Starmer's vision quest

[Pblakeney]

I see that Starmer has briefed on the UK's position about the situation regarding Iran, Israel and the US.
I agree that the current administration is treating its population appallingly and that indiscriminate bombing must cease immediately.
Iran is no better either.

 

[icowden]

Completely avoiding answering the question.
Why 186 countries do not have nuclear weapons is open to conjecture and doesn't prove they are safer than those who have nuclear weapons.

Why 9 countries do have nuclear weapons is open to conjecture and doesn't prove that they are safer than those who do not have nuclear weapons.

You are simply highlighting the fact there is no evidence to support the greens claim.

You are simply being a pedantic dipshit who is annoyed that he isn't winning his point.

Given that we cannot know which is safer, the 186 without or 9 with, the majority would seem to be the key indicator.

 

[spen666]

Why 9 countries do have nuclear weapons is open to conjecture and doesn't prove that they are safer than those who do not have nuclear weapons.


You are simply being a pedantic dipshit who is annoyed that he isn't winning his point.

Given that we cannot know which is safer, the 186 without or 9 with, the majority would seem to be the key indicator.

The claim was made by the Greens that the countries without nuclear weapons were safer.

All I repeatedly asked is for the evidence to back up that claim.

You are now proving my point by stating there is no evidence.

The numbers either way are irrelevant


The fact you resort to personal insults for me asking for evidence to support a claim says more about you than anything else

 

[icowden]

The claim was made by the Greens that the countries without nuclear weapons were safer.

Yes

All I repeatedly asked is for the evidence to back up that claim.

I provided it.

You are now proving my point by stating there is no evidence.

No - you are refusing to accept my evidence.

The numbers either way are irrelevant

there are 195 places you can live. 184 of them don't have big explodey things that can destroy the entire country. 9 have explodey things that can destroy the entire country. Which would you say is safer? To have explodey things or not to have explodey things?

The fact you resort to personal insults for me asking for evidence to support a claim says more about you than anything else

No, it says a lot about you.

 

[Pblakeney]

Yes

I provided it.

No - you are refusing to accept my evidence.

there are 195 places you can live. 184 of them don't have big explodey things that can destroy the entire country. 9 have explodey things that can destroy the entire country. Which would you say is safer? To have explodey things or not to have explodey things?


No, it says a lot about you.

You are missing the bigger picture. The 184 that don't have them in the main cannot afford them, or mostly are simply not allowed them.
There is a current war in the Middle East about this very subject. The countries that have nukes decide who is allowed nukes.
There are some notable exceptions, but they are few.

 

[spen666]

Yes

I provided it.

No - you are refusing to accept my evidence.

there are 195 places you can live. 184 of them don't have big explodey things that can destroy the entire country. 9 have explodey things that can destroy the entire country. Which would you say is safer? To have explodey things or not to have explodey things?


No, it says a lot about you.

You have provided any evidence to support the greens claim.

Not a single thing you have posted supports the claim that countries without nuclear weapons are safer than those with it.

You have however said its not possible to prove it either way.

Now you are contradicting yourself by claiming you've proved something you said can't be proved either way.

 

[CXRAndy]

Even Iranians in the UK can tell you about starmer


View: https://x.com/i/status/2027902488712507675

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/i/status/2027807595914793082

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/i/status/2027896654330786102

 

[briantrumpet]

Sadiq Khan in the Graun directly saying Labour needs to drop the Reform rhetoric. Apparently up to 80 MPs are similarly minded, enough to threaten to rebel over the immigration bill. Khan isn't calling for Starmer to go, but to change course.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...r-reform-progressives-gorton-and-denton-party

"A political strategy of taking liberal, progressive voters for granted is clearly flawed. The national Labour party and government doesn’t just need to reflect on this result, but fundamentally rethink its approach.

Many people who voted Labour in July 2024 are now angry and frustrated. They are impatient to see the change promised at the last general election, including better public services and a growing economy, and they want a Labour government that shares their values. People need to know what this Labour government really stands for and be able to believe that it still holds true to the core beliefs the party was established to promote – equality, fairness, social justice and internationalism – while governing with economic competence and pragmatism."

 

[Stevo 666]

...while governing with economic competence and pragmatism."

I have a squadron of pigs on standby.

 

[Psamathe]

I see that Starmer has briefed on the UK's position about the situation regarding Iran, Israel and the US.
I agree that the current administration is treating its population appallingly and that indiscriminate bombing must cease immediately.
Iran is no better either.

I saw Starmer making a his statement on TV. He said

Iran can end this now.

They should refrain from further strikes, give up their weapons programmes, and cease the appalling violence and repression against the Iranian people – who deserve the right to determine their own future, in line with our longstanding position.

That is the route to de-escalation and back to the negotiating table.

My understanding was that Iran was at the negotiating table and mid negotiations when Trūmp just Wag the Dog'd.
Starmer didn't raise how US/Israel could end it now and a lot quicker and easier.

 

[briantrumpet]

I saw Starmer making a his statement on TV. He said

My understanding was that Iran was at the negotiating table and mid negotiations when Trūmp just Wag the Dog'd.
Starmer didn't raise how US/Israel could end it now and a lot quicker and easier.

I read somewhere that the reason that Oman intervened shortly before the strikes was because they feared that the US negotiators were simply out of their depth and not understanding what was being negotiated/proposed. Given the incompetence that seems to be a requirement to be a member of Team Trump, it sounds highly plausible. Of course, it's also possible that the negotiations were simply a smokescreen in the run up to a planned assault. As with all these wreckers (including Johnson & Frost etc from 2019), if you can wreck deliberately or by incompentence, it doesn't really matter, as the wrecking is the objective, and it doesn't really matter how you achieve it.

 

[CXRAndy]

Intelligence lead to a accelerated strike by Israeli and US miltary.

They tried to contact you Brian, but you weren't available. They couldn't trust Starmer not to snitch to his Islamic brothers. So decided against their better judgement, seen as you didn't give the go ahead.

 

[Pblakeney]

I read somewhere that the reason that Oman intervened shortly before the strikes was because they feared that the US negotiators were simply out of their depth and not understanding what was being negotiated/proposed. Given the incompetence that seems to be a requirement to be a member of Team Trump, it sounds highly plausible. Of course, it's also possible that the negotiations were simply a smokescreen in the run up to a planned assault. As with all these wreckers (including Johnson & Frost etc from 2019), if you can wreck deliberately or by incompentence, it doesn't really matter, as the wrecking is the objective, and it doesn't really matter how you achieve it.

It must be remembered that the US negotiators are/were Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.
Steve Witkoff - A real estate guy.
Jared Kushner - Donnie's son in law.
Obviously the top team and Middle East experts.