems a million miles away and those enjoying their lunch in Belper seemed unperturbed by events.
In my working life, I was once told “change” only works if you not only knew FROM what you were changing but also TO what you were changing.
Libya shows what happens if you have no idea of the outcome of change and Iraq shows what happens if the change you want isn’t the change the locals want. Remember the poor sap who was supposed to be the new leader of Iraq yet turned out had as much support as a Conservative in a Manchester seat (too soon?).
What then is or was the point of this? The killing, execution or martyrdom (delete as appropriate) of Khamanei (if confirmed) works only if you think, hope or believe (again delete accordingly) the house of cards will fall with him and if it does, what then? Even with an occupying and overwhelming military force on the ground in 2003, Iraq quickly fell into violence and anarchy.
Repressive regimes aren’t just about fear and terror - they provide for the basics such as the administration of law and the distribution of food. As we saw in 2000 and 2020, interrupting the distribution of essential food causes chaos - now assume that and add on no Police and no Government. That’s basically what happens once a Government collapses until some form of new order takes over. Nature abhors a vacuum and you can quickly replace State sponsored violence and terror with local violence and terror and the settling of scores.
None of that is any justification for maintaining the power of the Iranian theocracy. They have brutally repressed dissent and exported their brand of extremist or fundamentalist thinking worldwide.
However, removing said theocracy without some idea or plan for the future of the Iranian people seems ridiculous. Replacing missiles with food supplies, engineers to restore infrastructure and trainers to quickly rebuild a Police force to administer a new set of laws bereft of religious hatred would seem the likely requirements once the theocracy has fallen IF that is really the intention of all this.
If we are to due this without some kind of ground presence (perhaps the hope will be for a new secular Government to invite in American “advisers” to secure key areas such as oil fields), all I can hope is some thinking and planning has been done in the Trump administration and elsewhere but I’m not optimistic.
The thinking and planning on oil concessions has been done. You can stake your life on that.
If FIFA did, for some reason, regularly give out a Peace Prize, you’d think #1 on the list of criteria for potential winners would be “do not start a war with another nation in the World Cup, directly before the start of the World Cup”
FIFA are a corrupt joke. Trump is a corrupt POTUS.
But the Iranian regime is infinitely worse.
Just because Trump is bad, is no reason to oppose the liberation of Iran. Your reflexive "anything Trump does is bad" attitude is drowning out all else.
How else should the Iranian people be freed, given that the regime is slaughtering protestors? Other than force, what alternative do you propose?
Should we all just sit back, watch the Iranians get slaughtered, watch Iran supply Russia with drones and tut and do jack shit?
Is Trump genuinely going for regime change or something altogether less satisfying?
It does seem that Trump is on board with any military action if someone explains to him that they stole the 2020 election. Perhaps Nigel should tell Trump Starmer and the Labour Party stole the election in 2020. Although Nigel doesn't seem as popular as Tiny Tom in Whitehouse circles these days.
I could not care less about Trump's motivations or what he is going for, I care about results.
If we see the liberation of Iran, then great.
Anything short of regime change, is a miserable failure.
The UK should be using our full military power and diplomatic power to push for regime change, explicitly, too. Instead we're just bystanders. Pathetic.
Like we did in Iraq? Against the sage advice of Lib Dems and most Tories.
Although this time around Kemi is coming across as the great Churchillian war hero to Starmer's Chamberlain. Only time will tell.
Iraq was a success, Hussein was eliminated.
Do that again and mission accomplished. This regime needs to go.
I will take the same success we had in Iraq when it comes to Iran, yes. Ideally better, but if "all" we get is the same that would be a fantastic improvement over the status quo.
Badenoch is no Churchill
What a fecking stupid comparison
Churchill was a great war leader when we were under attack direct attack.
We are not under attack.
The RAF typhoons have already been active in shooting down missiles over Qatar
Starmer hiding behind international law is just words as he must have known we are involved
Why are all you Tories so desperate for Starmer to declare war on Iran? If Blair had been a little more circumspect Iraq might not have been the catastrophe it turned out to be. You do know Bibi is driving this don't you?
Iraq has turned out rather better than Afghanistan did, a new elected government replaced Saddam whereas the Taliban are back in power in the latter and even Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan
Israeli or US jets hitting targets just outside Baghdad today,
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
Vanity war. You do know Iran is slaughtering its own people for protesting.
No, Davey is just being a cynical opportunistic twat. Does he give a fuck about slaughtered Iranian protesters ? There’s no votes in that.
No wonder he’s popular here on PB.
I'm not sure what is your point.
A vanity war is exactly what it is. This is Trump.
If FIFA did, for some reason, regularly give out a Peace Prize, you’d think #1 on the list of criteria for potential winners would be “do not start a war with another nation in the World Cup, directly before the start of the World Cup”
FIFA are a corrupt joke. Trump is a corrupt POTUS.
But the Iranian regime is infinitely worse.
Just because Trump is bad, is no reason to oppose the liberation of Iran. Your reflexive "anything Trump does is bad" attitude is drowning out all else.
How else should the Iranian people be freed, given that the regime is slaughtering protestors? Other than force, what alternative do you propose?
Should we all just sit back, watch the Iranians get slaughtered, watch Iran supply Russia with drones and tut and do jack shit?
Is Trump genuinely going for regime change or something altogether less satisfying?
It does seem that Trump is on board with any military action if someone explains to him that they stole the 2020 election. Perhaps Nigel should tell Trump Starmer and the Labour Party stole the election in 2020. Although Nigel doesn't seem as popular as Tiny Tom in Whitehouse circles these days.
I could not care less about Trump's motivations or what he is going for, I care about results.
If we see the liberation of Iran, then great.
Anything short of regime change, is a miserable failure.
The UK should be using our full military power and diplomatic power to push for regime change, explicitly, too. Instead we're just bystanders. Pathetic.
Like we did in Iraq? Against the sage advice of Lib Dems and most Tories.
Although this time around Kemi is coming across as the great Churchillian war hero to Starmer's Chamberlain. Only time will tell.
Iraq was a success, Hussein was eliminated.
Do that again and mission accomplished. This regime needs to go.
I will take the same success we had in Iraq when it comes to Iran, yes. Ideally better, but if "all" we get is the same that would be a fantastic improvement over the status quo.
Badenoch is no Churchill
What a fecking stupid comparison
Churchill was a great war leader when we were under attack direct attack.
We are not under attack.
The RAF typhoons have already been active in shooting down missiles over Qatar
Starmer hiding behind international law is just words as he must have known we are involved
Why are all you Tories so desperate for Starmer to declare war on Iran? If Blair had been a little more circumspect Iraq might not have been the catastrophe it turned out to be. You do know Bibi is driving this don't you?
Well said. The ignorance on here is unfathomable. If you spoke to a 15 year old waiter in any downtown cafe in Beirut they would laugh at the complete vacuity of commentary on here.
What can be a surprise to no one the Lib Dem’s come out in support of the Mullahs.
I guess there’s votes in opposing action against people who slaughtered 30,000 protesters. I’m guessing the Lib Dem’s only support protesters if they protest against Elbit Systems.
To be expected of a party that supports the equally vile WASPI women
‘ The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.’
Oh here we go, colouring genuine concerns about yet another attack on a Middle eastern country by the the US as "support for the Mullahs" is of course total warmonger bullshit.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
‘Genuine concerns’
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Hmmm. Davey did not assert that the Mullahs are not vile. Nor is declining to support Trump's vanity war an expression of support for them.
That is exactly what it is.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
Comments
https://x.com/faytuks/status/2027742471128481969?s=61
Anyone got interfloras number ?
US attacks by volume have largely been surface missile based with some stand off work, Israel appears to be usng a mix of stand off air launched and over-target launches. As much as this may come as a surprise to people, this is not full throttle stuff
The Iranian counters have also been limited but the question here is why. Is it because they don't have the TELS to launch the missiles in greater volumes? The drone launches, which can be way bigger volumes also seem limited. Are they holding back? Are they having command chain issues?
The money is that, come the hours of darkness, its going to get heavier from both sides. If it doesn't from Iran, they have a problem of capacity and they will need to make targeting decisions, potentially some radical ones to try to have an impact.
One last thing, people are completely misunderstand Iranian nuclear refinement. They have weapons useable stocks now, today. It doesnt have to be all 80 or 90%+ refinement. Less refinement doesnt mean they couldnt use it to effect, it just adds complications of weight and attendant missile delivery (which is a perhaps surprising but real restriction) and the tech surrounding the uranium or plutonium on the tip of the launcher.
Ed Davey is expressing what is probably the majority view in the this country and around the world. Trump is playing with fire- he does not have the resources to force regime change, and is relying on the Iranians to free themselves... At what cost?
It is not the position of a bleeding heart peacenik to point out the very high risk that Trump is taking and why the UK should not have anything to do with this..
He's consulting with Macron who has issued a similar statement to COBRA
Very considered and statesmanlike.
Protect our interests, defensive action, support for UK citizens. Belief that attacks breaking international law.
No need to show boat.
Seems too good to be true, don't believe it.
Starmer really is the worst.
For that you need troops.
And I’m off on a solo rail and road trip to Eastern Anatolia in June. I was going to be getting within a mile or two of Iran but who knows, if they’ve had a regime change by then perhaps I can pop across the border and have a mooch around.
Although Ukrainians never threatened Iran, the Iranian regime chose to become Putin’s accomplice and supplied him with “shahed” drones, and not only the drones themselves, but also the technologies to produce them. Iran also provided other weapons to Russia.
Over the course of this full-scale war, Russia has used more than 57,000 shahed-type attack drones against the Ukrainian people, cities, and energy infrastructure. Other nations have also suffered from Iranian-backed terror. Therefore, it is fair to give the Iranian people a chance to rid themselves of a terrorist regime and to guarantee security for all nations that have suffered from terror originating in Iran.
What a fecking stupid comparison
Churchill was a great war leader when we were under attack direct attack.
We are not under attack.
Where have I heard that before. Immigration.
Ed Davey is wrong. The Mullahs are vile. Supporting them, even tacitly, is obnoxious. Even if it’s done for electoral advantage rather than anything else.
Right to buy was introduced in 1980 and by the 1983 general election Thatcher's Conservatives won 40% of skilled working class C2s, ahead of the 32% who voted for Foot's Labour. 33% of DEs also voted Conservative to 41% for Labour. 55% of middle class ABC1s still voted Conservative but 28% voted SDP/Liberal Alliance and 16% Labour.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-october-1974
https://x.com/modgovae/status/2027726319900102865
Looks somewhat rudimentary.
I would be delighted if the Mullahs are overthrown, but the track record in Iraq, Afghanistan (no one seems to want to mention that one), Libya and actually Venezuela, where the Chavistas are still in charge, even if Maduro is not, suggests that the chances of a "good" outcome are fairly poor.
Let them use the bases. I see no reason to act to defend the Iranian regime. I also see no reason to hold back intelligence that might be useful.
But
Not a penny of British financial input, not a single bit of ball sweat from any British forces. Nada. Zilch.
Speaks
Starmer hiding behind international law is just words as he must have known we are involved
People here are posting pictures of beach bars and boozy brunches, much as we normally see from Ukranians insisting life goes on. I’ve spent the afternoon drinking some of Dublin’s finest black stuff in an Irish pub. Cheers!
‘ EXCL with @ryansabey
Youngsters on the minimum wage *will* get smaller pay hikes next year amid fears they cost too much to hire.
Govt preparing to write to the Low Pay Commission telling them to slow down process of bringing 18-20 band into line with over-21.
Labour will argue this is not a breach of its manifesto because there was no clear timeframe.’
https://x.com/jackelsom/status/2027655923913629698?s=61
The PM is putting party before country.
The rest is up to them. The mistake was thinking we could stay and impose our will on them.
Better disparate groups fighting each other, preferably with ballots not bullets, than one bastard killing everyone.
The UK can't be dragged into another protracted Middle Eastern war by a US President. Keir Starmer needs to rule out the use of UK bases for any future unilateral US strikes.
12:26 PM · Feb 28, 2026
An Iranian Delcy Rodriguez?
Sad to see the Lib Dem’s (natch) and Labour with the pro Mullah takes
https://x.com/albomp/status/2027678880220516549?s=61
What the UK has on the slate.
1. Allowing UK-based and possibly other facilities to be used as part of the logistics train and intelligence operations
2. Feed in information from UK sovereign intelligence resources on useful information about Iran as this conflict rolls on. This is just a by-product of the fact that they will be feeding this to HMG
3. Providing the potential for Cyprus facilities to be safe harbour in an emergency
4. Having the capacity to add some additional air to air missile defence to Israel, Jordan and the region via the aircraft in Cyprus as a staging base. No evidence of its use. This may also be available in the Gulf as well but its unclear if the resources there bugged out ahead of this.
5. Providing ISTAR to the south of Jordan and Israel to help keep an eye on the Houthis
6. Support any defence of Gulf sea lanes. They wouldnt be the only European country ready and willing to do this in concert with the US.
It is, bluntly, limited and can stay that way. There is no gain to do any more.
Friend of the PM quoted in The Guardian today: “Keir would not have been able to live with himself if he had been forced out of office early without showing the country who he really is and what he’s about.”
https://x.com/shanaka86/status/2027725563251847510
If that’s true it means the Iranians are seriously infiltrated, most likely by Mossad spooks.
Unless you have a practical alternative to remove them?
Of course the left oppose but cannot explain how they stop the slaughter of the people of Iran by their rulers
Have you served in the armed forces? A lot of Lib Dem MPs have, and they know the costs if things fuck up.
Davey's position reflects a clear understanding of the risks.
Next thing will be you handing out white feathers.
Is your meeting really necessary?
No, Davey is just being a cynical opportunistic twat. Does he give a fuck about slaughtered Iranian protesters ? There’s no votes in that.
No wonder he’s popular here on PB.
It happened because Europe has welcomed migration.
That is our choice.
In a lot of ways my grandparents were extremely admirable people, they believed in hard work and self improvement, my grandmother was a concert standard pianist who probably would have been a professional musician if her parents hadn't been too poor for her to continue her education. My grandfather always felt looked down on because of his lack of education and social standing and developed a drinking problem. In many ways they were victims of the English class system but they also raised themselves up and gave their daughters a better life than they had even if this put up a barrier between the generations in the process. They were quite snobby too in their own way and also a bit racist. They were very kind to animals. They weren't easy people to be around but they were family.
My father's parents had also raised themselves up but from more lower middle class sorts of roots, they both came from Nonconformist families which placed them slightly outside the usual class hierarchy I think.
Occupying Tehran ought to be sufficient, hard to see the regime surviving that.
After that, leave it to whoever runs Iran next. Probably Pahlavi at first would be a good idea.
Standing back doing fuck all but wittering on inanely about international law while the regime slaughters hundreds of thousands of its own people is not moral or right.
Relax and pen an article about being stranded in foreign lands
It is the last thing Starmer wants but you don't get to be PM and sit on the sidelines
Unless he comes out like Davey, who is inconsequential in this, then he will never appease the corbynite green side of the argument
Yeah, I think that ship has sailed, lads.
Getting rid of the current Iranian regime is easy. Have we got any evidence that the US and Israel have planned for what comes next? Have they even sketched out an idea?
The assumption that the current Iranian regime is as bad as it can gets seems to me to be extremely dubious, I can well imagine an Iranian government that is more popular with its own people, and a greater threat than the current one. Think something like Turkey, maybe even stronger than that, but fully aligned with China. Imagine that Iran coming to dominate the region.
The Lib Dems were never always isolationist contrarians. Used to have leaders of principle who supported taking action rather than cowering behind international law and saying "not my problem".
Who said this, it suits today: "I have never felt more depressed or, I am bound to say, ashamed this morning that now I have to wake up and see children burning on the television sets - as they were last night - and say that the answer from my country is 'nothing to do with me'
And the number of suitable locations and number of people involved in knowing you are attending it is necessarily pretty high.
Seems a no brainer to me.
https://x.com/mustafa_salimb/status/2027674201813823535?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
In rural Derbyshire, conflict in the Middle East seems a million miles away and those enjoying their lunch in Belper seemed unperturbed by events.
In my working life, I was once told “change” only works if you not only knew FROM what you were changing but also TO what you were changing.
Libya shows what happens if you have no idea of the outcome of change and Iraq shows what happens if the change you want isn’t the change the locals want. Remember the poor sap who was supposed to be the new leader of Iraq yet turned out had as much support as a Conservative in a Manchester seat (too soon?).
What then is or was the point of this? The killing, execution or martyrdom (delete as appropriate) of Khamanei (if confirmed) works only if you think, hope or believe (again delete accordingly) the house of cards will fall with him and if it does, what then? Even with an occupying and overwhelming military force on the ground in 2003, Iraq quickly fell into violence and anarchy.
Repressive regimes aren’t just about fear and terror - they provide for the basics such as the administration of law and the distribution of food. As we saw in 2000 and 2020, interrupting the distribution of essential food causes chaos - now assume that and add on no Police and no Government. That’s basically what happens once a Government collapses until some form of new order takes over. Nature abhors a vacuum and you can quickly replace State sponsored violence and terror with local violence and terror and the settling of scores.
None of that is any justification for maintaining the power of the Iranian theocracy. They have brutally repressed dissent and exported their brand of extremist or fundamentalist thinking worldwide.
However, removing said theocracy without some idea or plan for the future of the Iranian people seems ridiculous. Replacing missiles with food supplies, engineers to restore infrastructure and trainers to quickly rebuild a Police force to administer a new set of laws bereft of religious hatred would seem the likely requirements once the theocracy has fallen IF that is really the intention of all this.
If we are to due this without some kind of ground presence (perhaps the hope will be for a new secular Government to invite in American “advisers” to secure key areas such as oil fields), all I can hope is some thinking and planning has been done in the Trump administration and elsewhere but I’m not optimistic.
A vanity war is exactly what it is. This is Trump.
Launching military strikes to effect regime change in Tehran is the most consequential decision of Donald Trump’s presidency.
Anyone opposing removing them from power is pro leaving them in power.
Unless you have an alternative, there is no third way.
You can stake your life on that.
You not being sure of it 🤷♂️
It’s not a vanity war.
No chance of the mid terms being stolen by Iran if the Mullahs have been deposed.