Starmer’s comment

Starmer is simply using this situation to shackle us back to the EU

Exactly becs

The UK needs to re-join the EU:

1. Britain is now too small (nearly all colonies are now independent)
2. The rise of the East. (China average IQ - 105, higher then the UK - but with 1.3 billion people versus 70 million)
3. The EU needs to introduce protectionism - except for a select group of close allies - and then faze out the US and China.

If the UK bi-election/mid-terms go as expected, Stammering Stammer's own party will probably bump him out around the middle of this year. Starmer is a decent person, but he has made mistakes. However, he is right about Trump. No one wants to die to protect the Epstein files.

Oh I’m sure the Frogs don’t want to die……one, two three….Vichy!

If you want to believe that Starmer is an upgrade on Boris, that's fine.

But you're making the argument that previous America and current America are not the same thing. And I'm simply pointing out this Britain is a different Britain under Starmer, regardless of whether you think him better than Boris.

So really, you're comparing oranges to oranges -> insert Trump joke here

Here we go...the tits in America known they have gone and goofed up...now it's tantrums and blame game time.

The lack of self awareness on the western side of the Atlantic could fill a black hole.

Who needs the little men in suits and the Theme Park toy military,

LOL then why does the Trump keep asking/demanding to come help him. Maybe it's something to do with Europe having 130 or so minesweepers to the US's 4?

Because the American public understands the main beneficiaries of opening up Hormuz are Europe and Asia. Japan in particular are struggling for LNG, but can’t help other than releasing oil reserves which they have done.

Your clown president is the man who cause the Straights to be closed. Now he is talking about cutting and running and leaving the Straights to Iran for them to charge $2 million passage per ship, which some analysts estimate will earn Iran $80 billion a year. They could develop a nice little nuclear and rocket program with that.

So you believe they never enriched Uranium to levels only required by nuclear weapons during the rule of the late Ayatollah.

Everyone acknowledges Iran enriched Uranium not to to the level required by nuclear weapons, but to a level that would allow them to quickly enrich that Uranium to the level needed to make a nuclear bomb. No one in the west is disputing that. But there was nothing to indicate Iran had (1.) made the decision to take that final step to build a bomb, (2.) even if they made the bomb that Iran would use it offensively, (3.) they could miniaturize it and have a missile delivery system for it, a capability Iran was believed to be about a decade away from.

Starmer is simply using this situation to shackle us back to the EU.

Legend...about time the mess that is Brexit starts to be undone.

One can debate whether this war is a positive…..reduction in Iran’s capability to have a nuclear weapons vs further radicalization of the militant Muslim world. My view is these guys need no help to go off the rails, they fail at something and it’s automatically the West’s fault. Give them a nuclear weapon and the Strait of Hormuz is closed the next day with a series of demands, mostly involving Israel.

Bollocks, Iran threatens Israel with nukes, Israel would probably launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Not to mention they would effectively be nuking Palestine and the Palestinians which goes against the reason why they got involved in the fight against Israel in the first place. Your just making shit up here.

So nobody wanted this war, it’s a miserable outcome and a tragic one for many, including those kids we all still think about. But this is a rogue regime and a constant source of conflict. It will get worse as their programs come to fruition and look out when their oil starts to fade, that’s when they will be at their most dangerous just like Russia.

You don't know that. you're just projecting these worst case scenario's because you know this a monumental screw up.

The right answer was for the world to step in when the election atrocities became known. The US finally did because Trump isn’t a member of the club and is willing to do the unpopular things. In the short run it’s a bust. Maybe in the long run it’s a bust if we don’t get regime change which looks less and less likely.

Why did the world not step in Sudan or Myanmar. It doesn't step in because then you will basically committing yourself to an endless series of wars. Because there is numerous conflicts and rouge states where innocent people suffer.

But that’s not because the administration wasn’t willing to act. It’s because the American public are limiting his hand via the election process and because Europe has been totally unsupportive. Nor does the argument that they weren’t consulted hold much practical weight, that would simply have leaked and made things much more difficult.

Thank god he fears the possible outcome of the mid terms, it might restrain from doing something really stupid if it's not already too late... and it might render him a lame duck for the last two years. American democracy is a disgrace right now, the system isn't fit for purpose if one man can do so much damage. Damn right Europe isn't being supportive of this stupidity. And leaked what...they would have simply said your reasons and evidence is bullshit we want no part of this and urged continued negotiations, it's not like Europe would of leaked the US's strategy or that Iran would of been less surprised by the the US/Israel attack. Hell there is even a small chance European leaders might have been able persuade him not to go ahead (albeit a very small chance)

Trump’s solution to that conundrum was to say we would take out their whole electrical grid. But the price of that in terms of civilian suffering will probably be too much and the world will accept a phony deal and the Iranians will go on giving us a taste of medieval radicalism every now and then, But we have probably delayed the inevitable by 5 years. In most country’s that and the whole experience might be enough to hope for change. In country’s like Iran sadly that never seems to happen with a a cataclysm

5 years. The assessment I'm seeing are in the best case scenario Iran's nuclear program has been set back 6 months and in a worse case scenario the breakout time has gone from two weeks before the war to an increase of 1 additional week. But yeah tell us again how it's great that Iran's navy and airforce have been destroyed, as if anyone considered them a threat before the war.

If Trump's America isn't respectable America then Starmer's Britain is defos not a shadow of Britain.

So what's the argument exactly?

Britain is indeed a shadow of it's former self, but that's been the direction of travel for a long time before Starmer. But the idea that's it's less respected than America under Trump is laughable, I don't think you appreciate quite how despised Trump and MAGA is around the world. There seen as bunch of dangerous, ignorant morons who deserve nothing but ridicule and contempt.

America isn't only its leader. I know I'm not the ANC and and neither is anybody else here.

That's actually a fair point.

I know at least half if maybe slightly more than half of American's don't support what Trump is doing overall to America... but I still get the impression they don't understand what he's doing to the rest of the world...some will fight him but a lot of them are just keeping their heads down and trying to ignore it.

Europe is not on the side of morality they are on the side of expediency

Europe is not being on the side of gross stupidity. Man up and fix your mess.

Bottom line:

Starmer is far more unpopular in current polling than Trump, by a large margin."

PS Trump is an actual upgrade on Biden according to aggregate polling numbers and Starmer, is on aggregate, less popular the Boris.

Again, I'll ask, what is the argument here?

I don't know what argument are you trying to make?. Starmer is unpopular because of his own mistakes and mistakes of his government, he's not a very good PM. But also he is unpopular because most of the media is extremely right wing in the UK and have gone out of their way to attack him and labour relentlessly, they helped make him more unpopular than his actual policies merit. He is far more competent than any of the last 3 Tory PM's and certainly miles better than Trump. Seriously tell me a policy that he has enacted that has been as disastrous (in a relative sense to the the UK) as some of Trump's crazy antics.

But right now the UK public does support his position with regards the war in Iran and he will probably see a boost in his favourability ratings as a result. His unpopularity has nothing to do with his stance on Iran.

"If the UK bi-election/mid-terms go as expected, his own party will probably bump him out around the middle of this year. Starmer is a decent person, but he has made mistakes. However, he is right about Trump. No one wants to die to protect the Epstein files."

More conspiracy theories ;)

It’s amazing that Starmer and Reeves are blaming all our woes on Brexit…..why are Australia suffering from similar problems then ? I can’t believe Brexit would have affected the Antipodes that much……..

The UK needs to re-join the EU:

It absolute does, anyone who argues otherwise is arguing against the best interests of the UK.

Invariable the right wing media in the UK will argue it's a betrayal... but they are the very people who inflicted the damage of Brexit on the UK...the term they so often brand their opponents with "enemies of the people" is the most apt description of themselves.

It’s amazing that Starmer and Reeves are blaming all our woes on Brexit…..why are Australia suffering from similar problems then ? I can’t believe Brexit would have affected the Antipodes that much……..

They are not, that's simply a lie. Brexit is not the only reason for the UK's wow, they never argued that...but it is a major reason unique to the UK.

The main reason for Starmer's unpopularity is because he appointed Mandelson, something for which he apologised. Bozo was closer to Epstein than Mandelson ever was. Spot the difference.

I won't argue that Starmer was weak in the beginning of his term but the more I see of him the more I'm warming to him.

Starmer is a weak man, totally out of his depth.

He is unpopular for myriad reasons, Rooinek.

but are you comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons?

What does this mean?

The winter fuel allowance debacle is really want started to turn people against him and Labour. It was a stupid policy where the small benefits it would bring would never outweigh the negative reception it was going to receive. It just gave the public the perception is that here we go, after years of Tories screwing us over Labour are going do the exact same thing. Of course they ended up u-turning and removing the unpopular parts of the policy but the damage was done. Since then there has been a series of U-turns on unpopular policies that have made Labour just look totally disorganised and incompetent, that combined with a complete inability to actually communicate what policies they were trying to enact just allowed their opponents in the media to trash them and project this negative doomsday vibe into British society.

Ultimately most economists reckon Labour are doing okay with the economy given the circumstances they are in, and given event's outside their control.

Starmers saving grace is that Farage appears to have peaked and is losing popularity while standing up to Trump is proving to be a popular among the public.

Here we go

Oh boy that’s exciting the Irish grunt is going to school the Jarpies

LOL then why does the Trump keep asking/demanding to come help him. Maybe it's something to do with Europe having 130 or so minesweepers to the US's 4?

Nice you brought that to our attention, last time I recall you didn’t distinguish between minesweepers and aircraft carriers, and then rather than admitting your mistake, ran away with your tail between your legs. You can have your minesweepers you will need them, we prefer real ships.

Now he is talking about cutting and running and leaving the Straights to Iran for them to charge $2 million passage per ship, which some analysts estimate will earn Iran $80 billion a year.

Paid for by the little men in suits….but as usual you fall for the rhetoric.

Everyone acknowledges Iran enriched Uranium not to to the level required by nuclear weapons, but to a level that would allow them to quickly enrich that Uranium to the level needed to make a nuclear bomb

Reality

1. Very few civilian programs use 60% uranium
2. Most research reactors use:
3. <20% (modern standard), or
4. historically ~90% (older designs)

?? 60% sits in an unusual “in-between” zone

So there is very little practical reason for them to be doing this other than make a bomb(s). And yet there is no need for the world to stop the largest state supporter of terrorism to have a bomb.

Bollocks, Iran threatens Israel with nukes, Israel would probably launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Not to mention they would effectively be nuking Palestine and the Palestinians which goes against the reason why they got involved in the fight against Israel in the first place. Your just making shit up here.

Er bollocks to you. I know you are a very literal thinker. The logic here is Iran with their bomb closes down Hormuz if Israel doesn’t evacuate territory. In today’s world we have a military option. In an Iran nuclear world that option is much trickier. And let’s suppose your scenario works out, suppose Israel jumps the gun and takes out some nuclear targets and Iran actually uses the bomb. How good is that. Having nukes in the hands of unstable countries is simply not smart

And leaked what...they would have simply said your reasons and evidence is bullshit we want no part of this and urged continued negotiations, it's not like Europe would of leaked the US's strategy or that Iran would of been less surprised by the the US/Israel attack.

There was a long lead time with the US bringing up forces, plenty of time for general talks….the only thing they weren’t privy to was actual military plans. So the whole argument they weren’t informed is naive.

5 years. The assessment I'm seeing are in the best case scenario Iran's nuclear program has been set back 6 months and in a worse case scenario the breakout time has gone from two weeks before the war to an increase of 1 additional week.

Oh so you admit they do have an aggressive program for a bomb which is hard to stop….thanks. But I’d check the source that came up with a week delay, or do you actually believe that biased nonsense?

Europe is not being on the side of gross stupidity. Man up and fix your mess.

We are, expecting Europe to fund it’s own defense $35 trillion is enough.

Is Iran involved in drugs trading? Since liberals qualified drugs traders as terrorists, it changed massively the landscape of terrorism. Biggest terrorists are by far drug traders.

Unless Iran is involved massively in drug trading, they can no longer be the biggest sponsor.

Having nukes in the hands of unstable countries is simply not smart

So good. Peeps, remember, if I had time, one thread would be dedicated to the most comical comments made by liberals on this board.

This one would go straight to it. It is extremely funny.

Nice you brought that to our attention, last time I recall you didn’t distinguish between minesweepers and aircraft carriers, and then rather than admitting your mistake, ran away with your tail between your legs. You can have your minesweepers you will need them, we prefer real ships.

No I talked about the number of military naval vessels being commissioned by Europe last year outpacing the US and it's more actively being built by the US. I didn't even mention minesweepers back then. You just made up a strawman argument about overall capabilities which I ignored.

Paid for by the little men in suits….but as usual you fall for the rhetoric.

It will be paid for by the world you idiot.. Europe actually doesn't get a lot of oil directly from that part of the world... but restricting supply anywhere in the world means the price goes up for everyone.

So there is very little practical reason for them to be doing this other than make a bomb(s). And yet there is no need for the world to stop the largest state supporter of terrorism to have a bomb.

Leverage in negotiations.

Er bollocks to you. I know you are a very literal thinker. The logic here is Iran with their bomb closes down Hormuz if Israel doesn’t evacuate territory. In today’s world we have a military option. In an Iran nuclear world that option is much trickier. And let’s suppose your scenario works out, suppose Israel jumps the gun and takes out some nuclear targets and Iran actually uses the bomb. How good is that. Having nukes in the hands of unstable countries is simply not smart

Iran has just shut the Straights of Hormuz...they didn't need a nuke to do it. You keep implying Iran will do absolutely suicidal things, they will just demand Israel evacuate territory (something Israel should actual do from some of the territory it occupies by the way) and expect Israel to just comply without Israel and the United States threating to nuke them back to the stone age if they try it.

What's actually occurring right now is the US-Israel launched an attack when there was no immediate need to do so, when negotiations were actually trending towards a deal to thwart a hypothetical threat that all intelligence assessment indicated was wasn't likely to occur in the short term. In exchange for Trump delaying Iran's ability to build a nuke for an unspecified period of time a nuke which we have no idea if Iran would ever use offensively if they wanted to build one at all, Trump has trashed America's reputation...massively damaged the global economy and we appear to be heading towards a scenario where Iran controls the Straights long term and will benefit massively from it. Then after creating this enormous mess he appears to be trying to wash his hands of it. Absolute child like behaviour.

There was a long lead time with the US bringing up forces, plenty of time for general talks….the only thing they weren’t privy to was actual military plans. So the whole argument they weren’t informed is naive.

They weren't consulted or directly told anything...sure a day or two the attacks they likely new it was coming from how they American's were acting at the end of the Geneva talks

Oh so you admit they do have an aggressive program for a bomb which is hard to stop….thanks. But I’d check the source that came up with a week delay, or do you actually believe that biased nonsense?

They had the option to quickly develop a nuclear bomb, but no decision was ever taken to make the final step required and if they did develop a bomb if they would ever use in an offensive manner and that they where unlikely to process the ability to launch one in a ballistic missile till 2035. But yes it was/is hard to stop.

Here's my source.

It gives several estimates ranging from 3 week up to 26 weeks.

https://missilestrikes.com/nuclear-status/?utm_source=copilot.com

We are, expecting Europe to fund it’s own defense $35 trillion is enough.

Blah blah blah....bullshit number on a topic that has nothing to do with Europe's defence. Trump has made this mess with Iran, it's got squat to do with Europe.

No I talked about the number of military naval vessels being commissioned by Europe last year outpacing the US and it's more actively being built by the US. I didn't even mention minesweepers back then. You just made up a strawman argument about overall capabilities which I ignored.

Nice try, the truth is the only reason you mentioned ship building was to brag that Europe out built the US last year. Stupidly it never occurred to you that Europe might be building minesweepers and patrol boats. Then when I pointed out the class difference , instead of just saying ‘my bad’ you just ran away as you do so often when humiliated.

t will be paid for by the world you idiot.. Europe actually doesn't get a lot of oil directly from that part of the world... but restricting supply anywhere in the world means the price goes up for everyone

And all the oil and gas the US produces will benefit from the higher price….how much oil do you produce…..you idiot

Leverage in negotiations

That’s the best possible outcome, but there is a good chance it could be much worse….in this war Iran shot everything they had at whoever they could reach.

Iran has just shut the Straights of Hormuz...they didn't need a nuke to do it

But if they play that game too long the world will stop them. A lot dicier if they have a nuke.

What's actually occurring right now is the US-Israel launched an attack when there was no immediate need to do so

Er that’s why it’s called pre-emptive.

They weren't consulted or directly told anything...sure a day or two the attacks they likely new it was coming

Brilliant those little men in suits….they new(sic)

Blah blah blah....bullshit number on a topic that has nothing to do with Europe's defence.

You wish. It’s a very simple number, the money spent only on Europe since 1945 invested in the S&P 500 instead. The greatest gift in the history of humanity. Equal to the entire US debt. I can fully understand you would rather not be reminded of it.

As for it having nothing to do with Europe’s defense, we shall see, the US is ridiculously generous but comments like Starmer made are simply adding to a lot of bad blood. I can’t see anything good for Europe as long as there is a Republican President, perhaps ever, the American public is now well aware that we spend a lot of money and are given nothing in return.

’It’s not our war’ …perhaps the stupidest political statement ever made

Nice try, the truth is the only reason you mentioned ship building was to brag that Europe out built the US last year. Stupidly it never occurred to you that Europe might be building minesweepers and patrol boats. Then when I pointed out the class difference , instead of just saying ‘my bad’ you just ran away as you do so often when humiliated.

Except it wasn't just building just minesweepers and patrol boats. It was building subs, frigates, destroyers and corvettes. Of course you never bothered to check what Europe was actually building you just assumed.

The US launched just one sub and one littoral combat ship last year compared to about 20 vessels built by European nations. It's true the US sub was the largest single vessel by tonnage, maybe a third more than the French Barracuda class sub. The surface ship the US launched was quite small, the Europeans launching several larger surface vessels. Now of course tonnage doesn't translate to capabilities both the US and Europe are producing very capable ships that meet the specific requirements of their countries. The point that I was making that it shows Europe is re-arming and capable of producing significant quantifies numbers of combat vessels and has many more in the pipeline than the US, while the US seems to have issues with both designing and building new vessels for the last number of years.

As for running away, I just get bored responding at times. I know you will never admit your wrong and just keep posting on till the heat death of the universe and I don't have this chip on my shoulder were I have to perceive myself as winning an argument.

And all the oil and gas the US produces will benefit from the higher price….how much oil do you produce…..you idiot

And the US consumer stills get screwed, along with the rest of the world. The world economy going to pot isn't a good for the US either. But we don't produce any oil because we don't have any.

That’s the best possible outcome, but there is a good chance it could be much worse….in this war Iran shot everything they had at whoever they could reach.

True but only after the suffered a massive attack on them by Israel and the US.

But if they play that game too long the world will stop them. A lot dicier if they have a nuke.

No they won't. Who's going to do it? The US looks like it want's to bail out... the Europeans said we ain't touching that with 50 foot barge pool...China is Iran's ally, ditto Russia.

Er that’s why it’s called pre-emptive.

Why don't you just launch strikes on everyone without reason, just in case.

They weren't consulted or directly told anything...sure a day or two the attacks they likely new it was coming

So brilliant they didn't fuck up the world economy be invading a country that could blockade 20% of the worlds oil supply and then act shocked when it happened.

You wish. It’s a very simple number, the money spent only on Europe since 1945 invested in the S&P 500 instead. The greatest gift in the history of humanity. Equal to the entire US debt. I can fully understand you would rather not be reminded of it.

As for it having nothing to do with Europe’s defense, we shall see, the US is ridiculously generous but comments like Starmer made are simply adding to a lot of bad blood. I can’t see anything good for Europe as long as there is a Republican President, perhaps ever, the American public is now well aware that we spend a lot of money and are given nothing in return.

’It’s not our war’ …perhaps the stupidest political statement ever made

As I said blah blah blah.

Of course you never bothered to check what Europe was actually building you just assumed.

Of course you assume that, even though buried in the strings is my response to your first claim that the US was being outproduced. You know the one you were running away from. So here’s a summary of 2025:

1. The U.S. Navy is structured to fight and win far from home
2. European navies are structured to defend near home

So even in a down year the US added more firepower power, to a vastly more powerful existing fleet . Chat’s summary is instructive:

Let’s not revisit this again unless you have something useful to add.

And the US consumer stills get screwed, along with the rest of the world. The world economy going to pot isn't a good for the US either. But we don't produce any oil because we don't have any.

Which means the US has energy security. And as much of the infrastructure is dedicated prices won’t rise as much, in the meantime Europe and Asia could actually be at risk of not having enough supply…Japan has 6 weeks of LNG left.

True but only after the suffered a massive attack on them by Israel and the US.

And after Iran proxies attacked Israel civilians in a brutal massacre, which nobody in Europe seems much bothered about.

No they won't. Who's going to do it? The US looks like it want's to bail out... the Europeans said we ain't touching that with 50 foot barge pool...China is Iran's ally, ditto Russia

It’s true the Europeans probably won’t do anything without the US holding their tiny, little hands….the US would do it as part of a NATO effort and if it lasted long enough the little men in suits would come on bended knee.

So brilliant they didn't fuck up the world economy be invading a country that could blockade 20% of the worlds oil supply and then act shocked when it happened.

Actually this looks to have been a screw up, and we haven’t heard the end of it. The world’s economy will be fine even if the world leaves the Dark Ages Iranian regime in place. But these crisis will continue to occur.

As I said blah, blah, blah

The most intelligent thing you have said in a while