5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He has broad support amongst the UK electorate for keeping the UK out of this illegal Israeli/US war on Iran.

Oh Im sure you have a poll at your fingertips. You love him, I assume?

Sorry for keeping on but how long can America keep spending before they have a crash?

"The Treasury may need to borrow an extra $1.6 trillion to cover the hole left by tariff ruling and pay a further $400 billion in debt interest."

https://fortune.com/2026/03/06/treasury-borrowing-ieepa-tariffs-scotus-ruling-cbo/

Military expenditure is going to exacerbate this issue.

I was supporting trump and was pretty sure he wasn't going to start any wars like he promised..... unless he was a deranged pedo

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

Oh Im sure you have a poll at your fingertips. You love him, I assume?

Enjoy:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/uk-voters-no-joining-trumps-iran-war-poll-4276359?srsltid=AfmBOoqT3YDCAUpXU2dIAgwRU46C7rkhCotf7AgMM1q2Bu2Im7yMXxGJ

6 hours ago, Bannoi said:

I shall treat that with the contempt it deserves.

I'll take that as a yes.

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Enjoy:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/uk-voters-no-joining-trumps-iran-war-poll-4276359?srsltid=AfmBOoqT3YDCAUpXU2dIAgwRU46C7rkhCotf7AgMM1q2Bu2Im7yMXxGJ

Got it LOL. The British folks love an embarassment and a coward.

20 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Got it LOL. The British folks love an embarassment and a coward.

That’s not what I’m hearing here in the UK.

They absolutely are not fans of the embarrassing bone spur riddled sos that is one half of this illegal war.

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s not what I’m hearing here in the UK.

Well your crowd supports terrorists and hates jews. You are pretty much irrelevant to us anyway, the ability of your nation to project power is nil

21 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s not what I’m hearing here in the UK.

They absolutely are not fans of the embarrassing bone spur riddled sos that is one half of this illegal war.

What is wrong with you? Bad guys killed. 32 navy ships destroyed.

Time for a beer.

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Oh Im sure you have a poll at your fingertips. You love him, I assume?

17% support. Economy horrible. Hated by left and right.

As of March 2026, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s approval ratings have dropped to around -50%, a significant decline from a +10% net-positive rating upon taking office, with 55% of 2024 Labour voters now holding an unfavourable opinion of him.

Minus 50 lol

9 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

As of March 2026, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s approval ratings have dropped to around -50%, a significant decline from a +10% net-positive rating upon taking office, with 55% of 2024 Labour voters now holding an unfavourable opinion of him.

Minus 50 lol

Have you looked at your own approval rate already Susan it's minus 1034 lol

31 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Well your crowd supports terrorists and hates jews. You are pretty much irrelevant to us anyway, the ability of your nation to project power is nil

Yet more hogwash and unsubstantiated assumptions.

To be honest, you don’t sound too confident.

27 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

What is wrong with you? Bad guys killed. 32 navy ships destroyed.

Time for a beer.

Which relates to my post how?

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Which relates to my post how?

To celebrate the defeat of Iranian navy and Keir's minus 50% rating lol

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

To be honest

Those words dont exist in the Socialist lexicon

8 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

Though I mirror your sentiments on Trump in some ways, I don't look at him being the all deciding factor in this but the Iranian people, along with the Americans this regime has killed over the years. This isn't over by a long way yes.

Add to that the fact Iran's regime killed many others in other countries and were looking at death to USA and Israel, something had to be done.

This was a long time coming, and none of us here, especially those who aren't Americans, can fully understand all the motives behind this action. We can plainly see how the Iranians in Iran, along with those in many other countries are celebrating the death not only to it's leader, but to the regime itself. They lived it, and only those who have lived it fully know what's gone on.

This has to be taken to the end, as Trump himself says along with Hegseth and others, so it doesn't happen again. So Iran can have a normal leader and followers in charge, and democracy. Other countries being shelled by Iran, although a bad thing, will have more joining our side, and the more enemies Iran's regime has, the faster it dissolves.

It isn't just Trump's enemies but the whole worlds. All evil needs to be eliminated, everywhere, so everyone can have peace, and guns and other weapons are the only real way this can happen, as some aren't open to negotiation but think radical from the get go. Thank God America does have these weapons, along with strong allies.

This is going to cost some innocent lives, along with a big pile of cash, but putting it off will cost a lot more in the long run.

Yes Trump is a bit strange, but he does have backers who think like him, at least in this instance. Will he do more for the common man afterwards is anyone's guess, but again, this is a necessary thing he put forward, and hopefully it's the beginning of the end for all terrorists that think America will back down anymore.

Laudable words. But if all that was true, eliminating evil etc, then what about Russia? Yes, they have nuclear weapons, but you are on a holy mission to eliminate evil, an essentially religious concept (the animal kingdom has no concept of good or evil).

"Something" needed to be "done", but why now, why when your strategic petroleum reserve is about a 40 year low? There wasn't a danger of crumbling coalition, as was the case in 2003. A year ago, there were mass raids on Iran that we were assured eliminated whatever nuclear weapons programme. Subsequently , we were told the damage was not as extensive as originally hoped, but at the very least, it was set back by a decade.

And once Iran is "dealth with", "purified" of evil, where next to turn your attention, to eliminate evil? Apparently Cuba is next.

This regime in Iran that you want to eliminate. Do you know how big it is. There are 50,000 clerics for a start. So you are looking to kill hundreds of thousands, from the air.

The British don't understand the Americans, vis a vie Iran? Bollocxs, of course we do. British troops fought Iranian proxies in Basra. British troops were captured by Iran. Terry Waite does. Britain was the last foreign power to invade Iran. What is it about the American experience with Iran do you think the rest of the world doesn''t understand. The bit I don't understand is how an American army officer, who benefited from being born into an enlightened society, receiving the finest education, can lecture his men that what they are doing is heralding Armageddon and welcoming the Second Coming, Praise the Lord. That's just nuts. Is that what you mean, that we don't understand religious whackjobs taking on other religious whackjobs, because only one of them worships the One True God? God, if there was one, help us all if that's how you see Americans.

4 hours ago, Purdey said:

Sorry for keeping on but how long can America keep spending before they have a crash?

"The Treasury may need to borrow an extra $1.6 trillion to cover the hole left by tariff ruling and pay a further $400 billion in debt interest."

https://fortune.com/2026/03/06/treasury-borrowing-ieepa-tariffs-scotus-ruling-cbo/

Military expenditure is going to exacerbate this issue.

I must be obvious to anyone with even the slightest idea of economics that the current trajectory is unsustainable perhaps Trump thinks he can just declare bankruptcy get the dept wiped out and start again, in other words legal theft as he has always done in business with no thought to those who he cheated and stole from.

The US is paying over a trillion dollars in interest every year yet they keep borrowing and the interest keeps climbing everyone knows it's unsustainable but thats the problem with democracy.

In order to get into power you have to get the votes. Say you are going to raise taxes and lower the voters standard of living and they won't vote for you.

Thats one reason Trump is imposing tariffs and pretending it's other countries that are paying them in reality he's imposing higher taxes on the citizens of the US.

The problem with that is it's been tried before and just doesn't work it has too many undesirable consequences.

As long as the dollar remains the worlds reserve currency its unlikely there will be a sudden crash more likely a slow decline as the current trajectory is clearly unsustainable in the long term.

if however it were to lose that status as the worlds reserve currency that could change practically overnight the cost of borrowing and financing that debt would most likely increase.

At some time the central bank would have to take action possibly by buying its own debt, printing more money, devaluing the dollar, interest rates would increase all of which causes more inflation and living standards will fall.

4 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Laudable words. But if all that was true, eliminating evil etc, then what about Russia? Yes, they have nuclear weapons, but you are on a holy mission to eliminate evil, an essentially religious concept (the animal kingdom has no concept of good or evil).

"Something" needed to be "done", but why now, why when your strategic petroleum reserve is about a 40 year low? There wasn't a danger of crumbling coalition, as was the case in 2003. A year ago, there were mass raids on Iran that we were assured eliminated whatever nuclear weapons programme. Subsequently , we were told the damage was not as extensive as originally hoped, but at the very least, it was set back by a decade.

And once Iran is "dealth with", "purified" of evil, where next to turn your attention, to eliminate evil? Apparently Cuba is next.

This regime in Iran that you want to eliminate. Do you know how big it is. There are 50,000 clerics for a start. So you are looking to kill hundreds of thousands, from the air.

The British don't understand the Americans, vis a vie Iran? Bollocxs, of course we do. British troops fought Iranian proxies in Basra. British troops were captured by Iran. Terry Waite does. Britain was the last foreign power to invade Iran. What is it about the American experience with Iran do you think the rest of the world doesn''t understand. The bit I don't understand is how an American army officer, who benefited from being born into an enlightened society, receiving the finest education, can lecture his men that what they are doing is heralding Armageddon and welcoming the Second Coming, Praise the Lord. That's just nuts. Is that what you mean, that we don't understand religious whackjobs taking on other religious whackjobs, because only one of them worships the One True God? God, if there was one, help us all if that's how you see Americans.

Evil isn't a country but some leaders and their followers. The same as Iran. You take away it's evil and the people have a chance to have peace instead of death and fear. People don't have to live with the kind of regime Iran has. The same with North Korea and Russia, This has nothing to do with religions, although some use it as a control.

Evil is what is in some people and by definition, profoundly immoral and wicked. Coming from severe psychological issues and low empathy towards others.

Everyone has a dark side, sometimes thinking of doing harm but resist because they also have good which overcomes those thoughts and subsequent actions. Easy to understand. Especially if you believe in God. If not, intentionally hurting others is also easy to understand.

The rest of the world does understand. Some won't get involved out of fear of loss of some kind. People can change, especially if they are following a leader out of brainwashing and or fear, to become more peaceful citizens. Yes, if you follow God, the right ways, you aren't going to be wanting death and destruction of innocents. You don't have to be a believer to understand the concept of evil and good, although following God's laws would eliminate all evil actions. . It's just being a good human. Supposedly the most intelligent life on earth.

Just now, fredwiggy said:

Evil isn't a country but some leaders and their followers. The same as Iran. You take away it's evil and the people have a chance to have peace instead of death and fear. People don't have to live with the kind of regime Iran has. The same with North Korea and Russia, This has nothing to do with religions, although some use it as a control.

Evil is what is in some people and by definition, profoundly immoral and wicked. Coming from severe psychological issues and low empathy towards others.

Everyone has a dark side, sometimes thinking of doing harm but resist because they also have good which overcomes those thoughts and subsequent actions. Easy to understand. Especially if you believe in God. If not, intentionally hurting others is also easy to understand.

The rest of the world does understand. Some won't get involved out of fear of loss of some kind. People can change, especially if they are following a leader out of brainwashing and or fear, to become more peaceful citizens. Yes, if you follow God, the right ways, you aren't going to be wanting death and destruction of innocents. You don't have to be a believer to understand the concept of evil and good, although following God's laws would eliminate all evil actions. . It's just being a good human. Supposedly the most intelligent life on earth.

Again, why aren't you taking to task the Russian government, who is arguably a greater danger to the world? Russian people are also suffering under the Putin regime, who has repressed them so much, they are afraid of protesting.

You've mentioned morality. Morality comes about due to human society, It is not natural. When the cat toys with a mouse, it is not evil or cruel, it is being a cat, sharpening its survival skills. Your sense of morality comes from religion, even if you consider yourself not a believe. You grew up in a society framed by religious beliefs.

You take the position that the Tehran government is evil, on the basis of how they deal with dissent, the number of innocent deaths they cause, their ban on homosexuality, and abortions, and their sponsorship of violent allies.

Is the US government evil? They harshly deal with dissent. Innocent people die because of their munitions. They are certainly on their way to banning abortions, and making homosexuality illegal is not an unusual belief among the public, nor indeed, lawmakers. Their allies can be very violent.

Or is the US government only a "little bit" evil, because they don't kill as many dissenters as Iran?

Ultimately, you are making a moral judgement in determining the Iranian government as evil. Millions of Iranians oppose their government, but millions also support it. Are they all evil, to be snuffed out?

The Iranian government does a lot of good. It provides healthcare, education, infrastructure and disaster relief to 80 million people. Those are not evil achievements.

Calling members of the government of Iran “evil” is not serious analysis but rhetorical posturing. Countries act primarily to secure power, influence, and survival, and Iran’s behaviour is no exception—shaped in part by historical experiences such as when Western powers overthrew an elected PM and installed a stooge Shah .

The charge also collapses under scrutiny because many of the actions cited against Iran are routine instruments of statecraft used by major powers including the United States. To single out Iranian officials as "evil" while at the same time normalising similar behaviour by other states is not moral consistency but selective outrage. In reality, islamophobia.

Your side isn't liberating the Iranian people, you're bombing them, killing them.

When the Nazis tried to bomb the British, it united them, at a time when Churchill still divided opinion in the country. When the Allies bombed Germany, what it did was unite a people in apathy. There was no uprising; the bombing allowed the Nazis to redirect discontent away from internal issues to external factors.

Bombing disrupted the growth of resistance cells, amplified Nazi propaganda. Allied planners in the RAF and USAF were followers of Giulio Douhet, who said industrial societies were fragile, and a bit of bombing was enough to break them. They thought German civil society would collapse like in 1918-19.

They were wrong. They failed to understand the grip the Nazis had on society, how the Nazis owned the airwaves, and that actually aerial bombing resulted in increased social bonding, and people switching to survival modes. I think aerial bombardment becomes predictable, civilians take cover in public bomb shelters, swap stories, and when there is an all clear, focus on survival, not rebellion. Bombing Germany probably increased the survival of the Nazi regime, and extended WW2.

At a time when the stability of the Tehran government was in doubt (elections, defeat of the hardliner candidate in Presidential elections), the bombing campaign has probably set back the resistance movement years.

Congratulations America. Iran just replaced Ayatollah Khamenei with Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei, the second son of the former Supreme Leader as Iran's new supreme leader, Iranian state media reported Sunday.

I guess this is the leadership change the USA was looking for.

9 minutes ago, Purdey said:

Congratulations America. Iran just replaced Ayatollah Khamenei with Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei, the second son of the former Supreme Leader as Iran's new supreme leader, Iranian state media reported Sunday.

I guess this is the leadership change the USA was looking for.

Plus a widower and ex-dad. Not going to be pissed off at all, is he?

2 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

Again, why aren't you taking to task the Russian government, who is arguably a greater danger to the world? Russian people are also suffering under the Putin regime, who has repressed them so much, they are afraid of protesting.

You've mentioned morality. Morality comes about due to human society, It is not natural. When the cat toys with a mouse, it is not evil or cruel, it is being a cat, sharpening its survival skills. Your sense of morality comes from religion, even if you consider yourself not a believe. You grew up in a society framed by religious beliefs.

You take the position that the Tehran government is evil, on the basis of how they deal with dissent, the number of innocent deaths they cause, their ban on homosexuality, and abortions, and their sponsorship of violent allies.

Is the US government evil? They harshly deal with dissent. Innocent people die because of their munitions. They are certainly on their way to banning abortions, and making homosexuality illegal is not an unusual belief among the public, nor indeed, lawmakers. Their allies can be very violent.

Or is the US government only a "little bit" evil, because they don't kill as many dissenters as Iran?

Ultimately, you are making a moral judgement in determining the Iranian government as evil. Millions of Iranians oppose their government, but millions also support it. Are they all evil, to be snuffed out?

The Iranian government does a lot of good. It provides healthcare, education, infrastructure and disaster relief to 80 million people. Those are not evil achievements.

Calling members of the government of Iran “evil” is not serious analysis but rhetorical posturing. Countries act primarily to secure power, influence, and survival, and Iran’s behaviour is no exception—shaped in part by historical experiences such as when Western powers overthrew an elected PM and installed a stooge Shah .

The charge also collapses under scrutiny because many of the actions cited against Iran are routine instruments of statecraft used by major powers including the United States. To single out Iranian officials as "evil" while at the same time normalising similar behaviour by other states is not moral consistency but selective outrage. In reality, islamophobia.

Your side isn't liberating the Iranian people, you're bombing them, killing them.

When the Nazis tried to bomb the British, it united them, at a time when Churchill still divided opinion in the country. When the Allies bombed Germany, what it did was unite a people in apathy. There was no uprising; the bombing allowed the Nazis to redirect discontent away from internal issues to external factors.

Bombing disrupted the growth of resistance cells, amplified Nazi propaganda. Allied planners in the RAF and USAF were followers of Giulio Douhet, who said industrial societies were fragile, and a bit of bombing was enough to break them. They thought German civil society would collapse like in 1918-19.

They were wrong. They failed to understand the grip the Nazis had on society, how the Nazis owned the airwaves, and that actually aerial bombing resulted in increased social bonding, and people switching to survival modes. I think aerial bombardment becomes predictable, civilians take cover in public bomb shelters, swap stories, and when there is an all clear, focus on survival, not rebellion. Bombing Germany probably increased the survival of the Nazi regime, and extended WW2.

At a time when the stability of the Tehran government was in doubt (elections, defeat of the hardliner candidate in Presidential elections), the bombing campaign has probably set back the resistance movement years.

One evil at a time. Costs a lot of money and time to take one on, let alone all evils that exist.

Morality is a human natural behavior. It is shaped by environment, development and cultures, some of which are morally different. Biological Roots: Morality is seen as an evolutionary adaptation (or exaptation) that promotes cooperation and altruism within groups.

1. Innate Components: Humans possess natural, inborn capacities for empathy, social pleasure, and self-control to fit into society.

2. Cultural Influence: While the capacity for morality is natural, specific moral codes, norms, and values are cultivated by society, which explains the high variation in morality across different cultures.

   I believe in God, but religion isn't what has me moral thinking. It helped but wasn't the main reason, as right and wrong isn't religious. As an adult you can make up your mind what is right or wrong. God has laws, but all aren't about religion or him.

   All governments have ignorant laws, made by men, and accepted by more. That doesn't mean all government thinking is wrong but some, especially individuals, and some of these individuals have power.

   Iran's government, just like the US, has good and bad, but exterminating people who protest is quite different. Very simple to see the difference between a politician that wants illegals out and killing those who talk and want more freedom and a democracy. Not a comparison. America isn't trying to kill civilians, although collateral damage happens in all wars. It's trying to disarm and eliminate the terrorists, which is mandatory for peace to happen.

   If there was another way to stop terrorism it would be used. Nothing else works besides stopping them, permanently, hopefully before they do more harm, as in this instance. Again, this isn't about any countries people, but certain individuals, sociopaths, that have no place in society.

Winning is sweet. Oh, just a minute.

The Supreme Leader is dead. Long live the Supreme Leader.

22 minutes ago, Purdey said:

Congratulations America. Iran just replaced Ayatollah Khamenei with Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei, the second son of the former Supreme Leader as Iran's new supreme leader, Iranian state media reported Sunday.

I guess this is the leadership change the USA was looking for.

No, America is hoping Iran's people will now take charge and not bow down to another megalomaniac.

1 minute ago, fredwiggy said:

America is hoping

I think it takes more than hope.

1 minute ago, Purdey said:

I think it takes more than hope.

Well, if this one follows what the last one did, he'll soon be turned to ash himself. This action has strength coming from Iran's people where before there was only fear.

Have no time for Starmer—a lawyer first, not a leader—but he would go up in my estimation if he roundly told Trump and the US to go and do one. That donkey in the White House may not speak for all Americans as Starmer doesn’t Brits, but at this point they are not friends. You could do 99 things right, disagree on one thing and you are garbage. We all know he is a total baby, but to carry on like that—‘we don’t need you’—to the place that’s always had your back is unacceptable. Let the US and Israel deal with their own mess and the inevitable millions of refugees.

One evil at a time. Costs a lot of money and time to take one on, let alone all evils that exist.

Sounds hypocritical to me. You'd rather attack weak people than strong people, because they put up a fight. Money is the root of all evil, isn't it?

Morality is a human natural behavior. It is shaped by environment, development and cultures, some of which are morally different. Biological Roots: Morality is seen as an evolutionary adaptation (or exaptation) that promotes cooperation and altruism within groups.

No its not. One isn't born with morals as an instinct. If its shapled by culture, its not natural.

I believe in God, but religion isn't what has me moral thinking. It helped but wasn't the main reason, as right and wrong isn't religious. As an adult you can make up your mind what is right or wrong. God has laws, but all aren't about religion or him.

If you believe in God, how can you believe in Evolution, and not Creation?

All Laws in Western Society have come from the 10 Commandments, drawn up by some wizard in Sinai, who made them up.

Iran's government, just like the US, has good and bad, but exterminating people who protest is quite different. Very simple to see the difference between a politician that wants illegals out and killing those who talk and want more freedom and a democracy.

So you ignore, or condone the shooting of people who are protesting about how so-called illegals are removed.

Jesus was an illegal Palestinian. When he was born, Herod decreed all babies in Bethlehem were to be killed. The baby Jesus was taken to Egypt by his parents, outside of roman occuplied Judea, entering without authority. All Americans are descended from political, religious and economic refugees, the vast majority of whom arrived unannounced in their new land.

Not a comparison. America isn't trying to kill civilians, although collateral damage happens in all wars.

Same for Iran. It does try and kill civilians, but there is collateral damage,

It's trying to disarm and eliminate the terrorists, which is mandatory for peace to happen.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, so said Darrell Trent. You know who Trent was. Not a radical, or a revolutionary, or a contrarian. But he was an advisor to President Richard Nixon. A conservative.

But you are wrong about the conditions for peace. The British government never eliminated the IRA nor disarmed them. That was the whole point of the Belfast Agreement. Peace in Ireland came about through Game Theory, basically a 2x2 Cooperate versus Defect Game. The British tried the smash 'em tactic (wipe out the terrorists). It didn't work and was never going to work. The IRA tried the bomb 'em approach (force out the Brits). It didn't work and was never going to work. Both sides would label the other side as evil, and would cite outrages to support that. The Nationalists wanted a United Ireland. The Unonists wanted to remain in the United Kingdom. Seemingly an intransigent condundrum

Don't pretend you give a single stuff about a single Iranian. Not one US, British, French, Australian soldier is worth a single Iranian. When the Shah was around, the Americans supported his secret police, because it suited their geopolitical ambitions. They did not care about individual Iranians in 1976, why should they now in 2026? Are you saying American morality has changed?

If there was another way to stop terrorism it would be used. Nothing else works besides stopping them, permanently, hopefully before they do more harm, as in this instance.

You seem profoundly ignorant of history. Beside Northern Ireland, you are not

aware of how ETA ended its bombing campaign in Spain and France. Or how FARC came to an agreement with the Colombian government. Or how the white South Africans (most of them anyhow) reconciled with the ANC.

The problem with formally declaring a state (as opposed to a group) a "terrorist" is that, in most instances, it makes it a criminal offence to then even speak to them. Some want that, for their own (evil) reasons, who prefer war war to jaw jaw. Even Nazi Germany maintained back channel communications with the Allies. As late as 1945, Japan was conducting POW swaps with the British in Goa (mainly release of British Army Educational Corps member captured in Hong Kong and Singapore).

1 hour ago, fredwiggy said:

Well, if this one follows what the last one did, he'll soon be turned to ash himself. This action has strength coming from Iran's people where before there was only fear.

Your people killed his wife and daughter. Why? How is he supposed to feel now, now he's no longer a husband or father?

Right now, Iranian people in Tehran are in fear of being burnt alive because you bozos blew up a petrol depot for cabbies and set fire to the sewage system. You lot profess to be only interested in eliminating evil, but what you are doing is pursuing the same tactics one would take in taking apart a state in preperation for an invasion, softening them up. When you bomb schools, hospitals and desalination works, thats not taking apart the power of the Iranian state, that's destroying Iran. Your friends the Israelis have already said they are going to kill him, irrespective of what he does. Your side is not interested in peace, just war and death.

You're religious. You must therefore believe in an Eye for an Eye.