leicsmac

Such systems have collapsed under their own inertia over time before, often with much better results than outside military intervention. Additionally, I'm not sure the answer to ending the suffering and oppression of the Iranian people is to select a course of action that has a significant nonzero probability of inflicting more of both upon them than they already have. In short, there are no good options, but I'm not sure why anyone would see outside military action as the best bad option.

... which we of course have the luxury of discussing from our screens while other people suffer and die. If that change for the better ever even happens, of course. There's not a great many recent examples from which to draw and given the parties involved, the odds aren't exactly in favour. Which would make all that death and suffering not only tragic but pointless.

Yes, "Messy" for a "hope". That's certainly one way of describing the current situation.

There should be no agreement acceptable to the UK on this one and I'm hoping Starmer made that clear. Can see what you mean about the second questions and I'll let others answer those, with my own viewpoint being that if historical judgment of Starmer for staying out of this one is bad, then it will be part of a timeline no decent human being wants to be part of.

Sorry for answering a question with a question, but can you elaborate on what your overall point here is, Alby?

It is weird, but I think the intent is pretty clear.

Unfortunately that will depend on who is recording the history when the time comes to record it. In addition to this, the front pages of both the Telegraph and Mail today are a disgrace, but I guess that's hardly surprising given how pro-Trump and pro-war against people they don't like they both are.

Hypocrisy and double standards come as easily to that administration as breathing. That much has been obvious for a while. They don't care. They have absolutely zero sense of shame. The only thing that matters to them is power, and using it against those they deem "other" to maintain it. The only thing that can be done is the decent Americans (such as there are) neutralise their political power. As soon as is possible.

Going to need a bit more elaboration on exactly why he's problematic on this particular matter, tbh.

Hopefully there will be more, too. Honestly didn't expect Merz to cave like that. I'm wondering exactly how that's a negative at this point in time and on the current pressing matter.

How incredibly disappointing. (Unless Merz is playing some ridiculous metagame that no one else can figure out.)

I really hope that sometime soon someone in the UK diplomatic corps has the courage to sacrifice their job and tells him to fvck off. With numerous references to Epstein for good measure. Directly to his face. They would be a hero.

Oh yeah, that's accurate too. It's a ridiculous bearpit. But that being said, there's differences in policy in terms of direct and indirect harm caused that should be considered, too.

It helps when you look at it from the viewpoint that it isn't about the Peace Prize per se, it's about being "better" than his predecessor. He feels stuck in Obama's shadow in terms of popularity, adulation and legacy and he hates every second of it.

After saying, repeatedly and at length, that he would not get involved in wars as his predecessors did.

Not clairvoyance as such, but perhaps a little more understanding of the place that they've moved to and the fact that it's not very far from, shall we say, a very politically active location which has been such for decades or more. I'm not sure how much clearer that be be made so I'm going to leave it at that, and people are of course at liberty to disagree with the viewpoint that some people who go on about how much a place is better than the UK perhaps should have added a caveat or two to their remarks.

The people waxing lyrical about how much better Dubai is as a place to live than the UK, when such things can change so quickly, as we're seeing. The events are of course outside their control (and as I've mentioned before, I have family out there too), but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been considered and perhaps factored into such viewpoints before making them. The point is that some of these folks should actually engage all of their brain before making statements that can come back to bite them. And a lack of much in the way of natural or artificial disaster, too. For the time being anyway.

But then, as previously mentioned, it's very easy for such quality of life to turn, as current events show. Just shows that foresight, and perhaps a little humility, matters.

Also, know it's been said before but the polls are all over the place and wouldn't use them as any kind of predictor for 2029 right now.

On matters of foreign policy and immigration, there could be an argument there. Just don't ask about various parts of policy including women's and LGBT rights (though thankfully the Supreme Court is actually holding the line somewhat there) and practically any scientific policy, many of which have effects that will cause consequences for everyone, not just Americans.

You know something, I was too glib and pithy in that original statement, so fair for pulling me up on it. To moderate, I would agree with what @foxes1988 said above on the matter.

https://www.ipsos.com/en/global-opinion-polls/state-special-relationship-between-uk-and-us "Almost half (49%) of those who voted for Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party in the last general election are fans of Trump, while 30% aren’t." https://www.bestforbritain.org/uk_trading_partner "2024 Reform UK Voters stand alone in having not changed their view on the US between November 2024 and September 2025, continuing to see the US as the UK’s most reliable partner and a country we can trust. The declines in Reform Voters’ ‘scores’ for the US on measures of trust and reliability were not statistically significant." Now, this is operating on the assumption that Reform as a party and voting bloc aren't a fan of the EU, but I would have thought that would stand by itself without further backup. (I will provide further proofs of that on request, though.) In any case, it's hardly a stretch to at least hypothesise that folks who harbour anti-EU sentiment tend also to harbour pro-US sentiment given the ideological divide between those two entities.

Perhaps we're actually hitting the point where there is so much proven slop that people do actually start going back to sources with proven track records. I guess we'll find out.

The Venn diagram of people holding anti-EU and pro-US viewpoints in the UK is practically a circle, then and now. The whole idea of independent decision making was a falsehood fed to those who (as you say) don't give the US a thought. The functional intent of those with power wanting to leave the EU (and therefore those directing the campaign) was, however, exactly as stated imo. Edit: and given events both current and previous, and the desire of the current US administration for everyone to pick a side (as it were), then perhaps the UK and folks who don't give it a thought should actually pick one, or have it picked for them. Case in point for the above.

She's a genuine believer in America First, rather than Trump First, in a way a lot of her peers are not. Often that's not good, but sometimes, like here, it is.