Forum menu
I imagine a direct statement of no support for the US action would likely result in 50%+ tariffs on the UK the next day
Most likely accompanied by Israelis bombing London.
I imagine a direct statement of no support for the US action would likely result in 50%+ tariffs on the UK the next day
Price worth paying, tbh, if it finally makes us stop bleating about the Special Relationship and turn to our real friends and allies.
I imagine a direct statement of no support for the US action would likely result in 50%+ tariffs on the UK the next day
Price worth paying, tbh, if it finally makes us stop bleating about the Special Relationship and turn to our real friends and allies.
The 'special relationship' is a total myth.
The only relationship is some trading. So there is a financial and jobs aspect.
But in all other aspects, we are back of the queue. Heck, even Obama told us that many years ago.
Time to move on, look towards our closet neighbours who share similar values. And do not give me any crap about Brexshit being 'done'.
[quote data-userid="3490" data-postid="13707157"
we'll just have to put up with it until he's gone and hope he hasn't already started world war 3. The Vegas-Era-Elvis-style coke and burgers diet must surely do its thing before too long? Surely?
If Trump dies, Vance takes over, and he's just as bonkers - if not worse because he's more organised and evil.
AIUI Shahid drones go at about 185mph and presumably don’t take masses of evasive action. I’d have therefore thought they’d be well within the envelope for light AA guns with proximity fuzed ammunition (which dealt effectively with V1s and Kamikazes), and shells are a lot, lot cheaper than missiles.
Shahed drones are not complex. Plywood, 2 stroke strimmer motor, RPG. Add a simple Satnav system running from a phone, it has pre-programmed waypoints, can loiter for some hours, and update the waypoints if not jammed. They're a dirt cheap V1 with a satnav.
PS just for clarity, everyone on this thread is aware that the US has been quietly acquiring the somewhat comparable Lucas drones since mid 2025? At a cost of $35k each they're 3x the cost of the Shaheds the main difference being they're "probably" hooked into more advanced battlefield systems & guidance.
Just been reading about that warship the US sank - it was returning from an exercise (that the US also attended) that didn't involve live firing and actually required the vessels taking part not to have arms ready to bear. The IRIS Dena was just off Sri Lanka, so 2000 miles from the combat zone, and a long way away from Iranian air cover or naval support, the US sub sank it whilst it was in transit home from the exercise, and then it ran away and hid, neglecting its obligation, even under the laws of active combat, to attempt to help survivors. So they knew where it would be, knew it was isolated, in transit and not in combat mode, they sent a sub to sink it then left the survivors to die.
I imagine a direct statement of no support for the US action would likely result in 50%+ tariffs on the UK the next day
Price worth paying, tbh, if it finally makes us stop bleating about the Special Relationship and turn to our real friends and allies.
1. What is to stop him just coming up with a random reason to slap a tariff on us anyway? "It is purple pan Tuesday at the Whitehouse, and any nation without purple in their flag now gets charged 50% import on Tuesdays"....
2. Look at what he is threatening Spain. At risk of this being an own goal in my argument, he is proving that he really has no connection to reality, of influence or unintended consequences. He is a nettle we would be better to grasp now.
@pondo link, please
Yes, it would be helpful.
There were two exercises this year; the International Fleet Review followed by Milan. The Dena took part in both.
Milan includes a live-fire exercise, so it follows that live ammunition is carried.
The only booked US ship didn't take part and was sent elsewhere. It was replaced with a US Maritime Patrol aircraft.
Subs didn't take part.
The sinking was a few days after the exercise ended so I doubt that the aircraft was still in the area.
A confirmed report would be helpful.
@pondo link, please
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fleet_Review_2026
US seem to have only been involved is the event with aircraft, but its difficult to imagine they would not have known where she was, whether she was armed etc. I don't quite understand why they sunk her - if asked to surrender, would her crew have refused - especially if unarmed? That would have been politically strong messaging - Iranian sailors know we can't be beaten. Another naval vessel has reportedly sought protection / been interrred in Sri Lanka. The obligation on submarines to render help to the shipwrecked is not as clear-cut as it seems sitting safely behind our computers. They mustn't impede rescue, and should alert people who could help to come to their assistance but it seems to be accepted that subs don't automatically need to surface and bring survivors on board.
At a cost of $35k each they're 3x the cost of the Shaheds the main difference being they're "probably" hooked into more advanced battlefield systems & guidance. made in the US not Iran.
FTFY
You'll know who far the US has fallen if they attempt to cover this up or deny ANY involvement.
He is a nettle we would be better to grasp now.
Absolutely. It's one thing to calmly disagree over trade, and seek to minimise his damaging tariffs. But now the idiot in the White House is so obviously intent on dragging the world into war, he has to be told firmly and clearly what he is doing is wrong and dangerous. No nodding along.
Surprised we haven't done this yet. Surely now Starmer, Lammy et al will feel a little more able to speak their - and the country's - mind that this is f***ing stupid.
https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/2029741548791853331?s=20
I’d like to see justice aka designated survivor big badda boom style metered out to trump, his entire administration and all those who continue to support him,
Treat them like a virulent pandemic that needs to be eradicated
He is a nettle we would be better to grasp now.
Absolutely. It's one thing to calmly disagree over trade, and seek to minimise his damaging tariffs. But now the idiot in the White House is so obviously intent on dragging the world into war, he has to be told firmly and clearly what he is doing is wrong and dangerous. No nodding along.
What is required to get Trump, Bibi and friends on The Hagues international arrest list?
The Iran attacks were not self defence or UN approved, seen several reports that sinking the Iranian ship may have been a war crime as pondo outlined.
If "the world" frames it alongside a breach of his election promises about no more wars, there's enough disappointed MAGAs to turn against Trump and his cronies for leading this path
Surprised we haven't done this yet. Surely now Starmer, Lammy et al will feel a little more able to speak their - and the country's - mind that this is f***ing stupid.
https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/2029741548791853331?s=20
I’d like to see justice aka designated survivor big badda boom style metered out to trump, his entire administration and all those who continue to support him,
Treat them like a virulent pandemic that needs to be eradicated
Starmer’s just released his own version of this video. I don’t know who’s advising him on PR but they’re doing a crap job.
Starmer’s just released his own version of this video. I don’t know who’s advising him on PR but they’re doing a crap job.
Yeah, it's up the page. Dazh posted that as well. And you're right.
Seems like Trump and Hegseth want to deploy troops into Iran.
What could possibly go wrong?
Probably that's what the Iranians are hoping for.
Guardian front page:
Iranian president apologises to neighbouring countries
The Iranian president, Masoud Pezeshkian, has just been quoted as saying he apologises to neighbouring countries.
“I apologise … to the neighbouring countries that were attacked by Iran,” Pezeshkian said.
Bit late for that, pal!
Probably that's what the Iranians are hoping for.
which Iranians ? The oppressed or the oppressors?
Just put this list here, for balance :
So glad Starmer is occupying the higher ground on all this and maintaining his grown up, serious stance on the issue of war. Oh...
https://twitter.com/peterrhague/status/2029840799924400489?s=20
That's awful, what the F is he and his advisors thinking?
Just put this list here, for balance
“For balance” are you going to list deaths and attacks at the hands of USA and Israeli citizens and proxies since 1979?
No one pretends the Iran regime are “the good guys” here, but this war isn’t an answer to the problem of Iran… it’s just the start of more problems, and that’s after all the death and destruction of the war itself.
That's a great list, but as kelvin says, just listing terrible things the Iranian regime has done is a bit meaningless.
Yes they've done terrible things, but is Trump's Three Day Special Military Operation really going to lead to a better world? To peace, democracy and respect for human rights in Iran? I don't think so.
Trump fancies himself as a great military wartime leader, something else to check off on the list, along with being greatest world Peacemaker and greatest ever everything else. And Israel told him he wouldn't be able to do it after the midterms. There will be a price for the rest of the world to pay for years to come, but that's not his problem.
That's awful, what the F is he and his advisors thinking?
That post needs to come with some kind of content warning. Did they ask their PR people for the most cringiest thing possible, and then pay for extra cringe added on top, as well as taking the special 2-for-1 cringedeal offer?
'Money for nothing' is an interesting choice. :/
@pondo link, please
This is the page that originally piqued my interest:
https://newrepublic.com/post/207429/us-attack-iran-naval-ship
That article states more boldly that the IRIS Dena was likely unarmed more boldly than I'd put it, but the US knew very well that it was there on exercise, when it would be leaving, and roughly what its route would be, with no air cover and no other support.
I think what gets me is that the attack was legal under the laws of armed conflict, but only because the US launched an illegal, unprovoked attack on Iran and Iran responded. It's like the movie... Shane, is it? "Pick up the gun..."
Bill Hicks was right about everything.
The Iran attacks were not self defence or UN approved, seen several reports that sinking the Iranian ship may have been a war crime as pondo outlined.
Perversely, it was entirely legal.
The IRIS Bushehr, a fleet supply ship, has taken shelter in Sri Lanka and the IRIS Lavan, a tank landing ship, has docked in India. Both had been in India with the Dena
...the conduct of hostilities at sea is nonetheless governed by the law of naval warfare.
Under that framework, IRIS Dena therefore constitutes a lawful military target, and efforts to facilitate the rescue of survivors are consistent with those obligations. https://theconversation.com/the-us-sank-an-iranian-warship-and-didnt-rescue-the-survivors-is-this-legal-in-war-277606
Can one of our resident military experts explain the difference between “offence” and “defence” which makes the latter eligible to use uk bases, but the former not ??
Perversely, it was entirely legal.
Doesn’t that argument refer to war, or is it ok to just torpedo ships from countries you don’t like this week ?
Perversely, it was entirely legal.
Doesn’t that argument refer to war, or is it ok to just torpedo ships from countries you don’t like this week ?
To clarify, I'm referring to the sinking of the Dena
The linked article ^^ includes,
In other words, you’re supposed to follow the law of the sea even if your whole justification for war in the first place isn’t legal under international law.
AND
Under the law of naval warfare, warships belonging to a state engaged in an international armed conflict are military objectives by nature. The rules say they may be lawfully targeted.
HTH
https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2030240153592094990?s=20
How could anyone read this and not be convinced that he's demented/crazy/both?
Includes a fantasised conversation between him and Middle Eastern countries, random threats, childish insults, and at the end an implication that he's going to directly target civilians.
Sorry for the Twitter link but it's not possible to directly link to images here.
Can one of our resident military experts (RME) explain the difference between “offence” and “defence” which makes the latter eligible to use uk bases, but the former not ??
Pretty much it, really. IANARME
The prime minister added the US would use UK bases for the "specific and limited defensive purpose" of destroying Iran's missiles "at source". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqj9g11p1ezo
Can one of our resident military experts explain the difference between “offence” and “defence” which makes the latter eligible to use uk bases, but the former not ??
Some of this is a copy and paste from and old document that I wrote for a development course.
My thoughts on it, it is essentially semantics as I think No. 10 knows the legal basis for this is 'shaky'.
The distinction isn’t really about the military action itself, the crux is the legal justification. Or arse covering.
As a signatory to a multitude of charters, conventions and the like, our bases can (should) only be used for operations that have a lawful basis. For this I'll use the UN Charter, the best reference in relation to this topic would be self-defence under Article 51.
So if action is framed as 'defensive', that provides a legal basis for the use of British military establishments and the use of force as it is in response to unlawful (retaliatory) action or to prevent further attacks . This is where nations in the region that have been attacked by Iran have an argument to defend themselves. And would be credible in doing so.
Whereas 'offensive' action without a mandate or some form of agreed approval, the UK and others could be seen as being complicit in an unlawful act by allowing it to be conducted from British military establishments.
The issue now is the US could very easily justify actions going forward as defensive, as they are very much living the initial aggressor problem, they could continue to strike from a defensive posture and claim victim.
If you threw the first punch and it wasn't justified, does it make your response to the retaliation that came back justified and lawful?
I hope that utter waffle makes sense?
Perversely, it was entirely legal.
Doesn’t that argument refer to war, or is it ok to just torpedo ships from countries you don’t like this week ?
It's entirely legal for the US to sink Iranian warships thousands of miles from any conflict zone because the US illegally launched an unprovoked attack on Iran and Iran had the temerity to not just suck it up. It's only legal for the US sub to not offer assistance if doing so would put it in danger which, since they choose to attack a lobe, unsupported vessel 2000 miles from friendly shores, it most certainly would not have been. But since the US (and Israel) can act with impunity, nothing will ever come of it (unlike Iran or anyone else the US chooses to attack, who will face consequences for their actions).
A case of once iran popped off a few weapons in the direction of one of our allies attack becomes the best form of defence.
Never mind that our allies started it.
Like I said - "pick up the gun".
What the hell has gone wrong with this shot? All the special effects software in the world at the government's finger tips and they can't comp a copter in the background?
Starmer’s just released his own version of this video. I don’t know who’s advising him on PR but they’re doing a crap job.
This has been the same since day one with this version of Labour.
Expecting Starmer to all of a sudden play the right moves now is folly.
They've gotten through several digital teams - the jobs are always up on the gov website.
It's this government it's totally rotten.
Oh and Lammy thinks Cyprus is part of NATO.
That video up there is amazing. Cheesy and crass. The sound mix is terrible too and sounds like he's rapping to Dire Straits.
Under the law of naval warfare, warships belonging to a state engaged in an international armed conflict are military objectives by nature. The rules say they may be lawfully targeted
Does that actually make sense in anyone's head? It's legal to torpedo an unarmed ship and leave the sailors to drown because you previously bombed their country and killed their leader?
I took my neighbour's car just now. He was pretty upset about it but I explained that as I'd previously burned down his house it was all above board.
The prime minister added the US would use UK bases for the "specific and limited defensive purpose" of destroying Iran's missiles "at source".
And bomb schools to prevent little girls growing up into terrorists. That's Israeli logic. Starmer has been praised for standing up to Trump, but this is him just rolling over. Again. Like the spineless little shit he is.
its insane how much the rw press want us involved in this war
theyre trying to use Blair to guilt the government into getting involved in a War in the Middle East!!! (take a second to absorb that - theyve been screaming blair is a war criminal over iraq for years!)
Assuming Trump does want regime change (and he didn't change his tiny mind by Tuesday) that means troops, probably lots of troops and he'll want us involved in that too.
That vid and the choice of "Dire Staights", what was is he thinking? Blatant plagiarism of this vid 🙂
They've gotten through several digital teams - the jobs are always up on the gov website.
I'd quite happily run a free service where they send me stupid videos like this for an opinion and I tell them that they're stupid.
Blair wants the war as it’s part of the Board of Peace to want a good war. Those joining fees have to be recovered somehow