Tucker Carlson: "It is vile on every level. It begins with a promise to use the US military, our military, to destroy civilian infrastructure in another country, which is to say, to commit a war crime, a moral crime against the people of the country. Those people who are in direct contact with the president need to say 'No. I'll resign. I'll do whatever I can do legally to stop this, because this is insane. And if given the order, I'm not carrying it out.'"
The only American right I've personally seen making comments against Trump seem to be the antisemitic ones (I clicked on a comment once, and now youtube insists in popping it up for me periodically).
That’s the big risk for Israel here (not so much for Netanyahu, he’ll be fine somehow, he always is). The US right don’t do self reflection or remorse, so if this ends up going as badly as it’s started they’ll want someone else to blame. And “the Jews” will be there within easy reach.
Speaking of self reflection or lack thereof, Vance complaining about foreign interference while appearing at an Orban election rally is a pretty impressive example of the genre. Oh, and Europe along with the UK of course also makes a convenient scapegoat for the Iran thing.
Good evening everyone. I hope The Bomb doesn’t drop tonight. I have a few potentially winning bets on the next PM. However, if it does, I hope it drops on Washington and the fallout reaches Mar a Lago.
Somebody is frantically leaking that he thought the whole Iran scheme was a REALLY bad idea the whole time...
Well this whole Iran venture is a complete betrayal of everything MAGA stands for so Vance is course going to try and throw Trump under the bus... But it's probably too late.
Trump got his second term and he doesn't need MAGA, Vance or any of the people that helped to get him there....
It's the same with all dictators and would-be dictators - They ALWAYS end up betraying the people that helped them take over, once they no longer need them...
Does Starmer really think it would be a good look to back one of Russia's main allies in the war against Ukraine?
He isn't. That is just your rather warped view of it.
Do you not realise that Trump's attack on Iran has done more to help the Russian cause in Ukraine than anything else in the last few years? Not only has he lifted sanctions, denied weapons to Ukraine and split NATO, he has also given Putin a moral and legal basis for his continued attacks. After all, if the USA is okay launching attacks on other countries then why should Russia not do the same?
Whataboutism isn't a "moral and legal basis" for anything, and the last month has seen a big shift in momentum away from Russia. Zelensky is now being welcomed like a king across the Middle East, including in Russia's erstwhile ally of Syria.
There is no whataboutism involved. Trump has started a war of aggression which has helped Russia hugely, both directly by lifting sanctions and indirectly. You are the one who brought up Russia in your first comment that I replied to. You are the one supporting action that is helping Russia and putting many oter countries at risk. You ned a bit more self awareness before you start throwing around those sorts of accusations against others.
It's not an accusation. Your argument was literally whataboutism: "After all, if the USA is okay launching attacks on other countries then why should Russia not do the same?"
You are the one who raised Russia in your very first comment. Trying to claim that those opposing Trump were helpoing Russia. So get back in your hole and stop trying to squirm out of it. As I said earlier, morally, legally (and I will add logically and practically) your hero Trump is in the wrong. It is he who is helping Russia not the rest of the West who think he is a dangerous lunatic.
We don't 'think' he is, we 'know' he is. Even @Leon has finally noticed it.
To think this is all happening because some people don't like diversity, equity and inclusion.
Were people predicting Trump was going to Nuke the Middle East? I was just thinking, before I read this thread, that lefties would use the argument you just made as an attack. It is so silly really. If the alternative was Nuclear war, i would rather have an open borders, mass immigration leader, who encouraged my children to be transgender, but those were not the options at the time. I didn't follow the US Election that closely, but don't particularly remember the warnings of Trump nuking countries
Tucker Carlson: "It is vile on every level. It begins with a promise to use the US military, our military, to destroy civilian infrastructure in another country, which is to say, to commit a war crime, a moral crime against the people of the country. Those people who are in direct contact with the president need to say 'No. I'll resign. I'll do whatever I can do legally to stop this, because this is insane. And if given the order, I'm not carrying it out.'"
The only American right I've personally seen making comments against Trump seem to be the antisemitic ones (I clicked on a comment once, and now youtube insists in popping it up for me periodically).
That’s the big risk for Israel here (not so much for Netanyahu, he’ll be fine somehow, he always is). The US right don’t do self reflection or remorse, so if this ends up going as badly as it’s started they’ll want someone else to blame. And “the Jews” will be there within easy reach.
Speaking of self reflection or lack thereof, Vance complaining about foreign interference while appearing at an Orban election rally is a pretty impressive example of the genre.
I always wonder in such situations if they know it's hypocritical but don't care (it can be a power move), or genuinely believe what they say.
To think this is all happening because some people don't like diversity, equity and inclusion.
Were people predicting Trump was going to Nuke the Middle East? I was just thinking, before I read this thread, that lefties would use the argument you just made as an attack. It is so silly really. If the alternative was Nuclear war, i would rather have an open borders, mass immigration leader, who encouraged my children to be transgender, but those were not the options at the time. I didn't follow the US Election that closely, but don't particularly remember the warnings of Trump nuking countries
One reason why I wasn't that bothered when Clinton lost in 2016 was because she came across as a muppet. Including one famous moment where she said Iran needed to 'understand we can wipe them off the map.'
One reason why I'm now regretting she lost is that Trump, who otherwise would have been a comic footnote a la Horace Greeley or Barry Goldwater, is now actually planning to do it to show he can.
To think this is all happening because some people don't like diversity, equity and inclusion.
Were people predicting Trump was going to Nuke the Middle East? I was just thinking, before I read this thread, that lefties would use the argument you just made as an attack. It is so silly really. If the alternative was Nuclear war, i would rather have an open borders, mass immigration leader, who encouraged my children to be transgender, but those were not the options at the time. I didn't follow the US Election that closely, but don't particularly remember the warnings of Trump nuking countries
One reason why I wasn't that bothered when Clinton lost in 2016 was because she came across as a muppet. Including one famous moment where she said Iran needed to 'understand we can wipe them off the map.'
One reason why I'm now regretting she lost is that Trump, who otherwise would have been a comic footnote a la Horace Greeley or Barry Goldwater, is now actually planning to do it to show he can.
He’d have run again in 2000 and possibly won, probably if Covid happened in that parallel universe
To think this is all happening because some people don't like diversity, equity and inclusion.
Were people predicting Trump was going to Nuke the Middle East? I was just thinking, before I read this thread, that lefties would use the argument you just made as an attack. It is so silly really. If the alternative was Nuclear war, i would rather have an open borders, mass immigration leader, who encouraged my children to be transgender, but those were not the options at the time. I didn't follow the US Election that closely, but don't particularly remember the warnings of Trump nuking countries
One reason why I wasn't that bothered when Clinton lost in 2016 was because she came across as a muppet. Including one famous moment where she said Iran needed to 'understand we can wipe them off the map.'
One reason why I'm now regretting she lost is that Trump, who otherwise would have been a comic footnote a la Horace Greeley or Barry Goldwater, is now actually planning to do it to show he can.
He’d have run again in 2000 and possibly won, probably if Covid happened in that parallel universe
He wouldn’t have been of interest to the Republicans in 2020. A 76 year old former loser with clear mental decline would have struggled to get to New Hampshire. There is a danger in seeing the influence he acquired through being president (and corruption accrued thereby) and assuming he is a force of nature. He isn’t.
They would probably have chosen Rubio, with a possible side order of Pence, Haley or DeSantis, and the nominee would in all probability have won and still be president now.
Rubio, Pence and DeSantis are not nice human beings but at least they are not actively insane.
Does Starmer really think it would be a good look to back one of Russia's main allies in the war against Ukraine?
He isn't. That is just your rather warped view of it.
Do you not realise that Trump's attack on Iran has done more to help the Russian cause in Ukraine than anything else in the last few years? Not only has he lifted sanctions, denied weapons to Ukraine and split NATO, he has also given Putin a moral and legal basis for his continued attacks. After all, if the USA is okay launching attacks on other countries then why should Russia not do the same?
Whataboutism isn't a "moral and legal basis" for anything, and the last month has seen a big shift in momentum away from Russia. Zelensky is now being welcomed like a king across the Middle East, including in Russia's erstwhile ally of Syria.
There is no whataboutism involved. Trump has started a war of aggression which has helped Russia hugely, both directly by lifting sanctions and indirectly. You are the one who brought up Russia in your first comment that I replied to. You are the one supporting action that is helping Russia and putting many oter countries at risk. You ned a bit more self awareness before you start throwing around those sorts of accusations against others.
It's not an accusation. Your argument was literally whataboutism: "After all, if the USA is okay launching attacks on other countries then why should Russia not do the same?"
You are the one who raised Russia in your very first comment. Trying to claim that those opposing Trump were helpoing Russia. So get back in your hole and stop trying to squirm out of it. As I said earlier, morally, legally (and I will add logically and practically) your hero Trump is in the wrong. It is he who is helping Russia not the rest of the West who think he is a dangerous lunatic.
We don't 'think' he is, we 'know' he is. Even @Leon has finally noticed it.
Damn, if Leon is in agreement, perhaps we are missing something and should reconsider......
Anyone who didn't vote for a party that wanted Nuclear disarmament could be said to be responsible really, if we are apportioning blame. It wouldn't put me off voting for someone if they forwarded that policy
Thank you for the read, but it would have been better with illustrations/graphs/maps, or even a table. I know that bloc voting is becoming/has become more important than party voting, because that's what's happened in the UK. But how that translates into US votes is unclear to me.
Anyone who didn't vote for a party that wanted Nuclear disarmament could be said to be responsible really, if we are apportioning blame. It wouldn't put me off voting for someone if they forwarded that policy
So you still think there is no additional military risk in voting for a volatile loopy narcissist vs boring establishment candidates? Really?
So who here actually backed this insanity on day one?
I mean, I could potentially see the need to restrict Irans nuclear capability, as, well, who wants a nuclear armed Iran?
So, limited strikes to stop Iran having a nuclear bomb, OK.
Killing the Ayatollah was the the point at which I would get out of the car as, well, how do you come back from that? It would be like if Russia had killed Queen Elizabeth II.
Once you kill the Supreme Leader, that's it. There's no way out other than complete and total victory with regime change but complete and total victory against Iran without the mass deployment of ground troops isn't going to happen?
I understood the use of UK bases for 'defensive' strikes at the time given the strike on Cyprus and balancing political interests. It was walking a political and diplomatic tightrope.
Now that Trump is the one threatening war crimes against civilians infrastructure, Starmer should have the courage to change course and join Spain and others in banning the UK bases for any Iranian military action until further notice.
The maniac needs to be told he's crossing the line by as many people as possible. The UK government needs to be one of them.
The problem with the “defensive” strike story is that both the B1 and B52 bombers have been used a “cab rank” basis in recent conflicts.
That is they go to the general area and get directed to do multiple strikes at targets of opportunity over a period of time.
Rather than directly attack single, pre-specified targets.
The length of time their missions are being flown for, and the load outs of weapons strong on suggest this is what is happening in the current conflict.
Does anyone think that Trump & Co. are changing US military doctrine to be nice to Starmer? Or are they just lying to him?
Anyone who didn't vote for a party that wanted Nuclear disarmament could be said to be responsible really, if we are apportioning blame. It wouldn't put me off voting for someone if they forwarded that policy
So you still think there is no additional military risk in voting for a volatile loopy narcissist vs boring establishment candidates? Really?
No one was warning that Trump was a war monger who might use nukes. The warnings were that he was too tough on immigration and DEI. It is an easy point to score now he looks like he has gone stark raving mad, but I don't think people saw him as stark raving mad in a war-mongery way when he was elected
To think this is all happening because some people don't like diversity, equity and inclusion.
Were people predicting Trump was going to Nuke the Middle East? I was just thinking, before I read this thread, that lefties would use the argument you just made as an attack. It is so silly really. If the alternative was Nuclear war, i would rather have an open borders, mass immigration leader, who encouraged my children to be transgender, but those were not the options at the time. I didn't follow the US Election that closely, but don't particularly remember the warnings of Trump nuking countries
One reason why I wasn't that bothered when Clinton lost in 2016 was because she came across as a muppet. Including one famous moment where she said Iran needed to 'understand we can wipe them off the map.'
One reason why I'm now regretting she lost is that Trump, who otherwise would have been a comic footnote a la Horace Greeley or Barry Goldwater, is now actually planning to do it to show he can.
Hillary also managed to at least win the popular vote against Trump, Harris couldn't even manage that.
Harris should never have run for office outside her safe home state of blue California, had she not run in 2020 Biden might have picked a more electable VP like Buttigieg
Trump told Fox News that based on progress in negotiations, he may extend his deadline to escalate against infrastructure targets in Iran.
Would be the fourth time he has done so.
The Onion nails it:
I'm sure it's just like the Greenland invasion.
Shakespeare's quote about being "told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing" is completely apt.
But the Americans have a much more succint term for their 47th President: "blowhard".
No offence to Denmark and the Greenlanders, but a 50% risk of that invasion happening is roughly equivalent to a 0.1% chance of nuclear genocide on the “oh shit” scale.
The fact he’s even mentioned it is enough for massive alarm. Ignore all the TACO, troll the libs crap - if the thought crossed his mind that’s enough for us to change our posture.
I think Starmer’s compromise has been understandable to this point. No longer.
Anyone who didn't vote for a party that wanted Nuclear disarmament could be said to be responsible really, if we are apportioning blame. It wouldn't put me off voting for someone if they forwarded that policy
So you still think there is no additional military risk in voting for a volatile loopy narcissist vs boring establishment candidates? Really?
No one was warning that Trump was a war monger who might use nukes. The warnings were that he was too tough on immigration and DEI. It is an easy point to score now he looks like he has gone stark raving mad, but I don't think people saw him as stark raving mad in a war-mongery way when he was elected
Yes people were warning about Trumps character and the extra volatility that brought economically, diplomatically and militarily. He was stark raving mad in 2016, certainly by 2021, let alone 2024.
To think this is all happening because some people don't like diversity, equity and inclusion.
Were people predicting Trump was going to Nuke the Middle East? I was just thinking, before I read this thread, that lefties would use the argument you just made as an attack. It is so silly really. If the alternative was Nuclear war, i would rather have an open borders, mass immigration leader, who encouraged my children to be transgender, but those were not the options at the time. I didn't follow the US Election that closely, but don't particularly remember the warnings of Trump nuking countries
If one had predicted such a thing, one would have been engaging in Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Anyone who didn't vote for a party that wanted Nuclear disarmament could be said to be responsible really, if we are apportioning blame. It wouldn't put me off voting for someone if they forwarded that policy
So you still think there is no additional military risk in voting for a volatile loopy narcissist vs boring establishment candidates? Really?
No one was warning that Trump was a war monger who might use nukes. The warnings were that he was too tough on immigration and DEI. It is an easy point to score now he looks like he has gone stark raving mad, but I don't think people saw him as stark raving mad in a war-mongery way when he was elected
One of the first things he did in his first term was engage in a to and fro with the nuclear armed North Korea - I remember the endless push notifications.
You’re a numpty. But at least we’ve got to the “nobody warned me” stage rather than outright denial.
I’d buy shares in Kleenex. Barty will be going through boxes of it at the moment.
Where is he? I've been wondering what he thinks about Iran potentially being nuked out of existence...
The Radio 4 hourly leading headline is all about Ye. So either PB is throwing a wobbly about something which will never happen, or the mainstream media are asleep at the wheel.
Anyone who didn't vote for a party that wanted Nuclear disarmament could be said to be responsible really, if we are apportioning blame. It wouldn't put me off voting for someone if they forwarded that policy
So you still think there is no additional military risk in voting for a volatile loopy narcissist vs boring establishment candidates? Really?
No one was warning that Trump was a war monger who might use nukes. The warnings were that he was too tough on immigration and DEI. It is an easy point to score now he looks like he has gone stark raving mad, but I don't think people saw him as stark raving mad in a war-mongery way when he was elected
People saw exactly what he was capable of after he lost in 2020. Anyone who looked at him again expecting stable sensible government was off with the fairies, frankly. I understand the frustrations that led to people voting for Trump. But his character was laid bare for all to see in his first term. I didn’t quite expect him to go quite so mad so quickly, but he was certainly capable of it.
To think this is all happening because some people don't like diversity, equity and inclusion.
Were people predicting Trump was going to Nuke the Middle East? I was just thinking, before I read this thread, that lefties would use the argument you just made as an attack. It is so silly really. If the alternative was Nuclear war, i would rather have an open borders, mass immigration leader, who encouraged my children to be transgender, but those were not the options at the time. I didn't follow the US Election that closely, but don't particularly remember the warnings of Trump nuking countries
If one had predicted such a thing, one would have been engaging in Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Or that closely related condition, Hillbilly Allergy.
Badenock should be put in the same straight-jacket as Trump.
Starmer allowed the B1 and B52s to fly out of Fairford to bomb Iran
He did not do an Italy, Spain, or Austria
He's not fellating him in the same way your party's leader is.
Big G knows full well they attacked missile sites threatening uk citizens in Emirates.
He's not stupid, he merely seeks to absolve the gutless gobshite who is leading the Tory Party to extinction.
The B1 and B52s bombed offensively in Iran at the specific approval of Starmer and no amount of abusive rhetoric against Kemi will change that
... and how ever often you repeat that it will not alter the fact that Badenoch would have been far more supportive of Trump and Netanyahu from the outset however hard she tries to back peddle and pretend otherwise.
The question is, is there any evidence her alleged stance has affected her politically in the voters mind, not just on a political forum ?
If there is then OK, but where is it ?
It was what her stance was that matters not whether it affected her polling. Stop dancing on a pinhead you sound like HYUFD!
She made a serious mistake at the beginning of this war it would be wiser to admit that and just give her some credit for back peddling when she realised where it was heading.
5th April Hezbollah claim to have hit a warship with an ASM of the coast of Lebanon 7th of April HMS Dragon is to be repaired at port due to fresh water problems
Anyone who didn't vote for a party that wanted Nuclear disarmament could be said to be responsible really, if we are apportioning blame. It wouldn't put me off voting for someone if they forwarded that policy
So you still think there is no additional military risk in voting for a volatile loopy narcissist vs boring establishment candidates? Really?
No one was warning that Trump was a war monger who might use nukes. The warnings were that he was too tough on immigration and DEI. It is an easy point to score now he looks like he has gone stark raving mad, but I don't think people saw him as stark raving mad in a war-mongery way when he was elected
One of the first things he did in his first term was engage in a to and fro with the nuclear armed North Korea - I remember the endless push notifications.
You’re a numpty. But at least we’ve got to the “nobody warned me” stage rather than outright denial.
I barely mention US politics at all, let alone have a say in it, so I don't feel too bad about not feeling guilty about what Trump says or does. I don't need to say "nobody warned me"!
No need for the insults, I could say the same about you
5th April Hezbollah claim to have hit a warship with an ASM of the coast of Lebanon 7th of April HMS Dragon is to be repaired at port due to fresh water problems
Given the quality of our services that really could just be coincidence.
Anyone who didn't vote for a party that wanted Nuclear disarmament could be said to be responsible really, if we are apportioning blame. It wouldn't put me off voting for someone if they forwarded that policy
So you still think there is no additional military risk in voting for a volatile loopy narcissist vs boring establishment candidates? Really?
No one was warning that Trump was a war monger who might use nukes. The warnings were that he was too tough on immigration and DEI. It is an easy point to score now he looks like he has gone stark raving mad, but I don't think people saw him as stark raving mad in a war-mongery way when he was elected
Trump’s unpredictable foreign policy, disregard for democracy, and antagonistic stance on nuclear weapons threatens to intensify the dangers posed by nuclear flashpoints in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. His last administration oversaw the development of new nuclear weapons and the US withdrawal from critical arms control treaties, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the groundbreaking nuclear agreement with Iran...
Why does the US even need UK bases when they have loads in those Gulf States ?
Force of habit, and it's often forgotten that planes can fly long distance. The USAF is used to flying long distances and the whole fly-from-England-bomb-MENA-refuel-come-back is well-practiced.
I've just tried to set up a personal account on the hospital's website, as instructed by the appointment letter. The attempt failed and the system has sent me an email that starts off Hello No patient name on file.,
Anyone who didn't vote for a party that wanted Nuclear disarmament could be said to be responsible really, if we are apportioning blame. It wouldn't put me off voting for someone if they forwarded that policy
So you still think there is no additional military risk in voting for a volatile loopy narcissist vs boring establishment candidates? Really?
No one was warning that Trump was a war monger who might use nukes. The warnings were that he was too tough on immigration and DEI. It is an easy point to score now he looks like he has gone stark raving mad, but I don't think people saw him as stark raving mad in a war-mongery way when he was elected
Trump’s unpredictable foreign policy, disregard for democracy, and antagonistic stance on nuclear weapons threatens to intensify the dangers posed by nuclear flashpoints in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. His last administration oversaw the development of new nuclear weapons and the US withdrawal from critical arms control treaties, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the groundbreaking nuclear agreement with Iran...
I thought there probably would be someone! Although that was after he was elected, so not really a warning to voters.
I might join CND, I almost did thirty years ago but my Dad took the mickey out of the bloke who phoned up and I was too embarrassed to do it
They’ll be getting quite a few new members this week I should think
They reckon the US nukes could be launched from the UK. That might make people think we were supporting it
It is unfortunate that the UN Security Council has once again failed to demonstrate effectiveness and act decisively in the face of such a global threat as the Iranian regime's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
No one should be allowed to block such globally significant sea lanes or undermine the security of dozens of nations through terrorist attacks against the freedom of navigation.
We faced a similar challenge in the Black Sea when the Russians attempted to block our ports and civilian shipping—Russia was trying to suffocate our economy. And we found a way to solve that problem through decisive action, not inaction.
Now, we see a similar problem on a global scale. The Strait of Hormuz must remain open to all vessels that sustain vital economy lifelines and maintain normal international trade.
Countries in the region have spoken clearly on this, and we support the aspirations of the people of the Middle East and the Gulf for peace.
Peace and security in this region directly impact stability, market predictability, and the cost of living in every single country.
Such problems and this war must not be prolonged. The world needs a functional UNSC that acts more decisively to resolve acute security challenges of global magnitude.
Why does the US even need UK bases when they have loads in those Gulf States ?
Because you don't base strategic bombers within range of adversary missiles and drones. The US have lost two of their force of E3 AWACS, and several tankers, on the gyound at bases in the region.
Anyone who didn't vote for a party that wanted Nuclear disarmament could be said to be responsible really, if we are apportioning blame. It wouldn't put me off voting for someone if they forwarded that policy
So you still think there is no additional military risk in voting for a volatile loopy narcissist vs boring establishment candidates? Really?
No one was warning that Trump was a war monger who might use nukes. The warnings were that he was too tough on immigration and DEI. It is an easy point to score now he looks like he has gone stark raving mad, but I don't think people saw him as stark raving mad in a war-mongery way when he was elected
People saw exactly what he was capable of after he lost in 2020. Anyone who looked at him again expecting stable sensible government was off with the fairies, frankly. I understand the frustrations that led to people voting for Trump. But his character was laid bare for all to see in his first term. I didn’t quite expect him to go quite so mad so quickly, but he was certainly capable of it.
Indeed:
People (largely) voted for Trump for two reasons.
Firstly, there was chos at the border and a flood of people crossing as I wrote about here. Secondly, people got poorer under Biden, thanks to post-Covid inflation and the the impact of the Ukraine war on energy prices.
The assumption was that businessman Trump would close the borders, bring jobs back to the US, and get gas (and other) prices down.
On immigration, (largely) closing the border has been popular. But picking up Americans who look a bit foreign from the streets an imprisoning them without trial has been less so.
On jobs, it's not been great... job growth has been tepid and below the Biden years. But... most people -until recently- have kept their jobs.
And on prices and gas, it's a disaster. Tariffs have been horrible for his voters. And the rising gas prices are absolutely killing lower income Americans. And -of course- if gas prices spike, that means that Americans can't afford to go to Denny's for dinner. Which, in turn, means economic activity declines.
Nobody votes to get poorer, and the attacks on Iran have made Americans poorer. And Americans that are getting poorer, are the ones who are most likely to have voted Trump. (The well off middle classes in the suburbs and cities are much less affected.)
It is unfortunate that the UN Security Council has once again failed to demonstrate effectiveness and act decisively in the face of such a global threat as the Iranian regime's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
No one should be allowed to block such globally significant sea lanes or undermine the security of dozens of nations through terrorist attacks against the freedom of navigation.
We faced a similar challenge in the Black Sea when the Russians attempted to block our ports and civilian shipping—Russia was trying to suffocate our economy. And we found a way to solve that problem through decisive action, not inaction.
Now, we see a similar problem on a global scale. The Strait of Hormuz must remain open to all vessels that sustain vital economy lifelines and maintain normal international trade.
Countries in the region have spoken clearly on this, and we support the aspirations of the people of the Middle East and the Gulf for peace.
Peace and security in this region directly impact stability, market predictability, and the cost of living in every single country.
Such problems and this war must not be prolonged. The world needs a functional UNSC that acts more decisively to resolve acute security challenges of global magnitude.
He can suck up to Trump all he likes, it won't make a blind bit of difference.
‘ The NYT reports that the Israelis "hard-pitched" the Iran War to Trump in February, and this meeting ultimately led to Trump's final decision.
In the meeting, the Israelis said that Iran's ballistic missiles could be destroyed, their grip on the Strait of Hormuz loosened, and the Kurds would flood in to fight Iran, culminating in regime change.
Every Trump advisor pushed back, but President Trump maintained that the regime change wasn't his issue, believing he could dislodge Iran's missiles and grip on the Strait.
General Dan Caine and Sec. Rubio warned that the analysis was nonsense, with the after effects showing that neither the expectation of destroying Iran's missiles nor securing the Strait was achievable.
As a result, the Israelis effectively sold Trump on a war under false pretenses that turned into a conundrum quickly.
Caine noted the Israelis frequently oversell their plans, with time revealing that none of the projected outcomes in Iran came to pass. ’
‘ The NYT reports that the Israelis "hard-pitched" the Iran War to Trump in February, and this meeting ultimately led to Trump's final decision.
In the meeting, the Israelis said that Iran's ballistic missiles could be destroyed, their grip on the Strait of Hormuz loosened, and the Kurds would flood in to fight Iran, culminating in regime change.
Every Trump advisor pushed back, but President Trump maintained that the regime change wasn't his issue, believing he could dislodge Iran's missiles and grip on the Strait.
General Dan Caine and Sec. Rubio warned that the analysis was nonsense, with the after effects showing that neither the expectation of destroying Iran's missiles nor securing the Strait was achievable.
As a result, the Israelis effectively sold Trump on a war under false pretenses that turned into a conundrum quickly.
Caine noted the Israelis frequently oversell their plans, with time revealing that none of the projected outcomes in Iran came to pass. ’
It is unfortunate that the UN Security Council has once again failed to demonstrate effectiveness and act decisively in the face of such a global threat as the Iranian regime's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
No one should be allowed to block such globally significant sea lanes or undermine the security of dozens of nations through terrorist attacks against the freedom of navigation.
We faced a similar challenge in the Black Sea when the Russians attempted to block our ports and civilian shipping—Russia was trying to suffocate our economy. And we found a way to solve that problem through decisive action, not inaction.
Now, we see a similar problem on a global scale. The Strait of Hormuz must remain open to all vessels that sustain vital economy lifelines and maintain normal international trade.
Countries in the region have spoken clearly on this, and we support the aspirations of the people of the Middle East and the Gulf for peace.
Peace and security in this region directly impact stability, market predictability, and the cost of living in every single country.
Such problems and this war must not be prolonged. The world needs a functional UNSC that acts more decisively to resolve acute security challenges of global magnitude.
He can suck up to Trump all he likes, it won't make a blind bit of difference.
‘ The NYT reports that the Israelis "hard-pitched" the Iran War to Trump in February, and this meeting ultimately led to Trump's final decision.
In the meeting, the Israelis said that Iran's ballistic missiles could be destroyed, their grip on the Strait of Hormuz loosened, and the Kurds would flood in to fight Iran, culminating in regime change.
Every Trump advisor pushed back, but President Trump maintained that the regime change wasn't his issue, believing he could dislodge Iran's missiles and grip on the Strait.
General Dan Caine and Sec. Rubio warned that the analysis was nonsense, with the after effects showing that neither the expectation of destroying Iran's missiles nor securing the Strait was achievable.
As a result, the Israelis effectively sold Trump on a war under false pretenses that turned into a conundrum quickly.
Caine noted the Israelis frequently oversell their plans, with time revealing that none of the projected outcomes in Iran came to pass. ’
‘ The NYT reports that the Israelis "hard-pitched" the Iran War to Trump in February, and this meeting ultimately led to Trump's final decision.
In the meeting, the Israelis said that Iran's ballistic missiles could be destroyed, their grip on the Strait of Hormuz loosened, and the Kurds would flood in to fight Iran, culminating in regime change.
Every Trump advisor pushed back, but President Trump maintained that the regime change wasn't his issue, believing he could dislodge Iran's missiles and grip on the Strait.
General Dan Caine and Sec. Rubio warned that the analysis was nonsense, with the after effects showing that neither the expectation of destroying Iran's missiles nor securing the Strait was achievable.
As a result, the Israelis effectively sold Trump on a war under false pretenses that turned into a conundrum quickly.
Caine noted the Israelis frequently oversell their plans, with time revealing that none of the projected outcomes in Iran came to pass. ’
‘ The NYT reports that the Israelis "hard-pitched" the Iran War to Trump in February, and this meeting ultimately led to Trump's final decision.
In the meeting, the Israelis said that Iran's ballistic missiles could be destroyed, their grip on the Strait of Hormuz loosened, and the Kurds would flood in to fight Iran, culminating in regime change.
Every Trump advisor pushed back, but President Trump maintained that the regime change wasn't his issue, believing he could dislodge Iran's missiles and grip on the Strait.
General Dan Caine and Sec. Rubio warned that the analysis was nonsense, with the after effects showing that neither the expectation of destroying Iran's missiles nor securing the Strait was achievable.
As a result, the Israelis effectively sold Trump on a war under false pretenses that turned into a conundrum quickly.
Caine noted the Israelis frequently oversell their plans, with time revealing that none of the projected outcomes in Iran came to pass. ’
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 37m The world’s most important price for physical oil barrels soared to its highest on record. Dated Brent, which helps price much of the world’s actual oil barrels, hit $144.42 on Tuesday, according to Platts, a unit of S&P Global Energy.
It is unfortunate that the UN Security Council has once again failed to demonstrate effectiveness and act decisively in the face of such a global threat as the Iranian regime's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
No one should be allowed to block such globally significant sea lanes or undermine the security of dozens of nations through terrorist attacks against the freedom of navigation.
We faced a similar challenge in the Black Sea when the Russians attempted to block our ports and civilian shipping—Russia was trying to suffocate our economy. And we found a way to solve that problem through decisive action, not inaction.
Now, we see a similar problem on a global scale. The Strait of Hormuz must remain open to all vessels that sustain vital economy lifelines and maintain normal international trade.
Countries in the region have spoken clearly on this, and we support the aspirations of the people of the Middle East and the Gulf for peace.
Peace and security in this region directly impact stability, market predictability, and the cost of living in every single country.
Such problems and this war must not be prolonged. The world needs a functional UNSC that acts more decisively to resolve acute security challenges of global magnitude.
He can suck up to Trump all he likes, it won't make a blind bit of difference.
No country should be allowed to hold the world’s economy hostage.
Yet that is exactly what Iran is doing, by denying the right of transit passage, a key navigational right under international law, as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Today, Russia and China chose to shield their ally, Iran, rather than join international efforts to open the Strait and avert risks to the global economy.
We reject the claims made by Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi last week that the efforts by the Council to open the Strait will ‘complicate the situation’.
It is Iran’s actions that have closed the Strait.
This has already had dire consequences, and the longer this stranglehold continues, the worse the situation will get.
‘ The NYT reports that the Israelis "hard-pitched" the Iran War to Trump in February, and this meeting ultimately led to Trump's final decision.
In the meeting, the Israelis said that Iran's ballistic missiles could be destroyed, their grip on the Strait of Hormuz loosened, and the Kurds would flood in to fight Iran, culminating in regime change.
Every Trump advisor pushed back, but President Trump maintained that the regime change wasn't his issue, believing he could dislodge Iran's missiles and grip on the Strait.
General Dan Caine and Sec. Rubio warned that the analysis was nonsense, with the after effects showing that neither the expectation of destroying Iran's missiles nor securing the Strait was achievable.
As a result, the Israelis effectively sold Trump on a war under false pretenses that turned into a conundrum quickly.
Caine noted the Israelis frequently oversell their plans, with time revealing that none of the projected outcomes in Iran came to pass. ’
It is unfortunate that the UN Security Council has once again failed to demonstrate effectiveness and act decisively in the face of such a global threat as the Iranian regime's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
No one should be allowed to block such globally significant sea lanes or undermine the security of dozens of nations through terrorist attacks against the freedom of navigation.
We faced a similar challenge in the Black Sea when the Russians attempted to block our ports and civilian shipping—Russia was trying to suffocate our economy. And we found a way to solve that problem through decisive action, not inaction.
Now, we see a similar problem on a global scale. The Strait of Hormuz must remain open to all vessels that sustain vital economy lifelines and maintain normal international trade.
Countries in the region have spoken clearly on this, and we support the aspirations of the people of the Middle East and the Gulf for peace.
Peace and security in this region directly impact stability, market predictability, and the cost of living in every single country.
Such problems and this war must not be prolonged. The world needs a functional UNSC that acts more decisively to resolve acute security challenges of global magnitude.
He can suck up to Trump all he likes, it won't make a blind bit of difference.
On the contrary, he's pitching for more business from the Gulf states. Very sensible.
‘ The NYT reports that the Israelis "hard-pitched" the Iran War to Trump in February, and this meeting ultimately led to Trump's final decision.
In the meeting, the Israelis said that Iran's ballistic missiles could be destroyed, their grip on the Strait of Hormuz loosened, and the Kurds would flood in to fight Iran, culminating in regime change.
Every Trump advisor pushed back, but President Trump maintained that the regime change wasn't his issue, believing he could dislodge Iran's missiles and grip on the Strait.
General Dan Caine and Sec. Rubio warned that the analysis was nonsense, with the after effects showing that neither the expectation of destroying Iran's missiles nor securing the Strait was achievable.
As a result, the Israelis effectively sold Trump on a war under false pretenses that turned into a conundrum quickly.
Caine noted the Israelis frequently oversell their plans, with time revealing that none of the projected outcomes in Iran came to pass. ’
‘ The NYT reports that the Israelis "hard-pitched" the Iran War to Trump in February, and this meeting ultimately led to Trump's final decision.
In the meeting, the Israelis said that Iran's ballistic missiles could be destroyed, their grip on the Strait of Hormuz loosened, and the Kurds would flood in to fight Iran, culminating in regime change.
Every Trump advisor pushed back, but President Trump maintained that the regime change wasn't his issue, believing he could dislodge Iran's missiles and grip on the Strait.
General Dan Caine and Sec. Rubio warned that the analysis was nonsense, with the after effects showing that neither the expectation of destroying Iran's missiles nor securing the Strait was achievable.
As a result, the Israelis effectively sold Trump on a war under false pretenses that turned into a conundrum quickly.
Caine noted the Israelis frequently oversell their plans, with time revealing that none of the projected outcomes in Iran came to pass. ’
‘ The NYT reports that the Israelis "hard-pitched" the Iran War to Trump in February, and this meeting ultimately led to Trump's final decision.
In the meeting, the Israelis said that Iran's ballistic missiles could be destroyed, their grip on the Strait of Hormuz loosened, and the Kurds would flood in to fight Iran, culminating in regime change.
Every Trump advisor pushed back, but President Trump maintained that the regime change wasn't his issue, believing he could dislodge Iran's missiles and grip on the Strait.
General Dan Caine and Sec. Rubio warned that the analysis was nonsense, with the after effects showing that neither the expectation of destroying Iran's missiles nor securing the Strait was achievable.
As a result, the Israelis effectively sold Trump on a war under false pretenses that turned into a conundrum quickly.
Caine noted the Israelis frequently oversell their plans, with time revealing that none of the projected outcomes in Iran came to pass. ’
Comments
Trump got his second term and he doesn't need MAGA, Vance or any of the people that helped to get him there....
It's the same with all dictators and would-be dictators - They ALWAYS end up betraying the people that helped them take over, once they no longer need them...
We can't face yet another of his demented ultimatums.
One reason why I'm now regretting she lost is that Trump, who otherwise would have been a comic footnote a la Horace Greeley or Barry Goldwater, is now actually planning to do it to show he can.
They would probably have chosen Rubio, with a possible side order of Pence, Haley or DeSantis, and the nominee would in all probability have won and still be president now.
Rubio, Pence and DeSantis are not nice human beings but at least they are not actively insane.
So, limited strikes to stop Iran having a nuclear bomb, OK.
Killing the Ayatollah was the the point at which I would get out of the car as, well, how do you come back from that? It would be like if Russia had killed Queen Elizabeth II.
Once you kill the Supreme Leader, that's it. There's no way out other than complete and total victory with regime change but complete and total victory against Iran without the mass deployment of ground troops isn't going to happen?
Complete madness!
That is they go to the general area and get directed to do multiple strikes at targets of opportunity over a period of time.
Rather than directly attack single, pre-specified targets.
The length of time their missions are being flown for, and the load outs of weapons strong on suggest this is what is happening in the current conflict.
Does anyone think that Trump & Co. are changing US military doctrine to be nice to Starmer? Or are they just lying to him?
Harris should never have run for office outside her safe home state of blue California, had she not run in 2020 Biden might have picked a more electable VP like Buttigieg
He'll fight anyone to cling to power.
Anyone.
Be warned
The fact he’s even mentioned it is enough for massive alarm. Ignore all the TACO, troll the libs crap - if the thought crossed his mind that’s enough for us to change our posture.
I think Starmer’s compromise has been understandable to this point. No longer.
You’re a numpty. But at least we’ve got to the “nobody warned me” stage rather than outright denial.
A jet.
Hardly "bombers" or anything like a squadron...
Typical right wing and extreme left wing truth manipulation
She made a serious mistake at the beginning of this war it would be wiser to admit that and just give her some credit for back peddling when she realised where it was heading.
7th of April HMS Dragon is to be repaired at port due to fresh water problems
No need for the insults, I could say the same about you
https://x.com/i/status/2041559326599344538
There are plenty more from Fairford in the media
https://www.instagram.com/stories/rishisunakmp/3870209677700156423/
No
Do you want the good news or bad news first ?
The bad
There were no survivors
What on earth is the good news ?
They were all lawyers
https://cnduk.org/the-world-is-a-more-dangerous-place-with-trump-in-charge/
..The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) expresses its grave concern that Donald Trump has won the 2024 US presidential election, and warns that the world is now more dangerous with Trump’s finger on the nuclear button.
Trump’s unpredictable foreign policy, disregard for democracy, and antagonistic stance on nuclear weapons threatens to intensify the dangers posed by nuclear flashpoints in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. His last administration oversaw the development of new nuclear weapons and the US withdrawal from critical arms control treaties, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the groundbreaking nuclear agreement with Iran...
The bad news - there were two empty seats at the back…….
Our Royal Navy is toothless.
I might join CND, I almost did thirty years ago but my Dad took the mickey out of the bloke who phoned up and I was too embarrassed to do it
They’ll be getting quite a few new members this week I should think
They reckon the US nukes could be launched from the UK. That might make people think we were supporting it
https://cnduk.org/lakenheath/
It is unfortunate that the UN Security Council has once again failed to demonstrate effectiveness and act decisively in the face of such a global threat as the Iranian regime's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
No one should be allowed to block such globally significant sea lanes or undermine the security of dozens of nations through terrorist attacks against the freedom of navigation.
We faced a similar challenge in the Black Sea when the Russians attempted to block our ports and civilian shipping—Russia was trying to suffocate our economy. And we found a way to solve that problem through decisive action, not inaction.
Now, we see a similar problem on a global scale. The Strait of Hormuz must remain open to all vessels that sustain vital economy lifelines and maintain normal international trade.
Countries in the region have spoken clearly on this, and we support the aspirations of the people of the Middle East and the Gulf for peace.
Peace and security in this region directly impact stability, market predictability, and the cost of living in every single country.
Such problems and this war must not be prolonged. The world needs a functional UNSC that acts more decisively to resolve acute security challenges of global magnitude.
The US have lost two of their force of E3 AWACS, and several tankers, on the gyound at bases in the region.
They're not going to risk that with their B52s.
People (largely) voted for Trump for two reasons.
Firstly, there was chos at the border and a flood of people crossing as I wrote about here.
Secondly, people got poorer under Biden, thanks to post-Covid inflation and the the impact of the Ukraine war on energy prices.
The assumption was that businessman Trump would close the borders, bring jobs back to the US, and get gas (and other) prices down.
On immigration, (largely) closing the border has been popular. But picking up Americans who look a bit foreign from the streets an imprisoning them without trial has been less so.
On jobs, it's not been great... job growth has been tepid and below the Biden years. But... most people -until recently- have kept their jobs.
And on prices and gas, it's a disaster. Tariffs have been horrible for his voters. And the rising gas prices are absolutely killing lower income Americans. And -of course- if gas prices spike, that means that Americans can't afford to go to Denny's for dinner. Which, in turn, means economic activity declines.
Nobody votes to get poorer, and the attacks on Iran have made Americans poorer. And Americans that are getting poorer, are the ones who are most likely to have voted Trump. (The well off middle classes in the suburbs and cities are much less affected.)
Trump got well and truly mugged off by Bibi
‘ The NYT reports that the Israelis "hard-pitched" the Iran War to Trump in February, and this meeting ultimately led to Trump's final decision.
In the meeting, the Israelis said that Iran's ballistic missiles could be destroyed, their grip on the Strait of Hormuz loosened, and the Kurds would flood in to fight Iran, culminating in regime change.
Every Trump advisor pushed back, but President Trump maintained that the regime change wasn't his issue, believing he could dislodge Iran's missiles and grip on the Strait.
General Dan Caine and Sec. Rubio warned that the analysis was nonsense, with the after effects showing that neither the expectation of destroying Iran's missiles nor securing the Strait was achievable.
As a result, the Israelis effectively sold Trump on a war under false pretenses that turned into a conundrum quickly.
Caine noted the Israelis frequently oversell their plans, with time revealing that none of the projected outcomes in Iran came to pass. ’
https://x.com/afpost/status/2041579172540113035?s=61
And I hope they all shoot each other.
We're running out of worst case scenarios.
I'm almost surprised Hegseth didn't livestream it.
@JavierBlas
·
37m
The world’s most important price for physical oil barrels soared to its highest on record. Dated Brent, which helps price much of the world’s actual oil barrels, hit $144.42 on Tuesday, according to Platts, a unit of S&P Global Energy.
https://x.com/JavierBlas/status/2041594901326864882
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/it-is-deeply-regrettable-that-this-resolution-did-not-pass-uk-explanation-of-vote-at-the-un-security-council
No country should be allowed to hold the world’s economy hostage.
Yet that is exactly what Iran is doing, by denying the right of transit passage, a key navigational right under international law, as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Today, Russia and China chose to shield their ally, Iran, rather than join international efforts to open the Strait and avert risks to the global economy.
We reject the claims made by Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi last week that the efforts by the Council to open the Strait will ‘complicate the situation’.
It is Iran’s actions that have closed the Strait.
This has already had dire consequences, and the longer this stranglehold continues, the worse the situation will get.
Very sensible.
Mind you, that's good news for Pete.
Maybe today not so, but I take my share of flack on here and expected a negative response from some
David Warner charged with drink driving
Former Australia batsman arrested in Sydney while on an Easter break from Pakistan Super League
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2026/04/07/david-warner-charged-with-drink-driving/
https://x.com/CMShehbaz/status/2041596151108137363