Donald I, emperor of the world.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
OP
OP
C R

C R

Legendary Member
Why doesn’t he get his Board of Peace to sort out the shipping lanes. After all they were keen to get involved.

I'm pretty sure Orban is ordering his navy to sail to the Persian Gulf as we speak.
 

briantrumpet

Timewaster

Sounds like Starmer will be primarily talking to European leaders about coordinating actions to do what they can to get the Straits moving again, but without doing anything that could be construed as entering Trump's war as an aggressor.

"There have been discussions going on in relation to a viable plan. We want to make sure that that involves as many partners as possible. That’s been our stated objective here, particularly talking to European partners, inevitably talking to Gulf Partners and to the US, because we need a credible, viable plan if we can. But he said this was “not easy”. It is difficult. Of course it’s difficult. There’s no hiding that. But that’s what we’re working on in terms of a viable plan."

Put that alongside the comments from Pat McFadden this morning, and it does look like they know who they are dealing with.

"That’s the president right there. The quote that you’ve just given has summed him up. It’s a very transactional presidency and our job is to navigate this, to always remember that the friendship between the United States and the United Kingdom runs very deep. It’s a good relationship. It’s enduring and I think it will outlast all the personalities involved."
 

Psamathe

Guru
The famously land locked Hungary.
Reports I've seen are that he didn't say "no" either. Sort of maybe/maybe not/undecided/pending answer
From https://www.theguardian.com/politic...086d5b46c03a53#block-69b7e22c8f086d5b46c03a53
Q: [From ITV’s Robert Peston] Are you saying no to deploying the Royal Navy to reopen the strait of Hormuz?

Starmer said he discussed this with President Trump yesterday.
"There have been discussions going on in relation to a viable plan. We want to make sure that that involves as many partners as possible. That’s been our stated objective here, particularly talking to European partners, inevitably talking to Gulf Partners and to the US, because we need a credible, viable plan if we can.
But he said this was “not easy”.
It is difficult. Of course it’s difficult. There’s no hiding that. But that’s what we’re working on in terms of a viable plan.
 

Pblakeney

Legendary Member

Pinno718

Guru
The hand on the left of that picture has lines that wouldn't appear normally on a hand, unless there was surgery on it.
The Fate Line shouldn't run up the finger, and normally the would be continued up the opposite side of the same finger. If you were to extend the line.
The same with the Mercury Line, it shouldn't even reach the base of the fingers.
The Life Line appears to be missing.

They appear to be the lines as they'd appear on the left hand, not the right. That or there's been surgery on the hand.

Can you say what the future holds for me? I'll pay you 20 quid.
 

Psamathe

Guru
Starmer is looking for a viable long term plan, with a conclusion.
Donnie can't see past the next 10 minutes.
Starmer's fallacy is that if Trúmp comes back and says "We will do <x>, achieve <y> and all go home" Starmer says "good plan, we're in" and once military forces involved Trǔmp starts "we want <z>" then 20 mins later "<z> is just daft, we require <something completely different>" etc.

What does Starmer do once he agrees to a plan and 10 mins later that plan is discarded for something totally illegal (under international law) and unacceptable to UK - would he call UK military forces home?

Trūmp has proven himself unreliable and inconsistent and as such is somebody we should be getting less tangled up with not more and certainly not when military actions, civilian deaths, etc. are involved and the entire war is undisputedly illegal.
 

Pinno718

Guru
No, it just adds more people killed on top of the people the regime was killing. And makes any transition to a more decent regime that much more unlikely.

It also entrenches them more against the infidel who have been interfering for a long time.
I wonder what Iran would look like today hadn't the CIA and Mi6 colluded in 1953 to overthrow a democratically elected man who didn't want their oil owned by foreign mercenary companies.
 
Top Bottom