 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yawn more muslimphobia - dont like Starmer but great that people like us and Spain are standing up to the insane orange nazi man baby. If you like him so much suggest you go and live in the US" So I'm not a Trump lover but you're quite happy if Iran gets nuclear weapons? Meanwhile the great Royal Navy is sending one warship to Cyprus! When it will actually get there of course is another question. As I writ, Dragon is still in dock getting armaments loaded. You'd think the bloody thing would be permanently armed? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yawn more muslimphobia - dont like Starmer but great that people like us and Spain are standing up to the insane orange nazi man baby. If you like him so much suggest you go and live in the US So I'm not a Trump lover but you're quite happy if Iran gets nuclear weapons? Meanwhile the great Royal Navy is sending one warship to Cyprus! When it will actually get there of course is another question. As I writ, Dragon is still in dock getting armaments loaded. You'd think the bloody thing would be permanently armed? " Israel has been claiming that Iran is weeks away from getting nuclear weapons for something like 40 years, now they have decided to bomb Iran again and spineless trump has gone with them before he was ready. He does whatever Netanyahu wants him to do. If trump had any idea what was going on or was in control of anything he would have had agreements to use these bases prior to engagement. He also would have gone through Congress, none of which he didn't. Great that Europe is standing up to him and we actually are letting him use the bases but only for defence, not attack. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the glorious leader appears to be of Mr Trumps Christmas card list And Mr Trump has got it spot on when he said Starmers lack of support is because he is pandering to Muslim voters " Trump is a cry baby idiot. He doesn't have a clue | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump is trying to do anything and everything to take attention away from Epstien files. Even by starting an illegal war. " And there was me thinking he's just going to let it roll for a while, then pull the US out because it's costing too much money and then try and claim a Nobel peace prize for stopping the war | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the glorious leader appears to be of Mr Trumps Christmas card list And Mr Trump has got it spot on when he said Starmers lack of support is because he is pandering to Muslim voters " Trump is right! Starmer is no Churchill. He's a poor unconvincing clownlike actor attempting to play the statesman, dithering behind legalisms while our allies are under fire. Prioritising 'woke' optics and domestic pandering over the Special Relationship is a dereliction of duty that’s made this country unrecognisable. We need a leader with a spine, not one who waits for permission from their activist base to defend the West! 🇬🇧 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yawn more muslimphobia - dont like Starmer but great that people like us and Spain are standing up to the insane orange nazi man baby. If you like him so much suggest you go and live in the US So I'm not a Trump lover but you're quite happy if Iran gets nuclear weapons? Meanwhile the great Royal Navy is sending one warship to Cyprus! When it will actually get there of course is another question. As I writ, Dragon is still in dock getting armaments loaded. You'd think the bloody thing would be permanently armed? " Apparently Iran was ready to strike at a moments notice, Mmmm wonder where we've heard that before?. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the glorious leader appears to be of Mr Trumps Christmas card list And Mr Trump has got it spot on when he said Starmers lack of support is because he is pandering to Muslim voters Trump is right! Starmer is no Churchill. He's a poor unconvincing clownlike actor attempting to play the statesman, dithering behind legalisms while our allies are under fire. Prioritising 'woke' optics and domestic pandering over the Special Relationship is a dereliction of duty that’s made this country unrecognisable. We need a leader with a spine, not one who waits for permission from their activist base to defend the West! 🇬🇧 " You really couldnt be more wrong on this one. If trump was in anyway in charge of what's going on over there he would have got permission to use the bases before attacking. By attacking he has put our people in harms way so starmer has now agreed for our own people's safety. Trump and Israel have started this fight without a war for others. Glad starmer, along with other countries are staying calm and sensible. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Starmer is not running the country someone else is in charge. He should be charged with crimes against the uk people just like that criminal Khan. He is deliberately running London in to the ground. " Put the Kool-Aid down, dude.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Starmer is not running the country someone else is in charge. He should be charged with crimes against the uk people just like that criminal Khan. He is deliberately running London in to the ground. " I'm sorry. Isn't this thread about the war etc. Not the UK, more specifically, London? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I heard on the news today that The French and Greeks are protecting our assets on Cyprus. Very poor show from our PM. Is this his way of saying we need an European army. I do not want one ever." Yes and our planes are shooting down drowns over Jordan. Its called being in a coalition for everyone's safety. Great idea isn't it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Starmer is not running the country someone else is in charge. He should be charged with crimes against the uk people just like that criminal Khan. He is deliberately running London in to the ground. " Khan, the man voted in bu londoners 3 times you mean? Although I am sure you will claim that it wasn't real British Londoners that voted for him.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Starmer is a KC and pays some regard to international law, who knew? Why would he jump into Trump’s illegal war." So many international law practitioners on here!🫤 The UK wasn’t even asked to take part in the attack on Iran because Trump & Israel, who are meant to be our allies, cannot even count on the UK or most other European nations anymore. However, Iran has responded with attacks on British sovereign territory in Cyprus and in other countries with British bases & personnel, including civilian. That is an act of war on the British by Iran. The US was building up for weeks in the Gulf and the UK is still probably a week away from even sending a warship to defend our interests. It’s inexcusable and a total dereliction of the first duty of any PM to defend Britain and the people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yawn more muslimphobia - dont like Starmer but great that people like us and Spain are standing up to the insane orange nazi man baby. If you like him so much suggest you go and live in the US" Presumably you’re in favour of an Islamic regime that throws gay people off the top of buildings ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Blair would have been in there without a second thought. Tricky situation. Certainly no fan of Starmer. Always thought of him as an indecisive ditherer swaying on that rickety old fence of his. I've got very mixed feeling about this Iranian War. Don't think the regime is going to fall as easily as the Iraqi and Afghani ones did 20+ years ago." Similar feelings, the current regime is not a good one but so many support it. You'll need to kill half the population to make a real difference or even to have a chance of getting rid of the evil. One way or another this could end up lasting for years and years dragging the worldwide cost of everything up with it as unrest ripples through the middle east. Personally I think it's a half baked plan, acted on by a demented fool who thinks he is God, egged on by a war criminal in Israel who has already committed genocide in Gazza and is hellbent on doing the same in Iran. I hope he and us are ready for the repercussions that will undoubtedly follow as they did the first Iraqi war | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Starmer is a KC and pays some regard to international law, who knew? Why would he jump into Trump’s illegal war. So many international law practitioners on here!🫤 The UK wasn’t even asked to take part in the attack on Iran because Trump & Israel, who are meant to be our allies, cannot even count on the UK or most other European nations anymore. However, Iran has responded with attacks on British sovereign territory in Cyprus and in other countries with British bases & personnel, including civilian. That is an act of war on the British by Iran. The US was building up for weeks in the Gulf and the UK is still probably a week away from even sending a warship to defend our interests. It’s inexcusable and a total dereliction of the first duty of any PM to defend Britain and the people." Nice bit of spin, but its twisted. Iran launched missiles because it was attacked. Then Britain has said its bases can be used to defend, which is exactly what you have just said we should do. This is not our war, its Israels. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nice bit of spin, but it’s twisted. Iran launched missiles because it was attacked. Then Britain has said its bases can be used to defend, which is exactly what you have just said we should do. This is not our war, its Israels. " I’d agree with you on that. I don’t think the US has any real idea of what they’ve started and their bluff and bluster is getting tiring, especially from The Department of War with that idiot Hegseth in charge. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump is trying to do anything and everything to take attention away from Epstien files. Even by starting an illegal war. " You can't genuinely believe that? 🤯 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nice bit of spin, but it’s twisted. Iran launched missiles because it was attacked. Then Britain has said its bases can be used to defend, which is exactly what you have just said we should do. This is not our war, its Israels. " And I’m the one with spin! 🤭 As Starmer has said multiple times, to pacify the Iranian sleeper cells in the UK, which MI5 warned of just last October, Britain took no part in the attacks. Despite that, Iran attacked British sovereign territory. Only then did the UK allow the US to use British bases but only for defence. So, the UK didn’t attack Iran but Iran has attacked British territory. That is an act of war however you wish to try and spin it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nice bit of spin, but it’s twisted. Iran launched missiles because it was attacked. Then Britain has said its bases can be used to defend, which is exactly what you have just said we should do. This is not our war, its Israels. I’d agree with you on that. I don’t think the US has any real idea of what they’ve started and their bluff and bluster is getting tiring, especially from The Department of War with that idiot Hegseth in charge. " Alarmingly all the military strategists i've seen commenting on this conflict have clearly stated that regime change cannot be effected through air power alone. At some point ground troops will have to be involved. The predicted 4 to 5 weeks seems incredibly optimistic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the glorious leader appears to be of Mr Trumps Christmas card list And Mr Trump has got it spot on when he said Starmers lack of support is because he is pandering to Muslim voters " So can we assume from your post that you would be happy to join an illegal war, and spend money killing foreigners, and quite possibly British servicemen and women, to pander to a criminal, racist, sex offender? Standing up to someone, standing up for the law, standing up to decency and standing up at a cost is quite the opposite of spineless. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the glorious leader appears to be of Mr Trumps Christmas card list And Mr Trump has got it spot on when he said Starmers lack of support is because he is pandering to Muslim voters Trump is right! Starmer is no Churchill. He's a poor unconvincing clownlike actor attempting to play the statesman, dithering behind legalisms while our allies are under fire. Prioritising 'woke' optics and domestic pandering over the Special Relationship is a dereliction of duty that’s made this country unrecognisable. We need a leader with a spine, not one who waits for permission from their activist base to defend the West! 🇬🇧 You really couldnt be more wrong on this one. If trump was in anyway in charge of what's going on over there he would have got permission to use the bases before attacking. By attacking he has put our people in harms way so starmer has now agreed for our own people's safety. Trump and Israel have started this fight without a war for others. Glad starmer, along with other countries are staying calm and sensible." Starmer's decision to wait until British bases were under fire with British lives at risk, before supporting our closest ally is a dereliction of duty, not leadership! Suggesting Trump should've asked permission for a preemptive strike against a regime killing Western soldiers is laughable! Real leaders prevent attacks; 'HR managers' like Starmer wait for damage to be done, hiding behind 'legality'. By dithering to avoid offending his activist base, Starmer painted a target on RAF Akrotiri, showing Iran the UK was the weak link. His U-turn was a humiliating admission his approach failed, putting British lives at risk! You call it 'calm and sensible', but others see it as being a fair-weather friend. As Trump said, Starmer's no Churchill – he's a leader who'd rather see a British base hit than risk a bad headline! What a total pathetic disgrace Starmer is both here and on the world stage!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So I'm not a Trump lover but you're quite happy if Iran gets nuclear weapons? Meanwhile the great Royal Navy is sending one warship to Cyprus! When it will actually get there of course is another question. As I writ, Dragon is still in dock getting armaments loaded. You'd think the bloody thing would be permanently armed? " We can be certain that Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons, because once they do they will launch one or more at Israel. But hey, someone could be “sexing up a dossier” as we speak. Remember all those service men and women who died in Afganistan? Wasted lives, sacrificed for nothing, not to mention those who returned with live-changing injuries. No right thinking person wants that again. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Alarmingly all the military strategists i've seen commenting on this conflict have clearly stated that regime change cannot be effected through air power alone. At some point ground troops will have to be involved. The predicted 4 to 5 weeks seems incredibly optimistic." Germany was effectively destroyed by devastatingly overwhelming air power. Land troops were just fighting kids & old men in the large part, the damage had already been done from the air. A lot of the brutal evil leaders were taken out on day one in Iran. I suspect Iran will not want much more of this, and that’s just 5 days in and the US has suggested there is a lot more devastation to come. Even just on firepower alone, Iran cannot go on forever whilst depleting their stocks versus overwhelming adversaries. 4 or 5 weeks is pretty optimistic for Iran to hold out. This is very different tactics to Iraq & Afghanistan. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Alarmingly all the military strategists i've seen commenting on this conflict have clearly stated that regime change cannot be effected through air power alone. At some point ground troops will have to be involved. The predicted 4 to 5 weeks seems incredibly optimistic. Germany was effectively destroyed by devastatingly overwhelming air power. Land troops were just fighting kids & old men in the large part, the damage had already been done from the air. A lot of the brutal evil leaders were taken out on day one in Iran. I suspect Iran will not want much more of this, and that’s just 5 days in and the US has suggested there is a lot more devastation to come. Even just on firepower alone, Iran cannot go on forever whilst depleting their stocks versus overwhelming adversaries. 4 or 5 weeks is pretty optimistic for Iran to hold out. This is very different tactics to Iraq & Afghanistan. " You might be right but that remains to be seen, already the Americans are surprised at the amount of resistance Iran is showing. I imagine that Iran will eventually fall, also that their leadership know this. I think their plan in this conflict is to make it as costly as possible for the west. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's really nothing quite like a bunch of 60 year old cross-dressers venting their various discriminatory beliefs in the forums of a sex site, is there Maybe we should have a new category of profile Top / versatile / bottom / whiner " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You might be right but that remains to be seen, already the Americans are surprised at the amount of resistance Iran is showing. " I thought the US were a little surprised at Iran’s reaction, attacking neighbours, rather than the resistance? It just reeks of a shoot out and the Iranians are cornered and it’s a final blaze of glory before their inevitable collapse. Unless Russia helps their friend. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's really nothing quite like a bunch of 60 year old cross-dressers venting their various discriminatory beliefs in the forums of a sex site, is there Maybe we should have a new category of profile Top / versatile / bottom / whiner "Totally agree 100% Drama we don't need | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the glorious leader appears to be of Mr Trumps Christmas card list And Mr Trump has got it spot on when he said Starmers lack of support is because he is pandering to Muslim voters " And what do you think trumps View with a guy in ladies underwear would be? Give it a rest and take it up with your next meet or your lical MP, you're turning a drama free zone into drama | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the glorious leader appears to be of Mr Trumps Christmas card list And Mr Trump has got it spot on when he said Starmers lack of support is because he is pandering to Muslim voters " Trying to work out what your post has to do with fabguys, political, religious or racial beliefs has no place here. It's all about having sexual fun with like minded people without the drama. Let's keep it as a safe simple space for everyone to enjoy. Isn't that why we,re all here? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the glorious leader appears to be of Mr Trumps Christmas card list And Mr Trump has got it spot on when he said Starmers lack of support is because he is pandering to Muslim voters Trying to work out what your post has to do with fabguys, political, religious or racial beliefs has no place here. It's all about having sexual fun with like minded people without the drama. Let's keep it as a safe simple space for everyone to enjoy. Isn't that why we,re all here? " It’s an open forum, with a wide spectrum of topics under discussion, If you can’t handle topics outside your safe bubble, the solution is simple:- feel free to scroll past, but don’t blame the forum for your own limited bandwidth! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the glorious leader appears to be of Mr Trumps Christmas card list And Mr Trump has got it spot on when he said Starmers lack of support is because he is pandering to Muslim voters Trump is right! Starmer is no Churchill. He's a poor unconvincing clownlike actor attempting to play the statesman, dithering behind legalisms while our allies are under fire. Prioritising 'woke' optics and domestic pandering over the Special Relationship is a dereliction of duty that’s made this country unrecognisable. We need a leader with a spine, not one who waits for permission from their activist base to defend the West! 🇬🇧 You really couldnt be more wrong on this one. If trump was in anyway in charge of what's going on over there he would have got permission to use the bases before attacking. By attacking he has put our people in harms way so starmer has now agreed for our own people's safety. Trump and Israel have started this fight without a war for others. Glad starmer, along with other countries are staying calm and sensible. Starmer's decision to wait until British bases were under fire with British lives at risk, before supporting our closest ally is a dereliction of duty, not leadership! Suggesting Trump should've asked permission for a preemptive strike against a regime killing Western soldiers is laughable! Real leaders prevent attacks; 'HR managers' like Starmer wait for damage to be done, hiding behind 'legality'. By dithering to avoid offending his activist base, Starmer painted a target on RAF Akrotiri, showing Iran the UK was the weak link. His U-turn was a humiliating admission his approach failed, putting British lives at risk! You call it 'calm and sensible', but others see it as being a fair-weather friend. As Trump said, Starmer's no Churchill – he's a leader who'd rather see a British base hit than risk a bad headline! What a total pathetic disgrace Starmer is both here and on the world stage!! " Wow, its weird as ive always had you down as an intelligent guy. Before we went into Iraq there was full nato support, therefore bases were ready for action. Trump (not really currently our closest allie as he's threaten to invade an allie of ours and belittled the lives of over 400 of our troups) has only done this now because Israel won't wait. Why won't they wait? Iran was still in talks about nuclear threats, maybe Israel wouldn't wait because if its proved Iran has no nuclear weapons it wouldn't have an excuse to bomb them. Its trump and israel thats put out troups in danger, no one else. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the glorious leader appears to be of Mr Trumps Christmas card list And Mr Trump has got it spot on when he said Starmers lack of support is because he is pandering to Muslim voters Trump is right! Starmer is no Churchill. He's a poor unconvincing clownlike actor attempting to play the statesman, dithering behind legalisms while our allies are under fire. Prioritising 'woke' optics and domestic pandering over the Special Relationship is a dereliction of duty that’s made this country unrecognisable. We need a leader with a spine, not one who waits for permission from their activist base to defend the West! 🇬🇧 You really couldnt be more wrong on this one. If trump was in anyway in charge of what's going on over there he would have got permission to use the bases before attacking. By attacking he has put our people in harms way so starmer has now agreed for our own people's safety. Trump and Israel have started this fight without a war for others. Glad starmer, along with other countries are staying calm and sensible. Starmer's decision to wait until British bases were under fire with British lives at risk, before supporting our closest ally is a dereliction of duty, not leadership! Suggesting Trump should've asked permission for a preemptive strike against a regime killing Western soldiers is laughable! Real leaders prevent attacks; 'HR managers' like Starmer wait for damage to be done, hiding behind 'legality'. By dithering to avoid offending his activist base, Starmer painted a target on RAF Akrotiri, showing Iran the UK was the weak link. His U-turn was a humiliating admission his approach failed, putting British lives at risk! You call it 'calm and sensible', but others see it as being a fair-weather friend. As Trump said, Starmer's no Churchill – he's a leader who'd rather see a British base hit than risk a bad headline! What a total pathetic disgrace Starmer is both here and on the world stage!! Wow, its weird as ive always had you down as an intelligent guy. Before we went into Iraq there was full nato support, therefore bases were ready for action. Trump (not really currently our closest allie as he's threaten to invade an allie of ours and belittled the lives of over 400 of our troups) has only done this now because Israel won't wait. Why won't they wait? Iran was still in talks about nuclear threats, maybe Israel wouldn't wait because if its proved Iran has no nuclear weapons it wouldn't have an excuse to bomb them. Its trump and israel thats put out troups in danger, no one else." Personal insults are completely unnecessary in debate as I'm sure you are aware "respectdue"! Calling it 'sensible' to wait until our own bases are actually hit by drones before acting isn’t leadership, it’s gross neglect of duty to defend the British people! You’ve got the timeline backwards!...Starmer didn't 'stay calm' to keep us safe; his 48-hour dither gave Iran a green light to target RAF Akrotiri. By publicly refusing to support our closest ally, he signaled to Tehran that the UK was the weak link in the alliance, directly putting our personnel in harm's way. ?As for 'full NATO support' in Iraq, that’s a convenient rewrite of history to hide Starmer’s current cowardice. He is hiding in the shadow of 2003 because he’s paralyzed by the 'I don't know' factor of 2026. While you’re making excuses for a man who treats national security like a playground spat, the 'nuclear talks' you’re clinging to had already collapsed because Iran refused to stop enrichment. ?Starmer only granted base access after he was humiliated by a strike on British soil! That’s not a 'plan,' it’s a panic. He’s a poor, unconvincing actor attempting to play the statesman while actually pandering to his activist base. As the saying goes, empty vessels make the most sound! Starmer talks a big game about 'learned lessons,' but he’s forgotten the most basic one - that indecision in the face of aggression is the fastest way to get people killed! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the glorious leader appears to be of Mr Trumps Christmas card list And Mr Trump has got it spot on when he said Starmers lack of support is because he is pandering to Muslim voters " The “Muslim” voters would be Sunni, whereas Iran is Shia, they are like oil and water. Trump hasn’t got it spot on, he’s a moron. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A ditherer " You don't get to decide UK foreign policy, the democratically elected govt does. But carry on howling at the moon. It will make no difference. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the glorious leader appears to be of Mr Trumps Christmas card list And Mr Trump has got it spot on when he said Starmers lack of support is because he is pandering to Muslim voters And what do you think trumps View with a guy in ladies underwear would be? Give it a rest and take it up with your next meet or your lical MP, you're turning a drama free zone into drama" Well said mate. There is too much angry gammon on here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yawn more muslimphobia - dont like Starmer but great that people like us and Spain are standing up to the insane orange nazi man baby. If you like him so much suggest you go and live in the US" Would you also suggest that people in the UK complaining about the pre-emptive strikes on Iranian targets should go and live in Iran? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the glorious leader appears to be of Mr Trumps Christmas card list And Mr Trump has got it spot on when he said Starmers lack of support is because he is pandering to Muslim voters Trump is a cry baby idiot. He doesn't have a clue" And how does that comment figure for the toxic nature of the Iran Govt. which kills thousands of its own citizens? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Starmers a cunt as were the tories for letting the doctors and engineers in who are now opening vaping shops selling anything you want. And the engineers who like to meet under age girls too." Bring back the good old days with Fred West and his Mrs nice English predators. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of Daily Mail bigots on this site Not an ounce of sensibility among them. " What should people read instead ... The Socialist Worker? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of Daily Mail bigots on this site Not an ounce of sensibility among them. " I don't know about that. Could say there are a lot of Guardian and Daily Mirror bigots on hear. Also lacking sense and reason. Then again I don't always know where papers stand. Prefer to make my own mind up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Bring back the good old days with Fred West and his Mrs nice English predators. " Totally agree. We don’t need to be importing degenerates whilst we have our own to deal with. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of Daily Mail bigots on this site Not an ounce of sensibility among them. " Bit rich coming from you! On another thread believes victims of sex traffickers, some underage, are in it for the money! You’re the last one to be all preachy fella. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yawn more muslimphobia - dont like Starmer but great that people like us and Spain are standing up to the insane orange nazi man baby. If you like him so much suggest you go and live in the US" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Starmers a cunt as were the tories for letting the doctors and engineers in who are now opening vaping shops selling anything you want. And the engineers who like to meet under age girls too. Bring back the good old days with Fred West and his Mrs nice English predators. " Didn’t know they presented “The good old days”. Thought it was Leonard Sachs🤣 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’m not a great fan but am delighted Starmer has stood up to the orange bully. Refusing to go to war has nothing to do with your Muslim phobia. It’s because it’s against international law." International law is a myth, why haven’t the ‘international’ police taken Putin into custody yet, 3 years after issuing an ‘arrest’ warrant?? 🤣 Starmer cannot defend the UK from Iran because we have the world’s largest Iranian backed sleeper cells to cause mayhem, as stated by MI5. In 2020, MI5 also identified a probable pool of over 40,000 individuals deemed to pose a risk of terrorism. That was 6 years ago! The UK cannot defend itself anymore due to the dangers within. You keep burying your head in the sand and I’ll take heed of what our own security services tell us. And I bet they only tell us the tip of the iceberg. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's really nothing quite like a bunch of 60 year old cross-dressers venting their various discriminatory beliefs in the forums of a sex site, is there Maybe we should have a new category of profile Top / versatile / bottom / whiner "Best forum post of the year! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Bring back the good old days with Fred West and his Mrs nice English predators. Totally agree. We don’t need to be importing degenerates whilst we have our own to deal with." Yes we need to support our English predators those immigrants coming here taking work from good English predators would never happen if Nigel was in charge. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's really nothing quite like a bunch of 60 year old cross-dressers venting their various discriminatory beliefs in the forums of a sex site, is there Maybe we should have a new category of profile Top / versatile / bottom / whiner
Best forum post of the year!" 😂 😂 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yes we need to support our English predators those immigrants coming here taking work from good English predators would never happen if Nigel was in charge. " Absolutely, which is why Nigel’s going to clean up next GE Yippee 👏 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yes we need to support our English predators those immigrants coming here taking work from good English predators would never happen if Nigel was in charge. Absolutely, which is why Nigel’s going to clean up next GE Yippee 👏 " St Nigel would be another Tony Blair "Yes Mr President. No Mr President. How high do you want me to Jump Mr President"  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the glorious leader appears to be of Mr Trumps Christmas card list And Mr Trump has got it spot on when he said Starmers lack of support is because he is pandering to Muslim voters " It's an absolute disaster when it comes to decision-making. Before the election, he assured voters that he would include the IRGC on the terrorist list. Now, every EU country has labeled them as terrorists, along with Canada, the USA, Argentina, and many others, and entire middle east are in war against them , yet he still hasn't made the announcement. so trump was absolutely spot on about him..I always thought Boris was a huge liar, but I never imagined someone else would take that title from him. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yes we need to support our English predators those immigrants coming here taking work from good English predators would never happen if Nigel was in charge. Absolutely, which is why Nigel’s going to clean up next GE Yippee 👏 St Nigel would be another Tony Blair "Yes Mr President. No Mr President. How high do you want me to Jump Mr President" "Anybody who thinks it’s a good idea to not have the US as our allies is deluded. The US are our defenders, look at the shit show right now, we cannot even send a ship to Cyprus. If Russia ever attacked the UK I guarantee you would want the US bailing us out. We cannot even deal with unarmed young men on our south coast ffs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the glorious leader appears to be of Mr Trumps Christmas card list And Mr Trump has got it spot on when he said Starmers lack of support is because he is pandering to Muslim voters " Absolute bollocks | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He doesn't want to come out of this looking like Trump's puppet the way Blair did with GW, and I don't blame him." He chinas puppet they wouldn’t allow it lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not our war. There are bigger problems for us to deal with at home before we get balls deep into a forever-war in the Middle East. Demanding we spend billions on bombs for a place far away while complaining that people cant afford to the put heating on at home and roads are falling apart is proper irony." That perspective is hugely flawed as it ignores the simple fact that the UK is totally reliant on the world market. If global trade and energy markets collapse, we'll feel it here - heating costs will soar and roads won't get fixed. It's not either/or - we need stability abroad to thrive at home. Cutting security spending to save money is like cancelling your insurance and expecting nothing to go wrong. If we pull back, instability will drive up costs more than any military budget. It's short-sighted to moan about living costs while undermining the system that keeps things running smoothly! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you want him to be Israel's bum boy like Trump " 👎 👎 👎 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not our war. There are bigger problems for us to deal with at home before we get balls deep into a forever-war in the Middle East. Demanding we spend billions on bombs for a place far away while complaining that people cant afford to the put heating on at home and roads are falling apart is proper irony. That perspective is hugely flawed as it ignores the simple fact that the UK is totally reliant on the world market. If global trade and energy markets collapse, we'll feel it here - heating costs will soar and roads won't get fixed. It's not either/or - we need stability abroad to thrive at home. Cutting security spending to save money is like cancelling your insurance and expecting nothing to go wrong. If we pull back, instability will drive up costs more than any military budget. It's short-sighted to moan about living costs while undermining the system that keeps things running smoothly! " All of that is going to happen anyway, whether we are involved or not. As said, billions on bombs in a war only Israel and USA wanted, or billions on fixing the problems at home... War is a failure of diplomacy, not a means to an end as you've portrayed. War is also a great way to keep politicians in power and rip up rules regarding government debt. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not our war. There are bigger problems for us to deal with at home before we get balls deep into a forever-war in the Middle East. Demanding we spend billions on bombs for a place far away while complaining that people cant afford to the put heating on at home and roads are falling apart is proper irony. That perspective is hugely flawed as it ignores the simple fact that the UK is totally reliant on the world market. If global trade and energy markets collapse, we'll feel it here - heating costs will soar and roads won't get fixed. It's not either/or - we need stability abroad to thrive at home. Cutting security spending to save money is like cancelling your insurance and expecting nothing to go wrong. If we pull back, instability will drive up costs more than any military budget. It's short-sighted to moan about living costs while undermining the system that keeps things running smoothly! " Spot on . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Greece and France now have 3 frigates in the Cyprus area while HMS Dragon enjoys a berth in Southampton!! UK can't even protect what is in fact British territory on Cyprus.The world must be having a right laugh!!" Its called nato. Thank god we're in it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you want him to be Israel's bum boy like Trump " Hasn't Starmer already bent over for Ukrainians? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Greece and France now have 3 frigates in the Cyprus area while HMS Dragon enjoys a berth in Southampton!! UK can't even protect what is in fact British territory on Cyprus.The world must be having a right laugh!!" Do they also have all the fighter jets we have in Cyprus, that are more than capable of shooting down a drone? Not entirely sure what difference a frigate being there makes tbh, other than optics to appease the media. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not our war. There are bigger problems for us to deal with at home before we get balls deep into a forever-war in the Middle East. Demanding we spend billions on bombs for a place far away while complaining that people cant afford to the put heating on at home and roads are falling apart is proper irony. That perspective is hugely flawed as it ignores the simple fact that the UK is totally reliant on the world market. If global trade and energy markets collapse, we'll feel it here - heating costs will soar and roads won't get fixed. It's not either/or - we need stability abroad to thrive at home. Cutting security spending to save money is like cancelling your insurance and expecting nothing to go wrong. If we pull back, instability will drive up costs more than any military budget. It's short-sighted to moan about living costs while undermining the system that keeps things running smoothly! All of that is going to happen anyway, whether we are involved or not. As said, billions on bombs in a war only Israel and USA wanted, or billions on fixing the problems at home... War is a failure of diplomacy, not a means to an end as you've portrayed. War is also a great way to keep politicians in power and rip up rules regarding government debt. " The situation would not remain unchanged; a regime change in Iran would lead to greater stability both regionally and globally. The economy is expected to improve, resulting in more favourable agreements for oil and gas, which are currently being sold at a fraction of their value to China and Russia and from them to Europe at significantly higher prices. This would provide reassurance for all vessels navigating the Persian Gulf. No individuals would be held hostage in Iranian prisons, and there would be a reduction in massacres and terrorist attacks in the UK and worldwide. Therefore, numerous changes are anticipated. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Greece and France now have 3 frigates in the Cyprus area while HMS Dragon enjoys a berth in Southampton!! UK can't even protect what is in fact British territory on Cyprus.The world must be having a right laugh!! Its called nato. Thank god we're in it. " NATO are effectively the United States. The very country and Commander In Chief you prolifically deride at every opportunity. Hypocritical? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not our war. There are bigger problems for us to deal with at home before we get balls deep into a forever-war in the Middle East. Demanding we spend billions on bombs for a place far away while complaining that people cant afford to the put heating on at home and roads are falling apart is proper irony. That perspective is hugely flawed as it ignores the simple fact that the UK is totally reliant on the world market. If global trade and energy markets collapse, we'll feel it here - heating costs will soar and roads won't get fixed. It's not either/or - we need stability abroad to thrive at home. Cutting security spending to save money is like cancelling your insurance and expecting nothing to go wrong. If we pull back, instability will drive up costs more than any military budget. It's short-sighted to moan about living costs while undermining the system that keeps things running smoothly! All of that is going to happen anyway, whether we are involved or not. As said, billions on bombs in a war only Israel and USA wanted, or billions on fixing the problems at home... War is a failure of diplomacy, not a means to an end as you've portrayed. War is also a great way to keep politicians in power and rip up rules regarding government debt. " As I intimated in my previous response, your argument misses a crucial point:- our domestic prosperity isn't isolated from the world. Suggesting we shouldn't invest in deterrence because issues will persist is like firing the police because crime exists; it ignores the fact that deterrence prevents things from getting worse. When we retreat, hostile players fill the gap, seize trade routes, and impact our energy supplies, hitting our heating bills directly. Diplomacy relies on strength—it's the credible threat of force that makes conversation possible. Without it, we're just making polite requests to people who don't care about our manners. For a perfect example of real life vs fantasy, look at the Red Sea crisis. When the West hesitated to secure those lanes, shipping costs for goods from Asia to Europe surged by 300% almost overnight. Ships had to divert 3500 miles around Africa, burning an extra £800,000 in fuel per trip—a cost passed to our energy bills and grocery receipts. By 2025, even construction materials like bitumen were hit by these logistical hikes, making roads more expensive to repair. The billions spent on security kept major trade arteries open. If we'd followed your advice to stay home, inflation would've devastated the road budget. You can't fix a pothole if the supply chain's collapsed because you were too 'principled' to defend it. This is reality, not a game of fantasy on a PlayStation! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yes we need to support our English predators those immigrants coming here taking work from good English predators would never happen if Nigel was in charge. Absolutely, which is why Nigel’s going to clean up next GE Yippee 👏 St Nigel would be another Tony Blair "Yes Mr President. No Mr President. How high do you want me to Jump Mr President"
Anybody who thinks it’s a good idea to not have the US as our allies is deluded. The US are our defenders, look at the shit show right now, we cannot even send a ship to Cyprus.
If Russia ever attacked the UK I guarantee you would want the US bailing us out.
We cannot even deal with unarmed young men on our south coast ffs."Of course we need America on our side. Trump wasn't actually asking us to join in his war with Iran. My point was that Blair would probably have blundered straight in and the Farage would probably do the same. Sending ill- prepared and ill-equipped troops to join in and to hell with the consequences | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not our war. There are bigger problems for us to deal with at home before we get balls deep into a forever-war in the Middle East. Demanding we spend billions on bombs for a place far away while complaining that people cant afford to the put heating on at home and roads are falling apart is proper irony. That perspective is hugely flawed as it ignores the simple fact that the UK is totally reliant on the world market. If global trade and energy markets collapse, we'll feel it here - heating costs will soar and roads won't get fixed. It's not either/or - we need stability abroad to thrive at home. Cutting security spending to save money is like cancelling your insurance and expecting nothing to go wrong. If we pull back, instability will drive up costs more than any military budget. It's short-sighted to moan about living costs while undermining the system that keeps things running smoothly! All of that is going to happen anyway, whether we are involved or not. As said, billions on bombs in a war only Israel and USA wanted, or billions on fixing the problems at home... War is a failure of diplomacy, not a means to an end as you've portrayed. War is also a great way to keep politicians in power and rip up rules regarding government debt. The situation would not remain unchanged; a regime change in Iran would lead to greater stability both regionally and globally. The economy is expected to improve, resulting in more favourable agreements for oil and gas, which are currently being sold at a fraction of their value to China and Russia and from them to Europe at significantly higher prices. This would provide reassurance for all vessels navigating the Persian Gulf. No individuals would be held hostage in Iranian prisons, and there would be a reduction in massacres and terrorist attacks in the UK and worldwide. Therefore, numerous changes are anticipated." Because regime changes have gone so well for global stability previously.... 😆 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yes we need to support our English predators those immigrants coming here taking work from good English predators would never happen if Nigel was in charge. Absolutely, which is why Nigel’s going to clean up next GE Yippee 👏 St Nigel would be another Tony Blair "Yes Mr President. No Mr President. How high do you want me to Jump Mr President"
Anybody who thinks it’s a good idea to not have the US as our allies is deluded. The US are our defenders, look at the shit show right now, we cannot even send a ship to Cyprus.
If Russia ever attacked the UK I guarantee you would want the US bailing us out.
We cannot even deal with unarmed young men on our south coast ffs.
Of course we need America on our side. Trump wasn't actually asking us to join in his war with Iran. My point was that Blair would probably have blundered straight in and the Farage would probably do the same. Sending ill- prepared and ill-equipped troops to join in and to hell with the consequences " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not our war. There are bigger problems for us to deal with at home before we get balls deep into a forever-war in the Middle East. Demanding we spend billions on bombs for a place far away while complaining that people cant afford to the put heating on at home and roads are falling apart is proper irony. That perspective is hugely flawed as it ignores the simple fact that the UK is totally reliant on the world market. If global trade and energy markets collapse, we'll feel it here - heating costs will soar and roads won't get fixed. It's not either/or - we need stability abroad to thrive at home. Cutting security spending to save money is like cancelling your insurance and expecting nothing to go wrong. If we pull back, instability will drive up costs more than any military budget. It's short-sighted to moan about living costs while undermining the system that keeps things running smoothly! All of that is going to happen anyway, whether we are involved or not. As said, billions on bombs in a war only Israel and USA wanted, or billions on fixing the problems at home... War is a failure of diplomacy, not a means to an end as you've portrayed. War is also a great way to keep politicians in power and rip up rules regarding government debt. As I intimated in my previous response, your argument misses a crucial point:- our domestic prosperity isn't isolated from the world. Suggesting we shouldn't invest in deterrence because issues will persist is like firing the police because crime exists; it ignores the fact that deterrence prevents things from getting worse. When we retreat, hostile players fill the gap, seize trade routes, and impact our energy supplies, hitting our heating bills directly. Diplomacy relies on strength—it's the credible threat of force that makes conversation possible. Without it, we're just making polite requests to people who don't care about our manners. For a perfect example of real life vs fantasy, look at the Red Sea crisis. When the West hesitated to secure those lanes, shipping costs for goods from Asia to Europe surged by 300% almost overnight. Ships had to divert 3500 miles around Africa, burning an extra £800,000 in fuel per trip—a cost passed to our energy bills and grocery receipts. By 2025, even construction materials like bitumen were hit by these logistical hikes, making roads more expensive to repair. The billions spent on security kept major trade arteries open. If we'd followed your advice to stay home, inflation would've devastated the road budget. You can't fix a pothole if the supply chain's collapsed because you were too 'principled' to defend it. This is reality, not a game of fantasy on a PlayStation! " I didnt suggest cutting back on deterrence, at any point, I suggested not spending billions more on bombs than we already do for a war that's not ours and which Israel and America can capably handle. If world powers and commerce giants, notably Gulf states, were all that worried about trade and the Straits of Homus, they'd have a built a canal through the Arabian peninsula donkeys years ago to bypass Iranian influence entirely. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not our war. There are bigger problems for us to deal with at home before we get balls deep into a forever-war in the Middle East. Demanding we spend billions on bombs for a place far away while complaining that people cant afford to the put heating on at home and roads are falling apart is proper irony. That perspective is hugely flawed as it ignores the simple fact that the UK is totally reliant on the world market. If global trade and energy markets collapse, we'll feel it here - heating costs will soar and roads won't get fixed. It's not either/or - we need stability abroad to thrive at home. Cutting security spending to save money is like cancelling your insurance and expecting nothing to go wrong. If we pull back, instability will drive up costs more than any military budget. It's short-sighted to moan about living costs while undermining the system that keeps things running smoothly! All of that is going to happen anyway, whether we are involved or not. As said, billions on bombs in a war only Israel and USA wanted, or billions on fixing the problems at home... War is a failure of diplomacy, not a means to an end as you've portrayed. War is also a great way to keep politicians in power and rip up rules regarding government debt. The situation would not remain unchanged; a regime change in Iran would lead to greater stability both regionally and globally. The economy is expected to improve, resulting in more favourable agreements for oil and gas, which are currently being sold at a fraction of their value to China and Russia and from them to Europe at significantly higher prices. This would provide reassurance for all vessels navigating the Persian Gulf. No individuals would be held hostage in Iranian prisons, and there would be a reduction in massacres and terrorist attacks in the UK and worldwide. Therefore, numerous changes are anticipated. Because regime changes have gone so well for global stability previously.... 😆 " Are you suggesting that a regime worse than the ayatollahs will emerge ? I find that hard to believe. J’ they have already attacked ten different countries, all while claiming to the world that they pose no threat. Remaining passive is extremely dangerous, and continuing to negotiate with them is futile. This is the outcome of the UK and Europe’s inaction over the years, which has allowed a totalitarian ayatollah to gain power. Remember, their missiles can reach the UK as well, so no one should sit back and watch. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not our war. There are bigger problems for us to deal with at home before we get balls deep into a forever-war in the Middle East. Demanding we spend billions on bombs for a place far away while complaining that people cant afford to the put heating on at home and roads are falling apart is proper irony. That perspective is hugely flawed as it ignores the simple fact that the UK is totally reliant on the world market. If global trade and energy markets collapse, we'll feel it here - heating costs will soar and roads won't get fixed. It's not either/or - we need stability abroad to thrive at home. Cutting security spending to save money is like cancelling your insurance and expecting nothing to go wrong. If we pull back, instability will drive up costs more than any military budget. It's short-sighted to moan about living costs while undermining the system that keeps things running smoothly! All of that is going to happen anyway, whether we are involved or not. As said, billions on bombs in a war only Israel and USA wanted, or billions on fixing the problems at home... War is a failure of diplomacy, not a means to an end as you've portrayed. War is also a great way to keep politicians in power and rip up rules regarding government debt. The situation would not remain unchanged; a regime change in Iran would lead to greater stability both regionally and globally. The economy is expected to improve, resulting in more favourable agreements for oil and gas, which are currently being sold at a fraction of their value to China and Russia and from them to Europe at significantly higher prices. This would provide reassurance for all vessels navigating the Persian Gulf. No individuals would be held hostage in Iranian prisons, and there would be a reduction in massacres and terrorist attacks in the UK and worldwide. Therefore, numerous changes are anticipated. Because regime changes have gone so well for global stability previously.... 😆 Are you suggesting that a regime worse than the ayatollahs will emerge ? I find that hard to believe. J’ they have already attacked ten different countries, all while claiming to the world that they pose no threat. Remaining passive is extremely dangerous, and continuing to negotiate with them is futile. This is the outcome of the UK and Europe’s inaction over the years, which has allowed a totalitarian ayatollah to gain power. Remember, their missiles can reach the UK as well, so no one should sit back and watch." I didn't suggest that, you're making it up to fit your narrative. Are you suggesting USA and Israel aren't capable of doing the job? Are you suggesting Iran would have attacked 10 countries if it wasnt in a state of war with Israel and USA who have been unable to or unwilling to declare what outcome they want? And wow, very patriotic of you to blame the UK for the Iranian regime. I'm not going to engage with your rabid whataboutery. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If world powers and commerce giants, notably Gulf states, were all that worried about trade and the Straits of Homus, they'd have a built a canal through the Arabian peninsula donkeys years ago to bypass Iranian influence entirely. " 🤣🤣 Where to even begin with this suggestion?? 🤣🤣 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not our war. There are bigger problems for us to deal with at home before we get balls deep into a forever-war in the Middle East. Demanding we spend billions on bombs for a place far away while complaining that people cant afford to the put heating on at home and roads are falling apart is proper irony. That perspective is hugely flawed as it ignores the simple fact that the UK is totally reliant on the world market. If global trade and energy markets collapse, we'll feel it here - heating costs will soar and roads won't get fixed. It's not either/or - we need stability abroad to thrive at home. Cutting security spending to save money is like cancelling your insurance and expecting nothing to go wrong. If we pull back, instability will drive up costs more than any military budget. It's short-sighted to moan about living costs while undermining the system that keeps things running smoothly! All of that is going to happen anyway, whether we are involved or not. As said, billions on bombs in a war only Israel and USA wanted, or billions on fixing the problems at home... War is a failure of diplomacy, not a means to an end as you've portrayed. War is also a great way to keep politicians in power and rip up rules regarding government debt. The situation would not remain unchanged; a regime change in Iran would lead to greater stability both regionally and globally. The economy is expected to improve, resulting in more favourable agreements for oil and gas, which are currently being sold at a fraction of their value to China and Russia and from them to Europe at significantly higher prices. This would provide reassurance for all vessels navigating the Persian Gulf. No individuals would be held hostage in Iranian prisons, and there would be a reduction in massacres and terrorist attacks in the UK and worldwide. Therefore, numerous changes are anticipated. Because regime changes have gone so well for global stability previously.... 😆 Are you suggesting that a regime worse than the ayatollahs will emerge ? I find that hard to believe. J’ they have already attacked ten different countries, all while claiming to the world that they pose no threat. Remaining passive is extremely dangerous, and continuing to negotiate with them is futile. This is the outcome of the UK and Europe’s inaction over the years, which has allowed a totalitarian ayatollah to gain power. Remember, their missiles can reach the UK as well, so no one should sit back and watch. I didn't suggest that, you're making it up to fit your narrative. Are you suggesting USA and Israel aren't capable of doing the job? Are you suggesting Iran would have attacked 10 countries if it wasnt in a state of war with Israel and USA who have been unable to or unwilling to declare what outcome they want? And wow, very patriotic of you to blame the UK for the Iranian regime. I'm not going to engage with your rabid whataboutery. " You said Because regime changes have gone so well for global stability previously.... 😆 Right? I am not fabricating anything. I merely responded to your comment. What do you mean by that? Is it wrong to alter the regime? Should we engage in negotiations with them and accept this regime, which Europeans have attempted for many years ? What would your suggestion be? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a badge of honour. He’s said no to Trump, every time Trump rages about it the better Starmer looks. It’s not spineless to refuse to do something that’s wrong, the US have not been able to give a consistent reason for their actions never mind a legal justification. " Under no circumstances will Starmer ever look good. He’s a complete moron. With what has been happening for the last couple of years in the Middle East, why wasn’t there a Royal Navy presence in the Mediterranean Sea. It’s called planning and the present government just don’t cut it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not our war. There are bigger problems for us to deal with at home before we get balls deep into a forever-war in the Middle East. Demanding we spend billions on bombs for a place far away while complaining that people cant afford to the put heating on at home and roads are falling apart is proper irony. That perspective is hugely flawed as it ignores the simple fact that the UK is totally reliant on the world market. If global trade and energy markets collapse, we'll feel it here - heating costs will soar and roads won't get fixed. It's not either/or - we need stability abroad to thrive at home. Cutting security spending to save money is like cancelling your insurance and expecting nothing to go wrong. If we pull back, instability will drive up costs more than any military budget. It's short-sighted to moan about living costs while undermining the system that keeps things running smoothly! All of that is going to happen anyway, whether we are involved or not. As said, billions on bombs in a war only Israel and USA wanted, or billions on fixing the problems at home... War is a failure of diplomacy, not a means to an end as you've portrayed. War is also a great way to keep politicians in power and rip up rules regarding government debt. As I intimated in my previous response, your argument misses a crucial point:- our domestic prosperity isn't isolated from the world. Suggesting we shouldn't invest in deterrence because issues will persist is like firing the police because crime exists; it ignores the fact that deterrence prevents things from getting worse. When we retreat, hostile players fill the gap, seize trade routes, and impact our energy supplies, hitting our heating bills directly. Diplomacy relies on strength—it's the credible threat of force that makes conversation possible. Without it, we're just making polite requests to people who don't care about our manners. For a perfect example of real life vs fantasy, look at the Red Sea crisis. When the West hesitated to secure those lanes, shipping costs for goods from Asia to Europe surged by 300% almost overnight. Ships had to divert 3500 miles around Africa, burning an extra £800,000 in fuel per trip—a cost passed to our energy bills and grocery receipts. By 2025, even construction materials like bitumen were hit by these logistical hikes, making roads more expensive to repair. The billions spent on security kept major trade arteries open. If we'd followed your advice to stay home, inflation would've devastated the road budget. You can't fix a pothole if the supply chain's collapsed because you were too 'principled' to defend it. This is reality, not a game of fantasy on a PlayStation! I didnt suggest cutting back on deterrence, at any point, I suggested not spending billions more on bombs than we already do for a war that's not ours and which Israel and America can capably handle. If world powers and commerce giants, notably Gulf states, were all that worried about trade and the Straits of Homus, they'd have a built a canal through the Arabian peninsula donkeys years ago to bypass Iranian influence entirely. " Suggesting the building of a canal through the Arabian Peninsula is pure computer game fantasy. It would mean blasting through the Hijaz Mountains, which consist of solid rock and peaks up to 9,000 feet high, an engineering impossibility! Lifting massive supertankers over those _ountains, if it was even possible, would cost multi-trillions, making our current defence budget look like loose change. It's never been done because it is clearly impossible, although it is a highly comedic notion. The fact that you advocate deterrence but don't want to pay for it is totally illogical. You can't have a fire service without water and fire appliances. It's the same thing. Deterrence means having the actual capability to defend yourself, and that costs money. As for relying on others to sort it out, if we don't contribute to securing our own trade routes, we'll be stuck on the sidelines when things get tough. We need to make a significant contribution if we want a say in how things are done. It's simple. If you don't help guard the delivery van, it's pointless complaining when it fails to turn up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The man can't win! If he throws us into this vile war started by Trump and Israel, then he's as bad as Blair and it's typical Labour. If he keeps us out of it as he seems to be doing (rightly so) then the dog whistle press slag him off and thick idiots fall for it. Said idiots have a VERY short memory, that mere weeks ago Trump was debasing the sacrifice and contributions of our armed forces in America's previous middle eastern adventures. Why should we join in this insane venture when such is the orange cunts sentiment? Hats off to Sir Keir, I say! "agree with everything you say, Stamer on hiding to nothing whatever he does. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Amazing they can find billions for more welfare benefits pip etc but no political will to defend our country if nothing else this American Israel war has completely shown the uk to be a joke to the world " Spot on! It’s infuriating to see billions poured into a spiraling welfare and benefits bill while our basic national defence is hollowed out. ?Starmer has presented the UK as a humiliating joke on the world stage because he tries to talk big but isn't willing to fund the hardware to back it up! We’ve basically outshopped our national security to the US because we’ve spent the 'protection money' elsewhere for decades. An island nation that can't or won't defend its own trade routes is just a protectorate in waiting. It’s a massive wake-up call that this government is simply ignoring! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not our war. There are bigger problems for us to deal with at home before we get balls deep into a forever-war in the Middle East. Demanding we spend billions on bombs for a place far away while complaining that people cant afford to the put heating on at home and roads are falling apart is proper irony. That perspective is hugely flawed as it ignores the simple fact that the UK is totally reliant on the world market. If global trade and energy markets collapse, we'll feel it here - heating costs will soar and roads won't get fixed. It's not either/or - we need stability abroad to thrive at home. Cutting security spending to save money is like cancelling your insurance and expecting nothing to go wrong. If we pull back, instability will drive up costs more than any military budget. It's short-sighted to moan about living costs while undermining the system that keeps things running smoothly! All of that is going to happen anyway, whether we are involved or not. As said, billions on bombs in a war only Israel and USA wanted, or billions on fixing the problems at home... War is a failure of diplomacy, not a means to an end as you've portrayed. War is also a great way to keep politicians in power and rip up rules regarding government debt. As I intimated in my previous response, your argument misses a crucial point:- our domestic prosperity isn't isolated from the world. Suggesting we shouldn't invest in deterrence because issues will persist is like firing the police because crime exists; it ignores the fact that deterrence prevents things from getting worse. When we retreat, hostile players fill the gap, seize trade routes, and impact our energy supplies, hitting our heating bills directly. Diplomacy relies on strength—it's the credible threat of force that makes conversation possible. Without it, we're just making polite requests to people who don't care about our manners. For a perfect example of real life vs fantasy, look at the Red Sea crisis. When the West hesitated to secure those lanes, shipping costs for goods from Asia to Europe surged by 300% almost overnight. Ships had to divert 3500 miles around Africa, burning an extra £800,000 in fuel per trip—a cost passed to our energy bills and grocery receipts. By 2025, even construction materials like bitumen were hit by these logistical hikes, making roads more expensive to repair. The billions spent on security kept major trade arteries open. If we'd followed your advice to stay home, inflation would've devastated the road budget. You can't fix a pothole if the supply chain's collapsed because you were too 'principled' to defend it. This is reality, not a game of fantasy on a PlayStation! I didnt suggest cutting back on deterrence, at any point, I suggested not spending billions more on bombs than we already do for a war that's not ours and which Israel and America can capably handle. If world powers and commerce giants, notably Gulf states, were all that worried about trade and the Straits of Homus, they'd have a built a canal through the Arabian peninsula donkeys years ago to bypass Iranian influence entirely. Suggesting the building of a canal through the Arabian Peninsula is pure computer game fantasy. It would mean blasting through the Hijaz Mountains, which consist of solid rock and peaks up to 9,000 feet high, an engineering impossibility! Lifting massive supertankers over those _ountains, if it was even possible, would cost multi-trillions, making our current defence budget look like loose change. It's never been done because it is clearly impossible, although it is a highly comedic notion. The fact that you advocate deterrence but don't want to pay for it is totally illogical. You can't have a fire service without water and fire appliances. It's the same thing. Deterrence means having the actual capability to defend yourself, and that costs money. As for relying on others to sort it out, if we don't contribute to securing our own trade routes, we'll be stuck on the sidelines when things get tough. We need to make a significant contribution if we want a say in how things are done. It's simple. If you don't help guard the delivery van, it's pointless complaining when it fails to turn up. " You can read, bravo, but not very well it seems, which is the illogical bit. I have not once said we should not pay for deterrence. Bombing is not deterrence, bombing is joining a war we did not start. Our nukes are a deterrence. Our subs, our navy, our air force, our intelligence services, our special forces and operations command, our NATO membership and our army are a deterrence and serve us admirably. All supremely costly and not once did I suggest cutting back spending. Why should Brits pay for bombs when Trump and Netanyahu are willing to? They are more than capable of doing the job without us, Australia, Jamaica, Poland etc al, while WE concentrate on deterring the multiple threats to the UK every day. People jumping up and down because we're not dropping bombs shows us where the morons are, thats for sure. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not our war. There are bigger problems for us to deal with at home before we get balls deep into a forever-war in the Middle East. Demanding we spend billions on bombs for a place far away while complaining that people cant afford to the put heating on at home and roads are falling apart is proper irony. That perspective is hugely flawed as it ignores the simple fact that the UK is totally reliant on the world market. If global trade and energy markets collapse, we'll feel it here - heating costs will soar and roads won't get fixed. It's not either/or - we need stability abroad to thrive at home. Cutting security spending to save money is like cancelling your insurance and expecting nothing to go wrong. If we pull back, instability will drive up costs more than any military budget. It's short-sighted to moan about living costs while undermining the system that keeps things running smoothly! All of that is going to happen anyway, whether we are involved or not. As said, billions on bombs in a war only Israel and USA wanted, or billions on fixing the problems at home... War is a failure of diplomacy, not a means to an end as you've portrayed. War is also a great way to keep politicians in power and rip up rules regarding government debt. As I intimated in my previous response, your argument misses a crucial point:- our domestic prosperity isn't isolated from the world. Suggesting we shouldn't invest in deterrence because issues will persist is like firing the police because crime exists; it ignores the fact that deterrence prevents things from getting worse. When we retreat, hostile players fill the gap, seize trade routes, and impact our energy supplies, hitting our heating bills directly. Diplomacy relies on strength—it's the credible threat of force that makes conversation possible. Without it, we're just making polite requests to people who don't care about our manners. For a perfect example of real life vs fantasy, look at the Red Sea crisis. When the West hesitated to secure those lanes, shipping costs for goods from Asia to Europe surged by 300% almost overnight. Ships had to divert 3500 miles around Africa, burning an extra £800,000 in fuel per trip—a cost passed to our energy bills and grocery receipts. By 2025, even construction materials like bitumen were hit by these logistical hikes, making roads more expensive to repair. The billions spent on security kept major trade arteries open. If we'd followed your advice to stay home, inflation would've devastated the road budget. You can't fix a pothole if the supply chain's collapsed because you were too 'principled' to defend it. This is reality, not a game of fantasy on a PlayStation! I didnt suggest cutting back on deterrence, at any point, I suggested not spending billions more on bombs than we already do for a war that's not ours and which Israel and America can capably handle. If world powers and commerce giants, notably Gulf states, were all that worried about trade and the Straits of Homus, they'd have a built a canal through the Arabian peninsula donkeys years ago to bypass Iranian influence entirely. Suggesting the building of a canal through the Arabian Peninsula is pure computer game fantasy. It would mean blasting through the Hijaz Mountains, which consist of solid rock and peaks up to 9,000 feet high, an engineering impossibility! Lifting massive supertankers over those _ountains, if it was even possible, would cost multi-trillions, making our current defence budget look like loose change. It's never been done because it is clearly impossible, although it is a highly comedic notion. The fact that you advocate deterrence but don't want to pay for it is totally illogical. You can't have a fire service without water and fire appliances. It's the same thing. Deterrence means having the actual capability to defend yourself, and that costs money. As for relying on others to sort it out, if we don't contribute to securing our own trade routes, we'll be stuck on the sidelines when things get tough. We need to make a significant contribution if we want a say in how things are done. It's simple. If you don't help guard the delivery van, it's pointless complaining when it fails to turn up. You can read, bravo, but not very well it seems, which is the illogical bit. I have not once said we should not pay for deterrence. Bombing is not deterrence, bombing is joining a war we did not start. Our nukes are a deterrence. Our subs, our navy, our air force, our intelligence services, our special forces and operations command, our NATO membership and our army are a deterrence and serve us admirably. All supremely costly and not once did I suggest cutting back spending. Why should Brits pay for bombs when Trump and Netanyahu are willing to? They are more than capable of doing the job without us, Australia, Jamaica, Poland etc al, while WE concentrate on deterring the multiple threats to the UK every day. People jumping up and down because we're not dropping bombs shows us where the morons are, thats for sure." You seem to be missing the point again. Deterrence only works if the other side believes you’ll actually pull the trigger. Having a Navy and an Air Force 'admirably' sitting in a hangar while our bases in Cyprus are being targeted by Iranian drones isn't deterrence—it’s providing target practice. ?You say we should let Trump and Netanyahu pay for the 'bombs.' That is exactly how you become a joke to the world. If we rely on the US to shoot down every missile aimed at British assets, we aren't a sovereign power anymore; we’re a charity case. You can't claim to support the military while wanting to 'outsource' the actual job to Trump. ?Also, 'bombing' in the Red Sea isn't 'joining a war'—it is the active defence of the trade routes our economy depends on. If we don't shoot down the drones targeting the ships bringing our goods, those ships simply stop coming. You’re advocating for a UK that has a shiny, expensive military but sits on its hands while its interests are torched. That’s not 'concentrating on threats'; it's a total surrender of our influence and our security! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it’s a badge of honour. He’s said no to Trump, every time Trump rages about it the better Starmer looks. It’s not spineless to refuse to do something that’s wrong, the US have not been able to give a consistent reason for their actions never mind a legal justification. Under no circumstances will Starmer ever look good. He’s a complete moron. With what has been happening for the last couple of years in the Middle East, why wasn’t there a Royal Navy presence in the Mediterranean Sea. It’s called planning and the present government just don’t cut it. "
👍👍 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Amazing they can find billions for more welfare benefits pip etc but no political will to defend our country if nothing else this American Israel war has completely shown the uk to be a joke to the world " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The irony 🤡" Good to see you back in here Richey ... Get stuck in  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not our war. There are bigger problems for us to deal with at home before we get balls deep into a forever-war in the Middle East. Demanding we spend billions on bombs for a place far away while complaining that people cant afford to the put heating on at home and roads are falling apart is proper irony. That perspective is hugely flawed as it ignores the simple fact that the UK is totally reliant on the world market. If global trade and energy markets collapse, we'll feel it here - heating costs will soar and roads won't get fixed. It's not either/or - we need stability abroad to thrive at home. Cutting security spending to save money is like cancelling your insurance and expecting nothing to go wrong. If we pull back, instability will drive up costs more than any military budget. It's short-sighted to moan about living costs while undermining the system that keeps things running smoothly! All of that is going to happen anyway, whether we are involved or not. As said, billions on bombs in a war only Israel and USA wanted, or billions on fixing the problems at home... War is a failure of diplomacy, not a means to an end as you've portrayed. War is also a great way to keep politicians in power and rip up rules regarding government debt. As I intimated in my previous response, your argument misses a crucial point:- our domestic prosperity isn't isolated from the world. Suggesting we shouldn't invest in deterrence because issues will persist is like firing the police because crime exists; it ignores the fact that deterrence prevents things from getting worse. When we retreat, hostile players fill the gap, seize trade routes, and impact our energy supplies, hitting our heating bills directly. Diplomacy relies on strength—it's the credible threat of force that makes conversation possible. Without it, we're just making polite requests to people who don't care about our manners. For a perfect example of real life vs fantasy, look at the Red Sea crisis. When the West hesitated to secure those lanes, shipping costs for goods from Asia to Europe surged by 300% almost overnight. Ships had to divert 3500 miles around Africa, burning an extra £800,000 in fuel per trip—a cost passed to our energy bills and grocery receipts. By 2025, even construction materials like bitumen were hit by these logistical hikes, making roads more expensive to repair. The billions spent on security kept major trade arteries open. If we'd followed your advice to stay home, inflation would've devastated the road budget. You can't fix a pothole if the supply chain's collapsed because you were too 'principled' to defend it. This is reality, not a game of fantasy on a PlayStation! I didnt suggest cutting back on deterrence, at any point, I suggested not spending billions more on bombs than we already do for a war that's not ours and which Israel and America can capably handle. If world powers and commerce giants, notably Gulf states, were all that worried about trade and the Straits of Homus, they'd have a built a canal through the Arabian peninsula donkeys years ago to bypass Iranian influence entirely. Suggesting the building of a canal through the Arabian Peninsula is pure computer game fantasy. It would mean blasting through the Hijaz Mountains, which consist of solid rock and peaks up to 9,000 feet high, an engineering impossibility! Lifting massive supertankers over those _ountains, if it was even possible, would cost multi-trillions, making our current defence budget look like loose change. It's never been done because it is clearly impossible, although it is a highly comedic notion. The fact that you advocate deterrence but don't want to pay for it is totally illogical. You can't have a fire service without water and fire appliances. It's the same thing. Deterrence means having the actual capability to defend yourself, and that costs money. As for relying on others to sort it out, if we don't contribute to securing our own trade routes, we'll be stuck on the sidelines when things get tough. We need to make a significant contribution if we want a say in how things are done. It's simple. If you don't help guard the delivery van, it's pointless complaining when it fails to turn up. You can read, bravo, but not very well it seems, which is the illogical bit. I have not once said we should not pay for deterrence. Bombing is not deterrence, bombing is joining a war we did not start. Our nukes are a deterrence. Our subs, our navy, our air force, our intelligence services, our special forces and operations command, our NATO membership and our army are a deterrence and serve us admirably. All supremely costly and not once did I suggest cutting back spending. Why should Brits pay for bombs when Trump and Netanyahu are willing to? They are more than capable of doing the job without us, Australia, Jamaica, Poland etc al, while WE concentrate on deterring the multiple threats to the UK every day. People jumping up and down because we're not dropping bombs shows us where the morons are, thats for sure. You seem to be missing the point again. Deterrence only works if the other side believes you’ll actually pull the trigger. Having a Navy and an Air Force 'admirably' sitting in a hangar while our bases in Cyprus are being targeted by Iranian drones isn't deterrence—it’s providing target practice. ?You say we should let Trump and Netanyahu pay for the 'bombs.' That is exactly how you become a joke to the world. If we rely on the US to shoot down every missile aimed at British assets, we aren't a sovereign power anymore; we’re a charity case. You can't claim to support the military while wanting to 'outsource' the actual job to Trump. ?Also, 'bombing' in the Red Sea isn't 'joining a war'—it is the active defence of the trade routes our economy depends on. If we don't shoot down the drones targeting the ships bringing our goods, those ships simply stop coming. You’re advocating for a UK that has a shiny, expensive military but sits on its hands while its interests are torched. That’s not 'concentrating on threats'; it's a total surrender of our influence and our security! " The nuclear deterrent seems to have worked quite well for over half a century, or have we been dropping those as a show of strength and nobody is telling us? Did I ever say our forces should not take on drones aimed at them? I think you'll find they have done, as well as drones not targeting our bases. Seems you're having an imaginary conversation in your head. Are you quite well? In your imaginary world is every country apart from Israel and USA "a joke" because they're not dropping bombs on Iran, or just the UK? Turkiye, Saudi, Qatar, UAE, Oman have all been targeted yet are not dropping bombs on Iran. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not our war. There are bigger problems for us to deal with at home before we get balls deep into a forever-war in the Middle East. Demanding we spend billions on bombs for a place far away while complaining that people cant afford to the put heating on at home and roads are falling apart is proper irony. That perspective is hugely flawed as it ignores the simple fact that the UK is totally reliant on the world market. If global trade and energy markets collapse, we'll feel it here - heating costs will soar and roads won't get fixed. It's not either/or - we need stability abroad to thrive at home. Cutting security spending to save money is like cancelling your insurance and expecting nothing to go wrong. If we pull back, instability will drive up costs more than any military budget. It's short-sighted to moan about living costs while undermining the system that keeps things running smoothly! All of that is going to happen anyway, whether we are involved or not. As said, billions on bombs in a war only Israel and USA wanted, or billions on fixing the problems at home... War is a failure of diplomacy, not a means to an end as you've portrayed. War is also a great way to keep politicians in power and rip up rules regarding government debt. As I intimated in my previous response, your argument misses a crucial point:- our domestic prosperity isn't isolated from the world. Suggesting we shouldn't invest in deterrence because issues will persist is like firing the police because crime exists; it ignores the fact that deterrence prevents things from getting worse. When we retreat, hostile players fill the gap, seize trade routes, and impact our energy supplies, hitting our heating bills directly. Diplomacy relies on strength—it's the credible threat of force that makes conversation possible. Without it, we're just making polite requests to people who don't care about our manners. For a perfect example of real life vs fantasy, look at the Red Sea crisis. When the West hesitated to secure those lanes, shipping costs for goods from Asia to Europe surged by 300% almost overnight. Ships had to divert 3500 miles around Africa, burning an extra £800,000 in fuel per trip—a cost passed to our energy bills and grocery receipts. By 2025, even construction materials like bitumen were hit by these logistical hikes, making roads more expensive to repair. The billions spent on security kept major trade arteries open. If we'd followed your advice to stay home, inflation would've devastated the road budget. You can't fix a pothole if the supply chain's collapsed because you were too 'principled' to defend it. This is reality, not a game of fantasy on a PlayStation! I didnt suggest cutting back on deterrence, at any point, I suggested not spending billions more on bombs than we already do for a war that's not ours and which Israel and America can capably handle. If world powers and commerce giants, notably Gulf states, were all that worried about trade and the Straits of Homus, they'd have a built a canal through the Arabian peninsula donkeys years ago to bypass Iranian influence entirely. Suggesting the building of a canal through the Arabian Peninsula is pure computer game fantasy. It would mean blasting through the Hijaz Mountains, which consist of solid rock and peaks up to 9,000 feet high, an engineering impossibility! Lifting massive supertankers over those _ountains, if it was even possible, would cost multi-trillions, making our current defence budget look like loose change. It's never been done because it is clearly impossible, although it is a highly comedic notion. The fact that you advocate deterrence but don't want to pay for it is totally illogical. You can't have a fire service without water and fire appliances. It's the same thing. Deterrence means having the actual capability to defend yourself, and that costs money. As for relying on others to sort it out, if we don't contribute to securing our own trade routes, we'll be stuck on the sidelines when things get tough. We need to make a significant contribution if we want a say in how things are done. It's simple. If you don't help guard the delivery van, it's pointless complaining when it fails to turn up. You can read, bravo, but not very well it seems, which is the illogical bit. I have not once said we should not pay for deterrence. Bombing is not deterrence, bombing is joining a war we did not start. Our nukes are a deterrence. Our subs, our navy, our air force, our intelligence services, our special forces and operations command, our NATO membership and our army are a deterrence and serve us admirably. All supremely costly and not once did I suggest cutting back spending. Why should Brits pay for bombs when Trump and Netanyahu are willing to? They are more than capable of doing the job without us, Australia, Jamaica, Poland etc al, while WE concentrate on deterring the multiple threats to the UK every day. People jumping up and down because we're not dropping bombs shows us where the morons are, thats for sure. You seem to be missing the point again. Deterrence only works if the other side believes you’ll actually pull the trigger. Having a Navy and an Air Force 'admirably' sitting in a hangar while our bases in Cyprus are being targeted by Iranian drones isn't deterrence—it’s providing target practice. ?You say we should let Trump and Netanyahu pay for the 'bombs.' That is exactly how you become a joke to the world. If we rely on the US to shoot down every missile aimed at British assets, we aren't a sovereign power anymore; we’re a charity case. You can't claim to support the military while wanting to 'outsource' the actual job to Trump. ?Also, 'bombing' in the Red Sea isn't 'joining a war'—it is the active defence of the trade routes our economy depends on. If we don't shoot down the drones targeting the ships bringing our goods, those ships simply stop coming. You’re advocating for a UK that has a shiny, expensive military but sits on its hands while its interests are torched. That’s not 'concentrating on threats'; it's a total surrender of our influence and our security! The nuclear deterrent seems to have worked quite well for over half a century, or have we been dropping those as a show of strength and nobody is telling us? Did I ever say our forces should not take on drones aimed at them? I think you'll find they have done, as well as drones not targeting our bases. Seems you're having an imaginary conversation in your head. Are you quite well? In your imaginary world is every country apart from Israel and USA "a joke" because they're not dropping bombs on Iran, or just the UK? Turkiye, Saudi, Qatar, UAE, Oman have all been targeted yet are not dropping bombs on Iran." Feeble attempts at childish personal insults only serve to weaken your argument and erode credibility. The nuclear deterrent may prevent nuclear war, but it does not address the conventional grey zone attacks we are seeing now. RAF Akrotiri, a sovereign British territory, was hit by an Iranian-made drone on 2nd March—that is not an imaginary world, that is reality. When British assets are under attack and families are being evacuated, deterrence has failed and defence becomes the priority. Other nations may have capabilities, but none are permanent UN Security Council members with a global mandate to protect our shipping lanes. If the UK relies on the US for defence, we risk losing our sovereignty. A military with billions in equipment but no willingness to use it is a hollow force. The drone strike on our airbase is a stark reminder of this reality; I will conclude this exchange here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not our war. There are bigger problems for us to deal with at home before we get balls deep into a forever-war in the Middle East. Demanding we spend billions on bombs for a place far away while complaining that people cant afford to the put heating on at home and roads are falling apart is proper irony. That perspective is hugely flawed as it ignores the simple fact that the UK is totally reliant on the world market. If global trade and energy markets collapse, we'll feel it here - heating costs will soar and roads won't get fixed. It's not either/or - we need stability abroad to thrive at home. Cutting security spending to save money is like cancelling your insurance and expecting nothing to go wrong. If we pull back, instability will drive up costs more than any military budget. It's short-sighted to moan about living costs while undermining the system that keeps things running smoothly! All of that is going to happen anyway, whether we are involved or not. As said, billions on bombs in a war only Israel and USA wanted, or billions on fixing the problems at home... War is a failure of diplomacy, not a means to an end as you've portrayed. War is also a great way to keep politicians in power and rip up rules regarding government debt. As I intimated in my previous response, your argument misses a crucial point:- our domestic prosperity isn't isolated from the world. Suggesting we shouldn't invest in deterrence because issues will persist is like firing the police because crime exists; it ignores the fact that deterrence prevents things from getting worse. When we retreat, hostile players fill the gap, seize trade routes, and impact our energy supplies, hitting our heating bills directly. Diplomacy relies on strength—it's the credible threat of force that makes conversation possible. Without it, we're just making polite requests to people who don't care about our manners. For a perfect example of real life vs fantasy, look at the Red Sea crisis. When the West hesitated to secure those lanes, shipping costs for goods from Asia to Europe surged by 300% almost overnight. Ships had to divert 3500 miles around Africa, burning an extra £800,000 in fuel per trip—a cost passed to our energy bills and grocery receipts. By 2025, even construction materials like bitumen were hit by these logistical hikes, making roads more expensive to repair. The billions spent on security kept major trade arteries open. If we'd followed your advice to stay home, inflation would've devastated the road budget. You can't fix a pothole if the supply chain's collapsed because you were too 'principled' to defend it. This is reality, not a game of fantasy on a PlayStation! I didnt suggest cutting back on deterrence, at any point, I suggested not spending billions more on bombs than we already do for a war that's not ours and which Israel and America can capably handle. If world powers and commerce giants, notably Gulf states, were all that worried about trade and the Straits of Homus, they'd have a built a canal through the Arabian peninsula donkeys years ago to bypass Iranian influence entirely. Suggesting the building of a canal through the Arabian Peninsula is pure computer game fantasy. It would mean blasting through the Hijaz Mountains, which consist of solid rock and peaks up to 9,000 feet high, an engineering impossibility! Lifting massive supertankers over those _ountains, if it was even possible, would cost multi-trillions, making our current defence budget look like loose change. It's never been done because it is clearly impossible, although it is a highly comedic notion. The fact that you advocate deterrence but don't want to pay for it is totally illogical. You can't have a fire service without water and fire appliances. It's the same thing. Deterrence means having the actual capability to defend yourself, and that costs money. As for relying on others to sort it out, if we don't contribute to securing our own trade routes, we'll be stuck on the sidelines when things get tough. We need to make a significant contribution if we want a say in how things are done. It's simple. If you don't help guard the delivery van, it's pointless complaining when it fails to turn up. You can read, bravo, but not very well it seems, which is the illogical bit. I have not once said we should not pay for deterrence. Bombing is not deterrence, bombing is joining a war we did not start. Our nukes are a deterrence. Our subs, our navy, our air force, our intelligence services, our special forces and operations command, our NATO membership and our army are a deterrence and serve us admirably. All supremely costly and not once did I suggest cutting back spending. Why should Brits pay for bombs when Trump and Netanyahu are willing to? They are more than capable of doing the job without us, Australia, Jamaica, Poland etc al, while WE concentrate on deterring the multiple threats to the UK every day. People jumping up and down because we're not dropping bombs shows us where the morons are, thats for sure. You seem to be missing the point again. Deterrence only works if the other side believes you’ll actually pull the trigger. Having a Navy and an Air Force 'admirably' sitting in a hangar while our bases in Cyprus are being targeted by Iranian drones isn't deterrence—it’s providing target practice. ?You say we should let Trump and Netanyahu pay for the 'bombs.' That is exactly how you become a joke to the world. If we rely on the US to shoot down every missile aimed at British assets, we aren't a sovereign power anymore; we’re a charity case. You can't claim to support the military while wanting to 'outsource' the actual job to Trump. ?Also, 'bombing' in the Red Sea isn't 'joining a war'—it is the active defence of the trade routes our economy depends on. If we don't shoot down the drones targeting the ships bringing our goods, those ships simply stop coming. You’re advocating for a UK that has a shiny, expensive military but sits on its hands while its interests are torched. That’s not 'concentrating on threats'; it's a total surrender of our influence and our security! The nuclear deterrent seems to have worked quite well for over half a century, or have we been dropping those as a show of strength and nobody is telling us? Did I ever say our forces should not take on drones aimed at them? I think you'll find they have done, as well as drones not targeting our bases. Seems you're having an imaginary conversation in your head. Are you quite well? In your imaginary world is every country apart from Israel and USA "a joke" because they're not dropping bombs on Iran, or just the UK? Turkiye, Saudi, Qatar, UAE, Oman have all been targeted yet are not dropping bombs on Iran. Feeble attempts at childish personal insults only serve to weaken your argument and erode credibility. The nuclear deterrent may prevent nuclear war, but it does not address the conventional grey zone attacks we are seeing now. RAF Akrotiri, a sovereign British territory, was hit by an Iranian-made drone on 2nd March—that is not an imaginary world, that is reality. When British assets are under attack and families are being evacuated, deterrence has failed and defence becomes the priority. Other nations may have capabilities, but none are permanent UN Security Council members with a global mandate to protect our shipping lanes. If the UK relies on the US for defence, we risk losing our sovereignty. A military with billions in equipment but no willingness to use it is a hollow force. The drone strike on our airbase is a stark reminder of this reality; I will conclude this exchange here. " 👏 👏 👏 👏 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
So if not from Iran .... Where, and by whom?
The question of 'cui bono' [Who stands to benefit from the act?] comes to mind
The only others who could have attacked the RAF base are Israel or Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Not sure how it would benefit Iran or Lebanon to force our hand into joining the fray .... However, it certainly benefits the Israelis.
Was it an Israeli false flag operation, designed to drag the UK into their operation against Iran & at the very least, bolster their defences?
Questions .... So many questions
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Posted on the official MOD X Account 04/03/26 'The Ministry of Defence can confirm that a Shahad-Like drone which targeted RAF Akrotiri at midnight on 2nd March was not launched from Iran'
So if not from Iran .... Where, and by whom?
The question of 'cui bono' [Who stands to benefit from the act?] comes to mind
The only others who could have attacked the RAF base are Israel or Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Not sure how it would benefit Iran or Lebanon to force our hand into joining the fray .... However, it certainly benefits the Israelis.
Was it an Israeli false flag operation, designed to drag the UK into their operation against Iran & at the very least, bolster their defences?
Questions .... So many questions
"USA? Iran has proxies in Iraq that can launch drones from there? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Posted on the official MOD X Account 04/03/26 'The Ministry of Defence can confirm that a Shahad-Like drone which targeted RAF Akrotiri at midnight on 2nd March was not launched from Iran'
So if not from Iran .... Where, and by whom?
The question of 'cui bono' [Who stands to benefit from the act?] comes to mind
The only others who could have attacked the RAF base are Israel or Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Not sure how it would benefit Iran or Lebanon to force our hand into joining the fray .... However, it certainly benefits the Israelis.
Was it an Israeli false flag operation, designed to drag the UK into their operation against Iran & at the very least, bolster their defences?
Questions .... So many questions
USA? Iran has proxies in Iraq that can launch drones from there?"Let's hope we find out ... Or maybe it'll be one of those uncomfortable things that gets brushed under the carpet. I don't hear many journalists asking the question right now. Which is strange in itself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Posted on the official MOD X Account 04/03/26 'The Ministry of Defence can confirm that a Shahad-Like drone which targeted RAF Akrotiri at midnight on 2nd March was not launched from Iran'
So if not from Iran .... Where, and by whom?
The question of 'cui bono' [Who stands to benefit from the act?] comes to mind
The only others who could have attacked the RAF base are Israel or Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Not sure how it would benefit Iran or Lebanon to force our hand into joining the fray .... However, it certainly benefits the Israelis.
Was it an Israeli false flag operation, designed to drag the UK into their operation against Iran & at the very least, bolster their defences?
Questions .... So many questions
USA? Iran has proxies in Iraq that can launch drones from there?
Let's hope we find out ... Or maybe it'll be one of those uncomfortable things that gets brushed under the carpet.
I don't hear many journalists asking the question right now.
Which is strange in itself. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its strange how some people were angered by uk forces going into Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan because they were illegal. Now all of a sudden we should be assisting the Trump in his war against Iran. I think Starmer has shown leadership. He said no to using uk bases for strikes. He said uk will not be drawn into another war in the Middle East just to please trump. Hes the only Prime minister since Thatcher whose refused to follow the Americans into a war they'll never win. Why did trump want to use our bases to strike Iran ? When you consider that throughout the Middle East the US have 1000s of troops stationed and armaments at their disposal. Trump wanted to use our bases to bring the uk into a conflict of his making. While Iran was a threat it wasnt an imminent threat. Now it is through trump. Keep the UK out of this shit show is the most leadership Starmer has shown. As history has shown getting involved in conflict in the middle East has cost too many of our military personals lives and isn't easy to get out of when we were drawn in. " Well said. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Deluded. Not an imminent threat. A despotic hateful anti everything not islamic regime with nuclear capability!? I think that's a pretty big threat." They had about as much nuclear capability as me | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" They had about as much nuclear capability as me" Yeah ok, Hans Blix! 🤣 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh dear, President Trump just posted that the UK are not needed in the Gulf, implying Starmer dithered and that the President will remember it. Well done Starmer for losing our greatest ally." Yep, good. Why should our soldiers fight in a war for Israel and the orange idiot. Iran just wants the oil. Claiming he's already won the war when Iranian missiles are still killing innocent people in other countries. Hopefully trump will be locked up soon. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lets face it, Starmer is always pandering to the Muslim vote, above and beyond the white British people, veterans, pensioners the list goes on." Make your mind up guys, some say he panders to Muslims, some say the Chinese. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh dear, President Trump just posted that the UK are not needed in the Gulf, implying Starmer dithered and that the President will remember it. Well done Starmer for losing our greatest ally. Simplistic. He's a dick, but unfortunately the US if goddamm A is our only realistic buffer against Putin. Grow up and get real. Yep, good. Why should our soldiers fight in a war for Israel and the orange idiot. Iran just wants the oil. Claiming he's already won the war when Iranian missiles are still killing innocent people in other countries. Hopefully trump will be locked up soon. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh dear, President Trump just posted that the UK are not needed in the Gulf, implying Starmer dithered and that the President will remember it. Well done Starmer for losing our greatest ally. Simplistic. He's a dick, but unfortunately the US if goddamm A is our only realistic buffer against Putin. Grow up and get real. Yep, good. Why should our soldiers fight in a war for Israel and the orange idiot. Iran just wants the oil. Claiming he's already won the war when Iranian missiles are still killing innocent people in other countries. Hopefully trump will be locked up soon. " Our Nigel is over there running our country down as usual. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh dear, President Trump just posted that the UK are not needed in the Gulf, implying Starmer dithered and that the President will remember it. Well done Starmer for losing our greatest ally." The USA might be, Trump is not. He's a transactionalist user who dumps people the second they're of no use to furthering his own agenda. Maybe when America returns to sanity and elects a leader who can see beyond his own personal ego and bottom line, maybe then the special relationship can return. It doesn't exist with Trump in charge. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So the glorious leader appears to be of Mr Trumps Christmas card list And Mr Trump has got it spot on when he said Starmers lack of support is because he is pandering to Muslim voters Trump is right! Starmer is no Churchill. He's a poor unconvincing clownlike actor attempting to play the statesman, dithering behind legalisms while our allies are under fire. Prioritising 'woke' optics and domestic pandering over the Special Relationship is a dereliction of duty that’s made this country unrecognisable. We need a leader with a spine, not one who waits for permission from their activist base to defend the West! 🇬🇧 " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Make your mind up guys, some say he panders to Muslims, some say the Chinese. " Did Lord Ali buy your spectacles too? You do give the impression of being a defender of this wretched government & hapless PM as if you are obligated to do so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh dear, President Trump just posted that the UK are not needed in the Gulf, implying Starmer dithered and that the President will remember it. Well done Starmer for losing our greatest ally. The USA might be, Trump is not. He's a transactionalist user who dumps people the second they're of no use to furthering his own agenda. Maybe when America returns to sanity and elects a leader who can see beyond his own personal ego and bottom line, maybe then the special relationship can return. It doesn't exist with Trump in charge." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Make your mind up guys, some say he panders to Muslims, some say the Chinese. Did Lord Ali buy your spectacles too? You do give the impression of being a defender of this wretched government & hapless PM as if you are obligated to do so." On the contrary, I do actually think they have made some big mistakes in the last nearly 2 years. But I do realise that they had to start from a shit place thanks to the last government being so awful that people voted for literally anyone else to get rid of them. On the issue of the Iran strikes, I think starmer, like most of Europe who really are our allies has done the right thing. Nice too someone actually say what I come across as rather than just agreeing with everything the orange idiot does and says. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Starmer is an idiot and always will be. "Yes, thats how you become a sir in our country for services to the nation.. What have you done? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" They had about as much nuclear capability as me Yeah ok, Hans Blix! 🤣" like saying women dont have pussies | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tony Blair part of Trump board of peace is criticising Stammer for not joining Israel and USA in a pointless war take it he's forgotten about Iraq. " Amazing eh. People hate Blair, say starmer is his lapdog, then moan at him for not doing what Blair did. Sorry, I had to spell out your comment for the hard of thinking | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Starmer is an idiot and always will be.
Yes, thats how you become a sir in our country for services to the nation..
What have you done? "I’ve served my country for my entire adult life. What have you done!!!!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Starmer is an idiot and always will be.
Yes, thats how you become a sir in our country for services to the nation..
What have you done? "You need to lick the right bums to get the gongs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh dear, President Trump just posted that the UK are not needed in the Gulf, implying Starmer dithered and that the President will remember it. Well done Starmer for losing our greatest ally." i wonder how long takes for Starmer to go to the loo when he is due | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Starmer is an idiot and always will be.
Yes, thats how you become a sir in our country for services to the nation..
What have you done?
I’ve served my country for my entire adult life.
What have you done!!!!! "Worked since I was 15. Paid taxes just like everyone else. Good for you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Starmer is an idiot and always will be.
Yes, thats how you become a sir in our country for services to the nation..
What have you done? "Absolutely nobody with real Labour values & principles would have ever considered accepting a title, a la Tony Benn. In Wales the First Minister is a Baroness. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yawn more muslimphobia - dont like Starmer but great that people like us and Spain are standing up to the insane orange nazi man baby. If you like him so much suggest you go and live in the US So I'm not a Trump lover but you're quite happy if Iran gets nuclear weapons? Meanwhile the great Royal Navy is sending one warship to Cyprus! When it will actually get there of course is another question. As I writ, Dragon is still in dock getting armaments loaded. You'd think the bloody thing would be permanently armed? " The US have been saying Iran is days away from nuclear weapons for years. This is an illegal war to appease the orange oaf and an attempt to mask the Epstein files. Quite frankly I'm glad we held off | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Starmer is an idiot and always will be.
Yes, thats how you become a sir in our country for services to the nation..
What have you done?
Absolutely nobody with real Labour values & principles would have ever considered accepting a title, a la Tony Benn.
In Wales the First Minister is a Baroness.
"Benn had morals | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Starmer is an idiot and always will be. "Some of you on here are spineless idiots and will always be. Politics is not about choosing a party or an ideology, or popularist sound bites, like the boats or immigration, it’s about being logical, analysing, understanding the nuances, it’s about critical thinking, its about how the government best represents the country and its people. How the government manages the country finances. How you as the electorate put pressure on the government to deliver for the people. If Fabguy’s is a simple of the population of men, then we are truly f*cked | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh dear, President Trump just posted that the UK are not needed in the Gulf, implying Starmer dithered and that the President will remember it. Well done Starmer for losing our greatest ally." One more thing on this. I may not have all the details correct, but In 1939 Churchill asked America for help defeating the nazis who were actually invading other countries. They said no. They again said no in 1940 and '41. We finally paid them back for their food and weapons 20 years ago. Once again. Trump knows nothing of history. Just to remind you once again that trump belittled the lives given by over 450 of our troops. We haven't called out with America, just not agreed with the orange lunatic who can't even explain why he started a war (the man that is against wars). But he'll solve the Russians Ukraine war in 24hrs... oh wait.. F*ck trump | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Starmer is an idiot and always will be.
Yes, thats how you become a sir in our country for services to the nation..
What have you done?
I’ve served my country for my entire adult life.
What have you done!!!!!
Worked since I was 15.
Paid taxes just like everyone else.
Good for you."I served my country too, and I've paid taxes. However good on starmer for not joining trump and Israel in this illegal war...which the Americans/Israel will undoubtedly win. Leaving a country and people in terrible condition. Look out for the next wave of retaliations across the globe | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
