15 hours ago, khaosokman said:

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

where's Nigel when they need him

16 hours 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 illegal ?? ( you are abviosly not an American.. so you don't understand US law

Just now, fredwiggy said:

Worked against Germany in the past, doesn't apply now of course. China isn't going to be a problem

Picking a fight with a country with China's nuclear capabilities would be a problem.

2 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I have no love for the regime in Iran but it should be up to the people to pressure for change. Trump is ignoring the people in his war with Iran. Majority are against the war. The war has add to inflation which the people can’t afford. US will cost billions and possible trillions that US can’t afford. Iran pose no threat to US and even to EU countries. The terror of the Sept 11 was sprang from Saudi Arabia. Was Saudi Arabia eliminated?

Those people tried and over 35,000 were killed. This is why it takes a stronger ally to come in and eliminate the trash. Yes, this will cost a lot, but saving lives is worth the money, seeing so much has already been put to making the US the strongest military the world has. Now they can use what they created. The US has exterminated many roaches, just like they did now. The problem lies in that you have to get all of them.The same with human traffickers. You need to get all of them, their money and the clients.

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

Picking a fight with a country with China's nuclear capabilities would be a problem.

Yes, and both sides would lose a lot even without nuclear weapons used, which they wouldn't be. There are over 5 millions Chinese in America, so attacking us would be attacking them also

8 hours 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.

hmmmmmmmm Russia .. China ..

8 hours 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.

only a matter of time before they find the rat in a bunker hole and and deliver him to the virgin party

8 hours ago, Purdey said:

I think it takes more than hope.

that's what BGU 57 A/B 's are for !

5 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

This has the potential to become WW3.

The Russians are itching to hit the UK and would love an excuse. It’s vital the UK doesn’t get involved.

This has to stay as Israel’s war with America following their lead.

I am fairly sure 2 years from now, America won’t have any bases in the Middle East.

the russians ? the one's that can't even handle Ukraine ?

51 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

The US has always been the world's police

ALWAYS?

I would suggest that you mean since the Korean war or there abouts!

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Powerful countries like US should . There are 193 states in UN and vast majority have always complied with the prohibition on the use of force in the UN Charter. US is setting up a bad example for powerful states like Russia and China to do whatever they like and disregard international law. This is a dangerous precedent that can lead to wider conflict and another world war. USA has become a rogue nation with a delinquent President.

....not be allowed to break international law by using force against another

as oppossed to a UN member killing and oppressing it's own people ...... at some point somebody has to step in and do the job

oh yeah.. that would be the one with a real man at the helm !

1 minute ago, scottiejohn said:

ALWAYS?

I would suggest that you mean since the Korean war or there abouts!

Yes, modern history. After World War II.

1 hour ago, josephbloggs said:

Absolute rubbish.

92% of Brits are against the illegal war.

again .. what is illegal ??

33 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Or perhaps he just has morals. Perhaps he saw what a complete and utter disaster it was the last time we joined you in an illegal Middle East war - not to mention the humanitarian catastrophe it was.

His preoccupation is in doing what's right, not in being bullied and killing thousands of innocent civilians (and school girls).

the one on the left is Starmer

26 minutes ago, RayC said:

Picking a fight with a country with China's nuclear capabilities would be a problem.

so stopping a country the has enriched 60% uranium before they build 11 nukes is justified

The worlds say's Thank You

39 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Yes, and both sides would lose a lot even without nuclear weapons used, which they wouldn't be. There are over 5 millions Chinese in America, so attacking us would be attacking them also

Those Chinese-Americans who want - and are able - to leave would do so before the bombs start flying.

In any event, if there were an armed China-US conflict, I doubt that the fate of 5m Chinese-Americans spread throughout the US would not be an inhibiting factor.

53 minutes ago, Luuk Chaai said:

where's Nigel when they need him

Certainly not in his constituency where he should be. Unlikely to be in parliament either.

And he is the last person we need, thank you.

1 hour ago, Thingamabob said:

Initially Starmer could have agreed with the the USA that it could make use of British bases, without any further comment. That he chose to stress that the UK is not involved in any attacks on Iran suggests his preoccupation is with his European friends, and with the UK's Muslim voters.

As one would expect from a ally,the Labor leader isn't channeling Churchill thats for sure. He's doing a full Neville Chamberlain impression,hesitating, splitting hairs on defensive only, and tiptoeing around to avoid fully committing against a terror backing regime, even as Iran lashes out regionally.

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Powerful countries like US should not be allowed to break international law

International law is meaningless as with the ICJ and the UN is useless.

49 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Those people tried and over 35,000 were killed. This is why it takes a stronger ally to come in and eliminate the trash. Yes, this will cost a lot, but saving lives is worth the money, seeing so much has already been put to making the US the strongest military the world has. Now they can use what they created. The US has exterminated many roaches, just like they did now. The problem lies in that you have to get all of them.The same with human traffickers. You need to get all of them, their money and the clients.

I thought that we are clear about the illegality interfering in domestic politics of a sovereign country in international law. Even Trump step back on regime change as a rationale for the attack on Iran. By the way, talking about roaches, Trump pardoned lots of roaches and in a whole lot of hurt from the Epstein human trafficking crimes.

7 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

International law is meaningless as with the ICJ and the UN is useless.

I will have to acknowledge your point of view and recognise that the difference between you and me is that you subscribed to lawlessness while I am not.

36 minutes ago, Luuk Chaai said:

so stopping a country the has enriched 60% uranium before they build 11 nukes is justified

The worlds say's Thank You

And who said that they are building nukes. IAEA confirmed Iran not making nuclear bombs. Even US intelligence indicated Iran not making nuclear weapons. Of course you believe the liar in chief and his marionette Hegseth

23 minutes ago, Luuk Chaai said:

so stopping a country the has enriched 60% uranium before they build 11 nukes is justified

The worlds say's Thank You

Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea all possess nuclear weapons.

Of those North Korea and Pakistan are definitely unstable, others arguably so. If the objective is to make the world a safer place why not ensure that those countries are free of nuclear arms before embarking on a war with a country that poses no immediate threat?

Your world may say, 'Thanks'; the more sober voices don't.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/03/05/donald-trump-must-stop-soon?giftId=ZTdlYzg2ZGQtNTg0MS00MzAwLWIyOWMtMmJkYTE1M2Q5NTU5&utm_campaign=gifted_article

(may be behind a pay wall after 5 viewings)

30 minutes ago, riclag said:

As one would expect from a ally,the Labor leader isn't channeling Churchill thats for sure. He's doing a full Neville Chamberlain impression,hesitating, splitting hairs on defensive only, and tiptoeing around to avoid fully committing against a terror backing regime, even as Iran lashes out regionally.

...and tiptoeing around to avoid fully committing against to a terror backing regime, even as America lashes out regionally.

Fixed it.

I think America should feel proud that it has a competent leader who has been able to replace so many leaders with clones. Maduro out, his vice president in. Khamenei out Khamenei in.

With talk (as yet unproven) that the kids school was destroyed by tomahawk missiles, the freedom of Iran is now a forgone conclusion. Maybe.

36 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I thought that we are clear about the illegality interfering in domestic politics of a sovereign country in international law. Even Trump step back on regime change as a rationale for the attack on Iran. By the way, talking about roaches, Trump pardoned lots of roaches and in a whole lot of hurt from the Epstein human trafficking crimes.

Killing innocent people who protest isn't about normal politics. Everyone knows what Trump has done and this war isn't all about him anyway. If the people who work with him didn't want this to happen, it wouldn't.

21 minutes ago, RayC said:

Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea all possess nuclear weapons.

Of those North Korea and Pakistan are definitely unstable, others arguably so. If the objective is to make the world a safer place why not ensure that those countries are free of nuclear arms before embarking on a war with a country that poses no immediate threat?

Your world may say, 'Thanks'; the more sober voices don't.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/03/05/donald-trump-must-stop-soon?giftId=ZTdlYzg2ZGQtNTg0MS00MzAwLWIyOWMtMmJkYTE1M2Q5NTU5&utm_campaign=gifted_article

(may be behind a pay wall after 5 viewings)

I guess killing over 35,000 of it's own people isn't an immediate threat, as they're al ready dead, but I'm thinking there would be a lot more following, seeing they thought they could get away with genocide already.Again, one maniac leader and it's followers at a time.

14 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Killing innocent people who protest isn't about normal politics. Everyone knows what Trump has done and this war isn't all about him anyway. If the people who work with him didn't want this to happen, it wouldn't.

You may be wise to refrain talking about killing innocent people after 8 people have died so far in 2026 dealing with ICE.

They were voices from Trump's inner circle and even the Chairman of Joint Chief Gen Dan Caine who were against the war with Iran. There were no rival teams in the White House tearing at each other throat in an open debate. All folded after seeing Trump hell-bent to confront Iran.

edition.cnn.com/2026/03/08/politics/trump-inner-circle-iran-conflict

2 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

You may be wise to refrain talking about killing innocent people after 8 people have died so far in 2026 dealing with ICE.

They were voices from Trump's inner circle and even the Chairman of Joint Chief Gen Dan Caine who were against the war with Iran. There were no rival teams in the White House tearing at each other throat in an open debate. All folded after seeing Trump hell-bent to confront Iran.

edition.cnn.com/2026/03/08/politics/trump-inner-circle-iran-conflict

I'll never refrain from speaking out about the killing of innocents, no matter who does it. Americans themselves don't know all of what goes on in their own backyards, let alone those from other countries who have never visited or lived there. There are people quick on the trigger all over the world, and if they are breaking the law, they'll usually pay for it. 8 people dying from ICE was a sad thing. Convictions for on duty killings are rare all over. 35,000+ is a little more. And the situations weren't the same.

America is a great place where thousands move to and visit yearly. All governments make mistakes they have to correct, hopefully, but it's all we have.

With all this talk about what Americas doing, I don't see any other way to deal with genocide than eradication of those who are proponents of it.

If anyone has any other ideas that might work, they're free to speak. Hitler, meaning his followers, was stopped for the same reasons, along with all the other genocide starters. Again, trump can be overruled if they think it's not in the best interest of all involved.

10 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

10 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

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?

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

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.

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

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?

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).

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?

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

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.

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

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?

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).

You certainly know your "stuff" @Roadsternut and I have enjoyed reading your posts thus far. Thank you for your insights.

2 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

I guess killing over 35,000 of it's own people isn't an immediate threat, as they're al ready dead, but I'm thinking there would be a lot more following, seeing they thought they could get away with genocide already.Again, one maniac leader and it's followers at a time.

Estimates suggest that over a million Uyghurs have been detained in China since 2015 with likely +/-50,000+ killed, and yet no threat of US military action against that country.

Let's not pretend that Trump is on some sort of moral crusade or that his actions in Iran are borne out of concern for the fate of the Iranian public.