Author Topic: The Politics Thread  (Read 895399 times)

Offline puntingking

You may not know about this north of the border stuff. Its interesting the nonsense that they spout. :rolleyes:

The Greens are in coalition with the SNP who now claim that ''they have a majority which gives them the right to an independence referendum''.

The SNP dont have a majority on their own. Also the anti independence parties total votes were greater that the pro independence SNP and Greens.

The SNP want criminalisation of men and and the Greens do not. I'll watch their nonsense with interest. :rolleyes:

It is impractical for any banning of sex work to actually work anyway.

If Scotland did ban sex work, it would just mean that women will advertise more for "massage" and anything that happened between two consenting adults after the so called "massage" is surely would be up to them  :unknown:

Online scutty brown

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,677
  • Likes: 538
  •  
  • Reviews: 125
It is impractical for any banning of sex work to actually work anyway.

If Scotland did ban sex work, it would just mean that women will advertise more for "massage" and anything that happened between two consenting adults after the so called "massage" is surely would be up to them  :unknown:

It also brings the interesting possibility of the Scottish authorities asking the English ones to extradite people who are not guilty of any crime in England or Wales. That would be messy.

Offline Punting2022

well it appears that Starmer is toast with 80 MPs inc at least 5 junior ministers and the Home Secretary calling for his resignation and the BBC is reporting tomorrows cabinet meeting will be split down the middle

Lovely news. But as long as khan isnt in power. Hes ruined London. Will ruin the uk.

Ideally need a election. Or burnham or rayner,

Offline Vice Admiral

The current political situation in the UK should be of much concern to all of us. not least because the most likely result of Labour's poor showing in the 7 May elections will be that the government will move to the left.

Keir Starmer would appear to be "safe" for now – at the price of being held hostage by two left-wing terrorists (Angela Ray-of-Sunshine and Ed Rubber-Band), while keeping his seat warm for a third (Andy Burn-Your-Boats).

An editorial in today’s Times has this:  “Were Sir Keir serious about fixing his premiership, he would tackle the deep-set issues giving rise to Reform UK and the Green Party. He would acknowledge that the stifling tax burden, now at a 70-year high, needed to be reduced. He would ­accept that energy costs were too high and move more quickly to build new nuclear power stations. He would rethink the employment red tape that his government has introduced. He would seek to seriously reduce the welfare bill, and engage in a big, programme of rearmament. He would ­instigate serious reforms to the planning system. In fact, he would do almost the opposite of ­everything Ms Rayner set out yesterday in a lengthy proto-leadership pitch.”

Very depressing. 

You think the British economy is already in intensive care?

Come back in nine months’ time and see what it looks like then!

Yesterday events took a number of unexpected turns.  I may have been premature in suggesting that Keir Starmer would appear to be safe for now.  We will probably know within the next 48 hours.

Either way, this is an exceptionally worrying time for the United Kingdom.

Governance of a nation is not a game, and politics is not entertainment.  Yes, Starmer has proved to be a pretty hopeless Prime Minister (although, I would argue, not quite as hopeless as the generality think him to be).   But he ought to be allowed to continue for now, and try to steady the ship – not least because any of the alternatives potentially available would probably wreak great damage on Britain.  My suggestion would be that he announces that he will resign in a year’s time, which would give his successor two years before the next General Election.

The Labour MPs expressing their lack of confidence in Starmer are being silly, short-sighted and immature.  As Adam Boulton said yesterday on Sky News, the rest of the world is seeing us as a basket case, although (he added) that has been the case for some time.

The problems facing Britain are but intractable.  Reform UK and the Greens are offering us only a magic wand and the long-famed magic money tree.  The Labour left, in opining that more needs to be done to help working people and so on, do not understand economic reality.   

The situation is as expressed in the famous note left for his Tory / Lib Dem Coalition successor in 2010 by the Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne, in which he stated: "Dear Chief Secretary, I'm afraid there is no money. Kind regards – and good luck! Liam."

We all (or almost  all!) have to accept the deeply unpleasant fact that we are getting poorer.  And if the Government did what it should do – spend much more on Defence and much more on fighting climate change – we would all be poorer still.

And of course the poorest always suffer most.  ’Twas ever thus.

But Britain needs to face reality. 

Accordingly, I am starting a new party, Admirable UK, committed to telling the truth.  Our slogan at the next General Election will be, “Doomed, doomed, we’re all doomed.”

We may not get many votes.

Offline globewindsailor

I think England will be safe from any type of banning of sex work for at least ten years or so.
Scotland, not so much  :thumbsdown:
Cheap flights to London of course and many would ignore, but Carlisle and Newcastle could become hotbeds of Scottish tourism.

Offline Blackpool Rock

Pakistan, India and Israel do. So, yes. Every significant power should probably have one to prevent one of the other mad bastards from starting anything like USA/Israel did.
There is a big difference though in that the current countries who have Nukes aren't likely anytime soon to start a war using them or drop one for some reason unless they are attacked.
Yes I get the argument that the likes of North Korea are less likely to get attacked now that they have one but I also don't see NK using one unless they are attacked
Iran on the other hand I can see happily using one on Israel + others just to try and wipe them from the face of the earth which I believe is one of their stated aims  :scare:  :thumbsdown:

Offline globewindsailor

It also brings the interesting possibility of the Scottish authorities asking the English ones to extradite people who are not guilty of any crime in England or Wales. That would be messy.

Don't think that would be a problem given Scots law has been around for a long time and in setting up the parliament they would have asked the question. "what happens when they make a law that's not in England and the suspect moves to England"

It is impractical for any banning of sex work to actually work anyway.

If Scotland did ban sex work, it would just mean that women will advertise more for "massage" and anything that happened between two consenting adults after the so called "massage" is surely would be up to them  :unknown:

Yes it does seem the most common sense argument and difficult to see how you get around that. It's mainly a point of principle law which leans itself to the hope it can reduce VAWG aka in this case trafficking.

How they arrest buyers of trafficked women, people buying street walkers and how they'd adapt those methods would be key. One thing I saw in terms of conviction was that in Northern Ireland they were finding it a problem to get them, but Scotland said they'd adapt this to include "intent" as part of the law. A nod to one main problem I saw in the discussion which was how to address the online nature of the business in terms of resources in detection, collecting evidence and general enforcement. Especially with a lack of ability to create laws on pimping websites. I don't think there was much said about dealing with this, but something the online safety act could address for example. The bill was light on a lot of detail, but it wasn't a goverment bill and they hate the msp that brought it forward. Going forward it will be a goverment bill.

In general they are looking at ways to get around the it's just a massage argument.

Lastly. One of many other changes in the dynamic would be more press, private groups and influencers staking out places where it's sold to get potential buyers on camera. Already happened in N.Ireland. I say more because right now women are seen as victims and it's illegal for them so less people want to bother them.

Offline bigden40

There is a big difference though in that the current countries who have Nukes aren't likely anytime soon to start a war using them or drop one for some reason unless they are attacked.
Yes I get the argument that the likes of North Korea are less likely to get attacked now that they have one but I also don't see NK using one unless they are attacked
Iran on the other hand I can see happily using one on Israel + others just to try and wipe them from the face of the earth which I believe is one of their stated aims  :scare:  :thumbsdown:

Exactly this. 

Offline Punting2022

Exactly this.

Pakistan also cannot be trusted with a Nuke. They host a lot of terrorist training camps. Lets not forget the most wanted man was hiding there. The Pakistani government was deffo involved in hiding him.
Pakistan are a threat to their neighbours and regularly try to cross into India and cause issues and plan terrorist attacks.

Offline mh

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,989
  • Likes: 32
  •  
  • Reviews: 53
Yesterday events took a number of unexpected turns.  I may have been premature in suggesting that Keir Starmer would appear to be safe for now.  We will probably know within the next 48 hours.

Either way, this is an exceptionally worrying time for the United Kingdom.

Governance of a nation is not a game, and politics is not entertainment.  Yes, Starmer has proved to be a pretty hopeless Prime Minister (although, I would argue, not quite as hopeless as the generality think him to be).   But he ought to be allowed to continue for now, and try to steady the ship – not least because any of the alternatives potentially available would probably wreak great damage on Britain.  My suggestion would be that he announces that he will resign in a year’s time, which would give his successor two years before the next General Election.

The Labour MPs expressing their lack of confidence in Starmer are being silly, short-sighted and immature.  As Adam Boulton said yesterday on Sky News, the rest of the world is seeing us as a basket case, although (he added) that has been the case for some time.

The problems facing Britain are but intractable.  Reform UK and the Greens are offering us only a magic wand and the long-famed magic money tree.  The Labour left, in opining that more needs to be done to help working people and so on, do not understand economic reality.   

The situation is as expressed in the famous note left for his Tory / Lib Dem Coalition successor in 2010 by the Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne, in which he stated: "Dear Chief Secretary, I'm afraid there is no money. Kind regards – and good luck! Liam."

We all (or almost  all!) have to accept the deeply unpleasant fact that we are getting poorer.  And if the Government did what it should do – spend much more on Defence and much more on fighting climate change – we would all be poorer still.

And of course the poorest always suffer most.  ’Twas ever thus.

But Britain needs to face reality. 

Accordingly, I am starting a new party, Admirable UK, committed to telling the truth.  Our slogan at the next General Election will be, “Doomed, doomed, we’re all doomed.”

We may not get many votes.

It appears the prospect of a challenge is fizzling out. The press are pretending not to understand the Labour Party's mechanism on changing leader and are simply salivating at the prospect of more drama. All their correspondents outside Number 10 this morning buzzing for it. Terrible reporting. No wonder some deluded voters last week were asking when does Farage go to the palace this week to be asked to form a new government.  :sarcastic:

Offline mh

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,989
  • Likes: 32
  •  
  • Reviews: 53
well it appears that Starmer is toast with 80 MPs inc at least 5 junior ministers and the Home Secretary calling for his resignation and the BBC is reporting tomorrows cabinet meeting will be split down the middle

It doesn't quite seem to have gone that way so far. One low level minister resigned earlier to add to the PPS bag carrier types of yesterday, but had been opposed to government policy on immigration for a long time. The meeting ended without any 'split' occurring.

Online scutty brown

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,677
  • Likes: 538
  •  
  • Reviews: 125
It appears the prospect of a challenge is fizzling out. The press are pretending not to understand the Labour Party's mechanism on changing leader and are simply salivating at the prospect of more drama. All their correspondents outside Number 10 this morning buzzing for it. Terrible reporting. No wonder some deluded voters last week were asking when does Farage go to the palace this week to be asked to form a new government.  :sarcastic:

Hopefully the sane members of the Labour party are beginning to realise that if Starmer goes he's going to be replaced by one of their left wing nutters who'll totally bankrupt the country. The old 1970's Soviet plot brought to reality.
This is a real dangerous inflection point for the UK in which we could  end up with a Russian puppet government

Offline DastardlyDick

In other news, it appears that the US, Denmark and Greenland are in talks about more US based in Greenland.
External Link/Members Only
The only sticking point I can see is the US demand for them to be US Soverign Territory.

Online Jerboa

There is a big difference though in that the current countries who have Nukes aren't likely anytime soon to start a war using them or drop one for some reason unless they are attacked.
Yes I get the argument that the likes of North Korea are less likely to get attacked now that they have one but I also don't see NK using one unless they are attacked
Iran on the other hand I can see happily using one on Israel + others just to try and wipe them from the face of the earth which I believe is one of their stated aims  :scare:  :thumbsdown:

If people understood the shia ideology of the Islamic Republic, they would understand how dangerous them getting nuclear weapons would be. They would happily use them on Israel knowing they will be in paradise with their virgin goats.

Offline RandomGuy99

In other news, it appears that the US, Denmark and Greenland are in talks about more US based in Greenland.
External Link/Members Only
The only sticking point I can see is the US demand for them to be US Soverign Territory.
I am sure the US troops will love being stationed on Greenland.

Online Jerboa

I am sure the US troops will love being stationed on Greenland.

US still has one base in Greenland, the Pituffik Space Base.


Offline puntingking

It also brings the interesting possibility of the Scottish authorities asking the English ones to extradite people who are not guilty of any crime in England or Wales. That would be messy.


 :hi:

Offline puntingking



Yes it does seem the most common sense argument and difficult to see how you get around that. It's mainly a point of principle law which leans itself to the hope it can reduce VAWG aka in this case trafficking.

How they arrest buyers of trafficked women, people buying street walkers and how they'd adapt those methods would be key. One thing I saw in terms of conviction was that in Northern Ireland they were finding it a problem to get them, but Scotland said they'd adapt this to include "intent" as part of the law. A nod to one main problem I saw in the discussion which was how to address the online nature of the business in terms of resources in detection, collecting evidence and general enforcement. Especially with a lack of ability to create laws on pimping websites. I don't think there was much said about dealing with this, but something the online safety act could address for example. The bill was light on a lot of detail, but it wasn't a goverment bill and they hate the msp that brought it forward. Going forward it will be a goverment bill.

In general they are looking at ways to get around the it's just a massage argument.

Lastly. One of many other changes in the dynamic would be more press, private groups and influencers staking out places where it's sold to get potential buyers on camera. Already happened in N.Ireland. I say more because right now women are seen as victims and it's illegal for them so less people want to bother them.

 :hi:

Online Watts.E.Dunn

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,611
  • Likes: 65
  •  
  • Reviews: 47
Back to the troublesome middle east. The starights of Hormuz is around 22 miles wide at its narrowest so its bordered by Iran and Oman. Now why is it that Iran can claim the whole of the width of the straigfht to itself?.

It may well be that the navgabile section is on the Iran side not having a depth nautical chart to hand .

Or is this a land or sea grab rather? I mean theres got to be a border somewhere anyone know more?..

Offline Vice Admiral

There was a very good article by Willim Hague in the Times today, whose heading "Only Starmer makes governing look impossible" and sub-heading “The centre left is thriving in Australia and Canada, and could in Britain too — but not if Labour lurches further left” give the gist.

Meanwhile, Peter Kyle, Secretary of State for Business, told Sky News last night that, after a day’s campaigning before last week’s elections, he and his friend Wes Streeting “went for dinner and saw a movie together”.

Now one doesn’t want to stereotype, but what do you think was the film that the two most prominent gay members of the government saw?

Correct.  The Devil Wears Prada 2.

Oh, and Jess Phillips has just resigned.  Oops. That could put the cat among the pigeons. 

« Last Edit: May 12, 2026, 01:22:52 pm by Vice Admiral »

Offline puntingking



Most people's political views are off the centre. Most people are neither far left or far right.
Most people want common sense politics.  :unknown:

Offline DastardlyDick

US still has one base in Greenland, the Pituffik Space Base.

The US acquired bases in Greenland after invoking the Monroe Doctrine during WW2 to deny Greenland to Nazi Germany. This was agreed to by the Danish Government under the Thulesag Agreement under which they retained Soverieignty, but the US held jurisdiction. During that time the US established 17 bases. A Treaty in 1951 allowed them to retain 3 bases, Thule (now Pittufik), Sondestrom and Narsarsuaq and establish new ones if deemed necessary by NATO. The US subsequently chose to close the last two.

Offline Vice Admiral

There was a very good article by Willim Hague in the Times today, whose heading "Only Starmer makes governing look impossible" and sub-heading “The centre left is thriving in Australia and Canada, and could in Britain too — but not if Labour lurches further left” give the gist.

Meanwhile, Peter Kyle, Secretary of State for Business, told Sky News last night that, after a day’s campaigning before last week’s elections, he and his friend Wes Streeting “went for dinner and saw a movie together”.

Now one doesn’t want to stereotype, but what do you think was the film that the two most prominent gay members of the government saw?

Correct.  The Devil Wears Prada 2.

Oh, and Jess Phillips has just resigned.  Oops. That could put the cat among the pigeons.

Jess Phillips for Prime Minister?  Stranger things have happened.  The bookies have her at 50/1, the same as Steve Reed and John Healey.

More likely, she's a Raynerette.  In which case her reason for resigning might be an attempt to bounce the Labour party into a leadership election before Andy Burnham is able to stand.

(Meanwhile the bookies will give you 500/1 on Jacob Rees-Mogg and Liz Truss being the next PM.  Longer odds than Jeremy Clarkson, typically at 200/1 – though Quinnbet have him at a miserly 16/1.  Do they know something we don't?)

« Last Edit: May 12, 2026, 01:48:41 pm by Vice Admiral »

Offline bigden40

Back to the troublesome middle east. The starights of Hormuz is around 22 miles wide at its narrowest so its bordered by Iran and Oman. Now why is it that Iran can claim the whole of the width of the straigfht to itself?.

It may well be that the navgabile section is on the Iran side not having a depth nautical chart to hand .

Or is this a land or sea grab rather? I mean theres got to be a border somewhere anyone know more?..

Short answer is that they can’t.  At least not legally anyway. 

States can assert 12 nautical miles as their territorial waters with anything beyond that being “international waters”.  At the narrowest point it’s 21 nm which means the midpoint is the border and there is no international waters in between.  But UNCLOS applies here. 

Quote
When the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was negotiated, a critical deal was struck reflecting this fact.

The convention accepted that coastal states can lawfully extend their territorial sea from the previously accepted limit of three nautical miles (nm) to 12 nm. This placed some 138 additional straits that are less than 24 nm wide under the jurisdiction of one or more coastal states.

The Strait of Hormuz, with a width of 21 nm at its narrowest point, is covered by the territorial seas of Iran and Oman respectively.

In exchange, the coastal states had to accept that a special legal regime would apply to straits used for international navigation. While the coastal states enjoy sovereignty over their territorial seas in most aspects, an original limitation to that sovereignty applies – they must accept an enhanced right of ‘transit passage’ for shipping of all nations.

This right goes further than the traditional right of ‘innocent passage’ granted to shipping through the territorial sea of any state. Innocent passage allows for some interference with passing shipping in accordance with local law, for instance for the protection of the marine environment or regulation of fisheries.

Crucially, the coastal state may suspend the right of passage if it judges that demands of its national security so require.

In contrast, given the lack of other viable routes, transit passage guarantees un-suspendable passage to all ships that may not be ‘impeded’ in any way by the coastal state. That right applies in peace and war, although with some necessary qualifications where the direct participants in an armed conflict are concerned.

External Link/Members Only

As an aside, the English Channel being only 20 miles at the narrowest point equally means there are no international waters over a large part of the border between UK and France which is one of the reasons that we can’t intercept small boats in international waters and refuse them entry to the UK, once they’re in UK waters our system requires us to admit the occupants and process them.

Offline globewindsailor

Pie in sky thoughts, but Starmer stays on and Burnham agrees not to stand until 2029 election and gets given some special advisor role in goverment. Total rubbish, but hey, why can't we all get along.

Online Massagemanmr

There is a big difference though in that the current countries who have Nukes aren't likely anytime soon to start a war using them or drop one for some reason unless they are attacked.
Yes I get the argument that the likes of North Korea are less likely to get attacked now that they have one but I also don't see NK using one unless they are attacked
Iran on the other hand I can see happily using one on Israel + others just to try and wipe them from the face of the earth which I believe is one of their stated aims  :scare:  :thumbsdown:
oh come on even you don't believe all that nonsense , you can't be as out of touch as bigden40 , serisouly ?

Israel will be absolutely fine on its own ,they have plenty of money , high tech military and nuclear weapons and you know that several times over.....

Meanwhile nuclear armed israel stated aim is to wipe out 8 million Palestinians and is acting up on it how can you not see that ?
« Last Edit: May 12, 2026, 03:50:07 pm by Massagemanmr »

Online hendrix

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,660
  • Likes: 572
  •  
  • Reviews: 63
There is a big difference though in that the current countries who have Nukes aren't likely anytime soon to start a war using them or drop one for some reason unless they are attacked.
Yes I get the argument that the likes of North Korea are less likely to get attacked now that they have one but I also don't see NK using one unless they are attacked
Iran on the other hand I can see happily using one on Israel + others just to try and wipe them from the face of the earth which I believe is one of their stated aims  :scare:  :thumbsdown:

I mean, Israel have openly talked, and acted on their murderous "Greater Israel" land grab, so perhaps they need nuclear muzzling from someone. Remember they're "special" in their own words, beliefs and actions.

What the disgusting Iranian regime said, has all been hot air.

Online Massagemanmr

I mean, Israel have openly talked, and acted on their murderous "Greater Israel" land grab, so perhaps they need nuclear muzzling from someone. Remember they're "special" in their own words, beliefs and actions.

What the disgusting Iranian regime said, has all been hot air.
exactly This is something called threat inflation

The Israelis absolutely love it, At one point hamas / Palestinians was going to wipe out Israel

Let's do a very basic analysis on the truth (Israel hates the truth , :lol: )

- no tanks
- no war ships
- no aircraft
- no nuclear bombs
- no backing of west nations
- Palestinians do not even have a state

Yet somehow We are supposed to believe this group is able to wipe out Israel (you can't make it up sometimes )  :D :lol:

Here's an israel classic, the lies getting totally ripped apart
External Link/Members Only
« Last Edit: May 12, 2026, 03:48:54 pm by Massagemanmr »

Online Massagemanmr

I mean, Israel have openly talked, and acted on their murderous "Greater Israel" land grab, so perhaps they need nuclear muzzling from someone. Remember they're "special" in their own words, beliefs and actions.

What the disgusting Iranian regime said, has all been hot air.
just to add

israel attacked 6 different countries in 2025 and don't forget folks israel is defending itself no lies here  :lol:
- lebanon
- Syria
- Iraq
 -iran
- Palestine
- Qatar that has a US military base, now all the other countries know that US / Western security guarantees are worthless thanks to Israel

Online Watts.E.Dunn

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,611
  • Likes: 65
  •  
  • Reviews: 47
External Link/Members Only

Interesting reading that seems Iran are in the wrong then?..

Online scutty brown

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,677
  • Likes: 538
  •  
  • Reviews: 125
According to PPRUNE it was a six man team from the Pathfinder battalion plus the nurse and doctor. Freefall drop with the nurse and doctor both taken tandem - quite possibly their first ever drops. Not an average working day....

Some photos at
External Link/Members Only

more photos
External Link/Members Only

This gets more remarkable as the details come out.
When the first four jumped they were over the sea, three miles away from the island. They jumped at 8,000 feet and freefell blind into cloud, opening the 'chutes at 7,000 feet while still in cloud. They dropped below the cloud at 3,500 feet and that was the first they saw of the island. The two tandem jump pairs followed.
The equipment was dropped much lower at around 175 feet - I bet that rattled the local windows

External Link/Members Only

this is the nurse on his jump....heck of a first time

Hidden Image/Members Only
« Last Edit: May 12, 2026, 04:44:03 pm by scutty brown »

Offline Punting2022

External Link/Members Only

Interesting reading that seems Iran are in the wrong then?..

Iran are always in the wrong. Do the decent thing. Give up the Nukes. Open the Straight.

Online scutty brown

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,677
  • Likes: 538
  •  
  • Reviews: 125
Interesting summary of happenings in the Gulf........looks like people are starting to ignore both Trump and Iran
Mass breakout on the cards maybe?

Online Massagemanmr

Iran are always in the wrong. Do the decent thing. Give up the Nukes. Open the Straight.
If Iran I always in the wrong how would you describe Israel

Don't forget the golden rule If you don't lie for Israel you are

1. Hamas / Iran / Russia / china etc etc  lover
2. Denying the Holocaust (make it make sense )  :lol:
3. Hate the Jews (even if you're a holocaust survivor who's entire bloodline is Jewish )

 :thumbsup:
« Last Edit: May 12, 2026, 05:29:42 pm by Massagemanmr »

Online timsussex

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,344
  • Likes: 93
  •  
  • Reviews: 33
Pie in sky thoughts, but Starmer stays on and Burnham agrees not to stand until 2029 election and gets given some special advisor role in goverment. Total rubbish, but hey, why can't we all get along.

Burnham's reply if Starmer was to offer that
Support you until 2009 while you make more holes in the boat and then hand the wreck over to me to get decimated in the election ?  F*&!  OFF

Offline mills_and_bhuna

You describing the Shah as a puppet? Let me guess you think Mohammad Mosaddegh was a democratic PM and the Shah was a puppet? Not that Mosaddegh was a Soviet agent who was the one usurping power in Iran.
Do you think Iran would be in a worse place if the Shah had stayed in power and crushed the revolution? The decades of the Shah being a brutal dictator don't add up.
So.
democratically elected leader = Soviet puppet.
Leader installed by the west = Western puppet.
One is fine but one is bad. Got it  :thumbsup:

Offline mills_and_bhuna

External Link/Members Only

Interesting reading that seems Iran are in the wrong then?..
Sure. Chatham House. All totally legit

Offline mills_and_bhuna

There is a big difference though in that the current countries who have Nukes aren't likely anytime soon to start a war using them or drop one for some reason unless they are attacked.
Yes I get the argument that the likes of North Korea are less likely to get attacked now that they have one but I also don't see NK using one unless they are attacked
Iran on the other hand I can see happily using one on Israel + others just to try and wipe them from the face of the earth which I believe is one of their stated aims  :scare:  :thumbsdown:
Totally laughable.
When it suits Kim is a lunatic.
But inconvenient for your argument.
It's okay for him now to have nukes.
But Iran is now the lunatic regime despite never having attacked anybody.
And US and Israel are rational actors despite a well documented history of attacking other countries and always on a shady pretext.

Online Jerboa

So.
democratically elected leader = Soviet puppet.
Leader installed by the west = Western puppet.
One is fine but one is bad. Got it  :thumbsup:

I note you didn't answer my question, do you think Iran would be in a worse off situation, if Mohammad Reza Pahlavi had remained Shah?  :unknown:

Offline globewindsailor

Burnham's reply if Starmer was to offer that
Support you until 2029 while you make more holes in the boat and then hand the wreck over to me to get decimated in the election ?  F*&!  OFF
:lol:
Didn't think it was a good offer myself, but hey my opinion is Starmer is and should tell Burnham to get to. It's a complete shitshow and the whole lot of them are idiots. Was Burnham trying to be an MP before the 2024 election? I feel that is key if he was discouraged, but at what point did he decide he wanted to be an MP or the leader and think he'd just force his way in and blame Starmer for objecting, since no one wants him.


Offline Doc Holliday

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,066
  • Likes: 301
  •  
  • Reviews: 5
I note you didn't answer my question ...

Welcome to my world ... :D

Offline bigden40

Sure. Chatham House. All totally legit

Classic.  Denigrate the source, fail to address any fact or argument made.

Chatham House (the Royal Institute of International Affairs) is widely considered a highly reliable and independent source for research and analysis on international affairs. It is consistently ranked among the world’s top think tanks, known for rigorous, evidence-based research, peer-reviewed publications, and a commitment to objectivity.

But hey, I’m sure you’ve got a fringe YouTube channel that’s a better source.

Offline bigden40

If Iran I always in the wrong how would you describe Israel

Don't forget the golden rule If you don't lie for Israel you are

1. Hamas / Iran / Russia / china etc etc  lover
2. Denying the Holocaust (make it make sense )  :lol:
3. Hate the Jews (even if you're a holocaust survivor who's entire bloodline is Jewish )

 :thumbsup:

Iran’s nuclear threats and Strait piracy aren’t magically justified because you obsess over Israel in every post. Try staying on topic instead of your usual whataboutism script.

« Last Edit: May 12, 2026, 07:57:35 pm by bigden40 »

Offline Punting2022

If Iran I always in the wrong how would you describe Israel

Don't forget the golden rule If you don't lie for Israel you are

1. Hamas / Iran / Russia / china etc etc  lover
2. Denying the Holocaust (make it make sense )  :lol:
3. Hate the Jews (even if you're a holocaust survivor who's entire bloodline is Jewish )

 :thumbsup:

Israel has a right to defend themselves.
Lets not forget that October 7th. Hamas invaded Israel. Done a terrorist attack and kidnapped their people. So the resulting invasion of Gaza to kill Hamas was justified. If the other countries didn't plan attacks and have terrorist Israel wouldn't do anything.

Iran is a terrorist state and shouldn't have a nuke. They also have no right of the straight of hormuz. America are trusting Pakistan for peace talks is the worst mistake too. Pakistan like Iran harbour a lot of terrorist too.

UK is finally sending boats to defend the straight. Bit of heavy artillery from the other weak European leaders and the straight can be opened. Issue is they are all sitting idle.

Online Jerboa

Israel has a right to defend themselves.
Lets not forget that October 7th. Hamas invaded Israel. Done a terrorist attack and kidnapped their people. So the resulting invasion of Gaza to kill Hamas was justified. If the other countries didn't plan attacks and have terrorist Israel wouldn't do anything.

Iran is a terrorist state and shouldn't have a nuke. They also have no right of the straight of hormuz. America are trusting Pakistan for peace talks is the worst mistake too. Pakistan like Iran harbour a lot of terrorist too.

UK is finally sending boats to defend the straight. Bit of heavy artillery from the other weak European leaders and the straight can be opened. Issue is they are all sitting idle.

It's a shame Two Tier doesn't order the navy to defend our own coastline.  :unknown:

Offline Punting2022

It's a shame Two Tier doesn't order the navy to defend our own coastline.  :unknown:

Not enough cash. Goes on nice 5 star hotel bookings

Online Jerboa

Not enough cash. Goes on nice 5 star hotel bookings

Yes, someone is making a nice little earner.

Online Massagemanmr

Iran’s nuclear threats and Strait piracy aren’t magically justified because you obsess over Israel in every post. Try staying on topic instead of your usual whataboutism script.
once again more out of date nonsense

Don't forget you must never ever ever engage with the truth

Then you are wonder why you are so out of date and so far behind

 how come you stopped calling me racist when I criticised Israel?

Or is that one so far gone now that even our resident dinosaur has given up on it  :lol:

Online Massagemanmr

Israel has a right to defend themselves.
Lets not forget that October 7th. Hamas invaded Israel. Done a terrorist attack and kidnapped their people. So the resulting invasion of Gaza to kill Hamas was justified. If the other countries didn't plan attacks and have terrorist Israel wouldn't do anything.

Iran is a terrorist state and shouldn't have a nuke. They also have no right of the straight of hormuz. America are trusting Pakistan for peace talks is the worst mistake too. Pakistan like Iran harbour a lot of terrorist too.

UK is finally sending boats to defend the straight. Bit of heavy artillery from the other weak European leaders and the straight can be opened. Issue is they are all sitting idle.
:lol: :lol: what is theis 1980's lame rehased israeli propaganda nonsense are you truly this out of date with the truth ?
 

Israels top 10 lies - don't forget you must not watch these clips!! You are not allowed to engage with the truth and lastly israel never ever lies  :lol:

External Link/Members Only

which lie is your fav?

Bonus round just for you
google Israel didn't use hannibal doctrine on oct 7th

« Last Edit: May 12, 2026, 11:22:22 pm by Massagemanmr »

Online hendrix

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,660
  • Likes: 572
  •  
  • Reviews: 63
Israel has a right to defend themselves.
Lets not forget that October 7th. Hamas invaded Israel. Done a terrorist attack and kidnapped their people. So the resulting invasion of Gaza to kill Hamas was justified. If the other countries didn't plan attacks and have terrorist Israel wouldn't do anything.

Iran is a terrorist state and shouldn't have a nuke. They also have no right of the straight of hormuz. America are trusting Pakistan for peace talks is the worst mistake too. Pakistan like Iran harbour a lot of terrorist too.

UK is finally sending boats to defend the straight. Bit of heavy artillery from the other weak European leaders and the straight can be opened. Issue is they are all sitting idle.

Yes, famously, all the trouble in the Middle East started on October 7 :sarcastic:

The Israelis were told it was happening by both Egypt and the USA, they decided to let it happen anyway, and the IDF killed more Israeli civilians that day than Hamas could ever dream of.

Israel is a rogue country, built on collective allied guilt post WW2, and founded by terrorists. Let's not forget that Israeli terrorists murdered British soldiers.