Who in there right minds would want to join a war with a madman at the helm !!

2 hours ago, MikeandDow said:

Who in there right minds would want to join a war with a madman at the helm !!

Especially when you have very limited assets to contribute to the "Greatest Military Might In The World"!

Which, if so, should not need or want any help as someone said recently!!

It amazes me NOBODY is considering the possibility that everything Trump said is true. Everyone simply believes the legacy media and calls Trump a liar. Consider this interpretations of events, which is thoroughly and logically consistent:

Trump did already win the Iran war. Now, the government of Iran is actually cooperating with Trump to close the Straits of Hormuz. Why? Trump told you. The US doesn't need oil from there. It has its own supply. The people who DO need oil from there are the Europeans, the Indian subcontinent, etc. All the people currently supporting the Globalists and the City of London. This is supported by Iran just striking Baghdad’s Al-Rashid Hotel, where the EU's delegation was staying and home to the European diplomatic offices. Why choose that specific location if the EU is supposedly the enemy of your enemy?

So is the above hypothesis true? I have no idea. But neither does anyone else. Everyone right now is believing only what they wish to believe. Multiple possibilities fit the data, and the truth is absolutely unknown. In my experience though, Trump rarely lies, but does often talk past those who are asking the questions. This interpretation would explain all of Trump's seemingly contradictory statements.

Ultimately, the excursion into Iran will only end when Europe rejects Globalism and decides to participate in getting oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz again. There is nothing that will cause it to open otherwise. The Globalist aligned governments of the EU are currently unwilling to do that, but how bad will it need to get before the citizens of Europe demand it? Trump implies France is almost there. An "8 out of 10" in his remarks. The US has no real skin in this game, and can wait as long as it takes. If true, I would suggest the next logical events would be 1) the Globalists activate sleeper cells in the US to try and force Trump (and the new government of Iran, who the Globalists no longer control) to capitulate, 2) Martial Law is activated in the US to put down the rebellions, and 3) under cover of martial law the Globalist collaborators within the US are rounded up and put on trial for treason, exposing the truth behind the Globalists and the criminal syndicate run by the City of London.

You are obviously free to disagree with the hypothesis above. But nobody has any evidence to say it isn't true. It remains a logically consistent and possibly valid interpretation of what is happening.

Time will tell if this is a valid interpretation, but you should consider this alternate view when you are only receiving one sided information from the Globalist controlled media.

1 hour ago, uncletiger said:

Trump did already win the Iran war.

Then why start another Iranian one?

Isn't "globalist" one of those code words used in polite company?

The idea of a globalist conspiracy centred on the City of London is a classic trope. This particular version is promulgated by the Marxist Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche is often described as a disguised antisemite. It's as much complete cobblers in 2026 as it was in 1926. The laRouche movement is basically a Marxist anti-semitic movement.

While some countries are reluctant to become involved in directly attacking the regime in Iran, most would like to see it gone. This has resulted in fence-sitting by many. In the case of the UK, while it's military strength has been drastically reduced by successive governments,

it has at least directed it's air force to undertake defensive action against Iranian missile strikes, and is now allowing the use of it's strategic bases. It would have been smarter if Starmer had indicated his willingness to agree such actions immediately rather than initially prevaricating.

14 hours ago, uncletiger said:

It amazes me NOBODY is considering the possibility that everything Trump said is true. Everyone simply believes the legacy media and calls Trump a liar. Consider this interpretations of events, which is thoroughly and logically consistent:

Trump did already win the Iran war. Now, the government of Iran is actually cooperating with Trump to close the Straits of Hormuz. Why? Trump told you. The US doesn't need oil from there. It has its own supply. The people who DO need oil from there are the Europeans, the Indian subcontinent, etc. All the people currently supporting the Globalists and the City of London. This is supported by Iran just striking Baghdad’s Al-Rashid Hotel, where the EU's delegation was staying and home to the European diplomatic offices. Why choose that specific location if the EU is supposedly the enemy of your enemy?

So is the above hypothesis true? I have no idea. But neither does anyone else. Everyone right now is believing only what they wish to believe. Multiple possibilities fit the data, and the truth is absolutely unknown. In my experience though, Trump rarely lies, but does often talk past those who are asking the questions. This interpretation would explain all of Trump's seemingly contradictory statements.

Ultimately, the excursion into Iran will only end when Europe rejects Globalism and decides to participate in getting oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz again. There is nothing that will cause it to open otherwise. The Globalist aligned governments of the EU are currently unwilling to do that, but how bad will it need to get before the citizens of Europe demand it? Trump implies France is almost there. An "8 out of 10" in his remarks. The US has no real skin in this game, and can wait as long as it takes. If true, I would suggest the next logical events would be 1) the Globalists activate sleeper cells in the US to try and force Trump (and the new government of Iran, who the Globalists no longer control) to capitulate, 2) Martial Law is activated in the US to put down the rebellions, and 3) under cover of martial law the Globalist collaborators within the US are rounded up and put on trial for treason, exposing the truth behind the Globalists and the criminal syndicate run by the City of London.

You are obviously free to disagree with the hypothesis above. But nobody has any evidence to say it isn't true. It remains a logically consistent and possibly valid interpretation of what is happening.

Time will tell if this is a valid interpretation, but you should consider this alternate view when you are only receiving one sided information from the Globalist controlled media.

You are correct the USA doesn't need the oil, unlike Europe/Japan and others and the UK, who need natural gas.

Because of the drone attacks, Qatar (which supplies 20% of the world's LNG) has shut down production. The UK relies heavily on this for heating and power.

Starmer seems concerned that this conflict with Iran could escalate into an Iraq type war, he has explicitly mentioned the 2003 Iraq War in several statements over the last two weeks, essentially using it as a shield to justify his caution. Even though Trump, Hegseth, Rubio, JD, Ret Gen Jack Keane, Admiral Brad Cooper and many more have said that the "wider war" scenario is a ghost from the past that doesn't fit the current reality.

Starmer is effectively fighting the 2003 war in his head. He’s so determined not to be "Blair 2.0" that he’s willing to risk being called "Spineless" by Trump and "Indecisive" by the Tories.

Trump shouldn't be frustrated with the UK - doesn't he realise that Britain is - in all but name - muslim?

8 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

While some countries are reluctant to become involved in directly attacking the regime in Iran, most would like to see it gone. This has resulted in fence-sitting by many. In the case of the UK, while it's military strength has been drastically reduced by successive governments,

it has at least directed it's air force to undertake defensive action against Iranian missile strikes, and is now allowing the use of it's strategic bases. It would have been smarter if Starmer had indicated his willingness to agree such actions immediately rather than initially prevaricating.

I don’t blame UK and allies to be muted to be directly involved. Might be different if they were consulted and strategy coordinated before taking military action. The consequence of this poorly planned attack is that European countries have no choice but to implement defensive posture.

19 hours ago, webfact said:

Starmer after the British leader signalled that the UK would avoid becoming involved in a broader war, instead focusing on coordinated efforts with allies

Trump is dealing with a coward.

Starmer is pandering to his muslim voter base. Without them he is toast. If that means the subjugation of the Iranian people he doesnt care one bit. He doesnt care about the British people so he certainly doesnt care about Iranians.

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Trump is dealing with a coward.

Starmer is pandering to his muslim voter base. Without them he is toast. If that means the subjugation of the Iranian people he doesnt care one bit. He doesnt care about the British people so he certainly doesnt care about Iranians.

Harsh words any proof !! or is it just BS as i suspect !!

Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to a mainstream media source.

6 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Harsh words any proof !! or is it just BS as i suspect !!

Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to a mainstream media source.

Not harsh. Quite reserved actually. But either way it was clearly an opinion.

Learn the forum rules. I believe you can do better.

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Not harsh. Quite reserved actually. But either way it was clearly an opinion.

Learn the forum rules. I believe you can do better.

i know the rules it is clear by your post you do not !! and people are NOT mind readers

44 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Don't know if it's a good development, but it sure is true.

I don't think so!

According to the latest YouGov and Ipsos data from this week, Starmer's net approval rating has plummeted to -51 to -53.

Only about 19% of the public approve of his performance, while a massive 72% disapprove.

This puts him in the same "toxic" bracket as Rishi Sunak right before he lost the election and is dangerously close to the record lows set by Liz Truss (-70).

Changes have to come from within and that also applies to Iran.

While Trump and his warmongering congregation of clowns "criticises" NATO members "cautious approach" (in clear English - No, Thank You) the American leadership might note, that the rest of the world criticises America.

Has been politically raped for the last 100 years and it seems, that they (quite rightly so) say, "enough is enough". Let them deal with the medieval Mullahs and their flocks of bearded Neanderthaler; none of Americas business.

44 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Trump is dealing with a coward.

Starmer is pandering to his muslim voter base. Without them he is toast. If that means the subjugation of the Iranian people he doesnt care one bit. He doesnt care about the British people so he certainly doesnt care about Iranians.

Not only a coward, but a prevaricator, he can't decide what he wants to do, that is not the sign of a leader.

In his Downing Street press conference on Monday, Starmer used the phrase, 'looking through options' repeatedly when asked if he would send the Royal Navy to the Strait.

This is probably why President Trump is mocking Starmer, To the Americans, who don't actually need the oil, looking thru options, while the global oil supply is choked, is another way of saying doing nothing.

7 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Isn't "globalist" one of those code words used in polite company?

The idea of a globalist conspiracy centred on the City of London is a classic trope. This particular version is promulgated by the Marxist Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche is often described as a disguised antisemite. It's as much complete cobblers in 2026 as it was in 1926. The laRouche movement is basically a Marxist anti-semitic movement.

Exactly. People who use the words “globalist” and “globalism” often do so without saying precisely what they mean; more often than not, the words are steeped in antisemitism and the notion that Jews are behind everything bad that happens in the world. (Note that I’m using the word “antisemitism” in its traditional, two-millennia-old sense, not in any way meant to refer to the present-day Israeli state.)

The scenario laid out by the original poster is bonkers, not least because it assumes that Trump is capable of rational thinking. If by “globalist” they mean international corporate interests, well sure, big companies with an international presence have various degrees of influence over political decision-making in different countries, and sometimes big companies will cooperate with each other if they have common interests. But they have far more interest in building their own shareholder value within the framework of neoliberal economics (low corporate taxes; no regulation) than in conspiring to rule the world, as the original poster vaguely seems to suggest.

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

If that means the subjugation of the Iranian people he doesnt care one bit. He doesnt care about the British people so he certainly doesnt care about Iranians.

If 'he' is Trump then, for once, you are spot on.

From the OP

"Starmer has maintained that the UK remains a strong partner to the United States but emphasised that decisions would be guided by national interests." ........which means, he doesn't want upset the muslims and lose their vote.

So he wants to keep muslim and anti-war voters happy by staying out of the fighting. But by staying out, he allows the Strait to remain closed, which sends gas prices up 131%.

Problem is, if he "sits on the sidelines" and the UK starts seeing 50mph speed limits or planned blackouts, the same people he’s trying to "not upset" will be the first to turn on him because they can't afford to heat their homes......sounds like a perfect catch 22?

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy?

No sensible Brit could care less what this imbecile says.

I would not be surprised if the posters who criticize him for not participating in this war, were the same posters who blame Blair for participating in the Iraq war. 😃

7 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

I don't think so!

According to the latest YouGov and Ipsos data from this week, Starmer's net approval rating has plummeted to -51 to -53.

Only about 19% of the public approve of his performance, while a massive 72% disapprove.

This puts him in the same "toxic" bracket as Rishi Sunak right before he lost the election and is dangerously close to the record lows set by Liz Truss (-70).

Now get back on topic please with a poll that includes his handling of the latest trump shenanigans.

Basically Trump started ` war; it's not getting out of control, and he's asking people to bail him out AFTER the fact.

37 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Now get back on topic please with a poll that includes his handling of the latest trump shenanigans.

So you can't rebut my comment...fine, just say so. there is no need to deflect!

1 hour ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

So you can't rebut my comment...fine, just say so. there is no need to deflect!

"Recent polls indicate that the UK public is not in favour of joining offensive military actions against Iran. A significant majority of voters oppose direct UK involvement in the conflict.

Key findings from recent polls (March 2026) by YouGov, Sky News, and Ipsos include:

• Opposition to Direct Action: Around 70% of the public oppose the UK joining the US in offensive military actions against Iran, while only about 17% support it.

• Opposition to US Strikes: A majority of Britons (57%) believe the US was wrong to take military action against Iran in the first place. Around 56% of Britons overall disapprove of the US military strikes.

• Preferred Stance: The most common view among the British public is that the UK's military stance should be purely defensive, focused on protecting UK facilities and civilian areas, rather than engaging in offensive operations.

• Use of UK Bases: Public opinion is also largely against allowing the US to use UK airbases for strikes on Iran, with roughly half of respondents opposing this, even when the targets were restricted to missile sites.

• Desire for Diplomacy: A large majority of Britons (63%) support the UK government using diplomacy with all involved parties to de-escalate the situation.

Overall, the data from various polling organisations shows a clear public mood of caution and a lack of appetite for further UK military involvement in the Middle East conflict" (Source: Google AI)

The Hornet's nest has been kicked, you can't undo that. Right or wrong doesn't really matter at this point. It's to everyone's best interest to get this over with. The Gulf States agree that the enemy in Iran needs to be crushed.

14 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

The Gulf States agree that the enemy in Iran needs to be crushed.

And your proof of that statement is where/what?

6 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

From the OP

"Starmer has maintained that the UK remains a strong partner to the United States but emphasised that decisions would be guided by national interests." ........which means, he doesn't want upset the muslims and lose their vote.

So he wants to keep muslim and anti-war voters happy by staying out of the fighting. But by staying out, he allows the Strait to remain closed, which sends gas prices up 131%.

Problem is, if he "sits on the sidelines" and the UK starts seeing 50mph speed limits or planned blackouts, the same people he’s trying to "not upset" will be the first to turn on him because they can't afford to heat their homes......sounds like a perfect catch 22?

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy?

It's in few countries' national interest - namely Russia and, perhaps, a handful of others - for the Straits to be closed or for further unrest to occur in the region.

We are now in 'two wrongs make a right' territory. It was wrong of the US to start this war and it would be wrong for the UK - and other NATO allies to now join in - even if the outcome was that the Straits remained open.

The following quotes illustrate well the prevailing sentiment in Europe: Former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves remarked it was "a bit rich" for Trump to ask for help from countries he had previously insulted, while Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna questioned the lack of a shared strategic plan, and suggesting that allies cannot be expected to manage a "landing" (the aftermath) when they were excluded from the "take-off" (the decision to start the war).

For a small country, Estonia seems to have a number of astute politicians.

21 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

The Hornet's nest has been kicked, you can't undo that. Right or wrong doesn't really matter at this point. It's to everyone's best interest to get this over with. The Gulf States agree that the enemy in Iran needs to be crushed.

Saudi Arabia would probably wish away Iran but I doubt that any of the Gulf States were in favour of this war. The next step should be for the US to call off the bombers and restart negotiations with Iran.

11 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

And your proof of that statement is where/what?

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/us-iran-war-gulf-states-strikes-7f12acb2?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqfm0ZwDqMMhG0F9QNr2SW_HdxUoSep_KPJVgmoS9R3p2Hj7O2Z5Jnb_&gaa_ts=69bab955&gaa_sig=SoMN4mpv-wHZgBmQFpi-yL_dZ4v49BFRClIDDkE44CIiyBOzsrL_JIVRQx69R_DNoLRlKC__Xi1o8g60azGoug%3D%3D

In pivot for region that had courted Tehran, Gulf leaders now insist that Iran must be rendered incapable of future attacks