Kemi putting the Tories firmly behind Trump’s Middle East war. *bold*, given the absence of any sign that the Americans know what they are trying to achieve.
The complete lack of a plan or strategy or exit criteria is a red line, legal or not.
Mr Trump's track record suggests to me that he needs no plan or strategy or exit criteria, he starts something when he thinks he will and stops/changes direction when he thinks he will.
I think Trump as someone who doesn’t worry about elections, or legacy in history books. Novel position in politics.
So what is the motivation behind all his decisions, if it’s not the kerching of a cash till.
Motivation 50/50, IMHO. Money/attention. Being on the front page. All eyes on the Great Leader.
I’m not so sure
He’s 79 pushing 80. He’s as rich as Creases. He’s POTUS - he can’t get any more important or powerful
I wonder if his narcissism is now making him look to his legacy and dynasty. If he can go down as the POTUS that freed Iran he will be deemed great by many, albeit begrudgingly
A great legacy also means his kids and grandkids will prosper in politics
So his horrible traits might be working in a SLIGHTLY more productive way. At 79 I also imagine he is less driven by the need to “grab pussy”
The Epstein thing was getting very close to him in the last few days. This is a massive distraction. Job done.
If Epstein really is being hidden by Netanyahu as some suggest we'll wait for a rogue American bunker bomb to wipe out Tel Aviv
Your hatred of Jewish people is obnoxious as demonstrated by wanting Tel Aviv wiped out
I have been there and enjoyed their hospitality with lots of ordinary people getting on with their lives
I have Jewish blood
I despise Zionism
It is a stain on Judaism in the same way Fascism was A stain on German blood
Genuinely astonished by that Reform figure - my assumption was that they'd be much more parochial/isolationist than that suggests. Farage has finger on the pulse like usual though.
One of the Greek frigates on its way to Cyprus seems to be a very new and high-tech anti-drone one, made by the French. Does the U.K. have anything like this ?
Why would we buy something fit for purpose from France when we can design our own, have it delivered 10 years late at double the cost but with half the capability?
On the frigates we are doing well at present. The HI ones have 26 export orders, and the LO ones have 7 export orders, another 3 very likely, and a potential 4 beyond that. That's on top of the 8 + 5 we are making for ourselves (which is not enough - we need to pull our finger out, and I assume it is Ms Reeves not wanting to commit beyond 6 months).
At present there are 3 countries in Europe doing well - we seem to be getting the Northern business, and the French the Southern business. Plus Germany is also doing a little to more exotic locations. The Italians were doing OK, but the US Navy f*cked it up as is their current habit, so it went tits-up.
What have they fitted to this FDI one to be anti-drone?
(I'm still not convinced that these FDIs are going to be OK in the Atlantic. They look as if they are going to be very wet.)
Genuinely astonished by that Reform figure - my assumption was that they'd be much more parochial/isolationist than that suggests. Farage has finger on the pulse like usual though.
He does, however this is 2024 vote. I wonder if their more recent intake are somewhat less pro-war?
Kemi putting the Tories firmly behind Trump’s Middle East war. *bold*, given the absence of any sign that the Americans know what they are trying to achieve.
The complete lack of a plan or strategy or exit criteria is a red line, legal or not.
Mr Trump's track record suggests to me that he needs no plan or strategy or exit criteria, he starts something when he thinks he will and stops/changes direction when he thinks he will.
I think Trump as someone who doesn’t worry about elections, or legacy in history books. Novel position in politics.
So what is the motivation behind all his decisions, if it’s not the kerching of a cash till.
Motivation 50/50, IMHO. Money/attention. Being on the front page. All eyes on the Great Leader.
I’m not so sure
He’s 79 pushing 80. He’s as rich as Creases. He’s POTUS - he can’t get any more important or powerful
I wonder if his narcissism is now making him look to his legacy and dynasty. If he can go down as the POTUS that freed Iran he will be deemed great by many, albeit begrudgingly
A great legacy also means his kids and grandkids will prosper in politics
So his horrible traits might be working in a SLIGHTLY more productive way. At 79 I also imagine he is less driven by the need to “grab pussy”
The Epstein thing was getting very close to him in the last few days. This is a massive distraction. Job done.
If Epstein really is being hidden by Netanyahu as some suggest we'll wait for a rogue American bunker bomb to wipe out Tel Aviv
Your hatred of Jewish people is obnoxious as demonstrated by wanting Tel Aviv wiped out
I have been there and enjoyed their hospitality with lots of ordinary people getting on with their lives
I have Jewish blood
I despise Zionism
It is a stain on Judaism in the same way Fascism was A stain on German blood
You say that but want Tel Aviv wiped out killing scores of its citizens
I take back all I said about Starmer. He tod the loathsome creature Hegseth who seems to think he's Clint Eastwood to fuck off.
It'll do him no harm at all with his Party. In fact it might be enough to relaunch him if he openly criticises Trump and Netanyahu firmly enough. Particularly when the adventure fails as it almost certainly will.
Whatever this is, something has changed and if there is one stand out moment that will go down in history it is Iran lashing out to friend and foe throughout the region uniting them against
Could you have imagined even a few days ago of Qatar shooting down 2 Iranian planes as has happened today ?
It has to be hoped a new order results across the middle east where rogue states cease to exist
Nothing has changed.
Iran has long been a pariah to neighbouring Arab States.
Stop trying to justify the unjustifiable with fiction
Genuinely astonished by that Reform figure - my assumption was that they'd be much more parochial/isolationist than that suggests. Farage has finger on the pulse like usual though.
Nah, they are down the MAGA Trumpist rabbit hole, so back anything that Trump does.
Genuinely astonished by that Reform figure - my assumption was that they'd be much more parochial/isolationist than that suggests. Farage has finger on the pulse like usual though.
I'd punt that the determinant is that the Iranians are Muslims, therefore We Hates them For Ever.
Genuinely astonished by that Reform figure - my assumption was that they'd be much more parochial/isolationist than that suggests. Farage has finger on the pulse like usual though.
Its '2024 Reform' voters. So very much the early entry hardcore hawkish Reformers. Current Ref would likely be more of a blend
I take back all I said about Starmer. He tod the loathsome creature Hegseth who seems to think he's Clint Eastwood to fuck off.
It'll do him no harm at all with his Party. In fact it might be enough to relaunch him if he openly criticises Trump and Netanyahu firmly enough. Particularly when the adventure fails as it almost certainly will.
Whatever this is, something has changed and if there is one stand out moment that will go down in history it is Iran lashing out to friend and foe throughout the region uniting them against
Could you have imagined even a few days ago of Qatar shooting down 2 Iranian planes as has happened today ?
It has to be hoped a new order results across the middle east where rogue states cease to exist
Nothing has changed.
Iran has long been a pariah to neighbouring Arab States.
Stop trying to justify the unjustifiable with fiction
Only in your eyes is this fiction because it doesn't fit your narrative
NEW: Israeli jets have begun striking border guard positions along the Iraq-Iran frontier in what appears to be an effort to weaken Iranian control over the region and potentially clear a path for armed Iranian Kurdish opposition groups based in Iraq to move back into Iran.
Part of me - the small bad part of me, obvs - thinks fuck it, let it all rip, the entire region is such a poisonous snakepit let them all bite each other to death. And we must reject all refugees
Because a lot of people are reflexively anti-Trump and anti-Israel.
Not because Carney is wrong.
Had Clinton or Biden or Obama done what is happening, for the same reasons, then many opposing today would be in favour.
And to be fair some in favour today would be opposed too.
I don't care about colour of party, I have always been ultra hawkish.
I'm against in general the UK getting involved in wars and offensive action abroad, I think it's done us few favours in recent memory.
I would be against the UK getting involved, whoever the leader is. I respect your opinion but I hope you will also respect mine.
I think though, politically the UK will overwhelmingly be against getting involved. Badenoch has made a very serious error.
I can respect your opinion just as you can respect mine. I recognise it is a difference in subjective values and judgment.
What I do not respect is calling it unprovoked.
Weaponising uranium is provocative. Failing to co-operate with nuclear inspectors is provocative. Funding terrorists is provocative. Attacking other states both directly and indirectly is provocative - especially to that state and its allies.
You may think we should get involved despite those provocations, which is a values call. I will disagree but respect that.
But to deny any provocations exist is just plain wrong.
Mark Rutte: "The Commander-in-Chief, the leader of the free world, President Donald J. Trump, I REALLY commend what is happening here! Taking out Khamenei, taking out the nuclear capability and ballistic missile program in Iran."
"This is crucial. I spoke with ALL the key European leaders...there's WIDESPREAD support for the president's doing."
But they dont want to get their own hands dirty. Twas ever thus. Rome still paying the mercenaries
Kemi putting the Tories firmly behind Trump’s Middle East war. *bold*, given the absence of any sign that the Americans know what they are trying to achieve.
The complete lack of a plan or strategy or exit criteria is a red line, legal or not.
Mr Trump's track record suggests to me that he needs no plan or strategy or exit criteria, he starts something when he thinks he will and stops/changes direction when he thinks he will.
I think Trump as someone who doesn’t worry about elections, or legacy in history books. Novel position in politics.
So what is the motivation behind all his decisions, if it’s not the kerching of a cash till.
Motivation 50/50, IMHO. Money/attention. Being on the front page. All eyes on the Great Leader.
I’m not so sure
He’s 79 pushing 80. He’s as rich as Creases. He’s POTUS - he can’t get any more important or powerful
I wonder if his narcissism is now making him look to his legacy and dynasty. If he can go down as the POTUS that freed Iran he will be deemed great by many, albeit begrudgingly
A great legacy also means his kids and grandkids will prosper in politics
So his horrible traits might be working in a SLIGHTLY more productive way. At 79 I also imagine he is less driven by the need to “grab pussy”
The Epstein thing was getting very close to him in the last few days. This is a massive distraction. Job done.
If Epstein really is being hidden by Netanyahu as some suggest we'll wait for a rogue American bunker bomb to wipe out Tel Aviv
Your hatred of Jewish people is obnoxious as demonstrated by wanting Tel Aviv wiped out
I have been there and enjoyed their hospitality with lots of ordinary people getting on with their lives
I have Jewish blood
I despise Zionism
It is a stain on Judaism in the same way Fascism was A stain on German blood
The Americans are complete morons. General Patreas saying 'We are waiting for a group with guns to take over the country and we'll take it from there........ '
Do they know where they've invaded? It's got a population of 90 million and nearly a million people under arms. It is an advanced country. They are not a bunch of cowboys in a sheriffs office. Why isn't Evan Davis ridiculing him?
You are the moron.
The military deciding enough is enough and a coup ousting the Mullahs is the most likely way we see regime change.
The real problem is not the ins and outs of international law but what the strategy is, what does success look like and what is the exit strategy.
No-one seems to have a clue.
I think the two things are somewhat correlated. If you dismiss international law as of no concern, generally you don't have a clue about what works either.
Or you value realpolitik and do understand how things work.
A belief that if only we follow the law, then Russia or China will too, is not based on how things work.
NEW: Israeli jets have begun striking border guard positions along the Iraq-Iran frontier in what appears to be an effort to weaken Iranian control over the region and potentially clear a path for armed Iranian Kurdish opposition groups based in Iraq to move back into Iran.
Part of me - the small bad part of me, obvs - thinks fuck it, let it all rip, the entire region is such a poisonous snakepit let them all bite each other to death. And we must reject all refugees
If we had made the transition to battery electric cars and renewable electricity already - and so we didn't have to worry about oil and gas prices - then you'd expect the region to hold as much sustained interest as Sudan does now.
If there was an organised large opposition with weapons in Iran then supporting them from the sky might enable what many would like to see the end of the hideous regime there .
Unfortunately that’s not the case so you’re now relying on the army pulling the plug and fighting against the IRGC , which I’m afraid seems highly unlikely .
The sad reality and I hope I’m completely wrong is that the regime remains , militarily weakened , eventually cuts a deal and the world moves on .
Perhaps the eventual lifting of sanctions might ease life for the civilians but they will remain under the regime with its despicable human rights record .
If there was an organised large opposition with weapons in Iran then supporting them from the sky might enable what many would like to see the end of the hideous regime there .
Unfortunately that’s not the case so you’re now relying on the army pulling the plug and fighting against the IRGC , which I’m afraid seems highly unlikely .
The sad reality and I hope I’m completely wrong is that the regime remains , military weakened , eventually cuts a deal and the world moves on .
Perhaps the eventual lifting of sanctions might ease life for the civilians but they will remain under the regime with its despicable human rights record .
People in the opposition in Iran, who have seen their friends and comrades murdered, have been calling for air strikes on the regime, and supporting the current air strikes.
Maybe they are wrong to do so, and I agree with you that they are most likely to find themselves disappointed in Trump's lack of commitment to their cause, but it's their future most at stake and their judgement call when it comes to predicting whether it's likely to be successful or not.
I personally feel that Britain and Europe's focus should be on Ukraine, and I think the US risks realising that they have misallocated their military resources to this venture, but I don't oppose it, because I can't be arguing with the Iranian opposition.
Kemi putting the Tories firmly behind Trump’s Middle East war. *bold*, given the absence of any sign that the Americans know what they are trying to achieve.
The complete lack of a plan or strategy or exit criteria is a red line, legal or not.
Mr Trump's track record suggests to me that he needs no plan or strategy or exit criteria, he starts something when he thinks he will and stops/changes direction when he thinks he will.
I think Trump as someone who doesn’t worry about elections, or legacy in history books. Novel position in politics.
So what is the motivation behind all his decisions, if it’s not the kerching of a cash till.
Motivation 50/50, IMHO. Money/attention. Being on the front page. All eyes on the Great Leader.
I’m not so sure
He’s 79 pushing 80. He’s as rich as Creases. He’s POTUS - he can’t get any more important or powerful
I wonder if his narcissism is now making him look to his legacy and dynasty. If he can go down as the POTUS that freed Iran he will be deemed great by many, albeit begrudgingly
A great legacy also means his kids and grandkids will prosper in politics
So his horrible traits might be working in a SLIGHTLY more productive way. At 79 I also imagine he is less driven by the need to “grab pussy”
The Epstein thing was getting very close to him in the last few days. This is a massive distraction. Job done.
If Epstein really is being hidden by Netanyahu as some suggest we'll wait for a rogue American bunker bomb to wipe out Tel Aviv
Your hatred of Jewish people is obnoxious as demonstrated by wanting Tel Aviv wiped out
I have been there and enjoyed their hospitality with lots of ordinary people getting on with their lives
I have Jewish blood
I despise Zionism
It is a stain on Judaism in the same way Fascism was A stain on German blood
You say that but want Tel Aviv wiped out killing scores of its citizens
Genuinely astonished by that Reform figure - my assumption was that they'd be much more parochial/isolationist than that suggests. Farage has finger on the pulse like usual though.
Nah, they are down the MAGA Trumpist rabbit hole, so back anything that Trump does.
If there was an organised large opposition with weapons in Iran then supporting them from the sky might enable what many would like to see the end of the hideous regime there .
Unfortunately that’s not the case so you’re now relying on the army pulling the plug and fighting against the IRGC , which I’m afraid seems highly unlikely .
The sad reality and I hope I’m completely wrong is that the regime remains , militarily weakened , eventually cuts a deal and the world moves on .
Perhaps the eventual lifting of sanctions might ease life for the civilians but they will remain under the regime with its despicable human rights record .
Yes we are, and the grim and unfortunate reality is you may be right.
The optimistic reality is you might be wrong.
Military coups can and do happen.
As it stands, the military knows the public wants reform but are willing to slaughter the public, rather than let the public protest.
If the military leadership is seeing their life expectancy rapidly diminishing due to this pressure, then that increases the pressure on them to decide enough is enough.
The odds of regime change are improved by this conflict. Not guaranteed, but improved.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
Still slightly astonishing to see Green MPs given we still have FPTP system.
She reminds me of Mhairi Black a little bit, I hope she doesn't get eaten up by Westminster in the same way. We need young talent to thrive in Westminster and give a slightly different perspective from the protect the oldies consensus.
Genuinely astonished by that Reform figure - my assumption was that they'd be much more parochial/isolationist than that suggests. Farage has finger on the pulse like usual though.
I think the interesting figure is Labour. Starmer is going to have to be very careful here.
If Dan Hodges is backing Starmer then Labour has got this wrong in the theatre of public opinion.
I think Starmer made his case and was so much better than his angry self
However, Kemi is correct about Canada and Australia's immediate support
I expect he will have support but he is a hostage to events
He got the early call right, and can probably justify the U turn as a result of events. Probably, and for the first time in a while he has got anything right.
Badenoch has spoken when silence would have been a better option.
Still slightly astonishing to see Green MPs given we still have FPTP system.
She reminds me of Mhairi Black a little bit, I hope she doesn't get eaten up by Westminster in the same way. We need young talent to thrive in Westminster and give a slightly different perspective from the protect the oldies consensus.
I don't see that comparison. She's three years older than Mhairi Black is now and does have a fair amount of life experience.
Kemi putting the Tories firmly behind Trump’s Middle East war. *bold*, given the absence of any sign that the Americans know what they are trying to achieve.
The complete lack of a plan or strategy or exit criteria is a red line, legal or not.
Mr Trump's track record suggests to me that he needs no plan or strategy or exit criteria, he starts something when he thinks he will and stops/changes direction when he thinks he will.
I think Trump as someone who doesn’t worry about elections, or legacy in history books. Novel position in politics.
So what is the motivation behind all his decisions, if it’s not the kerching of a cash till.
Motivation 50/50, IMHO. Money/attention. Being on the front page. All eyes on the Great Leader.
I’m not so sure
He’s 79 pushing 80. He’s as rich as Creases. He’s POTUS - he can’t get any more important or powerful
I wonder if his narcissism is now making him look to his legacy and dynasty. If he can go down as the POTUS that freed Iran he will be deemed great by many, albeit begrudgingly
A great legacy also means his kids and grandkids will prosper in politics
So his horrible traits might be working in a SLIGHTLY more productive way. At 79 I also imagine he is less driven by the need to “grab pussy”
The Epstein thing was getting very close to him in the last few days. This is a massive distraction. Job done.
If Epstein really is being hidden by Netanyahu as some suggest we'll wait for a rogue American bunker bomb to wipe out Tel Aviv
Your hatred of Jewish people is obnoxious as demonstrated by wanting Tel Aviv wiped out
I have been there and enjoyed their hospitality with lots of ordinary people getting on with their lives
Four Greek F-16s arriving in Cyprus, the first of a squadron, and the government there are asking the French to back up the Greek navy, if Britain isn't going to send anything.
Still slightly astonishing to see Green MPs given we still have FPTP system.
She reminds me of Mhairi Black a little bit, I hope she doesn't get eaten up by Westminster in the same way. We need young talent to thrive in Westminster and give a slightly different perspective from the protect the oldies consensus.
I don't see that comparison. She's three years older than Mhairi Black is now and does have a fair amount of life experience.
Both young and gobby, both female, both extremely articulate and with a certain style about them. Black's politics and mine didn't feature in any Venn diagrams but I could still admire her passion and panache. From the little I have seen, basically her victory speech, Hannah Spencer seems similar to me.
Still slightly astonishing to see Green MPs given we still have FPTP system.
She reminds me of Mhairi Black a little bit, I hope she doesn't get eaten up by Westminster in the same way. We need young talent to thrive in Westminster and give a slightly different perspective from the protect the oldies consensus.
I don't see that comparison. She's three years older than Mhairi Black is now and does have a fair amount of life experience.
Both young and gobby, both female, both extremely articulate and with a certain style about them. Black's politics and mine didn't feature in any Venn diagrams but I could still admire her passion and panache. From the little I have seen, basically her victory speech, Hannah Spencer seems similar to me.
I think there's much more of a sense that Spencer knows what she's doing and is self-consciously performing a role.
Lab figure messages re below: "Labour's addiction to giving seats only to Councillors & factional figures is one reason why we aren't producing enough of our own Hannah Spencers" (I did point out Spencer was a councillor & they replied that Lab too focused on those professionally in politics).
Also makes point which others on soft left have made to me in recent days: "I'm no Green sympathiser, but it doesn't work (let alone isn't true) to say Green and Reform are two sides of the same coin"
Still slightly astonishing to see Green MPs given we still have FPTP system.
She reminds me of Mhairi Black a little bit, I hope she doesn't get eaten up by Westminster in the same way. We need young talent to thrive in Westminster and give a slightly different perspective from the protect the oldies consensus.
I don't see that comparison. She's three years older than Mhairi Black is now and does have a fair amount of life experience.
Both young and gobby, both female, both extremely articulate and with a certain style about them. Black's politics and mine didn't feature in any Venn diagrams but I could still admire her passion and panache. From the little I have seen, basically her victory speech, Hannah Spencer seems similar to me.
I wonder whether the people who are so pusillanimous here and view "victory" as a foul word would have been the same in WWII when we were fighting the Nazis? How dare we be fighting for victory?
The Mullahs are an evil that needs defeating. Now is the time to press for victory and see them eliminated once and for all.
War should be a last resort, but when war comes, fighting for victory is the right thing to do.
How many times are you going to repeat "victory"?
Look, if the US and Israel had a clear war plan to defeat the Iranian regime, maybe you'd have an argument. But they don't. They're going to bomb some bits and then probably sign a new nuclear treaty that looks very similar to the one Obama did. A lot of people are going to die for very little.
Until there is regime change.
If Trump does that, then shame on him.
Don't mistake my support for regime change as support for Trump. I despise Trump. I support war here to get regime change.
Anything short of regime change and I will condemn Trump for chickening out.
However you are wrong to call it very little. The damage to the regime is already not very little, which is why Lebanon now feels freed to tackle Hezbollah.
The more damage inflicted upon this regime, the better.
If you support war in Iran to get regime change, then, as there is no war to get regime change, you presumably aren't supporting anything.
Since when does what we want to happen need to be happening to support it?
I support planning liberalisation. This Government was vaguely committed to doing it at the last election, but are failing to do so. All other parties are not in favour either. I support it happening, even though it is not, and condemn SKS for failure to deliver.
I support tax reform. No party is delivering it. I will argue for it, even if no party offers it.
I support regime change. A war is in progress, good, but I have no faith in Trump and only marginally more in Bibi. We wait to see what happens but I will oppose "peace" until Persia is liberated from the Mullahs.
We generally focus on reality here, not on fantasies. You may have whatever fantasies you want, but the topic under discussion is usually what's happening. It's confusing if most of us are discussing the actual US/ Israeli attacks while you're talking about some unobtainable Platonic ideal attack.
Its not unobtainable.
Regime changes can and do happen.
With Khameini and many senior commanders now deceased, the odds of change are considerably higher now than they were this time last week.
I can blame Starmer for a lot of things but not wanting to get involved with having to spout the doublethink that we don't like the unprovoked aggression from Russia within Ukraine but we're quite happy with the "let's bomb the shit out of Iran because...reasons" from US/Israel, I can't blame him for not wanting a piece of that.
Yes Iran is a horrible regime and if the Americans want to be the world's good guys and take out the world's bad guys just because they're the good guys and the others are the bad guys, and they have a plan and they know what they're doing and what they're aiming for, well, have at it, though there's fuck-all evidence any of that's the case - so better off sat on the side and leave them to it at this moment in time, I reckon. They don't need us to be the poodles and it only ever made any sort of sense for us to be the poodles when we actually got some respect for it, which isn't going to come from Trump whatever we do.
I'm not sure two wrongs make a right overall, I'm not sure the ends justify the means, and when the current wave of missiles stop flying about on all sides the world will just be increasingly more fucked-up because of it.
Now for the slightly slow amongst us, let me try to explain:
- If your best mate suggests punching someone in the face repeatedly, it is okay to say you're not going to give them a lift in your car to the planned punching bag's house - If the person they punch responds to being hit by your mate by punching your sister in the face, you're allowed to change your mind and decide that maybe we should do something to stop that.
I know it's an incredibly nuanced position to take. But perhaps we can try really hard to understand the distinction.
I wonder whether the people who are so pusillanimous here and view "victory" as a foul word would have been the same in WWII when we were fighting the Nazis? How dare we be fighting for victory?
The Mullahs are an evil that needs defeating. Now is the time to press for victory and see them eliminated once and for all.
War should be a last resort, but when war comes, fighting for victory is the right thing to do.
How many times are you going to repeat "victory"?
Look, if the US and Israel had a clear war plan to defeat the Iranian regime, maybe you'd have an argument. But they don't. They're going to bomb some bits and then probably sign a new nuclear treaty that looks very similar to the one Obama did. A lot of people are going to die for very little.
Until there is regime change.
If Trump does that, then shame on him.
Don't mistake my support for regime change as support for Trump. I despise Trump. I support war here to get regime change.
Anything short of regime change and I will condemn Trump for chickening out.
However you are wrong to call it very little. The damage to the regime is already not very little, which is why Lebanon now feels freed to tackle Hezbollah.
The more damage inflicted upon this regime, the better.
If you support war in Iran to get regime change, then, as there is no war to get regime change, you presumably aren't supporting anything.
Since when does what we want to happen need to be happening to support it?
I support planning liberalisation. This Government was vaguely committed to doing it at the last election, but are failing to do so. All other parties are not in favour either. I support it happening, even though it is not, and condemn SKS for failure to deliver.
I support tax reform. No party is delivering it. I will argue for it, even if no party offers it.
I support regime change. A war is in progress, good, but I have no faith in Trump and only marginally more in Bibi. We wait to see what happens but I will oppose "peace" until Persia is liberated from the Mullahs.
We generally focus on reality here, not on fantasies. You may have whatever fantasies you want, but the topic under discussion is usually what's happening. It's confusing if most of us are discussing the actual US/ Israeli attacks while you're talking about some unobtainable Platonic ideal attack.
Its not unobtainable.
Regime changes can and do happen.
With Khameini and many senior commanders now deceased, the odds of change are considerably higher now than they were this time last week.
Just like Venezuela eh? With Maduro out of the way the number of contracts being signed by US oil companies is....well, actually zero. But who knows what might happen in the future?
Lab figure messages re below: "Labour's addiction to giving seats only to Councillors & factional figures is one reason why we aren't producing enough of our own Hannah Spencers" (I did point out Spencer was a councillor & they replied that Lab too focused on those professionally in politics).
Also makes point which others on soft left have made to me in recent days: "I'm no Green sympathiser, but it doesn't work (let alone isn't true) to say Green and Reform are two sides of the same coin"
The pro Hamas, pro Mullah, pro MMT, pro cross dressing men are women, pro open borders and all the other associated lunacy from the Greens and Labour are soft on that !!
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
Do Britons think the UK government should praise or condemn the US for the Iran attacks?
Should condemn: 21% Should praise: 12% Should neither condemn nor praise: 45%
The UK prefers to sit on the fence.
I think the government is broadly in line with public mood, at least for now.
True, but the problem he will have is that the anti war crew will see him as having dragged us into it and the hawks that hes not dragged us in and he should. The test of where the public sits will come if the Arab states or any EU states get involved or if a more consequential attack on UK territory or citizens occurs
I think you are both wrong, I don’t think the government is broadly in line with public mood. It’s looking very clear to me, Starmer’s u-turn has taken him from a majority support position in the public mood, into a minority position. The voters don’t back him on this.
On this, Saturday there was a gulf, no pun intended, between Starmer and Kemi and Patel on the opposite front bench, there’s little between them tonight - the only difference between them now is Kemi saying you should have joined us in this position last week. That is all.
The two front benches are in very much minority position with both the electorate, but also in the commons - after the statement there was two hours wall to wall of “you are wrong, you should not be doing this - because of Iraq” coming from every corner and every bench in the house.
Starmer’s got himself into trouble with this u-turn. If there is no difference in international law between offensive and defensive bombing and dismantling of a country’s ability to defend itself, Starmer’s gone.
I can blame Starmer for a lot of things but not wanting to get involved with having to spout the doublethink that we don't like the unprovoked aggression from Russia within Ukraine but we're quite happy with the "let's bomb the shit out of Iran because...reasons" from US/Israel, I can't blame him for not wanting a piece of that.
Yes Iran is a horrible regime and if the Americans want to be the world's good guys and take out the world's bad guys just because they're the good guys and the others are the bad guys, and they have a plan and they know what they're doing and what they're aiming for, well, have at it, though there's fuck-all evidence any of that's the case - so better off sat on the side and leave them to it at this moment in time, I reckon. They don't need us to be the poodles and it only ever made any sort of sense for us to be the poodles when we actually got some respect for it, which isn't going to come from Trump whatever we do.
I'm not sure two wrongs make a right overall, I'm not sure the ends justify the means, and when the current wave of missiles stop flying about on all sides the world will just be increasingly more fucked-up because of it.
Relying on legal arguments is a way of abdicating responsibility. There are many more important questions in deciding whether to support or oppose military action, whether by ourselves or an ally or an adversary.
let me get this right, so we've allowed the US to use our bases for defensive operations only, and those defensive operations include strikes in Iran to remove the capability to launch attacks... SKS just said as much. Sounds like offensive operations to me. Dancing on the head of a pin.
Bit of a ‘let’s allow trail hunting, oops they’ve killed a fox’ vibe.
Now for the slightly slow amongst us, let me try to explain:
- If your best mate suggests punching someone in the face repeatedly, it is okay to say you're not going to give them a lift in your car to the planned punching bag's house - If the person they punch responds to being hit by your mate by punching your sister in the face, you're allowed to change your mind and decide that maybe we should do something to stop that.
I know it's an incredibly nuanced position to take. But perhaps we can try really hard to understand the distinction.
Qatar is not our sister, not as the voters of this country sees it. They only supply 20% of our gas usage.
Anyway, the guy that got punched, he died. And under the law as it currently stands, you also go to prison as an accessory to the murder.
I can blame Starmer for a lot of things but not wanting to get involved with having to spout the doublethink that we don't like the unprovoked aggression from Russia within Ukraine but we're quite happy with the "let's bomb the shit out of Iran because...reasons" from US/Israel, I can't blame him for not wanting a piece of that.
Yes Iran is a horrible regime and if the Americans want to be the world's good guys and take out the world's bad guys just because they're the good guys and the others are the bad guys, and they have a plan and they know what they're doing and what they're aiming for, well, have at it, though there's fuck-all evidence any of that's the case - so better off sat on the side and leave them to it at this moment in time, I reckon. They don't need us to be the poodles and it only ever made any sort of sense for us to be the poodles when we actually got some respect for it, which isn't going to come from Trump whatever we do.
I'm not sure two wrongs make a right overall, I'm not sure the ends justify the means, and when the current wave of missiles stop flying about on all sides the world will just be increasingly more fucked-up because of it.
Relying on legal arguments is a way of abdicating responsibility. There are many more important questions in deciding whether to support or oppose military action, whether by ourselves or an ally or an adversary.
The strongest argument is we're 3 days into the war and we are no closer to knowing what the end objectives are.
Nor would we have any say at the negotiating table to determine when the shooting should stop.
Nor could we stop Trump escalating into a ground invasion if he sees fit.
The sheer unpredictability of the US action means joining in on attacks is madness. Unless you're Israel who have been looking for an opportunity to bomb Iran to smithereens for over a decade.
Four Greek F-16s arriving in Cyprus, the first of a squadron, and the government there are asking the French to back up the Greek navy, if Britain isn't going to send anything.
According to the Internet, we sent 6 x F35 to Cyprus before the weekend.
I can blame Starmer for a lot of things but not wanting to get involved with having to spout the doublethink that we don't like the unprovoked aggression from Russia within Ukraine but we're quite happy with the "let's bomb the shit out of Iran because...reasons" from US/Israel, I can't blame him for not wanting a piece of that.
Yes Iran is a horrible regime and if the Americans want to be the world's good guys and take out the world's bad guys just because they're the good guys and the others are the bad guys, and they have a plan and they know what they're doing and what they're aiming for, well, have at it, though there's fuck-all evidence any of that's the case - so better off sat on the side and leave them to it at this moment in time, I reckon. They don't need us to be the poodles and it only ever made any sort of sense for us to be the poodles when we actually got some respect for it, which isn't going to come from Trump whatever we do.
I'm not sure two wrongs make a right overall, I'm not sure the ends justify the means, and when the current wave of missiles stop flying about on all sides the world will just be increasingly more fucked-up because of it.
Relying on legal arguments is a way of abdicating responsibility. There are many more important questions in deciding whether to support or oppose military action, whether by ourselves or an ally or an adversary.
The strongest argument is we're 3 days into the war and we are no closer to knowing what the end objectives are.
Nor would we have any say at the negotiating table to determine when the shooting should stop.
Nor could we stop Trump escalating into a ground invasion if he sees fit.
The sheer unpredictability of the US action means joining in on attacks is madness. Unless you're Israel who have been looking for an opportunity to bomb Iran to smithereens for kver a decade.
It would have been simpler to give the US the green light to use any UK bases to do whatever they wanted from the beginning. We wouldn't have been any more in the firing line than we were anyway and we could have still maintained ambiguity about any possible future direct involvement.
Do Britons think the UK government should praise or condemn the US for the Iran attacks?
Should condemn: 21% Should praise: 12% Should neither condemn nor praise: 45%
The UK prefers to sit on the fence.
I think the government is broadly in line with public mood, at least for now.
True, but the problem he will have is that the anti war crew will see him as having dragged us into it and the hawks that hes not dragged us in and he should. The test of where the public sits will come if the Arab states or any EU states get involved or if a more consequential attack on UK territory or citizens occurs
I think you are both wrong, I don’t think the government is broadly in line with public mood. It’s looking very clear to me, Starmer’s u-turn has taken him from a majority support position in the public mood, into a minority position. The voters don’t back him on this.
On this, Saturday there was a gulf, no pun intended, between Starmer and Kemi and Patel on the opposite front bench, there’s little between them tonight - the only difference between them now is Kemi saying you should have joined us in this position last week. That is all.
The two front benches are in very much minority position with both the electorate, but also in the commons - after the statement there was two hours wall to wall of “you are wrong, you should not be doing this - because of Iraq” coming from every corner and every bench in the house.
Starmer’s got himself into trouble with this u-turn. If there is no difference in international law between offensive and defensive bombing and dismantling of a country’s ability to defend itself, Starmer’s gone.
You make good points and your last paragraph is where Starmer has a problem, because by changing his mind on British bases he has gone from defensive to offensive using US firepower
I am not sure he is gone but he is on life support
And of course what happens when an Iranian missile kills Brits or an Iranian jet downs a typhoon - if he is true to his word he attacks the source in Iran
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
What a load of crap. If it wasn't for that attitude of exceptionalism we wouldn't have had an ethno apartheid state and we wouldn't have 80,000 dead in Gaza, 25,000 of them children. And yes I'm Jewish too but. before that I'm a human being
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
Now for the slightly slow amongst us, let me try to explain:
- If your best mate suggests punching someone in the face repeatedly, it is okay to say you're not going to give them a lift in your car to the planned punching bag's house - If the person they punch responds to being hit by your mate by punching your sister in the face, you're allowed to change your mind and decide that maybe we should do something to stop that.
I know it's an incredibly nuanced position to take. But perhaps we can try really hard to understand the distinction.
You are not with the new politics. Anything other than "up Trump, down the Mullahs!" or "up the Mullahs, down Trump!" is lawyerly obfuscation, or more punchily "dancing on the head of a pin".
I can blame Starmer for a lot of things but not wanting to get involved with having to spout the doublethink that we don't like the unprovoked aggression from Russia within Ukraine but we're quite happy with the "let's bomb the shit out of Iran because...reasons" from US/Israel, I can't blame him for not wanting a piece of that.
Yes Iran is a horrible regime and if the Americans want to be the world's good guys and take out the world's bad guys just because they're the good guys and the others are the bad guys, and they have a plan and they know what they're doing and what they're aiming for, well, have at it, though there's fuck-all evidence any of that's the case - so better off sat on the side and leave them to it at this moment in time, I reckon. They don't need us to be the poodles and it only ever made any sort of sense for us to be the poodles when we actually got some respect for it, which isn't going to come from Trump whatever we do.
I'm not sure two wrongs make a right overall, I'm not sure the ends justify the means, and when the current wave of missiles stop flying about on all sides the world will just be increasingly more fucked-up because of it.
Relying on legal arguments is a way of abdicating responsibility. There are many more important questions in deciding whether to support or oppose military action, whether by ourselves or an ally or an adversary.
The strongest argument is we're 3 days into the war and we are no closer to knowing what the end objectives are.
Nor would we have any say at the negotiating table to determine when the shooting should stop.
Nor could we stop Trump escalating into a ground invasion if he sees fit.
The sheer unpredictability of the US action means joining in on attacks is madness. Unless you're Israel who have been looking for an opportunity to bomb Iran to smithereens for kver a decade.
It would have been simpler to give the US the green light to use any UK bases to do whatever they wanted from the beginning. We wouldn't have been any more in the firing line than we were anyway and we could have still maintained ambiguity about any possible future direct involvement.
Iran have been pissing us off and trying to fuck us over for 40+ years, so I'd be fine about letting them have it.
Forgive me for not paying more attention but what exactly have the Americans been targeting in Iran other than senior leaders. I haven't heard much about the IRGC which Iran hawks are usually all over. The Army is generally seen as a more moderate force so focusing attacks on the IRGC rather than run of the mill soldiers would make some sense. Is that happening?
I actually don't have much of a problem with Starmer's approach although the response to the Cyprus attack was maybe a little weak. The Tories and Reform seem unwise in offering blind support because the US and Israel are allies (led by two very controversial figures internally) without a clear plan or strategy. Certainly not one they wanted to share in advance. And it may have escaped their attention but Trump has hardly been acting like that much of an ally recently and neither is there the ideological overlap that we've had with the US since the 1940s.
I can blame Starmer for a lot of things but not wanting to get involved with having to spout the doublethink that we don't like the unprovoked aggression from Russia within Ukraine but we're quite happy with the "let's bomb the shit out of Iran because...reasons" from US/Israel, I can't blame him for not wanting a piece of that.
Yes Iran is a horrible regime and if the Americans want to be the world's good guys and take out the world's bad guys just because they're the good guys and the others are the bad guys, and they have a plan and they know what they're doing and what they're aiming for, well, have at it, though there's fuck-all evidence any of that's the case - so better off sat on the side and leave them to it at this moment in time, I reckon. They don't need us to be the poodles and it only ever made any sort of sense for us to be the poodles when we actually got some respect for it, which isn't going to come from Trump whatever we do.
I'm not sure two wrongs make a right overall, I'm not sure the ends justify the means, and when the current wave of missiles stop flying about on all sides the world will just be increasingly more fucked-up because of it.
Relying on legal arguments is a way of abdicating responsibility. There are many more important questions in deciding whether to support or oppose military action, whether by ourselves or an ally or an adversary.
The strongest argument is we're 3 days into the war and we are no closer to knowing what the end objectives are.
Nor would we have any say at the negotiating table to determine when the shooting should stop.
Nor could we stop Trump escalating into a ground invasion if he sees fit.
The sheer unpredictability of the US action means joining in on attacks is madness. Unless you're Israel who have been looking for an opportunity to bomb Iran to smithereens for kver a decade.
It would have been simpler to give the US the green light to use any UK bases to do whatever they wanted from the beginning. We wouldn't have been any more in the firing line than we were anyway and we could have still maintained ambiguity about any possible future direct involvement.
It would have also made zero, and I mean exactly zero, difference to any military outcome.
We would have no more future strategic ambiguity if we had given the green light then as now. As their attack on us and non-aggressor allies fundamentally changes the position from day one.
So other than to satisfy your desire for simplicity, what possible benefit would we get from having given permission earlier?
Forgive me for not paying more attention but what exactly have the Americans been targeting in Iran other than senior leaders. I haven't heard much about the IRGC which Iran hawks are usually all over. The Army is generally seen as a more moderate force so focusing attacks on the IRGC rather than run of the mill soldiers would make some sense. Is that happening?
I actually don't have much of a problem with Starmer's approach although the response to the Cyprus attack was maybe a little weak. The Tories and Reform seem unwise in offering blind support because the US and Israel are allies (led by two very controversial figures internally) without a clear plan or strategy. Certainly not one they wanted to share in advance. And it may have escaped their attention but Trump has hardly been acting like that much of an ally recently and neither is there the ideological overlap that we've had with the US since the 1940s.
The US are attacking the weapons and missile sites including nuclear, Israel the leaders
At least we wont have to listen to his endless hectoring about the end of Britain every day in Parliament.
Goodwin is an odd one. Sort of agree with Leon he was there to get experience but not expected to win. So what happens if he blows the next opportunity. TV Pundit or House of Lords.
You can see from this Cyprus bollocks just how easy it was to bounce the UK into Iraq 2.0. Which now looks like the epitome of far sighted statecraft compared to whatever the fuck this is.
I can blame Starmer for a lot of things but not wanting to get involved with having to spout the doublethink that we don't like the unprovoked aggression from Russia within Ukraine but we're quite happy with the "let's bomb the shit out of Iran because...reasons" from US/Israel, I can't blame him for not wanting a piece of that.
Yes Iran is a horrible regime and if the Americans want to be the world's good guys and take out the world's bad guys just because they're the good guys and the others are the bad guys, and they have a plan and they know what they're doing and what they're aiming for, well, have at it, though there's fuck-all evidence any of that's the case - so better off sat on the side and leave them to it at this moment in time, I reckon. They don't need us to be the poodles and it only ever made any sort of sense for us to be the poodles when we actually got some respect for it, which isn't going to come from Trump whatever we do.
I'm not sure two wrongs make a right overall, I'm not sure the ends justify the means, and when the current wave of missiles stop flying about on all sides the world will just be increasingly more fucked-up because of it.
Relying on legal arguments is a way of abdicating responsibility. There are many more important questions in deciding whether to support or oppose military action, whether by ourselves or an ally or an adversary.
The strongest argument is we're 3 days into the war and we are no closer to knowing what the end objectives are.
Nor would we have any say at the negotiating table to determine when the shooting should stop.
Nor could we stop Trump escalating into a ground invasion if he sees fit.
The sheer unpredictability of the US action means joining in on attacks is madness. Unless you're Israel who have been looking for an opportunity to bomb Iran to smithereens for kver a decade.
It would have been simpler to give the US the green light to use any UK bases to do whatever they wanted from the beginning. We wouldn't have been any more in the firing line than we were anyway and we could have still maintained ambiguity about any possible future direct involvement.
It would have also made zero, and I mean exactly zero, difference to any military outcome.
We would have no more future strategic ambiguity if we had given the green light then as now. As their attack on us and non-aggressor allies fundamentally changes the position from day one.
So other than to satisfy your desire for simplicity, what possible benefit would we get from having given permission earlier?
For one thing it would have avoided Trump's explosion over the Chagos deal which would presumably have been in Starmer's interests and it would have avoided negative headlines in the US about the UK refusing to give permission.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
What a load of crap. If it wasn't for that attitude of exceptionalism we wouldn't have had an ethno apartheid state and we wouldn't have 80,000 dead in Gaza, 25,000 of them children. And yes I'm Jewish too but. before that I'm a human being
I don’t blame most Jews for thinking differently. Gandhi might have thought they would have won a great moral victory by submitting willingly to execution, but Gandhi was full of shit.
I wonder whether the people who are so pusillanimous here and view "victory" as a foul word would have been the same in WWII when we were fighting the Nazis? How dare we be fighting for victory?
The Mullahs are an evil that needs defeating. Now is the time to press for victory and see them eliminated once and for all.
War should be a last resort, but when war comes, fighting for victory is the right thing to do.
How many times are you going to repeat "victory"?
Look, if the US and Israel had a clear war plan to defeat the Iranian regime, maybe you'd have an argument. But they don't. They're going to bomb some bits and then probably sign a new nuclear treaty that looks very similar to the one Obama did. A lot of people are going to die for very little.
Until there is regime change.
If Trump does that, then shame on him.
Don't mistake my support for regime change as support for Trump. I despise Trump. I support war here to get regime change.
Anything short of regime change and I will condemn Trump for chickening out.
However you are wrong to call it very little. The damage to the regime is already not very little, which is why Lebanon now feels freed to tackle Hezbollah.
The more damage inflicted upon this regime, the better.
If you support war in Iran to get regime change, then, as there is no war to get regime change, you presumably aren't supporting anything.
Since when does what we want to happen need to be happening to support it?
I support planning liberalisation. This Government was vaguely committed to doing it at the last election, but are failing to do so. All other parties are not in favour either. I support it happening, even though it is not, and condemn SKS for failure to deliver.
I support tax reform. No party is delivering it. I will argue for it, even if no party offers it.
I support regime change. A war is in progress, good, but I have no faith in Trump and only marginally more in Bibi. We wait to see what happens but I will oppose "peace" until Persia is liberated from the Mullahs.
We generally focus on reality here, not on fantasies. You may have whatever fantasies you want, but the topic under discussion is usually what's happening. It's confusing if most of us are discussing the actual US/ Israeli attacks while you're talking about some unobtainable Platonic ideal attack.
Its not unobtainable.
Regime changes can and do happen.
With Khameini and many senior commanders now deceased, the odds of change are considerably higher now than they were this time last week.
No.
The way Trump and Bibi are conducting this, Regime change is certainly not going to be the outcome UNLESS Iranian security forces and military commanders listen to Trump and Bibi, and Hesdeath, and turn on their own side to create a revolution.
But the Iranian Islamic revolutions Praetorian Guard and its commanders have vested interest to put further Emperor’s on the throne, and commanders in place. Firstly financial, more importantly survival, your guns pointing at everyone else and their families, which you’ve actually used on some of them, change sides now and everyone with gun can point them at you at your family.
They could also be conservative minded Iranian Nationalists, living in their idea of an Islamic country - in which case, why would they want to switch sides and tear this down to become a liberal vassal state of the west?
When things like this start, hard to be sure where it’s going to go, but I’m very confident in my analysis. By the time Trump walks away proclaiming the most brilliant deal extracted from the Iranians, and most brilliant victory for USA, the Israeli government will have achieved more than enough degradation of the Iranian military industrial war machine this year to serve them well in the coming election, it will look much like they were paying lip service to regime change all along. We should already be agreeing they are. Besides, sat securely enjoying the good life in another part of earth, urging civilians of a country to rise up against its zealous security services and military, is a morally questionable approach from politicians. I don’t like that part of it at all.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
What a load of crap. If it wasn't for that attitude of exceptionalism we wouldn't have had an ethno apartheid state and we wouldn't have 80,000 dead in Gaza, 25,000 of them children. And yes I'm Jewish too but. before that I'm a human being
I don’t blame most Jews for thinking differently. Gandhi might have thought they would have won a great moral victory by submitting willingly to execution, but Gandhi was full of shit.
It only worked because he was up against us, as the British, and thus shame worked.
You can see from this Cyprus bollocks just how easy it was to bounce the UK into Iraq 2.0. Which now looks like the epitome of far sighted statecraft compared to whatever the fuck this is.
Remember Tony Blair's metaphor about the kaleidoscope being shaken? It being shaken with much more vigour now, which gives the opportunity for more substantial shifts to take place instead of tinkering with regime change.
Do Britons think the UK government should praise or condemn the US for the Iran attacks?
Should condemn: 21% Should praise: 12% Should neither condemn nor praise: 45%
The UK prefers to sit on the fence.
45% of all UK voters and 47% of Labour voters think the UK should neither condemn nor praise the attacks on Iran, so Starmer by sitting on the fence is actually close to what a plurality of UK voters and voters of his own party want.
44% of Green voters, again a plurality, think the strikes should be condemned, so Polanski also in line for his voters.
39% of Reform voters think the UK should praise the US strikes, tied for a plurality with neither condemn nor praise, so Farage also about right in terms of what his voters want.
Davey a bit out of line though, he has opposed the US attacks but 44%, a plurality of his voters, neither condemn nor praise them and 30% condemn them.
Most out of line with her voters though is Kemi surprisingly, 60% of Conservative voters think the UK should neither condemn nor praise the attacks ie SKS's position. Kemi's praising the US attacks is backed by only 20% of Tory voters, even if only 8% of Tories condemn the US attacks Kemi might want to tone down the hawklike bomb the regime to bits line a bit
Kemi putting the Tories firmly behind Trump’s Middle East war. *bold*, given the absence of any sign that the Americans know what they are trying to achieve.
The complete lack of a plan or strategy or exit criteria is a red line, legal or not.
Mr Trump's track record suggests to me that he needs no plan or strategy or exit criteria, he starts something when he thinks he will and stops/changes direction when he thinks he will.
I think Trump as someone who doesn’t worry about elections, or legacy in history books. Novel position in politics.
So what is the motivation behind all his decisions, if it’s not the kerching of a cash till.
Motivation 50/50, IMHO. Money/attention. Being on the front page. All eyes on the Great Leader.
I’m not so sure
He’s 79 pushing 80. He’s as rich as Creases. He’s POTUS - he can’t get any more important or powerful
I wonder if his narcissism is now making him look to his legacy and dynasty. If he can go down as the POTUS that freed Iran he will be deemed great by many, albeit begrudgingly
A great legacy also means his kids and grandkids will prosper in politics
So his horrible traits might be working in a SLIGHTLY more productive way. At 79 I also imagine he is less driven by the need to “grab pussy”
The Epstein thing was getting very close to him in the last few days. This is a massive distraction. Job done.
If Epstein really is being hidden by Netanyahu as some suggest we'll wait for a rogue American bunker bomb to wipe out Tel Aviv
Your hatred of Jewish people is obnoxious as demonstrated by wanting Tel Aviv wiped out
I have been there and enjoyed their hospitality with lots of ordinary people getting on with their lives
Do Britons think the UK government should praise or condemn the US for the Iran attacks?
Should condemn: 21% Should praise: 12% Should neither condemn nor praise: 45%
The UK prefers to sit on the fence.
45% of all UK voters and 47% of Labour voters think the UK should neither condemn nor praise the attacks on Iran, so Starmer by sitting on the fence is actually close to what a plurality of UK voters and voters of his own party want.
44% of Green voters, again a plurality, think the strikes should be condemned, so Polanski also in line for his voters.
39% of Reform voters think the UK should praise the US strikes, tied for a plurality with neither condemn nor praise, so Farage also about right in terms of what his voters want.
Davey a bit out of line though, he has opposed the US attacks but 44%, a plurality of his voters, neither condemn nor praise them and 30% condemn them.
Most out of line with her voters though is Kemi surprisingly, 60% of Conservative voters think the UK should neither condemn nor praise the attacks ie SKS's position, Kemi's praising the US attacks is backed by only 20% of Tory voters, even if only 8% of Tories condemn the US attacks Kemi might want to tone down the hawklike bomb the regime to bits line
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
I 100% agree with you.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
In an ideal world this would be nice. But, with respect, I am not sure you really get what it is like to live in a country surrounded by people who want to kill you and challenge your right even to exist. I don't have experience of this either but I think I am showing a little more empathy. Such stress leads a society to extremes. Its why the Israelis elect the people they do. They feel threatened and Netanyahu, corrupt monster that he is, plays to this.
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.
@Brixian59 the Jewish state is the only way Jews can guarantee a second holocaust wont happen. That safety net is also available to Zak Polanski, if he ever needed it.
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
What a load of crap. If it wasn't for that attitude of exceptionalism we wouldn't have had an ethno apartheid state and we wouldn't have 80,000 dead in Gaza, 25,000 of them children. And yes I'm Jewish too but. before that I'm a human being
Do Britons think the UK government should praise or condemn the US for the Iran attacks?
Should condemn: 21% Should praise: 12% Should neither condemn nor praise: 45%
The UK prefers to sit on the fence.
45% of all UK voters and 47% of Labour voters think the UK should neither condemn nor praise the attacks on Iran, so Starmer by sitting on the fence is actually close to what a plurality of UK voters and voters of his own party want.
44% of Green voters, again a plurality, think the strikes should be condemned, so Polanski also in line for his voters.
39% of Reform voters think the UK should praise the US strikes, tied for a plurality with neither condemn nor praise, so Farage also about right in terms of what his voters want.
Davey a bit out of line though, he has opposed the US attacks but 44%, a plurality of his voters, neither condemn nor praise them and 30% condemn them.
Most out of line with her voters though is Kemi surprisingly, 60% of Conservative voters think the UK should neither condemn nor praise the attacks ie SKS's position, Kemi's praising the US attacks is backed by only 20% of Tory voters, even if only 8% of Tories condemn the US attacks Kemi might want to tone down the hawklike bomb the regime to bits line
Forgive me for not paying more attention but what exactly have the Americans been targeting in Iran other than senior leaders. I haven't heard much about the IRGC which Iran hawks are usually all over. The Army is generally seen as a more moderate force so focusing attacks on the IRGC rather than run of the mill soldiers would make some sense. Is that happening?
I actually don't have much of a problem with Starmer's approach although the response to the Cyprus attack was maybe a little weak. The Tories and Reform seem unwise in offering blind support because the US and Israel are allies (led by two very controversial figures internally) without a clear plan or strategy. Certainly not one they wanted to share in advance. And it may have escaped their attention but Trump has hardly been acting like that much of an ally recently and neither is there the ideological overlap that we've had with the US since the 1940s.
The US are attacking the weapons and missile sites including nuclear, Israel the leaders
I would have no problem with our planes and missiles attacking weapons storage and production sites.
Comments
I despise Zionism
It is a stain on Judaism in the same way Fascism was A stain on German blood
At present there are 3 countries in Europe doing well - we seem to be getting the Northern business, and the French the Southern business. Plus Germany is also doing a little to more exotic locations. The Italians were doing OK, but the US Navy f*cked it up as is their current habit, so it went tits-up.
What have they fitted to this FDI one to be anti-drone?
(I'm still not convinced that these FDIs are going to be OK in the Atlantic. They look as if they are going to be very wet.)
Iran has long been a pariah to neighbouring Arab States.
Stop trying to justify the unjustifiable with fiction
Government have just confirmed £1.bn deal with Leonardo in Yeovil according to SW ITV local news
whoa -- this is new. Trump has a significant rash-like injury on his neck today in addition to his disfigured hand
(Saul Loeb/Getty)
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mg3srg4uxc2t
Read about Qatar and it's relationship with Iran
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Qatar_relations#:~:text=Qatar and Iran have close ties.&text=Both are members of the,Organisation of the Islamic Conference.
What I do not respect is calling it unprovoked.
Weaponising uranium is provocative.
Failing to co-operate with nuclear inspectors is provocative.
Funding terrorists is provocative.
Attacking other states both directly and indirectly is provocative - especially to that state and its allies.
You may think we should get involved despite those provocations, which is a values call. I will disagree but respect that.
But to deny any provocations exist is just plain wrong.
BBC News - Leonardo helicopter deal to go ahead after Reeves intervention - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c75e14k64dvo?app-referrer=deep-link
The military deciding enough is enough and a coup ousting the Mullahs is the most likely way we see regime change.
The military have guns.
A belief that if only we follow the law, then Russia or China will too, is not based on how things work.
https://x.com/ITVNewsPolitics/status/2028527166669918479
Unfortunately that’s not the case so you’re now relying on the army pulling the plug and fighting against the IRGC , which I’m afraid seems highly unlikely .
The sad reality and I hope I’m completely wrong is that the regime remains , militarily weakened , eventually cuts a deal and the world moves on .
Perhaps the eventual lifting of sanctions might ease life for the civilians but they will remain under the regime with its despicable human rights record .
@timothy_stanley
The British Government's position is nuanced, clear, and correct. It's also frightfully dull, so will play badly on social media.
https://x.com/timothy_stanley/status/2028502686379696545
It was confirmed this morning according to local News.
Maybe they are wrong to do so, and I agree with you that they are most likely to find themselves disappointed in Trump's lack of commitment to their cause, but it's their future most at stake and their judgement call when it comes to predicting whether it's likely to be successful or not.
I personally feel that Britain and Europe's focus should be on Ukraine, and I think the US risks realising that they have misallocated their military resources to this venture, but I don't oppose it, because I can't be arguing with the Iranian opposition.
At least we wont have to listen to his endless hectoring about the end of Britain every day in Parliament.
The optimistic reality is you might be wrong.
Military coups can and do happen.
As it stands, the military knows the public wants reform but are willing to slaughter the public, rather than let the public protest.
If the military leadership is seeing their life expectancy rapidly diminishing due to this pressure, then that increases the pressure on them to decide enough is enough.
The odds of regime change are improved by this conflict. Not guaranteed, but improved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSP0RDhFHYk
Rupert may be able to bear suing Nigel again, It would be entertaining.
https://youtu.be/jl9FoMhYA14?t=464
If you think we don’t need it then you’re wrong. History teaches us that Jews are not safe, even in the West.
Badenoch has spoken when silence would have been a better option.
Beth Rigby
@BethRigby
Lab figure messages re below: "Labour's addiction to giving seats only to Councillors & factional figures is one reason why we aren't producing enough of our own Hannah Spencers" (I did point out Spencer was a councillor & they replied that Lab too focused on those professionally in politics).
Also makes point which others on soft left have made to me in recent days: "I'm no Green sympathiser, but it doesn't work (let alone isn't true) to say Green and Reform are two sides of the same coin"
https://x.com/BethRigby/status/2028538455412646019
https://youtu.be/sy4GcRVKLXs?si=riUw9il5clPTK-t4
Regime changes can and do happen.
With Khameini and many senior commanders now deceased, the odds of change are considerably higher now than they were this time last week.
Yes Iran is a horrible regime and if the Americans want to be the world's good guys and take out the world's bad guys just because they're the good guys and the others are the bad guys, and they have a plan and they know what they're doing and what they're aiming for, well, have at it, though there's fuck-all evidence any of that's the case - so better off sat on the side and leave them to it at this moment in time, I reckon. They don't need us to be the poodles and it only ever made any sort of sense for us to be the poodles when we actually got some respect for it, which isn't going to come from Trump whatever we do.
I'm not sure two wrongs make a right overall, I'm not sure the ends justify the means, and when the current wave of missiles stop flying about on all sides the world will just be increasingly more fucked-up because of it.
- If your best mate suggests punching someone in the face repeatedly, it is okay to say you're not going to give them a lift in your car to the planned punching bag's house
- If the person they punch responds to being hit by your mate by punching your sister in the face, you're allowed to change your mind and decide that maybe we should do something to stop that.
I know it's an incredibly nuanced position to take. But perhaps we can try really hard to understand the distinction.
The.problem is that the current incumbent is hell bent on putting a target on the back of every Jew, every Synagogue on the planet.
He and his extreme politics, bloodlust, illegal occupations have made every Jew less safe than at any time since the Holocaust.
A more moderate more diplomatic globally aware Leadership that sought to defend rather than attack would make every Jew safer.
I think the majority in Israel know that and want regime change.
On this, Saturday there was a gulf, no pun intended, between Starmer and Kemi and Patel on the opposite front bench, there’s little between them tonight - the only difference between them now is Kemi saying you should have joined us in this position last week. That is all.
The two front benches are in very much minority position with both the electorate, but also in the commons - after the statement there was two hours wall to wall of “you are wrong, you should not be doing this - because of Iraq” coming from every corner and every bench in the house.
Starmer’s got himself into trouble with this u-turn. If there is no difference in international law between offensive and defensive bombing and dismantling of a country’s ability to defend itself, Starmer’s gone.
They only supply 20% of our gas usage.
Anyway, the guy that got punched, he died. And under the law as it currently stands, you also go to prison as an accessory to the murder.
Nor would we have any say at the negotiating table to determine when the shooting should stop.
Nor could we stop Trump escalating into a ground invasion if he sees fit.
The sheer unpredictability of the US action means joining in on attacks is madness. Unless you're Israel who have been looking for an opportunity to bomb Iran to smithereens for over a decade.
I'm not sure what we have in the Gulf.
Nige should be afraid very afraid.
I am not sure he is gone but he is on life support
And of course what happens when an Iranian missile kills Brits or an Iranian jet downs a typhoon - if he is true to his word he attacks the source in Iran
The vamp from SavannahThe MP with a spanner
I actually don't have much of a problem with Starmer's approach although the response to the Cyprus attack was maybe a little weak. The Tories and Reform seem unwise in offering blind support because the US and Israel are allies (led by two very controversial figures internally) without a clear plan or strategy. Certainly not one they wanted to share in advance. And it may have escaped their attention but Trump has hardly been acting like that much of an ally recently and neither is there the ideological overlap that we've had with the US since the 1940s.
We would have no more future strategic ambiguity if we had given the green light then as now. As their attack on us and non-aggressor allies fundamentally changes the position from day one.
So other than to satisfy your desire for simplicity, what possible benefit would we get from having given permission earlier?
The way Trump and Bibi are conducting this, Regime change is certainly not going to be the outcome UNLESS Iranian security forces and military commanders listen to Trump and Bibi, and Hesdeath, and turn on their own side to create a revolution.
But the Iranian Islamic revolutions Praetorian Guard and its commanders have vested interest to put further Emperor’s on the throne, and commanders in place. Firstly financial, more importantly survival, your guns pointing at everyone else and their families, which you’ve actually used on some of them, change sides now and everyone with gun can point them at you at your family.
They could also be conservative minded Iranian Nationalists, living in their idea of an Islamic country - in which case, why would they want to switch sides and tear this down to become a liberal vassal state of the west?
When things like this start, hard to be sure where it’s going to go, but I’m very confident in my analysis. By the time Trump walks away proclaiming the most brilliant deal extracted from the Iranians, and most brilliant victory for USA, the Israeli government will have achieved more than enough degradation of the Iranian military industrial war machine this year to serve them well in the coming election, it will look much like they were paying lip service to regime change all along. We should already be agreeing they are. Besides, sat securely enjoying the good life in another part of earth, urging civilians of a country to rise up against its zealous security services and military, is a morally questionable approach from politicians. I don’t like that part of it at all.
Any other power would have executed him.
44% of Green voters, again a plurality, think the strikes should be condemned, so Polanski also in line for his voters.
39% of Reform voters think the UK should praise the US strikes, tied for a plurality with neither condemn nor praise, so Farage also about right in terms of what his voters want.
Davey a bit out of line though, he has opposed the US attacks but 44%, a plurality of his voters, neither condemn nor praise them and 30% condemn them.
Most out of line with her voters though is Kemi surprisingly, 60% of Conservative voters think the UK should neither condemn nor praise the attacks ie SKS's position. Kemi's praising the US attacks is backed by only 20% of Tory voters, even if only 8% of Tories condemn the US attacks Kemi might want to tone down the hawklike bomb the regime to bits line a bit
https://x.com/YouGov/status/2028519868761252303
October 6th lifted this to another level. Everything we are currently seeing in the Middle east, including the genocide in Gaza, flows from this. This is not a liberal democracy however much we would like it to be.