The impossible has happened - Trump has made me a Keir Starmer supporter!

[mumofoneAloneandwell]

'This is not the age of churchill'

Thank God. Fucking orange twat.

Admiral Woodward deemed the Belgrano to pose a threat to his fleet. The cruiser was armed with exocet and was in a position where it could have done a pincer manoeuvre with the Argentine carrier group.

The Iris Dena was 2,000 miles away and as it was attending the International Fleet Review was unlikely to have been heavily armed. It posed no immediate threat to US interests.

The time for a solution has passed.

Iran should never have been allowed to create proxies to do it's 'dirty work'.

https://worldcrunch.com/world-affairs/iran-regime-israel-obsession/

The Houthis are also problem it seems :
Modeled on a motto from revolutionary Iran, the Houthi slogan, called the Sarkha, is: "God is great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam."

And Christians aren't safe from terrorist attacks either - organiser.org/2025/07/25/304310/world/isis-and-radical-hate-15-church-attacks-that-shook-the-world-2015-2025/

Nobody is presenting the case for the IRGC - or their proxies. It is odd to suggest otherwise.

But there is no evidence as yet that the bombardment will lead to a free & fair democracy. The likelihood is that when the bombing stops, the heavily armed IRGC will continue their violent rule. Some separatists may take action but their interests do not align with other separatists or indeed with Pahlavi. So what may occur is increased violence and chaos. There is no straightforward road to peace and prosperity.

Trump on his Truth Social

(someone else did the underlining)

You have those in the West criticising any Western military action where unfortunately and despite best efforts not to there are civilian casualties.

It's very simple.

War is hell.

That is all anyone ever needs to know.

Anyone who doesn't accept that, is a fucking clueless excuse for a human being.

Maybe we can stop pretending Trump cares about Iranian women now. Death, fire and fury and a decimated economy are not likely to help them be free.

The Belgrano was outside the Exclusion Zone and, at the time of the attack, was sailing away from the Falklands.

The counter argument was that it it was armed with Exocet missiles and, according to intelligence, under orders to rendezvous with other ships to attack the British task force.

If we take the Iris Dena then it was highly likely to be returning to Iran and would therefore have encountered US vessels at the Eastern end of the Gulf, unless anyone would like to suggest that it was more likely to be going on a cruise to the Maldives.

The US Navy had absolutely no way of telling whether the vessel was heavily armed or not.

Lastly and getting to the nub of the question, Iran clearly doesn't follow international rules with state sponsored terrorism in the region, 20 attempted terrorist plots in the UK, kidnapping of British sailors and launching unprovoked missile attacks at numerous countries in the region.

So why do you insist on different standards for the US in a conflict with Iran?

Exactly. So it follows that it should be avoided at all costs and that, if Starmer (or other members of the Labour party) is unwilling to get the UK involved, he is to be supported.

The argument that the Iranian regime are evil as a justification for decimating the country of Iran, murdering children, destroying essential infrastructure, laughing about sinking ships, etc isn't really compelling is it?!

Do you not understand the irony of your question

'What has that got to do with anything?'

You win for whataboutery.

Well it is fairly compelling if you believe that Iran represents a threat to your own country, like organising 20 terrorist plots for example?

Then surely the comment should have been along the lines of 'submarines don't capture ships' rather than 'it was more fun'.

I think it is really important to clarify that it is actually irrelevant whether Starmer and the Labour Government do or do not wish to get involved in this conflict when the reality is that after decades of defence cuts under the Conservatives and Labour, the British military have very little that they could contribute of any military value even if they wanted to and would make negligible impact even if they did.

To clarify it was Trump with his limited understanding of how submarines work that wanted to capture the vessels, whereas it was his military commanders that made the "more fun" comment.

It's never Trump's fault, he can't help what he says live on TV as the US president 🙄

Just like it wasn't him reposting that Obama video

As everyone knows, Iran posed no imminent threat. Even the US administration have admitted they. Your attempted argument is not a rational one, based on the facts.

That's an entirely separate point and not one that is relevant to what I said.

I really don't care who said it. The point is I think it's disgusting to try to explain the action by saying 'submarines don't capture ships'. Previous posts were highlighting the comments made about it, no matter who said it.

Submarines used to rescue survivors. Until the US decided to bomb U-156 despite the latter displaying a red cross. After which Donitz ordered unrestricted warfare.

This administration displayed a similar callous disregard for the laws of armed combat when it attacked two survivors of the boat they'd bombed. People who are shipwrecked are hors de combat, you wouldn't shoot them any more than you would shoot someone with their hands up - it's illegal to do so, in fact a legal obligation exists that all vessels should render aid to vessels in distress.

Trump will probably cark it rather than see justice, but hopefully Kegsbreath will face a war crimes tribunal.

The Belgrano was only just over 200 miles from the Falklands. It wasn't moving away, it was zig-zagging. The total exclusion zone is irrelevant, it had no significancein law, it was just the area where the UK would assume all vessels/aircraft to be hostile. The UK maintained the right to take any additional measures in exercise of its right of self-defence under the UN Charter.

The Iranian frigate on the other hand was 2,000 miles away. It was only 20 miles off of the coast of Sri Lanka. Not an immediate threat to US forces.

Exactly. It's a disgusting comment for Trump and his commanders to have made. It's a war crime. Arguing over semantics in an attempt to distract from this is despicable.

Thanks for that vote of approval !

GDP on defence in the early 80s was 5% of GDP, in 1997 it was 2.5%, in 2010, it was still 2.5%.... in 2024 it was 2.3%

So we will correct your statement to say "Defence cuts under the Conservatives..."

The current Cons went into the last GE promising further cuts.

The sinking of that ship, so far away from any war zone, was pretty despicable but typical of the US who seem only capable of standing up to small or poorly armed countries but even then, usually coming out on the losing side.

The sinking of the ship has some relevance when we consider how supporters of Trump would react if, say, an American serviceman on holiday in Sardinia was killed by an Iraqui supporter, or if an American asset such as a factory in, say, Chicago was bombed.

And I have a feeling they would not be pacified if told it was "more fun."