By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Interestingly, among my grandfather's papers, I came across official orders setting out plans for putting petrol stations out of action in the event of a German invasion during WWII, which included instructions for pouring concrete into the pipes.
He worked for Ipswich Corporation, in the depot and was air raid rescue (I also have his helmet), having fought in WWI.
Interesting stuff.
My Great Uncle was in the Dedham and Ardleigh Home Guard,he had a old push bike and it still had the mount for his rifle on it the last time I saw the bike in the early 1980s.
Can you explain the imperative for us joining the attacks by US and Israel? Over a week later Trump and his miserable crew can’t come up with anything coherent.
Trump wanted us to be like the sidekick of a bully, getting a few kicks in when the opponent is on the ground.
Badenoch doesn't come out of this well. She really is a lightweight.
Badenoch told the Conservative’s spring conference in Harrogate, North Yorkshire: “At a time when Britain needs strong and decisive leadership, we have a prime minister who is too afraid of making the wrong decision, too afraid to make any decision at all.
“Last week’s byelection has spooked the Labour party. They watched the Greens campaigning on sectarian voting lines. A tactic Labour used for many years is now being turned against them. And now Keir Starmer is too scared to make foreign interventions for fear of upsetting a tiny section of that electorate.”
In response, Carns, a former Royal Marine, said: “Trying to score cheap political points off the back of a serious security situation is deeply irresponsible. This situation is above politics and requires calm collective decision making – not hyperbole and soundbites.
“British troops are doing an amazing job and no one should be questioning their commitment or competency. Serious times require serious politics, not political point-scoring on the back of our armed forces, civil service or [Ministry of Defence] personnel who are doing an amazing job.”
I didn't think I could dislike her much more than I already do, but her recent pathetic, performative sniping from the sidelines on this matter have surprisingly raised that bar to new heights and only serves to remind me that she offers nothing to this country.
This is the same Trump who allowed his own citizens to be murdered on his own streets and didn't call out his staff when they labelled the dead as domestic terrorists? That Trump?
This is the same Trump who allowed his own citizens to be murdered on his own streets and didn't call out his staff when they labelled the dead as domestic terrorists? That Trump?
This is the same Trump who allowed his own citizens to be murdered on his own streets and didn't call out his staff when they labelled the dead as domestic terrorists? That Trump?
He’s a troll who hides behind rifling off quirky little old “British” waffle that suggest good olde English values. Tool.
“My dear old aunt loved to pop to Bungay in her Morris Minor with her pal Pat from the WI to pick up a pound of fresh bacon from Keith the local butcher. She always told great tales of Mosely who apparently loved a cup of Bovril on a cold English morning buh.”
Just a harmless board racist buh, he aint no bovver
Because he's President of the USA, with the world's largest military and economic clout at his back and call. Calling him out directly is liable to hurt, one way or another.
The idea that standing up to bullies will make them desist is something of a fiction founded on the idea of having some mysterious equal or superior force to counter them with. Otherwise you just get beaten up and your belongings dumped in a puddle. Speaking as someone who was on the receiving end of some of that at school, I found the best tactics were passive resistance (ignore them, don't show distress and eventually they get bored) and gaining allies (individual bullies don't attack groups).
Similarly, Trump's verbal jibes should be water off a duck's back (he will have forgotten them by tomorrow, anyway) and countries should be banding together to look after their own collective interests, outside of purely the US sphere (not easy or quick, may be less lucrative, but more secure in the long term).
I disagree. The only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them. If you don’t they take everything from you including self worth. You’ll get beaten up time after time, but eventually you’ll inflict enough pain on them to make them go away. Why? Because bullies are essentially afraid.
To the point in hand, I don’t think Starmer made the decision. Those who run ‘the Party’, Milliband and co did. The decision was I think made because they thought it’d make Labour more popular. Party and self first second and third. What’s right and wrong? Our principle-free Politicians haven’t done anything on that basis in decades.
The decision for me was a stupid one for several reasons. Firstly, allowing the US to use those bases would cost us nothing. Denying them wouldn’t stop America but we’d derive no benefit. People like Trump are binary. You support, you don’t. There’s no compromise. If you don’t, you are supporting Iran - a home of terrorists and truly and an appalling regime.
No point in bleating about ‘uman rights in Iran now. We stood by and even shut our eyes when a drone fell on Akrotiri, not that we could do much not even armed with a water pistol.
Secondly, by allowing the US to use those bases it would have kept us out of the spotlight so the sudden light being shined on Labour’s disarmament programme which is of course in full swing still. We can’t even send a rusting little destroyer and I doubt those aircraft carriers will make it out of Portsmouth. They have a tendency to catch fire and are short of crew anyway.
We have shown to our friends in the region we cannot be relied on one iota. You could argue that these countries are pretty awful themselves, but as the Brexit debacle has proven, you need people to trade with. Partners and allies whether you like them or not. If you are head honcho in say Saudi, how will be viewing the U.K. who stood by as the drones piled in? Bottom of the list at best.
Lastly, I keep seeing posts with phrases like ‘illegal war’. In what way is it illegal? The post war international ‘rules’ written by the Americans? There is no ‘illegal’. I know Starmer is hiding behind it but it’s a nonsense. They’re gone so get over it Sir Kier.
There is right and wrong, but everyone's basis of that will be different. There is power and the exercising of it. Might is right. That’s how it’s going to be. So back to the bullying analogy you can either build yourself up to a point where you’ll be left alone or you can carry on disarming and ploughing funds into your priorities (party vote, essentially), sing a few ‘give peace a chance’ songs and hope for the best.
This is just how I see it today with a bad mood. I’ll probably take a whole different view tomorrow and I guess that just reflects the lack of information and changing scene day by day.
Edit: one of the carriers is out of action in Rosyth anyway.
I disagree. The only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them. If you don’t they take everything from you including self worth. You’ll get beaten up time after time, but eventually you’ll inflict enough pain on them to make them go away. Why? Because bullies are essentially afraid.
To the point in hand, I don’t think Starmer made the decision. Those who run ‘the Party’, Milliband and co did. The decision was I think made because they thought it’d make Labour more popular. Party and self first second and third. What’s right and wrong? Our principle-free Politicians haven’t done anything on that basis in decades.
The decision for me was a stupid one for several reasons. Firstly, allowing the US to use those bases would cost us nothing. Denying them wouldn’t stop America but we’d derive no benefit. People like Trump are binary. You support, you don’t. There’s no compromise. If you don’t, you are supporting Iran - a home of terrorists and truly and an appalling regime.
No point in bleating about ‘uman rights in Iran now. We stood by and even shut our eyes when a drone fell on Akrotiri, not that we could do much not even armed with a water pistol.
Secondly, by allowing the US to use those bases it would have kept us out of the spotlight so the sudden light being shined on Labour’s disarmament programme which is of course in full swing still. We can’t even send a rusting little destroyer and I doubt those aircraft carriers will make it out of Portsmouth. They have a tendency to catch fire and are short of crew anyway.
We have shown to our friends in the region we cannot be relied on one iota. You could argue that these countries are pretty awful themselves, but as the Brexit debacle has proven, you need people to trade with. Partners and allies whether you like them or not. If you are head honcho in say Saudi, how will be viewing the U.K. who stood by as the drones piled in? Bottom of the list at best.
Lastly, I keep seeing posts with phrases like ‘illegal war’. In what way is it illegal? The post war international ‘rules’ written by the Americans? There is no ‘illegal’. I know Starmer is hiding behind it but it’s a nonsense. They’re gone so get over it Sir Kier.
There is right and wrong, but everyone's basis of that will be different. There is power and the exercising of it. Might is right. That’s how it’s going to be. So back to the bullying analogy you can either build yourself up to a point where you’ll be left alone or you can carry on disarming and ploughing funds into your priorities (party vote, essentially), sing a few ‘give peace a chance’ songs and hope for the best.
This is just how I see it today with a bad mood. I’ll probably take a whole different view tomorrow and I guess that just reflects the lack of information and changing scene day by day.
Edit: one of the carriers is out of action in Rosyth anyway.
[Post edited 8 Mar 13:15]
You’re confusing me (not hard!). One minute having a go at Trump, the next saying we should have followed his lead blindly.
We’re more than capable of making our own decisions and well within our rights to not follow them into a war with no clear aims and no clear post-combat plans. This paints Starmer’s decision in a context that is a bit deeper than people are recognising: https://theconversation.com/ho
Can you explain the imperative for us joining the attacks by US and Israel? Over a week later Trump and his miserable crew can’t come up with anything coherent.
Trump wanted us to be like the sidekick of a bully, getting a few kicks in when the opponent is on the ground.
This MAY go some way to explaining things. It may not. Either way, it MIGHT joins a few dots.
Professor Jiang, also known as Jiang Xueqin, is a Chinese-Canadian educator and writer based in Beijing.
You’re confusing me (not hard!). One minute having a go at Trump, the next saying we should have followed his lead blindly.
We’re more than capable of making our own decisions and well within our rights to not follow them into a war with no clear aims and no clear post-combat plans. This paints Starmer’s decision in a context that is a bit deeper than people are recognising: https://theconversation.com/ho
Allowing them to use bases is a zero cost concession. It was worth it to support allies in the region against what is a disgusting regime in Iran. What Starmer did was show his hand not just to Trump, but to countries with which we share interests. No British lives were at risk. What was to lose?
I’d have preferred to pick a fight with Trump on something else, perhaps tariffs and balance of trade, where he clearly has no idea. Also, since he loves the law, how about strengthening it in respect of protecting key industries including defence? Just a thought.
This country is in a position of dreadful weakness in so many ways, not least its dependency on the US. That cannot be changed overnight so a longer game has to be played.
What’s left of our hollowed out military is deeply embedded with the US military. Starmer’s, or should I say Milliband’s, show of strength has weakened us - for no gain. Its also made Starmer look even weaker than he clearly is. It’s not as if he didn’t let the US use those bases in the end anyway and he’s had to send a few helicopters to the region anyway. All a bit late and panicky.
The article you post is interesting (thank you) but again it focuses on international law which I believe is history. Toast. What isn’t history is relationships. The article suggests that the relationship will survive Trump and Starmer. Maybe it will, but the key bit for me is the stress on how unequal it is. I accept that and there’s for me just one solution. Build partnerships with others whether it’s Europeans, Canada, Japan or Timbuktu which leave us less reliant on the US
Allowing them to use bases is a zero cost concession. It was worth it to support allies in the region against what is a disgusting regime in Iran. What Starmer did was show his hand not just to Trump, but to countries with which we share interests. No British lives were at risk. What was to lose?
I’d have preferred to pick a fight with Trump on something else, perhaps tariffs and balance of trade, where he clearly has no idea. Also, since he loves the law, how about strengthening it in respect of protecting key industries including defence? Just a thought.
This country is in a position of dreadful weakness in so many ways, not least its dependency on the US. That cannot be changed overnight so a longer game has to be played.
What’s left of our hollowed out military is deeply embedded with the US military. Starmer’s, or should I say Milliband’s, show of strength has weakened us - for no gain. Its also made Starmer look even weaker than he clearly is. It’s not as if he didn’t let the US use those bases in the end anyway and he’s had to send a few helicopters to the region anyway. All a bit late and panicky.
The article you post is interesting (thank you) but again it focuses on international law which I believe is history. Toast. What isn’t history is relationships. The article suggests that the relationship will survive Trump and Starmer. Maybe it will, but the key bit for me is the stress on how unequal it is. I accept that and there’s for me just one solution. Build partnerships with others whether it’s Europeans, Canada, Japan or Timbuktu which leave us less reliant on the US
International law certainly will be toast if all the mid ranking powers decide to ignore it too.
There no gain in joining this war and lots to lose, not least our dignity.
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
It broadens out the discussion on International law to places that hold no financial interest to the likes of US and China so nobody cares.
At the end of the article it says ‘international criminal court (ICC) in The Hague, and national war crimes tribunals. Many major powers are not members of the ICC, including the US, Russia, China, Israel and India.’
That’s just the ICC but in reality does anyone think the only countries that matter China, Russia, US give a hoot about International Law? If they don’t, it doesn’t exist; died with the rise of the authoritarians.
The only reason nothing countries like this one and the Europeans go on about it is because they have no individual or collective leverage beyond a silly envelope invite for lunch with King Charles. It has enabled them to do nothing other than hide behind the America. All that’s over hence the international law noise.
I disagree. The only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them. If you don’t they take everything from you including self worth. You’ll get beaten up time after time, but eventually you’ll inflict enough pain on them to make them go away. Why? Because bullies are essentially afraid.
To the point in hand, I don’t think Starmer made the decision. Those who run ‘the Party’, Milliband and co did. The decision was I think made because they thought it’d make Labour more popular. Party and self first second and third. What’s right and wrong? Our principle-free Politicians haven’t done anything on that basis in decades.
The decision for me was a stupid one for several reasons. Firstly, allowing the US to use those bases would cost us nothing. Denying them wouldn’t stop America but we’d derive no benefit. People like Trump are binary. You support, you don’t. There’s no compromise. If you don’t, you are supporting Iran - a home of terrorists and truly and an appalling regime.
No point in bleating about ‘uman rights in Iran now. We stood by and even shut our eyes when a drone fell on Akrotiri, not that we could do much not even armed with a water pistol.
Secondly, by allowing the US to use those bases it would have kept us out of the spotlight so the sudden light being shined on Labour’s disarmament programme which is of course in full swing still. We can’t even send a rusting little destroyer and I doubt those aircraft carriers will make it out of Portsmouth. They have a tendency to catch fire and are short of crew anyway.
We have shown to our friends in the region we cannot be relied on one iota. You could argue that these countries are pretty awful themselves, but as the Brexit debacle has proven, you need people to trade with. Partners and allies whether you like them or not. If you are head honcho in say Saudi, how will be viewing the U.K. who stood by as the drones piled in? Bottom of the list at best.
Lastly, I keep seeing posts with phrases like ‘illegal war’. In what way is it illegal? The post war international ‘rules’ written by the Americans? There is no ‘illegal’. I know Starmer is hiding behind it but it’s a nonsense. They’re gone so get over it Sir Kier.
There is right and wrong, but everyone's basis of that will be different. There is power and the exercising of it. Might is right. That’s how it’s going to be. So back to the bullying analogy you can either build yourself up to a point where you’ll be left alone or you can carry on disarming and ploughing funds into your priorities (party vote, essentially), sing a few ‘give peace a chance’ songs and hope for the best.
This is just how I see it today with a bad mood. I’ll probably take a whole different view tomorrow and I guess that just reflects the lack of information and changing scene day by day.
Edit: one of the carriers is out of action in Rosyth anyway.
[Post edited 8 Mar 13:15]
A few issues with your post:
I think you might want to ask the people in the tower block in Kuwait or the hotel in Dubai whether it has cost them nothing to allow the USA to use their bases.
Additionally, is the war as legal as Putin's invasion of Ukraine?
Labour's disarmament programme? I'm not sure who has been in power for the last 15 years or so but it wasn't Labour.
It’s an embarrassment what has happened to our navy to think we used to rule the waves.
Starmer is an awful PM.I bet Nige would have hired a pedal boat and gone out there 😂
Even Blair is moaning about Starmer not backing Trump from day one.
[Post edited 8 Mar 6:52]
Can't blame Starmer for the Navy. Boats take a long time to build. Got to look back to the previous 14 years for those responsible for the current state of the navy.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
