Why does the US need UK bases to mount attacks on Iranian rocket sites, when it didn’t need them to assassinate the country’s leadership? Because the former requires heavy bunker-busting bombs?
Because the UK's regional allies are being hit by missiles and drones from those sites. That's pretty clear evidence of both necessity, and justification for the decision.
Starmer has done a fairly poor job of advocating for that position, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me (and I also thought it correct to deny the US use of our bases for the original attack).
Iran's widening of the conflict is also contrary to international law. Something the Greens and the left of Labour have conspicuously failed to note.
First Starmer refused British bases toTrump, thereby annoying part of the country, then U turned to join in the bombing, therefore annoying the rest.
It is all so Starmer to pick the worst route through a quagmire.
Trouble is, both those decisions were objectively right. "Not my circus" was obviously the right thing to do when the USA and Israel attacked Iran. The attack on Cyprus demands a response, but that response couldn't be pre-emptive.
In the end with Starmer it’s always about delivery. Slippery Tone would have talked his way out of it, Starmer with his leaden, quacking emphasis on key words for the hard of thinking couldn’t persuade an escape from a wet paper bag. Not ideal for a court room lawyer.
He wasn’t a court room lawyer more of a back room paper shuffler
According to Wiki Starmer defended people under threat of the death penalty in the Caribbean, what his success rate was idk. He also provided pro bono advice for the successful defendants in the McLibel case. I heard interviews with him at the time and he sounded relatively normal and genuinely idealistic & principled. Something’s gone wrong down the line.
He was so good at his job at CPS that David Cameron arranged an extra ordinary Bonus payment and Pension provision.
He was so good as the leader of the Opposition that he picked Labour up by it;s bootstrps and went from no hoper to Government in 5 years.
Whislt he has clearly made errors as PM, his charachter assasination by right wing media has been relentless, disgusting and misses TWO massive relevant points - he's had to deal with 14 years SHIT SHOW Governance that destroyed the very fabric of our public services hollowed out and left useless and an economy destroyed in 7 weeks by TRUSS. Laid waste by Sunak and tax cuts that were not funded.
He'has then had to deal every day by the meglamaniac cnut in the White House.
When his time has ended as PM some actually proper and intuitive and responsible journalist might accept he's had the hardest transition since Attlee (the Nazis destoyed the UK fabric on that occasion not The Tories and Brexshit) and whilst he is certainly no Attlee is he certainly FAR BETTER than May , Boris . Truss , Sunak.
It’s your own side that’s doing much of the hating. There’s a good 20-25% of the electorate that wants revenge socialism, and which hates the West. Any Labour leader is a traitor, to such voters.
I see that this morning it is Cooper's turn to come out with the 'how dare they shoot back' nonsense.
Well, they could have stuck to US and Israeli targets. You normally defend yourselves against the countries attacking, not lash out at anyone nearby
When at war, countries are inclined to do war-like things.
I don't think anyone can reasonably blame Iran for its response. The US and Israel need to have a plan to finish what they started.
Chopping a few heads off a hydra won't count as victory unless it is at least partly tamed going forward. These attacks are designed to demonstrate it is not yet tamed.
The head chopping is designed to allow Trump to claim a victory even if nothing else were to change much, or even got worse.
Why does the US need UK bases to mount attacks on Iranian rocket sites, when it didn’t need them to assassinate the country’s leadership? Because the former requires heavy bunker-busting bombs?
Because the UK's regional allies are being hit by missiles and drones from those sites. That's pretty clear evidence of both necessity, and justification for the decision.
Starmer has done a fairly poor job of advocating for that position, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me (and I also thought it correct to deny the US use of our bases for the original attack).
Iran's widening of the conflict is also contrary to international law. Something the Greens and the left of Labour have conspicuously failed to note.
First Starmer refused British bases toTrump, thereby annoying part of the country, then U turned to join in the bombing, therefore annoying the rest.
It is all so Starmer to pick the worst route through a quagmire.
Trouble is, both those decisions were objectively right. "Not my circus" was obviously the right thing to do when the USA and Israel attacked Iran. The attack on Cyprus demands a response, but that response couldn't be pre-emptive.
In the end with Starmer it’s always about delivery. Slippery Tone would have talked his way out of it, Starmer with his leaden, quacking emphasis on key words for the hard of thinking couldn’t persuade an escape from a wet paper bag. Not ideal for a court room lawyer.
He wasn’t a court room lawyer more of a back room paper shuffler
According to Wiki Starmer defended people under threat of the death penalty in the Caribbean, what his success rate was idk. He also provided pro bono advice for the successful defendants in the McLibel case. I heard interviews with him at the time and he sounded relatively normal and genuinely idealistic & principled. Something’s gone wrong down the line.
He was so good at his job at CPS that David Cameron arranged an extra ordinary Bonus payment and Pension provision.
He was so good as the leader of the Opposition that he picked Labour up by it;s bootstrps and went from no hoper to Government in 5 years.
Whislt he has clearly made errors as PM, his charachter assasination by right wing media has been relentless, disgusting and misses TWO massive relevant points - he's had to deal with 14 years SHIT SHOW Governance that destroyed the very fabric of our public services hollowed out and left useless and an economy destroyed in 7 weeks by TRUSS. Laid waste by Sunak and tax cuts that were not funded.
He'has then had to deal every day by the meglamaniac cnut in the White House.
When his time has ended as PM some actually proper and intuitive and responsible journalist might accept he's had the hardest transition since Attlee (the Nazis destoyed the UK fabric on that occasion not The Tories and Brexshit) and whilst he is certainly no Attlee is he certainly FAR BETTER than May , Boris . Truss , Sunak.
Starmer is worse than all those PMs by a country mile. His domestic agenda, such as it is, is ugly authoritarianism - digital ID, curtailment of trial by jury, banter bans. His foreign policy agenda is to attack and undermine Britain's interests wherever he finds them, in favour of the EU, China, Mauritius, and frankly anyone else he can nobly side with against us.
His one redeeming feature is his utter lack of political talent - without that, he would be a great deal more successful, and the country's descent into misery and poverty would be vastly accelerated.
I see that this morning it is Cooper's turn to come out with the 'how dare they shoot back' nonsense.
Well, they could have stuck to US and Israeli targets. You normally defend yourselves against the countries attacking, not lash out at anyone nearby
When at war, countries are inclined to do war-like things.
I don't think anyone can reasonably blame Iran for its response. The US and Israel need to have a plan to finish what they started.
Chopping a few heads off a hydra won't count as victory unless it is at least partly tamed going forward. These attacks are designed to demonstrate it is not yet tamed.
I think the received wisdom is that, particularly now that Khamenei is gone, the IRGC are pretty much doing what they like, rather than this having any real sense of strategic co-ordination. Someone senior; it might have been the foreign minister, pretty much said as much in the last day or so.
From the ABC News Chief Washington correspondent: .
Pres Trump told me tonight the US had identified possible candidates to take over Iran, but they were killed in the initial attack.
"The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates," Trump told me. "It's not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead."
I feel like Israel might be responsible for that, with its intelligence. Trump might have wanted a nice speedy takeover with most of the state aparatus intact, Israel might have a very different vision.
Same with Gaza. Hard for America to negotiate if everyone they talk to is killed.
That hasn’t happened, however. Iran is very different from Hamas.
It may be a simple translation error relating to the incident we've seen, but the Kuwaiti military are reporting multiple US jets have crashed within its territory this morning, though all crews are reportedly accounted for.
Option 1 - find someone who speaks the language and get them to at least verify the translation if not the report. Option 2 - regurgitate a report you don't know if it is true based on a google translation you suspect is incorrect but makes a sensational headline that will get clicks.
Ukraine has demonstrated how vulnerable hydrocarbons plants are to drones. Iran's numerous ballistic missiles are an order of magnitude nastier.
There's an enormous oil storage facility in Fujaira. That would be an obvious target, as product exported from there doesn't have to transit the Strait of Hormuz.
They might start targeting the power and desalination plants too. That would give UAE a few problems.
You could easily see half a century of improvements in the ME gone in a week. This what Trump has unleashed if they can't stop the missiles.
Half the BBC are now comfortably enconced on the fairly empty beaches of Tel Aviv. Waitress service in action. Happily none in Tehran where I'm told the hospitality is -and I quote-'Shit'. Keep the chat coming Anna. It might not be informative but it's always nice to hear stories from the front line.
I see that this morning it is Cooper's turn to come out with the 'how dare they shoot back' nonsense.
Well, they could have stuck to US and Israeli targets. You normally defend yourselves against the countries attacking, not lash out at anyone nearby
When at war, countries are inclined to do war-like things.
I don't think anyone can reasonably blame Iran for its response. The US and Israel need to have a plan to finish what they started.
Chopping a few heads off a hydra won't count as victory unless it is at least partly tamed going forward. These attacks are designed to demonstrate it is not yet tamed.
International law, FWIW, says that you can. And in practical terms, it means that the last decade of Iran's attempted rapprochement with a number of its regional neighbours is in the dustbin.
(Also, Starmer' change in position is a small but prompt illustration of the costs of shooting back at countries which weren't involved in the original attack.)
Why does the US need UK bases to mount attacks on Iranian rocket sites, when it didn’t need them to assassinate the country’s leadership? Because the former requires heavy bunker-busting bombs?
Because the UK's regional allies are being hit by missiles and drones from those sites. That's pretty clear evidence of both necessity, and justification for the decision.
Starmer has done a fairly poor job of advocating for that position, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me (and I also thought it correct to deny the US use of our bases for the original attack).
Iran's widening of the conflict is also contrary to international law. Something the Greens and the left of Labour have conspicuously failed to note.
First Starmer refused British bases toTrump, thereby annoying part of the country, then U turned to join in the bombing, therefore annoying the rest.
It is all so Starmer to pick the worst route through a quagmire.
Trouble is, both those decisions were objectively right. "Not my circus" was obviously the right thing to do when the USA and Israel attacked Iran. The attack on Cyprus demands a response, but that response couldn't be pre-emptive.
In the end with Starmer it’s always about delivery. Slippery Tone would have talked his way out of it, Starmer with his leaden, quacking emphasis on key words for the hard of thinking couldn’t persuade an escape from a wet paper bag. Not ideal for a court room lawyer.
He wasn’t a court room lawyer more of a back room paper shuffler
According to Wiki Starmer defended people under threat of the death penalty in the Caribbean, what his success rate was idk. He also provided pro bono advice for the successful defendants in the McLibel case. I heard interviews with him at the time and he sounded relatively normal and genuinely idealistic & principled. Something’s gone wrong down the line.
He was so good at his job at CPS that David Cameron arranged an extra ordinary Bonus payment and Pension provision.
He was so good as the leader of the Opposition that he picked Labour up by it;s bootstrps and went from no hoper to Government in 5 years.
Whislt he has clearly made errors as PM, his charachter assasination by right wing media has been relentless, disgusting and misses TWO massive relevant points - he's had to deal with 14 years SHIT SHOW Governance that destroyed the very fabric of our public services hollowed out and left useless and an economy destroyed in 7 weeks by TRUSS. Laid waste by Sunak and tax cuts that were not funded.
He'has then had to deal every day by the meglamaniac cnut in the White House.
When his time has ended as PM some actually proper and intuitive and responsible journalist might accept he's had the hardest transition since Attlee (the Nazis destoyed the UK fabric on that occasion not The Tories and Brexshit) and whilst he is certainly no Attlee is he certainly FAR BETTER than May , Boris . Truss , Sunak.
His approval ratings are below May, Johnson, or Sunak
A little reminder of Farag's previous opinions on the "wonderful Persian people":
"Reform will leave the ECHR and repeal or "disapply" all other rights treaties to bar all asylum claims and ensure migrants who arrive without authorization are deported, he added. It will scale up the capacity of detention facilities and secure deals with countries including Afghanistan, Eritrea and Iran to return migrants, Farage said, without offering details.
Asked about the prospect of asylum-seekers being tortured or killed if they were sent back to countries they fled, Farage said: "The alternative is to do nothing ... We cannot be responsible for all the sins that take place around the world.""
In news from "Eabhal's local facebook groups", we've had our first panic about filling up at Asda before fuel prices spike. Being met with ridicule so far, but one to watch.
(I have offered "just cycle to work" but this sensible advice has met with a certain degree of white-hot fury)
I filled up on Friday night. Ho ho ho
I’ve just been up to my local garage. Not for,fuel but TPS light came on (£1.50 for air !!) no panic buying at all.
In news from "Eabhal's local facebook groups", we've had our first panic about filling up at Asda before fuel prices spike. Being met with ridicule so far, but one to watch.
(I have offered "just cycle to work" but this sensible advice has met with a certain degree of white-hot fury)
Comments
Is there some sort of shit rhetoric training that all pols go through now?
His one redeeming feature is his utter lack of political talent - without that, he would be a great deal more successful, and the country's descent into misery and poverty would be vastly accelerated.
https://sundayguardianlive.com/world/nostradamus-2026-predictions-will-the-usisraeliran-conflict-spark-world-war-3-check-prediction-here-173053/
NEW THREAD
Option 2 - regurgitate a report you don't know if it is true based on a google translation you suspect is incorrect but makes a sensational headline that will get clicks.
Remarkable as it may seem, reports today that Ukraine is offering advice on dealing with drone warfare
And in practical terms, it means that the last decade of Iran's attempted rapprochement with a number of its regional neighbours is in the dustbin.
(Also, Starmer' change in position is a small but prompt illustration of the costs of shooting back at countries which weren't involved in the original attack.)
https://x.com/i/status/2027836206453821602
How many Syrian refugees was it who came through in 2015?
How big is Iran compared to Syria?
Recalls the attack on the oil processing facilities at Abqaiq and Khurais in 2019, which knocked 5.7 million bpd of Saudi oil production off line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abqaiq–Khurais_attack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBcAZbAS8_Q