Israel 1 , Iran 0.

[jukel123 10,509]

3 minutes ago, chartpolski said:

I think the falling out between Trump and Starmer stems entirely from Starmers refusal to let US planes fly from UK bases.

If Starmer had said, “They are joint bases, of course you can fly YOUR planes from them, but we will NOT be joining in and our planes won’t be flying”, I doubt anyone would have batted an eyelid !

It was obvious that Americas use of the bases would eventually be granted and Starmer saying it’s for DEFENSIVE purposes , not OFFENSIVE, doesn’t resonate with most people, especially the Trump Administration

I think it’s a situation that could easily have been avoided, but that’s just my opinion as an interested observer

Gheers..

 

Fair.

[chartpolski 30,318]

2 minutes ago, jukel123 said:

Fair.

You’re no fun anymore ……

Cheers.

[Lenmcharristar 10,782]

10 minutes ago, chartpolski said:

I think the falling out between Trump and Starmer stems entirely from Starmers refusal to let US planes fly from UK bases.

If Starmer had said, “They are joint bases, of course you can fly YOUR planes from them, but we will NOT be joining in and our planes won’t be flying”, I doubt anyone would have batted an eyelid !

It was obvious that Americas use of the bases would eventually be granted and Starmer saying it’s for DEFENSIVE purposes , not OFFENSIVE, doesn’t resonate with most people, especially the Trump Administration

I think it’s a situation that could easily have been avoided, but that’s just my opinion as an interested observer

Gheers..

 

When the massive unrest or civil war breaks out in GB it will be the americans that help us natives, not the EUssr, i side with trump and the americans, for if we are ever attacked then the big brother in the usa would come to help us in a heart beat, fcuk starmer and the left that have ruined our nations

[jukel123 10,509]

2 minutes ago, chartpolski said:

You’re no fun anymore ……

Cheers.

Wait till the West Ham bovver boy sees my post. There'll be fireworks. " f****n  weak, appeasement monkey , traitor, the niggers, you and your lot are the problem." He will be apoplectic...as always.

At least I hope so.

[chartpolski 30,318]

1 minute ago, jukel123 said:

Wait till the West Ham bovver boy sees my post. There'll be fireworks. " f****n  weak, appeasement monkey , traitor, the niggers, you and your lot are the problem." He will be apoplectic...as always.

At least I hope so.

I tend to evaluate situations in “cost/benefit”, “pro’s/con’s”, “win/lose”.

For Starmer I can see some “pro’s”;

Pissing off Trump gets him kudo’s with the lunatic lefties in his government, the Trump haters like Lammy.

It gives him the opportunity to blame all his governments failings on things like the economy etc; “ it was the war that caused it, not me !”.

It gives him the excuse to move closer to, with the eventual aim of rejoining, the EU.

Hes hoping to claw back the left wing voters that are leaving Labour in droves to the Greens.

He is appeasing the Muslim vote by not backing a war with a Muslim country.

The cons ?

Hes pissed of the most powerful man in the world who just happens to be President of the worlds most powerful economy and military and could, simply with the stroke of a pen, ruin OUR economy with tariffs.

He may have single handedly initiated the destruction of NATO .

But, as I always say, just my take on it

Cheers,

[mackay 3,881]

30 minutes ago, chartpolski said:

I think the falling out between Trump and Starmer stems entirely from Starmers refusal to let US planes fly from UK bases.

If Starmer had said, “They are joint bases, of course you can fly YOUR planes from them, but we will NOT be joining in and our planes won’t be flying”, I doubt anyone would have batted an eyelid !

It was obvious that Americas use of the bases would eventually be granted and Starmer saying it’s for DEFENSIVE purposes , not OFFENSIVE, doesn’t resonate with most people, especially the Trump Administration

I think it’s a situation that could easily have been avoided, but that’s just my opinion as an interested observer

Gheers..

 

Spot on. Another own goal from Starmer, he ended up allowing them to be used anyway. He could have come out of it with a modicum of credibility if he had opted to go down that route.

[jukel123 10,509]

18 minutes ago, chartpolski said:

I tend to evaluate situations in “cost/benefit”, “pro’s/con’s”, “win/lose”.

For Starmer I can see some “pro’s”;

Pissing off Trump gets him kudo’s with the lunatic lefties in his government, the Trump haters like Lammy.

It gives him the opportunity to blame all his governments failings on things like the economy etc; “ it was the war that caused it, not me !”.

It gives him the excuse to move closer to, with the eventual aim of rejoining, the EU.

Hes hoping to claw back the left wing voters that are leaving Labour in droves to the Greens.

He is appeasing the Muslim vote by not backing a war with a Muslim country.

The cons ?

Hes pissed of the most powerful man in the world who just happens to be President of the worlds most powerful economy and military and could, simply with the stroke of a pen, ruin OUR economy with tariffs.

He may have single handedly initiated the destruction of NATO .

But, as I always say, just my take on it

Cheers,

At lot depends on whether Trumpism will be confined to Trump. He will be gone relatively quickly, one way or another. America might then revert to 'soft power'  without the threats, the insults, the see sawing and , let's face it, the  downright lies associated with Trump.

But I've read several articles suggesting what we are seeing from Trump is the new normal. And that America will   continue its America first, f**k you stances.

Even so, I can't really see America leaving NATO. It has a ruthless, powerful military, but it may still require military cooperation from NATO countries in a future major  war.

As for retaliatory, vindictive  tariffs, he should surely place them on those countries which have pissed him off more than we have. Spain for example. And, as you know, the legality of presidentially imposed tariffs has still to be established.

Starmer is already getting stick from the right wing press with regard to closer ties with Europe. The Daily Mail is claiming Trump will announce America's withdrawal  from NATO tonight and it's all down to Starmer!

P.S Lammy may hate Trump, but he's officially a 'friend of Israel' and has trousered thousands from them. Nasty fellow.

 

[WILF 53,400]

39 minutes ago, jukel123 said:

Wait till the West Ham bovver boy sees my post. There'll be fireworks. " f****n  weak, appeasement monkey , traitor, the niggers, you and your lot are the problem." He will be apoplectic...as always.

At least I hope so.

That’s plenty from you Hannah Spencer ! lol 

[chartpolski 30,318]

2 minutes ago, jukel123 said:

At lot depends on whether Trumpism will be confined to Trump. He will be gone relatively quickly, one way or another. America might then revert to 'soft power'  without the threats, the insults, the see sawing and , let's face it, the  downright lies associated with Trump.

But I've read several articles suggesting what we are seeing from Trump is the new normal. And that America will   continue its America first, f**k you stances.

Even so, I can't really see America leaving NATO. It has a ruthless, powerful military, but it may still require military cooperation from NATO countries in a future major  war.

As for retaliatory, vindictive  tariffs, he should surely place them on those countries which have pissed him off more than we have. Spain for example. And, as you know, the legality of presidentially imposed tariffs has still to be established.

Starmer is already getting stick from the right wing press with regard to closer ties with Europe. The Daily Mail is claiming Trump will announce America's withdrawal  from NATO tonight and it's all down to Starmer!

P.S Lammy may hate Trump, but he's officially a 'friend of Israel' and has trousered thousands from them. Nasty fellow.

 

As far as I know, the President needs Congressional Approval to leave NATO, so even if he announces it tonight , it won’t be a done deal just yet. 
Im annoyed that Trumps speech won’t be until 01:00 hrs Z time tonight, he doesn’t have many supporters in the UK , you’d think he’d have a bit more consideration for his older supporters, like me, who need their sleep

Cheers.

[Lenmcharristar 10,782]

31 minutes ago, chartpolski said:

As far as I know, the President needs Congressional Approval to leave NATO, so even if he announces it tonight , it won’t be a done deal just yet. 
Im annoyed that Trumps speech won’t be until 01:00 hrs Z time tonight, he doesn’t have many supporters in the UK , you’d think he’d have a bit more consideration for his older supporters, like me, who need their sleep

Cheers.

Trump has plenty of support in the uk, mostly from the silent majority

[Born Hunter 18,174]

Starmer was on the verge of getting booted after the Mandelson stuff, he was f****d. Then the war happened and it was an absolute gift horse.

Its single-handedly saved him, pushed us closer to the EU, destroyed NATO and driven us into an economic crisis. It’s probably f****d what was a growing and credible right wing movement too as people see MAGA as actually as hawkish and pro foreign influence as any previous government.

For someone who’s been banging on about rising powers threatening the US led world order for literally years, this feels like the US’/NATOs suez crisis imo.

[Born Hunter 18,174]

33 minutes ago, chartpolski said:

As far as I know, the President needs Congressional Approval to leave NATO, so even if he announces it tonight , it won’t be a done deal just yet. 
Im annoyed that Trumps speech won’t be until 01:00 hrs Z time tonight, he doesn’t have many supporters in the UK , you’d think he’d have a bit more consideration for his older supporters, like me, who need their sleep

Cheers.

That’s interesting. But the military is solely under the command of the executive right? So if the president says he’s out then the US is de facto out of NATO. I believe the US can only declare war with congressional approval but actual command of the forces lies with the exec’ but I could be wrong. Also that declare war thing seems meaningless given how easily it is flaunted using the war powers resolution.

[jukel123 10,509]

11 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Starmer was on the verge of getting booted after the Mandelson stuff, he was f****d. Then the war happened and it was an absolute gift horse.

Its single-handedly saved him, pushed us closer to the EU, destroyed NATO and driven us into an economic crisis. It’s probably f****d what was a growing and credible right wing movement too as people see MAGA as actually as hawkish and pro foreign influence as any previous government.

For someone who’s been banging on about rising powers threatening the US led world order for literally years, this feels like the US’/NATOs suez crisis imo.

I despise Starmer and Starmerism but he gets so much stick, I'm beginning to feel sorry for him. He's being blamed for the end of the political right, the end of the political left and the end of the world. Poor chap. He's only an over_ promoted clerk.

He will even be getting his ear bent from his Mrs. She's Jewish and he's officially a parliamentary 'friend of Israel, so there will be no more shekels from them anymore.

I might start a GO Fund Me appeal for the poor chap. On second thoughts there's the book and the lecture tour He's already planned. f**k him.

Edited April 1 by jukel123

[chartpolski 30,318]

5 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

That’s interesting. But the military is solely under the command of the executive right? So if the president says he’s out then the US is de facto out of NATO. I believe the US can only declare war with congressional approval but actual command of the forces lies with the exec’ but I could be wrong. Also that declare war thing seems meaningless given how easily it is flaunted using the war powers resolution.

Whilst I don’t always believe Wikepedia this looks genuine

Cheers.

[WILF 53,400]

9 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

That’s interesting. But the military is solely under the command of the executive right? So if the president says he’s out then the US is de facto out of NATO. I believe the US can only declare war with congressional approval but actual command of the forces lies with the exec’ but I could be wrong. Also that declare war thing seems meaningless given how easily it is flaunted using the war powers resolution.

Well, I’m not worried…..Jukels mate Zack Polanski is going to sit Putin down and suggest that we all just play nice and that will do the trick !