cookiemonster
Veteran
- Location
- Far away from the asylum
He's asking a country he's been hating on since he came down that golden escalator to sort his mess out?
I can imagine the Chinese reaction.
America bombs Iran.
- Thread starter Salty seadog
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
He's asking a country he's been hating on since he came down that golden escalator to sort his mess out?
I can imagine the Chinese reaction.
cookiemonster
Veteran
- Location
- Far away from the asylum
Lammy, Starmer and the rest of the cabinet are a bunch of spineless pussies.
briantrumpet
Über Member
cookiemonster
Veteran
- Location
- Far away from the asylum
That's what I think. It seems from the coverage here that China are not going near this with a 10 foot bamboo pole.
secretsqirrel
Regular
All that is ”inappropriate question at this time” and “I’m not going to tell lies”.
Standard stuff, which comes out of the same question being asked over again. If he said “sorry I’m not/can’t answer that question” that leads to inferring and speculation as to why.
Politicians have had to learn caution, unfortunately.
cookiemonster
Veteran
- Location
- Far away from the asylum
There's a massive difference between caution and just being cowardly.
briantrumpet
Über Member
Not entirely irrelevant... maybe from a time when interviewers were more understanding of the limits of openness and less excited by gotchas, but it reminds me of why I liked Carrington.
Beebo
Guru
The Government can’t have an opinion on the bombing yet because they haven’t seen any evidence.
I suspect there isn’t much evidence, but until the evidence of bombs is shown to us it would be very silly to offer a 100% opinion either way.
Note that Grant Shapps has given a 100% support to the bombing already without any evidence.
Can't be because US Constitution doesn't give President power to have a war (or declare a war and my non-legal view is you don't need to use the words but actions suffice such a declaration).
(Not disagreeing with you).
Ian
For me the difficulty and one major aspect is International Law or the end of International Law.
Our leaders make a big issue of Russia breaking International Law but when Trump and Netanyahu clearly break International Law out leaders at most sit on the fence and kiss Trump's ring and voice vague irrelevant excuses (irrelevant in that they have nothing to do with the Laws being broken).
She when China bombs Taiwan? Do our leaders whimper around muttering "de-escalation" proving yet again how irrelevant we (UK) have made ourselves.
Time our leaders "grew a pair" and stood-up for something. Starmer was presenting himself as a lawyer who placed high value on law, but turns out he's more interested in fence sitting and being Trump's paper picker.
Ian
glasgowcyclist
Über Member
Constitutional niceties aside, it’s war. Iran can legitimately retaliate against any American asset or personnel, including those in this country, although my hope is they don’t take the bait but continue to focus their military attention on Israel.
Reported on TV News (BBC or C4 can't remember which) that Iran has almost certainly removed it's stockpile of enriched uranium from the enrichment facilities. More that some dreamt-up theory as they were showing satellite photos of all the lorries at the enrichment site(s).
Which highlights (to me) how bombing as a solution just daft. Iran knows how to build enrichment plants, they've done it before, have all the designs, all the engineering skills, etc. and have a stockpile of partially enriched uranium. And they've learnt that they need to be more careful about Iraeli infiltration and more secret about what they are doing and where.
Bombs might have put Iran back a few years (or however long) but I can't see it having stopped them. Negotiated settlements can have a far longer term impact as it doesn't push them into secrect and doesn't make them feel threatened (and feeling threatened is likely a big driving factor in them wanting such weapons).
Ian
Which highlights (to me) how bombing as a solution just daft. Iran knows how to build enrichment plants, they've done it before, have all the designs, all the engineering skills, etc. and have a stockpile of partially enriched uranium. And they've learnt that they need to be more careful about Iraeli infiltration and more secret about what they are doing and where.
Bombs might have put Iran back a few years (or however long) but I can't see it having stopped them. Negotiated settlements can have a far longer term impact as it doesn't push them into secrect and doesn't make them feel threatened (and feeling threatened is likely a big driving factor in them wanting such weapons).
Ian
C R
Guru
Indeed, if Starmer is going to be Trump's bitch he should own it like Blair owned being W's bitch.
CXRAndy
Guru
This is where Starmer has taken us to. Potentially being shut out of the 5 eyes intelligence network
View: https://x.com/MarkHiggie1/status/1936891248561791262?t=HMeFLjHZFKxDVUnXVSpMng&s=19
View: https://x.com/MarkHiggie1/status/1936891248561791262?t=HMeFLjHZFKxDVUnXVSpMng&s=19
So Starmer now thinks that International Law should not apply to our allies when he agree's with the aims. He seems to be saying International Law only relevant when we disagree with the actions. Weird stance for a supposedly highly qualified lawyer.
Ian
What laws don't apply to who? Cherry picking which laws apply when and who ... not the way I thought law worked. Can we all chose which laws do ands don't apply to us?
Ian
