Why the fuck are we enabling this fat fucking toad 
You are a vassal.
Just the truth.
1 Like
We’re not joining a war you orange cunt. We’re protecting our own people after you and that genocidal maniac decided to set the Middle East on fire.
1 Like
As true as the comments about Starmer being pathetic, unprincipled and supplicant towards Trump are, I do have sympathy with his need to maintain a diplomatic front while also trying not to incur the random rantings of King Mindless.
There are only two ways of dealing with Trump, one requires the magic of hindsight because Maga Theresa is an impulsive man-baby with dementia who will frequently contradict what he said yesterday. Google "Trump’s Iran strategy " for some perfect examples of how mentally unstable and intellectually unsuitable he is for the job.
The other is to bully him back and show no fear, but Starmer simply isn’t capable of that. Starmer is also unfit to be a leader but on how to deal with a stupid and petulant Commander in Thief, he has my sympathy.
1 Like
I agree, Trump is a volatile leader and his sidekick, Netanyahu is the most vindictive in a dangerous area of the world so the combination of them, with the biggest military force at their disposal, means it’s very difficult to deal with them rationally.
Starmer and his cabinet are useless but you can’t blame him for the way he’s dealt with Trump otherwise you’re just going to be his lapdog and be part of their madness.
1 Like
I like him more on the international stage, then I do domestic.
I think he’s handled this situation as well as can be expected.
1 Like
I dunno, its turns out that the cabinet were informed of the US plan up to three weeks in advance. Denying US permission to use British bases is a good thing, broadly reflective of the public view towards offensive action towards Iran but they did nothing in terms of defensive measures for British people or assets in the region.
The political calculation was that we should wait to be under direct attack before moving any naval assets to the region as that would be compliant with Intl Law. As a result there was no British involvement dealing with the initial barrage from Iran. Now that Iran has expended most of their arsenal sending over naval assets is fairly pointless
No one expected Iran to go scorched earth and start attacking everyone.
But that’s ridiculous if it was going to take weeks for us to send our ships over there.
They should have been on the move ages ago in preparation for worst case scenario.
Where does this 30 day warning story come from?
Agreed. I think the criticism towards Starmer every 2 seconds is getting ridiculous.
Is he the person to take the UK forward to new unprecedented heights? No.
But is he one of the most likely leaders to prevent us from having a full-scale war and a repeat of Iraq 2003? Absolutely. Sometimes boring, pragmatism is what’s needed when you’re dealing with leaders like Trump.
2 Likes
There are quite a lot of people who want to see the sequel.
Tim Shipman of the Spectator
US President Donald Trump responded to the jump in prices by saying that short term rises were a “small price to pay” for removing Iran’s nuclear threat.
A) there was no imminent nuclear threat
B) it’s the regular people who are most impacted by this “small price to pay”
C) it just goes to show America have no fucking plan. They’re predicting $150 a barrel by the end of March if the Strait remains closed. Air fares will go up, the cost of every day goods will go up. All because two devils wanted to wage war
8 Likes
I think you can go further and say there was no imminent threat from Iran, whatsoever. There was no legal basis to start a war.
5 Likes
Higher mortgages, hire fuel prices, inflation going through the roof, world becomes a less safe place and more conflict triggering more migration for the far-right to get upset about.
All because he raped kids and thinks a war will make the story go away.
4 Likes
I think he just wants the oil tbh.
