Forum menu
Surely opening the Strait of Hormuz is the ideal opporunity for Trump's "Board of Peace" to show it is a valuable contributor to World order rather than just a shameless grift.
Looking forward to seeing ships from the member stated below turn up and start escorting tankers.
- Asia: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Cambodia, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Mongolia, ****stan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vietnam.
- Europe: Albania, Belarus, Bulgaria, Hungary, Kosovo.
- Africa: Egypt, Morocco.
- South America: Argentina, Paraguay.
- North America: El Salvador.
Right at the beginning of this war Zelensky was somewhat bemused that they had brought pre drone paradigm thinking and hardware to a drone paradigm modern war. Haven't they been watching how conflict has changed in Ukraine? Not sure what a load of lumbering ships brings to the anti drone table that couldn't be done from one of the many US bases on the Southern side of the gulf.
Not sure what a load of lumbering ships brings to the anti drone table that couldn't be done from one of the many US bases on the Southern side of the gulf.
I assume the idea is that they want to stop drones/missiles hitting tankers, and putting warships between the Iranian coast and the merchant shipping is likely to be more effective than trying to shoot down drones from the far side of the shipping channel?
He's now threatening NATO members if they don't step up to help fix his mess...
what a colossal c***
He really is a weapons grade c##t. He's like the kid who takes his ball home because nobody picked him for their team.
Reminds me of a mate back home who was the world’s best at starting fights when he was pissed, that we’d all end up getting involved in.
Eventually we learned our lesson and just let him get on with it by himself. A couple of severe battering soon taught him a lesson
Not sure what a load of lumbering ships brings to the anti drone table that couldn't be done from one of the many US bases on the Southern side of the gulf.
I assume the idea is that they want to stop drones/missiles hitting tankers, and putting warships between the Iranian coast and the merchant shipping is likely to be more effective than trying to shoot down drones from the far side of the shipping channel?
I'm not really down with the capabilities of modern ships; are they well suited to this role given how effective drones seem to be. I guess Iran is holding something in reserve to target a fleet trying to pass.
We need a name for this impeccably planned group of boats; The Armada of avarice, The fleet of fanatical fools?
He's now threatening NATO members if they don't step up to help fix his mess...
Aye, and meanwhile Iceland and Norway are thinking "maybe it's time we looked at fully joining the EU"
I'm not really down with the capabilities of modern ships; are they well suited to this role given how effective drones seem to be. I guess Iran is holding something in reserve to target a fleet trying to pass.
Yes, it's an expensive way of doing it, but modern ships are well able to shoot down relatively slow-flying drones; they also have e.g. Phalanx/Goalkeeper/etc and plenty of anti-missile countermeasures if the Iranians get the proper anti-ship missiles out.
Mind you, I'm also fairly sure that WW2 era light AA would be pretty effective against drones if it's put in the right place - if it could shoot down V1s going at 400mph then a drone doing 185mph and presumably taking limited evasive action should be well within capability.
The brave line right now would be for the rest of NATO to eject the US from the alliance but with the caveat that they would be welcome back when a grown up is in charge. And a public joint statement that the war was poorly conceived with no planning and minimum understanding of the likely short and medium term outcomes. Ideally all of this would come after talks with the democrats and the saner members of the republican party and their tacit support.
Can't they send one of those Magaluf party ferries?
Strikes me that the only country that ever actually need Nato help is the US.
Quite ironic really..
Attack can sometimes be the best form of defence and all that, but NATO was conceived as a defence alliance. Helping a nation that has proactively gone to war was not the plan. The fact he has naused up the world economy and its might be in our collective interest to sort it out rather muddies the water.
Attack can sometimes be the best form of defence and all that, but NATO was conceived as a defence alliance. Helping a nation that has proactively gone to war was not the plan. The fact he has naused up the world economy and its might be in our collective interest to sort it out rather muddies the water.
IANAL but I thought Article 5 can only be invoked if attacked, as the US made the first move here he can't compel other NATO members to get involved?
I think the main perceived threat to ships is mines rather than drones.
With the lifting of sanctions and Trump's threats to NATO Putin must be like a pig in poop today.
Has he actually engineered this situation? - if yes he is one amazing evil genius.
IANAL but I thought Article 5 can only be invoked if attacked, as the US made the first move here he can't compel other NATO members to get involved?
Agreed, but it's Trump we are dealing with he will just pull out of NATO
Surely the sensible option is to agree to help when hostilities stop
Attack can sometimes be the best form of defence and all that, but NATO was conceived as a defence alliance. Helping a nation that has proactively gone to war was not the plan. The fact he has naused up the world economy and its might be in our collective interest to sort it out rather muddies the water.
IANAL but I thought Article 5 can only be invoked if attacked, as the US made the first move here he can't compel other NATO members to get involved?
it does. It also doesn’t say that the attacked country can demand particular help and it must be given - it’s a looser notion of support. Moreover the geographic scope (Article 6) doesn’t cover the gulf (but would cover turkey if they were attacked. All on top of the articles before you get to 5 (ie 1-4) being about not antagonising people!
NATO should be saying nothing to do with us and mentioning us is inappropriate. But when your biggest contributor is being a **** it’s quite hard to pivot and loudly denounce them.
I saw an ex UK admiral (?) talking at the weekend and he seemed to be clued up - he said it’s not just mines (and they have the capability to lay them from all sorts of vessels not out traditional grey ships) but small surface craft that may or may not be manned, from the size of jet skis to large speedboats which they can pack with explosives and have hidden in caves along the coast! He said the US Administration would definitely have been aware of this before they started the war.I think the main perceived threat to ships is mines rather than drones.
IANAL but I thought Article 5 can only be invoked if attacked, as the US made the first move here he can't compel other NATO members to get involved?
Agreed, but it's Trump we are dealing with he will just pull out of NATO
Surely the sensible option is to agree to help when hostilities stop
I think so - it’s a tangled mess, but which economy and politician globally suffers most from rising oil prices? I suspect it’s Trump? His words at the weekend about “the countries that need the straights should police the straights” was presumably for the benefit of idiots who don’t understand who oil prices work and that if China and India are willing to pay $110 the American suppliers will sell it to them!
i hope Starmer has the resilience to say, we will mobilise resources to the region to help future peacekeeping but we aren’t going into the straights whilst the ring leaders are still stoking the fire. I’m not sure he will - but I think it would be the right thing to do AND would actually be a positive move for May elections as Kemi and Nige are bound to say they disagree and I think the public are generally not in favour of supporting Trump. The tricky issue is Ukraine - Trump’s lever there is ok if the oil crisis escalates we will let Putin supply oil to manage the economy. Personally I’d be happier if British and EU forces were sent to Ukraine to reinforce their security than to join Trump in a crazy war.
The fact he has naused up the world economy and its might be in our collective interest to sort it out rather muddies the water.
Maybe or maybe it would be in our interest to do a deal with Iran instead. France and Italy are supposedly in talks with Iran and the question is what they would be offering in return. For the UK an obvious starting point for Iran would be to close Fairford down for those "defensive" heavy bombers.
Trump is doing well though. Not only has he stopped eight wars he has won at least eight wars against Iran in the last week.
Maybe or maybe it would be in our interest to do a deal with Iran instead.
Trump could offer Iran $10 billion a week to not develop nuclear weapons and it would be cheaper than the current sh*itshow he's created 🙄
Trump is doing well though. Not only has he stopped eight wars he has won at least eight wars against Iran in the last week.
Lol, very true. He's announcing he's won it every day yet we can all watch the gulf states still getting targeted and now he's asking for help after saying he didn't want UK ships there as the war is 'won'.
He's an appalling excuse for a man.
I watch this to remind myself that not all merkins have gone batshit crazy:
Starmer standing his ground (operational reasons may be dictating this but trump can go f himself)
https://bsky.app/profile/carlquintanilla.bsky.social/post/3mh6bgtkey227
He said the US Administration would definitely have been aware of this before they started the war.
There's a reason previous US administrations have been very weary about the very sorts of wars that Trump has started - and at the same time, the reason the Iranian leadership act the way they do.
Trump dragging China into it - right, that's going to happen.....
but which economy and politician globally suffers most from rising oil prices? I suspect it’s Trump?
As if Trump gives a single shit about how the price of petrol effects MAGA republicans. Plus also I'll bet money that from his POV - shares in oil companies rising and making more money from retail sales because of rising prices is a plus. I can see him now telling reporters (while standing next to the loo on AF1 - that never gets any less weird the more I watch it) "The economy has grown, companies are seeing profits like never before, they said it couldn't be done, but they're winning"
Starmer standing his ground (operational reasons may be dictating this but trump can go f himself)
yep, looks like that’s the line. Thank god! You’re on your own you mad orange bastard!
but which economy and politician globally suffers most from rising oil prices? I suspect it’s Trump?
As if Trump gives a single shit about how the price of petrol affects MAGA republicans.
Petrol prices are a weird thing in the US - they are so car centric (and giant inefficient things) that it’s a barometer which the least worldly wise American public can feel.
oh I can see that - and his backers probably also betting on when to get out too. ButPlus also I'll bet money that from his POV - shares in oil companies rising and making more money from retail sales because of rising prices is a plus.
well I can see him saying no that bit if Chuck has just filled his Chevy up he might not be so convinced. There will be a point when Chuck realises he’s been taken for a ride. Losing the midterms badly could put trump in a difficult last two years of office where he keeps saying stuff but the house stops him. How much of that he understands I don’t know. His advisors must. How much control they have of him I don’t know.I can see him now telling reporters (while standing next to the loo on AF1 - that never gets any less weird the more I watch it) "The economy has grown, companies are seeing profits like never before, they said it couldn't be done, but they're winning"
Trump is doing well though. Not only has he stopped eight wars he has won at least eight wars against Iran in the last week.
Lots of rumours from the white house that he basically thought it would be an easy win like Venezuela but more bigly. Bomb their infrastructure/military, kill the Ayatollah and they would wave the white flag.
Just like he would solve the war in Ukraine on day one.
I can't remember the name of the department but trump and his allies got rid of one that basically looked at scenarios like this and advised the president of his options and likely outcomes. Is was hollowed it as trump thought it an unnecessary level of bureaucracy, drain the swamp blah, blah.
As if Trump gives a single shit about how the price of petrol affects MAGA republicans.
That ship's sailed, he's already alienated them with his foreign adventurism. If you're sane you find this hard to understand. The guy behind Crazyguyonabike, Neil Gunton, is a good test case here, fully on board the MAGA train: Putin's a good guy, chowing down on prophylactic Ivermectin and Chloroquine ordered from dodgy subcontinent 'pharmacies' while scorning untested vaccines, renouncing his UK citizenship while frottaging himself senseless over our coming race war - but even he thinks this is beyond the pale....
Petrol prices are a weird thing in the US - they are so car centric (and giant inefficient things) that it’s a barometer which the least worldly wise American public can feel.
My expectations are low. I expect Trump to avoid the blame for petrol prices over there, while Starmer is made to take the blame for it over here. It could become a future text book example of how the media and social media shape perception when it comes to politicians (linked of course to who owns and controls our modern day "town hall discussions").
and if he loses too many seats then he will face issues.
I don't think Trump is so stupid that he doesn't understand (at some basic level at least) that his time will come to an end. He will naturally absolutely hate the fact the that 2028 elections will not be entirely about him, and I can see these two last years being just an absolute shit show. But the GOP is moving on already, there's more rep and congress willing to say "no", there's more leaving Govt entirely - which again; frees them to say the things they really think about Trump, and the voters don't matter any more. MAGA (as a movement) will die when Trump leaves, to be replaced by something else - In the same way the Tea Party did.
How much of that he understands I don’t know. His advisors must. How much control they have of him I don’t know.
I don't think the Trump has advisors, I think he has acolytes. The people he's surrounded himself with are arguably stupider than he is.
I feel a bit more hopeful now than I was a couple of months ago, that Trump won't be able to pull off the election steal. I would say it is 60-40 against him now.SC rulings have been going against the gop recently, but we have seen before the supreme court look like it is standing up to Trump a little bit, then go heavy in his favour again on something big, so it is still in play.
But that probably also means that they will get increasingly desperate as their world starts closing in, and they are going to try and drag the world down with them, so its still going to get worse before there are opportunities to make it better. And the world is desperately short of eladers who are likely to take any opportunities to make lives better for the majority of people they represent.
But that probably also means that they will get increasingly desperate as their world starts closing in, and they are going to try and drag the world down with them, so its still going to get worse before there are opportunities to make it better.
I was talking about this with someone this weekend in the pub - and it does seem that the TruMpAGA crew will tear the world down rather than leave quietly...
I'm quietly impressed at how Starmer is dealing with all this nonsense. The scars from Iraq clearly run very deep in the Labour party, and more widely in the country. Badenoch and Farage are on very dodgy ground with their gung-ho chest-beating. How ironic would it be if staying out of the Iran war and pissing off Trump turns out to be the catalyst for a Starmer revival?
there’s certainly an argument for that, but people argue he’s not actually in control and is just a puppet for the people who fund the campaigns. I don’t think his core disciples are as stupid as we think they are. I’m sure most of them are just on the gravy train rather than actually believing the emperors new clothes.How much of that he understands I don’t know. His advisors must. How much control they have of him I don’t know.
I don't think the Trump has advisors, I think he has acolytes. The people he's surrounded himself with are arguably stupider than he is.
How ironic would it be if staying out of the Iran war and pissing off Trump turns out to be the catalyst for a Starmer revival?
Not convinced this will be enough! A prolonged conflict and closure of the Strait means inflation & the government of the day will always get it in the neck for that.
Still its encouraging to see that he has stood up to Trump, also interesting to note that the RW press are now saying Trump has made a mistake, which is a big u-turn from their stance just a few days ago.
EVen Trump is starting to realise tha netenyahu played him
https://bsky.app/profile/gregsargent.bsky.social/post/3mh6e7rrk6k2b
Aye, and meanwhile Iceland and Norway are thinking "maybe it's time we looked at fully joining the EU"
I wish the EU could speak with a unified voice on such matters as this trump war, Germany are hiding behind its written constitutional rules that it has to be a friend/apologist for everything Israel does and wants
I'm quietly impressed at how Starmer is dealing with all this nonsense. The scars from Iraq clearly run very deep in the Labour party, and more widely in the country. Badenoch and Farage are on very dodgy ground with their gung-ho chest-beating. How ironic would it be if staying out of the Iran war and pissing off Trump turns out to be the catalyst for a Starmer revival?
at the very least it’s surely his passport to short term survival. Which leadership contender wants to walk into the middle of that shit storm.
Which leadership contender wants to walk into the middle of that shit storm.
a good point even a complete toady like farage would be vulnerable to Trumps senile mood changes
I don't think the Trump has advisors, I think he has acolytes. The people he's surrounded himself with are arguably stupider than he is
The first thing Hegseth did when appointed was to sack all the senior military advisers, no doubt as they kept telling him what he didn’t want to hear… that going on a mad crusade in the Middle East at Netenyahu’s bidding was a really, really bad idea
The second thing Hegseth did was rename his department .... the "Department for War" ... ignoring all advice against it.
The third thing Hegseth did was rename his department's website and social media presence ... you don't create "www.war.gov" unless you preparing your public for you deliberately and intentionally setting out to take the country to war, ignoring any advice that goes against that.
Any excuses about "we thought Iran might be about to strike in the coming weeks" are such obvious bullshit, when the march towards war was so openly carried out over months, and any advisors, politicians or those serving that might get in the way of that clear aim were sacked, moved aside, or libelled and/or prosecuted to discredit them.